"In the order of intelligible things his intelligence holds the same rank
as does his body in the expanse of nature, and all it can do is
perceive the appearance of the middle of things, in an eternal despair
of knowing either their beginning or their end. All things proceed from
the nothing, and are led towards the infinite. Who can follow these
marvellous processes? The Author of these wonders understands them. None
other can do so."
Blaise Pascal
"That’s why we’re here: the passing of time has no meaning unless experienced by conscious beings."
James Lileks
...or consciousness, truth, beauty. Time and these are universal but must be individualized, localized to be meaningful.
God hides in plain sight. He does not do the things man does, think, etc., but he is there when we do them. We are confronted with the incomprehensible Otherness of the opposite. Today I see
woe has its wisdom, sorrow enlightens the soul.
Michael Hanlon on theory of "pocket universes" This sounds a lot like Aristotle: "If it is allowed by the basic physical laws (which, in this scenario, will be constant across all universes), it must happen. This idea from the Multiverse theory. And from Michael Hanlon on string theory: "The ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum physics....states that all quantum possibilities are, in fact, real. When we roll the dice of quantum mechanics, each possible result comes true in its own parallel timeline. If this sounds mad, consider its main rival: the idea that ‘reality’ results from the conscious gaze. Things only happen, quantum states only resolve themselves, because we look at them. As Einstein is said to have asked, with some sarcasm, ‘would a sidelong glance by a mouse suffice?’"
_____________________
Hawking: "If Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct, the universe began with a singularity called the big bang. Now because it was a singularity, all the laws of physics broke down. And therefore we cannot predict how the universe began. A few years ago I was at a conference on cosmology that was held in the Vatican. And at the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. The Pope said it was fine for them to inquire into the early history of the universe, but they should not ask questions about the big bang itself... because that was the work of God. However, at that conference I proposed that Einstein's general theory of relativity would have to be modified to take quantum mechanics into account. And that modification would mean that there was no singularity. Space time would be finite in extent, but with no singularities. In this picture, space time would be like the surface of the earth. It's finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundary or edge or singularities."
Interviewer: SO IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT REALLY THE UNIVERSE HAS A BEGINNING OR END, OR WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO SAY ABOUT BEGINNING AND CAUSATION?
"The universe... the universe would have a beginning and an end in the same sense that degrees of latitude have a beginning and an end at the north and south poles respectively. There isn't any point with a latitude 91 degrees north. And similarly, there isn't any point in the universe which is before the big bang. And the, but the north pole is a perfectly regular point of the earth's surface, it's not a singular point. And similarly, I believe that the big bang was a perfectly regular point of space time. And all the laws of physics would hold at the big bang. And if that is the case, we can completely predict the state of the universe from the laws of physics."
ALL OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS SEEMS TO BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE EVENTUAL GOAL, THAT'S A UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, AN UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDAMENTAL LAWS THAT UNIFY ALL OF NATURE, INCLUDING MANKIND. WILL WE EVER FIND SUCH A THEORY, AND IF SO, WHAT COULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES?
"I think it's an open question as to whether we will find a complete unified theory. All I can say is that we don't seem to have one at the moment."
YOU WERE SAYING THAT THERE MAY BE SUCH A THING . . .
"We may never find a complete unified theory, but I think that there is a 50-50 chance that we'll do so by the end of the century."
WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A THEORY? WOULD WE THEN KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT PHYSICAL REALITY?
"In principle, but not in practice. Because the equations are very difficult to solve in any but the simplest situations. We already know the laws of physics that underlie the behaviour of matter in normal circumstances. So in principle, we should be able to predict all of physics, all of chemistry and biology. But we've not had much success in predicting human behaviour from mathematical equations."
______________
Commentary
Science posits the Real, the source of meaning and purpose, in an absolute other. It's over the horizon and is called something like "complete unified theory" and would resolve the general theory of relativity with the (theories of) quantum mechanics, the physics of the very large with that of the very small. There are no concrete objects, but waves in force fields. Every discovery leads to new postulates as the absolute other is approached but never quite reached. Like going the speed of light requires ever more energy as one approaches light speed, to make the final leap requires all the known energy in the universe. I postulate that to calculate the grand unified theory similarly requires ever greater calculus and that eventually you run out of calculus coincidentally at the same moment you would reach the ultimate theory. Anyhow, Hawking says, the theory can't be solved in anything but the simplest situations and then only in principle, not in practice. I think the evidence can't be finally owned because it hides in plain sight. You can't find it because the premise you don't already have it, is false. The mention that ‘reality’ results from the conscious gaze does indeed border on a line of inquiry that gets into territory normally shunned by physics, by science. But Hanlon says it seems mad. James Lileks could have formulated his statement thusly.
What's also interesting is the notion that if a reality is possible it will eventuate. Aristotle postulated this too, and noted that unimaginable horrors were necessary conditions. Also notable is the absence of anything not quantifiable from these types of proceedings. Sean Carroll, for instance, dismisses philosophical insights relating to consciousness, the soul, and religious notions of transfiguration, for instance, as flowery speech. Science generally doesn't consider anything that can't be measured. And religion, it's parent, or at least predecessor, tends to shun measurement. Thus, for science, measurement becomes the sine qua non of knowledge. You own reality by taking measure of it. But knowledge isn't the only path to understanding. Indeed it can be an impediment. It seems to me a grand unified theory would actually account for time, beauty, love, truth, and such coming to have meaning when actualized in a field of consciousness of a sentient life form. My personal grand notion, call it theory if you want, is consciousness is the instrument of the soul and the issue of Grace working through the emotions, through mind, to affect the apotheosis of matter. Art, religion, science, history, and philosophy as developmental stepping stones, as stages on life's way, taken together give better results than any one taken alone. Consciousness is directed outward in all but the last, just asking the question, or positing the answer in a false other. In philosophy consciousness actually returns on itself ever going out only to find that outwardness is another way of looking at inwardness. This scheme is elaborated by R. G. Collingwood, and Soren Kierkagaard.
People, science won't believe in God because they have no proof, evidence. They fail to realize evidence always pertains to some thing and that God is not a separate thing unto himself. Its closer to reality that he is all that is in which case the "evidence" is hiding in plain sight. He can't be parsed from the whole of reality: neither can you. If you must have evidence look at the back of your hand, look at all that is, for the whole thing is God is as valid a statement as he is not, doesn't exist. Precisely. We perceive ourselves, taking that as evidence we exist and at the same time as the paradigm for the proof of anything at all. Self measure is established as the measure of all things. We anthropomorphize the whole of reality.
Extending our mind with mathematical equations we define alternately increasingly fine and/or gross models of reality. We see particles so small, the Higgs Boson, for instance, the so called "God" particle, they revert to fields of energy, and worlds so dense and large, black holes, that their matter assumes the distribution observed in the whole Universe. Our mind holds these realities as we extend our experiments searching out valid proofs. But the mind was always there with the proofs coming behind. What kind of world is it where mind is centered everywhere, bounded nowhere? No matter where we focus our technologically enhanced senses, our mathematically precise concepts, we find, if we care to notice, consciousness, mind, precedes us. Our reach always exceeds our grasp.
If that's too much to swallow then here is a simple formula that is known to work: "Praise no day until evening, no wife until buried, no sword until tested, no maid until bedded, no ice until crossed, no ale until drunk."
