CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Hole at the Center of Creation by George Gantz
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 01:24 GMT
Essay AbstractSince the dawn of recorded history, and likely before, humans strived to understand the world into which they are born and from which they ultimately pass. Among the key questions that have pre-occupied the human desire to understand, two stand out. What is the stuff of which the world is made, and how does it work? These questions continue to baffle modern thinkers as much as they did the ancients. We are left with puzzles, including the one Eugene Wigner explored in his 1960 paper “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” This puzzle is at the heart of the current FQXi essay contest “Trick or Truth”. The Truth is that there is a hole at the center of creation, afflicting both mathematics and physics - an infinite void made visible to us in the form of ineluctable paradoxes. The Trick is that in pursuing fundamental questions on the nature of creation, of logical order, and of consciousness, we are led inexorably to an infinite void, a barrier to our ability to know, one that we cannot cross without reaching for a transcendent metaphysical explanation. This essay explores our failure to grasp the hole at the center of creation and explains its metaphysical genesis. I offer a creation myth that respectfully echoes the ancient sacred text of the Book of Genesis, while being grounded in what we now know about mathematics and physics. My goal is to provide a coherent and consistent explanation of the Hole at the Center of Creation, one that also serves as the key to the Whole that Encompasses Creation.
Author BioGeorge Gantz is a retired business executive with a life-long passion for mathematics, science, philosophy and theology. He has a Bachelor of Science degree with Honors Humanities from Stanford University and now directs an internet Forum on Integrating Science and Spirituality (http://swedenborgcenterconcord.org) and blogs on related topics.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
You've masterfully treated the hole in the center of creation. You've reviewed many of the standard ways of attempting to fill the hole, and then discuss the standard ways to avoid recognition of the hole – various forms of ignorance. In physics this bears resemblance to the philosophy "shut up and calculate" a non-committal, non-ontological non-interpretive approach [as described by Matt Visser.]
What you refer to of course is the
mystery, which is the basis of all religion. It is certainly significant that many physicists, who have "outgrown" religion, and seemingly have no need to recognize mystery, nevertheless fill their quantum mechanics with mystery, from the collapse of the wavefunction to entanglement; things they don't understand – but have faith in.
You courageously state that the Emperor of science is naked, but many have been told that the intelligent can see the clothes, the forms. Yet the essence of the hole is emptiness.
I'm sure somewhere Templeton is smiling.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 19:30 GMT
Thanks for the kind remarks! While the hole at the center may be empty, clearly the whole is bigger than the some of the parts. Regards - George
John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 20:04 GMT
I note the INTERPRETAION of the double - slit is wave particle duality. There are other interpretations such as Bohm that work as well (better I think).
Secondly, My view of Zeno (as I discussed with Ojo) is that the human definition is not physical and is therefore full of problems (we might add the possibility of division by zero). I suggest that because multiplication may be a repetition of addition, the inverse of multiplication is repetition of subtraction. That is, division is not a physical based math operation.
I think this means there is no hole at the center of creation, but there is a misconception of creation. Or, there may not be a creation (I don’t accept this but it is a religion).
Thanks for your insight and food for thought.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 22:43 GMT
Thank you John. As I indicate in the essay, many of the open paradoxes in physics may be answered - just as Zeno's were. But I don't think it is possible to duck the Hole at the Center as it is a fundamental property of recursion (math) and observation (physics), as well as consciousness. That said, one can choose to define it away as a misconception, or deny it. I cannot prove otherwise. My only riposte is to quote Wittgenstein again: "The world of the happy man is quite different from the world of the unhappy."
Wishing you great happiness - George
KoGuan Leo wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 08:52 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your essay is sublime and I am trilled by it. I read the Bible when I was studying in a Catholic school. I am familiar with the text but your explainaction is clearer and relevant to our discussion. What I enjoyed and what amazed me is that it is also consistent with Xuan Yuan's creation story, the Founder of Chinese culture and civilization 4712 years ago. You wrote: "This narrative outlines a metaphysical framework that presupposes a two-stage process for creation. Of course, the process is entirely outside of time and space, and therefore is not sequential. Yet the two steps are conceptually distinct reflections of the nature of math and physics. The first stage of the process is the separation of One {1} from the Void {0} --- a first metaphysical distinction. This distinction subsequently gives rise through Necessity (set theoretic constructions and logical operations) to the infinite logical space of Form --- mathematics in its purest sense, the potential state-space for the universe-to-be."
Xuan Yuan invented the concept of Dao as the Creator of all things. The different is that this Dao is living in our space and time, not outside of space and time. The Dao embodies all, including us. However, these are minor difference but the story is almost identical except some languages and cultural meme distinctions.
Here I wrote an Essay based on Xuan Yuan thought and I hope you will find agreeable as I am agreeable with your fantastic essay. Science must not ignore its creator, nor need to fear now.
Let me know what you think.
Best wishes and good luck,
Leo KoGuan
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 15:03 GMT
Leo - Thank you for your comment! While I am not familiar in great detail with Eastern philosophies, I do know that there are many similarities and points of intersection between East and West. I look forward to reading your essay!
I would not necessarily place the Creator as "living in" our space and time, as there is little empirical evidence. But clearly in my metaphysical model, there is a sense in which the Creator is also a Sustainer. Space and time continue to exist and to exhibit the regularities that they do, and the dialogue between Void and Voice is always there.
Regards - George
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 23:38 GMT
George,
Like your essay. It skillfully helps to advance the discussion.
"In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory. In neurons, they play a central role in cell-to-cell communication." An outside impetus jump starts this action readiness. Your examples of a circuit's voltage potential and the flow of current. The circuit of creation with the potential of form and the flow of cosmos. remind me of the action potential of a brain cell before activated by an outside stimulus.
"Work and the purpose of creation, the emergence of the physical universe... is accomplished" thru these processes.
We provide the flow for good or bad.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 15:07 GMT
Thank you Jim - I look forward to reading your essay. To borrow from your analogy, I think the concept of jump-starting is far more convincing than that of boot-strapping.
Cheers - George
James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 17:36 GMT
George,
Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/8, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear George,
I find several interesting ideas and details in your essay. For example, the text is very effective in representing the fading of the optimism that characterised scientific inquiry up to the dawn of the 20th century. I was not aware of the naively optimistic (in retrospect) 1903 quote by Michelson; one lesson we get from from it is that we must always be ready for dramatic...
view entire post
Dear George,
I find several interesting ideas and details in your essay. For example, the text is very effective in representing the fading of the optimism that characterised scientific inquiry up to the dawn of the 20th century. I was not aware of the naively optimistic (in retrospect) 1903 quote by Michelson; one lesson we get from from it is that we must always be ready for dramatic revolutions in fundamental physics…
The core of your essay is your revised Genesis: first the step from 0 to 1 - perhaps, the hardest to be explained without resorting to some external metaphysical intervention (or the only one that actually needs it?) - then the appearance, through Necessity, of logic and mathematical form, and finally
sound, for the physical Cosmos (good choice of icon!).
“Physical reality begins to flow along a precise set of potential pathways available in the Form.” Very nice formulation! The idea of a universe that is born as mathematical (and geometrical), and then evolves into a physical phase, is attractive - I find it even ‘natural’ - and can be also found, in various forms, in approaches that, unlike yours, try to avoid external purposeful interventions such as ‘the voice’. This would indeed provide a simple and rather convincing explanation of the unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics, and one not too distant from Tegmark’s conjecture. Personally, I do not see the step from pure math (and computation!) to a physical universe as requiring external and purposeful intervention, as much as the step from 0 to 1 (although quantum-mechanical arguments circulate that tend to explain also the latter).
Chapter Omega is much harder than Chapter Alpha to grasp. You seem to suggest an identification of Void and Voice with, respectively, 0 and infinity in mathematics, but I spot a potential loop here: infinity (the Voice) is a product of mathematics, that is in turn created by the Voice… And one needs a well developed sense of myth for absorbing the image of the ‘mutual self-reflection’ of Void and Voice, its meaning, and its relevance for Creation.
It occurs to me that your myth is basically binary (Void-Voice), while, under a Christian perspective, it should probably be ternary. Are the two compatible? Who might be the missing third person in the Void-Voice dualism?
Regards
Tommaso
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 15:32 GMT
Thank you Tommaso!
Yes it is quite an interesting problem to "get it all started." We are all doing our best, but I'm afraid it will always fall short. Our finite human minds (even if aided by a very large but still finite set of extremely fast universal computing machines) will never fully grasp the elusive set of all sets, or the ultimate largest infinity, our, indeed, the essence of Void or Voice. The best we can do is tell each other stories!
While there are two "stages" in my mythology it is actually a three-fold process, and in that sense maps to Christian theology or Hegelian idealism --- but I couldn't find a good way to craft if that way. The second and third folds are both part of the second stage - coming-into-being as space and the associated becoming as the arrow of time or intentionality. Another way to think about this is to view Form as Divine Wisdom, Cosmos (space) as Divine Love and Intentionality/Movement (and time) as Divine Action. In that sense the dialogue between Void and Voice (thesis / antithesis) finds its synthesis in the totality of creation (Form, Cosmos, Purpose).
Regards - George
Jose P. Koshy wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear George Gantz ,
A business executive with multiple interests! No wonder, your balance sheet perfectly tallies. Spirituality with a central void, the void purposefully filled, would be symmetric to your physical/mathematical view.
It seems you follow the latest developments in physics. I invite your attention to my alternate view: Starting with one type of fundamental particles, the theory explains everything physical. Please visit my site:
finitenesstheory.com. I claim that I have reduced the void to the minimum: If space and matter exist, the rest follows.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 15:54 GMT
Jose - Thanks for the comment. I look forward to reading your essay.
Thanks for the reference to symmetry. Symmetry has a particulalry interesting role to play in the story of creation/existence that we are all trying to work out, and many essays are grappling with that.
Interestingly, zero and infinity would both seem to have symmetry with infinite degrees of freedom. That is an interesting starting place, would you not agree? Symmetry breaks with the first metaphysical distinction of one from 0 - and the diversity of all mathematical forms arise. Symmetry breaks again as the Cosmos of physical reality (3 spatial dimensions, 1 of time) emerges.
And yes, one can choose to look at creation as entirely physical by focussing on the 0, or as infinitely purposeful / spiritual by focusing on the infinite. Interestingly, in Reimannian geometry the "0" is point in real space, while infinity corresponds to the ultimate in imaginary space.
Regards - George
Jose P. Koshy replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear George Gantz ,
"Interestingly, zero and infinity would both seem to have symmetry with infinite degrees of freedom", (or we can say with zero degrees of freedom). Sure, in principle, that is a right starting point. But practically, we can start from zero, but never reach infinity. So zero can be regarded as a real point, and infinity an imaginary point.
As pointed out by you, we can start from zero in both mathematics and physics. In maths, our zeros are the same. But in physics, my zero has a background where zero meets infinity: the three-dimensional space with reversible arrows and and the one-dimensional time with an irreversible arrow - the infinite time and infinite space together represent the zero in physics. I count 'one' only when matter comes. By adding up finite numbers we can never reach infinity; by adding up matter we can never reach infinity; infinity is unreachable. So my universe is finite. Since the staring point is where zero and infinity meets, there is no beginning: the universe never started from zero and never reaches infinity; it is in an infinite loop.
So either there is no creation or the creator introduced an infinite loop. Both ways, it will appear to be the same. We cannot logically arrive at a conclusion regarding this by analyzing the regularities observable in the universe. Creator, if he decides so, can reveal himself by showing that there are arbitrary changes in this world.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 22:03 GMT
Jose - I think there is a fallacy in thinking about 0 as a real point, or as a place to start. The history of zero suggests that it plays a far more challenging role in the context of mathematics, which actually starts with 1. However, I would agree that the physical universe is finite - bounded at the very small by the planck scale - and bounded at the very large by expansion since the Big Bang. There is neither 0 nor infinity in physical reality, so they are both metaphysical concepts - or attributes of a divine creator....
Cheers - George
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 17:16 GMT
Joe - I have no idea what you are referring to. If a comment was posted here and reported as inappropriate and deleted, it was not by me.
Yours truly - George Gantz
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Mr. Gantz.
You wrote in the abstract of your essay: “What is the stuff of which the world is made, and how does it work?” Here is my definitive answer.
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has...
view entire post
Dear Mr. Gantz.
You wrote in the abstract of your essay: “What is the stuff of which the world is made, and how does it work?” Here is my definitive answer.
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.
Warm regards,
Joe Fisher
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 23:44 GMT
Joe - Thanks for the reply. While you suggest your answer is definitive, I also find it incomprehensible. Yes, everything is unique, but everything is also intimately connected to everything else - and those connections and commonality and the regularities they reflect are the subject of physics. Math is the necessary form for all of that.
Regards - George
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear George,
As you will find out if you read my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL, everything is actually physically connected. Only abstract things are abstractly intimately connected by abstract mathematics.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 19:20 GMT
Excellent essay George..
This paper leaves me with a lot I want to add or discuss. In this installment; I'll start with the idea that the hole at the center is actually what drives the process of creation, in a manner of speaking. The torus or donut shape is the simplest free-standing form that will propagate in a single medium. Smoke rings are a common example. But did you know you can draw a 7-color map on a torus?
I notice that your creation myth follows the Biblical example of a seven stage evolutionary process, and I've been studying that this has a strong connection with the Octonion number type. This fact could explain the Creation myth basis, and the seven stage phenomena cataloged by Arthur Young in his Reflexive Universe book.
My version of the story goes like this..
One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self.
Have Fun!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 19:38 GMT
To be clear..
1. Oneness. 2. Openness. 3. As-ifness. 4. Multiplicity...
Oneness is, in this construction, akin to the void as you speak of it. It is the state beyond or before distinctions, as with the concept of Wu-Ji; neither hot nor cold, light nor dark, great nor small. In other words; it is what mathematicians call a non-commutative space.
If you add, having neither inside nor outside, this makes it a non-associative space as well. And since we are talking about the void, a place beyond or before entities and contents, it satisfies this condition as well. This is where I tell you that the octonion algebra is non-associative.
Consider that in an evolving torus or donut shape, the center hole defines how it moves or changes. So on some level; what the hole in creation signifies is that there is always a state of becoming, where something yet to be defined is evolving to be a certain way.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 00:10 GMT
Thanks Jonathan - Yes there are many threads that a much longer exposition could delve into - and collaboration would be a great way to do it.
Thanks for the comment! George
Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 01:27 GMT
George,
Thanks for commenting at my essay. I read your essay at your invitation, and found it a beautiful meditation which fits well into my Unitarian Universalist spiritual journey. Indeed, the world is full of paradox and perhaps we really can't ever resolve all of them. I don't think any kind of math can explain or replicate true indeterminism, of the sort represented by the varying life-times of apparently structureless,
identical muons (which is "absurd" as Feynman noted.) So as I also offered, we have to fall on our chosen intuitions without knowing for certain if they are correct, or if indeed there is a clear "truth" for them to be about. Your final statement is moving and persuasive:
"The Whole that Encompasses Creation is that which we believe in yet cannot know - it is what gives each of us purpose."
Yes, it is the way out of the Hole. Although focused on a specific physical problem (the viability of physics in spaces with other number of dimensions), I too offered the broad insight that we can't
know what or why is the "more" than the math we analyse with, but didn't recommend a path. And, although many find purpose in specific work in the world, without a grand framework then that too would not be possible or intelligible or meaningful. Good work.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 00:27 GMT
Neil - I am delighted that you liked my essay. It"s perhaps a difficult message for this audience but I feel it is important and your comment gives me the feeling it is worthwhile.
Regards - George
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 04:07 GMT
Dear George Gantz
Thank you for your comments on my essay I will respond on my page.
Your exceptionally well-written essay is refreshing because it grapples with questions that the sciences have practically banished from educated discourse these days. Yes science and religion do not mesh and I believe should not attempt to try to, but this leaves important questions that remain...
view entire post
Dear George Gantz
Thank you for your comments on my essay I will respond on my page.
Your exceptionally well-written essay is refreshing because it grapples with questions that the sciences have practically banished from educated discourse these days. Yes science and religion do not mesh and I believe should not attempt to try to, but this leaves important questions that remain unanswered, and you have put them into a beautiful gilded Whole Hole Box for further respectful inspection and contemplation. Your WHB is a good place to turn to when multiverses, questions of what happened before the Big Bang and so forth crop up.
Some haphazard remarks generated by my reading:
- Like most educated Westerners these days the development of mathematical and scientific thought is neatly channelled into the Greeks-to-Renaissance story. This ignores the important achievements of Hindu, Arab and Muslim scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who have grappled and solved some of the conundrums before they landed in Europe.
-Another thing is that Buddhist thought ancient and modern has centered on much of the Whole-Hole idea you highlight. Zen of course is wholly focused on the idea of emptying the mind to find truth. The philosophy of Kitaro Nishida centers on the concept of Nothing. I hastily withdraw from further discussion on all of this as my mind is happily materialistic as far as physics in concerned. (While looking for a place to stay in Kyoto my wife an I met Kirtaro's widow, but the rooms offered where impossible: she kept about 60 cats roaming the grounds and the stench of fish and cat litter was overwhelming! That was Something).
- For an essay centering on the Whole-Hole in the Universe you only mention the Big Bang in passing but there is nothing about the vacuum but that is alright because the thrust of your essay is more philosophical than materialistic.
- You touch on Quantum and Relativistic mysteries and paradoxes. In my outline theory Beautiful Universe I try to show how the assumption of a Universe of simple mechanical self-assembled dielectric nodes may answer many of these questions in realistic terms.
What remains of course is to be found in the WHB.
Ommmmmmmm
Best wishes from Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 11:31 GMT
Thank you Vladimir. Yes I am admittedly limited in my knowledge of near and far eastern contributions and had to smash 3000 years into 9 pages so I left out much. A more thorough treatment would acknowledge the universality of the human quest for understanding in all quarters. Among the more interesting questions that could be asked is whether it is western dualism and binary (true / false) logic that dooms reductionism. Eastern nondualistic logic may have much to offer. Also, hindu and buddhist philosophy seems far more comfortable with the Void - a concept most western thought shuns.
Much obliged! George
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 04:22 GMT
Dear George you say "much obliged"
I can truly say "for nothing" !
Best,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 10:31 GMT
Hi George,
A wonderful contribution and quite fundamental. I tend to like such essays.
Regarding Zeno supporting a conclusion that movement was an illusion, I fully agree that this would be so without some fundamentally significant change in how we view space and time. I however suggest that while calculus is useful to quantify motion, it does not fully address the fundamental basis for it. For example, calculus admits that space is infinitely divisible and Zeno's Dichotomy Argument was formulated to show that with infinite divisibility, motion would not even start in the first place. To avoid the problem, the
"infinitesimal" was created, a quantity that can be zero and not zero at the same time, i.e. neither dx = 0 nor dx ≠ 0. When you therefore say,
"The invention of calculus fundamentally reaffirmed the notion of space and time as infinitely divisible continua", I have an alternative view. The idea I propose in my essay is that we exorcise the spell cast on our physics by Parmenides, who was Zeno's teacher.
I argue and try to demonstrate in
my essay that what you call,
"the process of the separation of One {1} from the Void {0}..." is not just a once and for all event but a continuing event underlying all activity and motion in our universe up till this very moment. Even today, you have yourself caused the process of One from Void several times and vice-versa, the reverse which you did not much discuss, Void from One. Even, if you do not agree with my hypothesis, I believe you will find it interesting.
Best regards and all the best in the competition,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 22:57 GMT
Akinbo - Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I'm not sure I agree that infinitesimals were created to answer Zeno's paradox. While the conceptual problems are related, the mathematics are 2,000 years apart. Given the required length of our essays, I had to skip a lot of the historical details.
Your notion that the distinction of {1} from {0} is a continuing unfolding of creation is an interesting one. In my view, this would occur every time a conscious entity has a conscious experience as that involves a distinction. However, I'm not sure I understand how this distinction per se can be the cause of activity and motion, unless you are referring to this distinction as being caused by consciousness (the Voice) which simultaneously gives existence to both form and substance. In my view the mathematical world of form and the physical world of cosmos are different.
Sincerely - George
Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 04:13 GMT
Dear George,
Thank you for your comments on my essay – I left some comments about them on my forum.
Your essay is one of the most interesting I have read so far, and I hope it does well in this contest. I really like your dichotomy “Hole at the Center of Creation” / “Whole that Encompasses Creation”. Your concept of “Hole at the Center of Creation” reminds me of this...
view entire post
Dear George,
Thank you for your comments on my essay – I left some comments about them on my forum.
Your essay is one of the most interesting I have read so far, and I hope it does well in this contest. I really like your dichotomy “Hole at the Center of Creation” / “Whole that Encompasses Creation”. Your concept of “Hole at the Center of Creation” reminds me of this quote from Borges, in his essay “Avatars of the Tortoise”:
“We (the undivided divinity operating within us) have dreamt the world. We have dreamt it as firm, mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and durable in time; but in its architecture we have allowed tenuous and external crevices of unreason which tell us it is false.”
I agree with your statement “Assuming that the world is logically consistent, there are truths about the world that cannot be proven from within the world”… but only if “the world” means the finite part of reality that we observe. I believe that the “Whole of Creation” (the Maxiverse) is infinite, and that in this infinity, issues such as Gödel incompleteness no longer hold: therefore, I believe the Maxiverse is logically consistent and contains no truth that cannot be proven.
I find it interesting that you reference Rudy Rucker’s book “Infinity and the Mind”, when you say that “in Cantor’s paradise of multiple infinities, it is impossible to conceive of the largest infinity”. As I explained to Alma Ionescu on my forum, I read Rucker’s book back in graduate school and it had a major influence on my own views about reality. The fact, explained by Rucker, that it is impossible for a finite mind to conceive of V (Absolute Infinity, the largest possible infinity) was, for me, not a bug, but a feature: to me, it seemed natural to equate the totality of existence, U, with this Absolute Infinity: U = V. And since V does not contain any information (as Rucker explains on page 136 of his book), this means that the Maxiverse considered as a whole does not contain any information, which makes it plausible that it just “is” --- that it exists by itself, without needing anything outside of itself to bring it about.
I fully agree with some aspects of your creation story, in particular, the fact that the first stage is the separation of One {1} from the Void {0}. My favorite fiction author, Greg Egan, once said :
“I suspect that a single 0 and a single 1 are all you need to create all universes. You just re-use them.”
But I have a question about stage 2, the process of coming-into-being. If I understand your story correctly, you believe stage 2 requires something, “The Voice”, that stands “outside” the totality of what physically exists and intentionally wills it into existence. But what could this Voice be? If it can have intention, it must be fairly complex, possibly intelligent… but to avoid the need for a Higher Voice to will it into existence, it must be “self-existent”… How can the non-zero information encoded into the Voice be “self-existent”? Where does the information come from? I am well aware that these questions are as old as philosophy itself, and that they are not easy to answer, but I am curious to know more about your opinion about them.
Marc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 14:44 GMT
Marc - Thanks for your very detailed review and comments!
Actually, the "Voice" is required for both stage 1 and for stage 2 which, as discussed with T.Bolognesi above has dual features - the physical Cosmos and Intentionality. The Voice and the Void are self-existent, "uncreated" - not dissimilar from AI (Absolute Infinity). They are also self-reflective.
I'm not sure I follow the "informational" part of your thesis. In my view, the Voice and the AI, like the set of all sets, is going to contain all information, including all information about itself. Of course, that is quite a trick to contemplate with our very finite minds --- so it falls into the category of mythology.
Regards - George
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 05:42 GMT
In response to your comment above..
Thanks again George. I think it would make the world a better place, so I look forward to the opportunity to work with you, collaborating to further explicate some of the threads discussed.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear George,
I greatly enjoyed your essay. I am curious whether or not you think something like the philosopher John Leslie’s “Goodness” or Robert Nozick’s “fecundity” would fill the hole?
http://utopiaordystopia.com/2014/05/04/why-does-the-world-ex
ist-and-other-dangerous-questions-for-insomniacs/
Please take the time to check out and vote on my essay for this contest.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2391
All the best!
Rick Searle
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 14:56 GMT
Rick - Thanks for the references, I will have to look them up. I've also left a comment on your essay (which I thought was marvelous, but the way).
Regards - George Gantz
Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 18:56 GMT
Hi George,
I was wondering if you thought that Zeno’s paradox could be cleared up if the universe were proven to be finite (and discrete) in both time and space? I actually don’t think this finite view of the universe is too far off what is accepted by modern physics due to ideas such as the Planck Scale and Quantization. From this perspective, (continuous) movement may still be considered to be an illusion, much like the images in a movie never “move”, they only discretely change positions (states) in each subsequent frame of the movie. This relates to my
Digital Physics movie essay if you’d like to take a look at that.
Thanks,
Jon
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 20:53 GMT
Jon - Thanks for the comment! Zeno's paradox was resolved by Aristotle, whose solution works whether space is discrete or continuous. A fully discrete and finite universe solves many issues (within the physical universe the difficulties with infinities disappear) and is a hypothesis I am comfortable with. However, it does not answer a number of questions. For example, if time is finite, there is a beginning point, and an ending point. - What is before and after, and what caused things to start? And, even if the universe is finite, math is not, nor are the implications of recursion or self-reflection and consciousness.
I conclude the Hole at the Center remains even in a finite universe!
Regards - George
Steven P Sax wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 06:06 GMT
George, very creative essay and a nice sentiment about the whole. I liked the history of scientific philosophy and overall found your ideas interesting - I gave you a high rating, and thank you again for your kind comments. Your questions that you posted on my thread inspired me and you can see my answers there.
Thanks again, Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 15:04 GMT
Thanks, Steven! Great exchanges on your essay which I will continue to follow.
-George
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 15:14 GMT
Some thoughts George..
The film that first brought public attention to Arnold Schwarzenegger was called 'Stay Hungry' and the movie's theme pertains to the topic of your essay, as per my comments above. The title refers not only to the reduction of body fat, so you can better show off your muscles, as it also spoke to the ideal of remaining competitive, always striving to improve yourself, and so on. This is somewhat the Apollonian ideal or archetype, as well.
But perhaps the same applies in the evolution of consciousness, where one must cultivate a hunger and thirst for knowledge - and stay hungry, maintaining an appetite for learning and knowing - in order to learn and grow in understanding. This would again make a hole at the center of creation an essential feature of reality, serving to bring transcendental qualities like those seen in creatures with self-awareness into being - which would otherwise lay dormant.
More later,
Jonathasn
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 15:17 GMT
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 15:43 GMT
Jonathan -
Exactly, thank you! Without "intentionality" (desire --- willing --- thirst for knowledge) there would be no consciousness. Without growth, there is no life. Without direction/purpose, there is no universe. Without self-reflection (and therefore consciousness), there are no distinctions --- and no existence.
The Hole is indeed an essential feature of reality - as is the infinite Voice which is its reflection.
Cheers - George
Luca Valeri wrote on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 23:40 GMT
Dear George,
I like the idea to create your own creation myth without ignoring our knowledge about nature. I would lke to share a myth, that I like sometime to tell to my kids, that are still very young and got a new brother only recently.
"At the beginning they have been in paradise. And they where naked and not ashamed. But then they ate from the tree of knowledge and could distinguish between true and false. Between good and bad."
The myth seems to tell the difference between the simple cognition and the reflective cognition, which creates the separation of subject and object, of perception and acting. It creates the distance needed to comprehend the word objectively. With the loss of the ability to participate with world, with life.
It is beautiful and sad to see my kids slowly leaving paradise.
Best regards and thanks for your nice comment in
my forumLuca
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 01:39 GMT
Luca - Thanks for your comment! I have found stories to be the most powerful way of communicating with my own children and grandchildren.
Relative to my creation myth, I'm not sure I would tell the story of the "human fall" in that way, but I agree with your basic points. In my view, the fall is the inevitable result of the duality in human perception that arises from self-consciousness. This duality is obvious in most children by the age of two! When we understand that we are each autonomous from the community of others into which we were born, we become able to act as intentional agents to benefit ourselves or to benefit others. Naturally we tend to elevate our own interests above others and lose touch with "the greater good" - the love of others.
Love your children with all your heart and all your mind and guide them on the path of love and compassion. It is just as inherent in children as self-love, but needs to be nurtured. In time, perhaps, they, and all of us, will find that the greatest joy arises from service to others (not to ourselves).
Regards - George
William T. Parsons wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 18:50 GMT
Hi George--
Your essay was a joy to read. I loved your lyrical touch. I now see why you took the time to read and comment on my essay. We approached infinity in complementary fashion. You chose to use infinity in a metaphysical way, which is perfectly excellent. My approach was simply to kick physical infinity off the physics island. I'd like to think that we are both right. I also loved your use of both "hole" and "whole" at the center of creation. Nicely done!
In the small world category, we are both Stanford grads (me, '77) with Honors in Humanities. Only later did I go on to get degrees in physics (at other institutions).
Best regards,
Bill.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 01:58 GMT
Thanks, Bill--
I share your skepticism about physical infinities. That may keep the physics from getting unglued, but hardly addresses the metaphysical question of how the physical got here (metaphorically speaking). Of course, infinity is big enough to be unruffled by any of our speculations.
I enjoyed the HH program at Stanford (far more than my math major) and nearly headed into philosophy as a result - but the job prospects were slim. After graduation ('73) I did play in a rock band called "Trust" - ever hear us? - we played on campus quite a bit - but music did not offer much in the way of job prospects either.....
Cheers - George
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear George,
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 16:53 GMT
Hi Joe - I did read your essay but did not find it to offer a credible hypothesis. Given the number of very credible and interesting essays in the competition, I did not feel it appropriate to leave a comment, and I did not rate it.
With sincere regards - George
Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 08:07 GMT
Hi George,
very enjoyable and creative essay. I think your desire to provide optimism rather than despair is admirable.
I wonder if, while digging ever down, looking for truth, and reaching a void, the meaning within all of the absolute relations of the elements of reality are discarded- and that is perhaps the dwelling of absolute truth and agape love. Not a voice in the void but omnipotent and omnipresent relation. Just food for thought.
Good luck and kind regards, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 23:23 GMT
Thanks, Georgina -
Yes, of course, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. We discard all that is important when we reduce life, being, consciousness (and relations) to their physical manifestation - my essay is an attempt to bring that to the attention of those who are committed to the material and thereby left in the void.
And yes, I am an optimist, and a theist (albeit a skeptical one...) who believes the source of all creation is the love (intending for good) of omnipotent, omnipresent and infinite God which comes to us in forms (truths) of Divine Wisdom. Love clothed in truths manifest in each and all of our relations.
Regards - George
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 21:17 GMT
Dear George,
Your essay is very special: it combines depths of mystical poetry with a sober diagnosis of the spirit of time. You write:
"In that day, many saw the Void but knew it not. Some cast themselves into despair and were
consumed. Others hid in caves and tunnels, unwilling to look upon the face of the Void"
For two millennia reason lived only in the minds of great, spiritual thinkers. However, when science, which was the fruit of their work, has made reason's power obvious to all, many people became lost in its cult.
I give your essay the highest rating. Most likely, you already rated
our essay; otherwise, please take it as a friendly reminder.
Good luck in this contest and all the best!
Alexey Burov
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 00:46 GMT
Alexey - Thank you. Yes, I did enjoy the essay you and Lev submitted and rated it highly. We are in agreement on many points - including the fundamentally and necessarily purposeful nature of the universe and the fallacy of the multiverse / MUH hypothesis. I do wish Wittgenstein had written more.
I think it may be simplistic to lay all of the problem at the feet of reason. I would say, rather, that in the last two centuries, reason became more and more narrowly defined. In some quarters today, it is deemed "unreasonable" to inquire about matters beyond the empirical. This is rather a form of ignorance than a form of reason.
Many thank - George
Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 03:10 GMT
George, I've just signed to the announcements at your web site. We'll keep in touch!
Alexey.
report post as inappropriate
Tod Richards replied on Nov. 28, 2015 @ 03:41 GMT
George
I enjoyed reading your essay. And while I agree that it is up to each of us to formulate our own stories that serve to fill the gaps in our knowledge, I find myself tending toward the “truth” side of this debate—though I am not 100% convince of that either. I remain unconvinced of your main point: that there exists a “Hole at the Center of Creation,” and thus that the...
view entire post
George
I enjoyed reading your essay. And while I agree that it is up to each of us to formulate our own stories that serve to fill the gaps in our knowledge, I find myself tending toward the “truth” side of this debate—though I am not 100% convince of that either. I remain unconvinced of your main point: that there exists a “Hole at the Center of Creation,” and thus that the wonderful success of mathematics in describing nature is a Trick. The arguments you present do not support that conclusion. Furthermore, I noticed that in addition to formulating an argument for the “trick” side of the debate, you also seem to have woven in an exposition of your personal beliefs—what you think we should all do, given the existence of this alleged Hole. This seems a bit unnecessary and off topic.
I found some factual errors in your essay that you should probably be aware of. First, in the first graph of page three you say:
“Thus, Greek mathematics and physics converged on a common metaphysic, that abstract numbers and the space they represent are continuous and infinitely divisible, ultimately setting the stage for Newtonian calculus and classical physics. That orderly metaphysical framework became conventional wisdom for nearly two millennia - until relativity and quantum mechanics tore it to shreds.”
You provide no source for this statement, and I would challenge you to find one. The statement is simply incorrect. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did not “tear to shreds” the notion that abstract numbers and the space they represent are continuous and infinitely divisible--quite the opposite in fact. Special Relativity and General Relativity are classical theories in that they both treat space and time as...continuous and infinitely divisible! And Quantum Mechanics does not even approach the nature of space and time at all—continuous, discrete, or otherwise. In fact, the QM of the time actually treated space and time as absolute in the purely Newtonian sense! Later of course, in the late 40’s and early 50’s, Feynman, Dirac, and others managed to reinterpret QM within a relativistic framework, and thus gave birth to something resembling modern quantum field theory, but even to this day no one has produced a viable scheme for quantizing space-time.
Next factual issue:
Under “The Emergent Black Hole” you begin to make a case for your Hole of unknowability. The argument seems to comprise a list of developments in physics, mathematics, philosophy, and other fields that serve to demonstrate that there are aspects of nature which are inherently unknowable, and that this new reality caused the “optimism” of the 19th century to begin to falter and get replaced by…the opposite of optimism I guess. Let me start with that last bit because it too is factually incorrect--and I have been unable to find any source whatsoever that would support it.
The only people unhappy with the emergence of the new paradigm were members of the old guard—many of whom resisted these changes until their dying day. This is a perfectly natural response to a paradigm shift. All the reading I have done however indicates that everyone else was ecstatic, excited, enthralled, and amazed. When the first experimental results came in confirming General Relativity, Einstein became an instant world-wide celebrity—a celebrity unknown for any scientists before or since. The accomplishments of Einstein and the “young turks”, the fathers of the new paradigm, were repeatedly splashed across newspapers around the world, accompanied by very optimistic headlines. Invitations to lecture at Universities, invitations to social events and private parties of the social elite flooded in. Professorships and Nobel Prizes, lauds and laurels, parades and brass bands punctuated the history of this revolutionary period, not the opposite of optimism. This all occurred amidst the back-drop of a western culture witnessing the last gasps of the dying age of monarchy and the birth of the age of democracy. If one had to describe the general mood of the people who were coming of age during this period, and one was forced to use one word; that word would have to be: optimistic--the Spanish flu and WWI notwithstanding. Heck, the 20’s was one big, long, drunken, party.
Moreover, there is only a tiny segment of the population that fully understands that a paradigm shift has even taken place, and it is only a very few of those that have rejected it outright. And this tiny segment of a tiny segment does not a society make. Western culture is not, cannot be, awash in nihilism or some sort of depressive malaise brought about by the loss of meaning as a result of the development of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Godels incompleteness theorem, black holes, or the big bang theory. Instead, it is widely accepted that it was the “certainty” (as you call it) of Newtonian Mechanics (and the rise of science in general in the 19th century) that gave rise to a mechanistic world-view that served to winnow down the space occupied by God.
Of course, optimism, or its opposite, is really beside the point. Your main goal was to credibly establish the existence of a Hole of unknowability living at the center of our understanding (or potential understanding) of nature and all its workings. And that the existence of this hole demonstrates that the amazing correspondence between mathematics and nature is a mere trick of the human mind. You attempt to do this by listing a number of intellectual developments that you use to define the edge of that Hole. You seem to contend that it is these ideas that set the edge of the “knowability” map, so to speak, and beyond which “there be, unknowable, dragons.”
Your list includes:
1) “In physics, the concept of unchanging, predictable Newtonian space and time became twisted as Einstein’s relativity theories took hold. Relativity integrated time and space but also undermined the intuitive comprehensibility of the physical world. Time is now an “illusion”, a function of both motion and position.”
2) “…findings of quantum mechanics included wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The probabilistic features of ultimate reality they revealed unraveled confidence in our ability to know and predict. Quantum physics also discovered puzzles in the relationship between observer and observation, leading to speculation that consciousness is integral to reality.”
3) “In cosmology, steady state theories failed in light of findings confirming the universe began in a Big Bang.”
4) “Black Holes, infinitely dense and impenetrable discontinuities in the fabric of space and time were first theorized and then identified.”
5) “Findings in chaos and complexity theory confirmed that there are processes we cannot model, trajectories we cannot predict and details we will never know about the world.”
6) Strange properties of infinity
7) Curious logical paradoxes such as “this statement is false”
8) Godel’s incompleteness theorem
9) Turing’s computability dilemma
10) Cantors paradise of multiple infinities
I will confine myself to dealing with just a few of these.
The development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did not set limits on what we can know--just the opposite in fact. Relativity and QM have blown the doors wide open to new discovery. We have hugely increased our understanding of the universe, and all its interesting, and intricate, workings because of the development of Relativity and QM. They have given birth to the Standard Model of quantum physics, and the Standard Model of cosmology (LambdaCDM), not to mention most of the electronic and radiological devices that have become ubiquitous in every home, school, business, and hospital across most of the planet. Both Relativity and QM has given us manifold avenues of research that our scientists are happily, and persistently, pursuing. Dozens of new papers are published every single day.
Even this very second, the LHC is smashing protons together at their new energy level, looking for physics beyond the Standard Model. I just read an article in the Cern Courier indicating that some initial results are already showing tensions with the SM! (They’re only at the 2 to 3 sigma confidence level thus far, so it is far too early to claim a discovery (5 sigma), but still very exciting!). If that isn’t enough, aLIGO (advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) began a new observing run in September at (finally!) a sensitivity level where theory predicts we should see something. Everyone is waiting with baited-breath. The next few years could be huge for General Relativity (or possible extensions of such), and if detections start to come in, we will have a whole new window on the universe. This could be really big. Every other time we have found a new way to observe, be it radio, microwave, x-ray, etc. we have without exception discovered new astrophysical phenomena.
The development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics has not served to set limits on what we can know. Instead, it has given us much, much, more. And all this—all of it—has come about, not because human intuition has guided us, because you are right, human intuition is not entirely suited for some of the more interesting aspects of Relativity and QM (after all, our brains evolved over millions of years on the plains of Africa to be expert at surviving in small hunter-gatherer groups, not roaming amongst the stars). Though it was human intuition that guided us to Relativity and QM, since then human intuition has taken a back-seat to mathematics. Mathematics alone has been our guiding light. It has been the math that has provided the key insights in what to do, and where to go next. Moreover, it turns out that “elegant” math, “beautiful” math, tends to successfully point the way forward more often than otherwise. And if that doesn’t send chills down your back, you are not human.
That’s enough about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They clearly cannot be signposts at the edge of an alleged Hole at the Center of Creation that declare, “abandon all knowability, ye who enter here!”
Godel’s proof is fascinating. All finite axiomatic systems (systems with a finite number of axioms), if consistent, cannot be complete. Way cool. He devised a way to encode logical statements within a specific system into special numbers, and then decode those numbers back into the original statements. Any given statement had a unique “Godel number” counter-part. With this in place he could then begin forming statements—proofs—within the system that spoke to the regular mathematical features of those special numbers! And since those numbers were themselves statements, he got the system to talk about itself—paradox! As I understand it, there was some pretty pissed off people—Russell in particular.
Does his proof call into question all deductive proof? No. What he said was that all consistent systems with a finite number of axioms must have statements that are self-referential, and those statements cannot be shown to be true or false. The best translation of his proof into language that I have seen goes like this: a valid deductive proof that says, “I am unprovable.” It’s the mathematical twin of, “This statement is false.”
Does Godels Proof fit our criteria of defining some region of unknowability? Well, no not really. Thanks to Godel, we now clearly know and understand that self-referential statements within a system of finite axioms can produce paradoxical statements—statements we cannot deductively prove true or false. This is new knowledge we can include in our ever-expanding mathematical took-kit. Will that particular tool prove (sorry, couldn’t help it) to have future utility? The answer is an unequivocal… yes!
Enter Alan Turing. He went on to extend Godel’s work into the area of information theory. With it he was able to provide a proof for the “Halting Problem.” More specifically, he showed that there cannot exist a general algorithm that could, provided any computer program and an input, decide whether or not that program would ever halt. He did this by showing that any general algorithm of this type must inevitably contradict itself! Sound familiar? So Godel’s work was useful after all. It successfully extended our knowledge.
Is there a region of unknowability living somewhere in all that? We now know we will never be able to deductively prove that a paradoxical statement is true or false. Does this finally betray a limit to the axiomatic system? Again, no it does not. Instead, Godel successfully used the axiomatic system to give us a formal mathematical description of self-referential paradox. And that is not a limit; it is a spring-board that has propelled us onward.
Moreover, in your essay you seem to contend that Godels proof about logical systems with finite numbers of axioms allows us to say the same thing about the Universe. In the third graph under ‘The Emergent Black Hole’ you state:
“If we accept that the universe we are in is consistent (a strongly held metaphysical belief - Aristotle’s second principal), then there are truths we cannot prove. “
There is absolutely no rational reason for asserting this. You cannot get to that statement from Godel’s proof. The mathematics that describes all of nature’s intimate workings could very well be supported by deductive proof. For any given consistent logical system there is far, far more statements that are perfectly provable, than there are paradoxical statements that can’t be proven true or false. There is simply no reason to assume (based on Godel’s proof) that the number of individual mathematical statements that is necessary to describe all of nature’s workings must contain unprovable statements. If you can find one, please let the world know. It will put you on the short-list for a Nobel Prize.
The remaining items in your list are ill-defined, vague, or just simply incorrect.
None of the developments you have listed in you essay definitively establishes an ultimate limit to knowledge about our universe. If you insist on contending that we are unable to think about the unthinkable, because it is unthinkable, well I guess I am forced to agree. But there really is no rational argument against that is there? The revelations about the nature of reality brought about by our ever-expanding sphere of knowledge about the universe is constantly informing and updating the answers to some of our deepest philosophical questions. Thousands of years from now, when all is said and done, will we discover that there are some answers that are forever beyond our reach? Perhaps. But it is far, far too early to throw in the towel and abandon reason in the search for truth, and make that metaphysical leap of faith into the waiting arms of unknowable angels—or to re-write the book of Genesis for that matter.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Nov. 28, 2015 @ 16:43 GMT
Thanks, Tod, for the thorough review and critique. You have clearly thought hard about the issues and find my arguments unconvincing. Given the fact that the essay contest has concluded I am not going to respond in detail, but I would make three quick observations.
First, thank you for acknowledging that there might be a "region of unknowability." It think it has been staring us in the...
view entire post
Thanks, Tod, for the thorough review and critique. You have clearly thought hard about the issues and find my arguments unconvincing. Given the fact that the essay contest has concluded I am not going to respond in detail, but I would make three quick observations.
First, thank you for acknowledging that there might be a "region of unknowability." It think it has been staring us in the face since humans first developed sufficient self-awareness for abstract self-referential statements. Many thinkers and philosophers, and most theologians, over the millennia have acknowledged a "region of unknowability" to be the case, put perhaps it will only be evident to some "thousands of years from now."
Second, the sociological and psychological effects of a changing worldview take a long time to manifest. It is my view (I wrote a paper on this decades ago) that Nihilistic philosophical trends emerged from the secular skepticism and empiricism in the 19th century - a period when scientific optimism still flourished. Rapid developments in science and industrialization were a key part of this sociological process. These trends found full flower in 20th century despotisms - even as the brass bands and buoyant partying of the roaring twenties continued. The full import of 20th century secular science (relativity, QM, uncertainty and the rest) have yet to be fully absorbed in a common worldview - but alienation, depression and social trends towards meaning-less entertainments and commercialism are some of the symptoms, as is (I believe) the growing trend toward fundamentalism in both secular and religious communities. People fill the hole at the center of their lives (and creation) with many different denials, delusions and distractions.
I by no means argue that we should "throw in the towel" or "abandon all hope." Math and science are marvelous community enterprises - and human society has much to gain but their continued efforts. But I do believe this enterprise would work better if its practitioners added a dose of humility and an acknowledgement of the greater mystery of existence, humanity and consciousness into their practice. As I argue in my first FQXi essay the Tip of the Spear" ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2029 ) the thrust of our future will be powered by science, but the tip of the spear should be armed with the highest of human empathic qualities.
view post as summary
Tod Richards replied on Nov. 29, 2015 @ 08:54 GMT
I hope you don’t mind. I seek clarification on some of the things you said. But first I would like to tell you a brief story.
Once upon a time, many millennia ago, we all sat huddled around small campfires, and all that was known to us was just what was inside that small circle of comfortable, warm light. Next to the fire we felt warm and safe. Our little illumined world was...
view entire post
I hope you don’t mind. I seek clarification on some of the things you said. But first I would like to tell you a brief story.
Once upon a time, many millennia ago, we all sat huddled around small campfires, and all that was known to us was just what was inside that small circle of comfortable, warm light. Next to the fire we felt warm and safe. Our little illumined world was known and predictable.
We also knew a few other things. We knew where and how to find food, and we knew how to make rudimentary tools that aided us in that pursuit. We possessed the knowledge we needed to survive, and one little piece of knowledge that we knew on an instinctual level was that the unknown is potentially dangerous. The known is safe and predictable, and the unknown less so. We tended to fear the unknown. New things were naturally suspect, and only explored with caution. Yet we needed to know; to render the unknown, known—to help us feel safe.
Why was there night and day? Why were there rain and sun, flood and drought, winter and summer? What was lightening, what was thunder? What were the moon, the stars, birth, and death? These were the great unknowns, the greater mysteries to us.
We naturally yearned for explanations, and so we told stories about the night and about the day, and about the sun and the moon, and about the thunder and the lightening, and we told stories about birth, and death. We told stories of powerful beings that caused these things, and since we knew only ourselves, and the other animals around us, the beings that held power over the rain and wind, day and night, resembled ourselves. They had thoughts and feelings, purpose and intent. They could be happy and pleasant, when the sun was warm and food was plentiful, they could reward those who acted rightly, and punish those who committed acts contrary to the needs of the group. And they could be as angry as a thunderstorm smashing the hillsides outside of our cave; outside of our firelight. We knew our world, and our place within it. Actions and events had purpose, life and death had meaning.
Then slowly, ever so slowly, we began to understand the day and the night, the sun and the moon. We came to understand what lightening was, and what caused thunder. No longer were these things the faces of powerful beings that looked and behaved as we do. Slowly, ever so slowly, the list of things that were caused by the Gods decreased in number. The irresistible drive to render the unknown, known, slew all the dragons and sea-monsters. It made the world round, and the twinkling stars were turned into distant suns. Physics taught us matter was made of atoms, and atoms made of weirder stuff beneath. Biology told us of our ultimate origins, and evolutionary psychology taught us that our drive to know and understand is our hard-won heritage; one of the fruits born of our need to survive in a dangerous, and unknown world.
The end—almost.
Some resisted the death of the old gods. They felt that without them, they would not know where their place in the world should be. To them, the known was being rendered unknown again. Intent rendered intent-less, purpose rendered purposeless, and meaning, meaningless. They struggled to hold on to the old explanations, but soon the sun no longer circled the Earth; the center of all things. Angels retreated before gravity, devils and possessing demons fell beneath the surgeon’s scalpel, but still the old believers hung on crying, “where will we find meaning when all the old ways are gone?”
I think you get the gist. The movement away from “mythical” explanation and towards rational explanation has been ongoing for centuries, if not millennia, and there has always been an element in our various cultures throughout the ages that have desperately clung to outmoded belief systems—the last gasp of which is inevitably, and fatally, fundamentalism. This is clearly evidenced in this country by pushes to deny evolution and include intelligent design in science classrooms, the outright denial of climate science, insistent beliefs that the world is 6000 years old (and other literal drivel), bombings and shootings at abortion clinics, etc. Relativity and QM are just modern faces of a centuries-old social evolution—and they aren’t even modern really. For modern developments we should be looking to Superstring Theory, Super Gravity, Loop Quantum Gravity, and the like. Thankfully, truth always wins in the end--at least it has thus far. We can only hope.
The clarification I seek is about your claim that you don’t mean we should “throw in the towel” while at the same time you ask for an acknowledgement of the “greater mystery of existence, humanity, and consciousness.” (?) What does this mean? Should science not pursue these mysteries? Or are you asking that science should acknowledge that it can’t, even in principal, address the nature of these mysteries? And here’s the thing: you must be aware of the fact that science is already speaking volumes to essential aspects of all three. Evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and evolutionary psychology (among many other -ologies) already have a firm grip on the “humanity” mystery, and that grip is inexorably tightening—dozens of new papers are published every day, examining who and what we are, how we got here, how and why we do the things we do, etc. Huge progress has been made in the last 20-30 years, and there is no end in sight. Should we stop?
Have you heard of the Human Brain Project, or the Brain Initiative? (It was born of a previous initiative entitled the Decade of the Mind) If not, I strongly recommend you investigate. Their stated goal is to uncover how Mind arises from brain. That’s right. They want to understand the fundamental nature of the consciousness process. Hundreds of millions of dollars is being spent here in the U.S. The Europeans are spending even more. This is a multidisciplinary effort, some working from the bottom up, some working from the top down, all wanting to ‘drive that golden spike’. Neuroscientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, logicians, psychologists, you name it. They all believe this goal is within humanity’s reach. This project has been popularized as being similar in scope to the moon shot, the race for the atomic bomb…that sort of thing. Along the way whole new technologies need to be invented that will have huge ancillary benefits for the economies that produce them—not to mention the health benefits. Google, Microsoft, and other tech biggies are getting in on the action. Should they stop?
Tens of thousands of men and women, virtually all the scientist actively engaged in these various pursuits, feel an unending amazement, great purpose, and find deep meaning in their lives, as they stand in awe of the mystery of it all. You must ask yourself: why aren’t you among them?
Tod
(genevehicle)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Nov. 29, 2015 @ 13:19 GMT
I do not mind. Your critique is more thorough than any I received in the contest.
Your brief story is conventional and self-congratulatory - and also (in my view) conveniently blind to certain questions that are essential to human experience. A simple one - why is there order in the world? Or, more simply - why is there anything at all? It is an inconvenient truth (first pointed out by David Hume) that physical laws cannot explain themselves. Existence and regularity are matters of faith, not proof.
I did a recent post on Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God" that you might find interesting. Wright, an agnostic, ends up admitting that it is rational to be religious.
http://swedenborgcenterconcord.org/a-new-evolution
-debate-does-religion-evolve/
Of course, there are pitfalls in religiosity - denying the efficacy of science being one of them. There are pitfalls in materialism as well - a major one being the denial of a non-material state-space for the experiences of awe and mystery and purpose.
I am grateful for my experiences of awe, mystery and purpose - which I find in science and elsewhere. Integrating that experience into a consistent and complete worldview requires, in my view, a transcendent belief system.
hide replies
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.