The Rational God

Life In the Universe

by

The end of 2011 saw the discovery of what is being touted in some quarters as the first earth-like planet to have been discovered, Kepler 22-b. Its similarity to earth is based on just a few features: It orbits a sun similar to our own, it is in the temperature zone which allows water to be present and it has a year which is around 290 days in length. There the similarities end, its not even certain that it is a solid planet and may be similar to the gas and liquid Neptune with perhaps a rocky core. However, we now have published a report which claims our galaxy alone has 100 billion planets which are suitable for life.

The internet is awash with the UFO crowd and exopolitical theorists discussing why we should be worrying about intergalactic diplomacy. Others are playing the numbers game, explaining how in all probability the universe is teeming with life. But what kind of life are they talking of and just how realistic is it that we find any or even make contact?

On the question of life in the universe I would be very optimistic in us finding life all over the universe, but only of a most basic kind. Complex molecules which can replicate themselves and probably the odd single cell or maybe even bacteria but if that is all the life there is out there then its not going to get me too excited as I have enough problems keeping that sort of life out of my kitchen and bathroom without looking for more around the universe. The real question of interest is not ‘Is there life?’ But, ‘Is there intelligent life?’ And without getting into a discussion of defining what intelligent life may consist of I will use the rough guide of being similar to us in terms of intelligence.

As it is postulated that intelligent life abounds a plenty throughout the universe we get increased UFO sightings and advice of how we should deal with being in contact and what to worry about should they attack etc. This is all nonsense unless scientists have everything terribly wrong. The distances involved prohibit any kind of physical contact. We will not be travelling to any distance planets and there will be no aliens travelling from afar to meet us here on earth. And if we assume the physicists have it wrong – what would be the benefit of travelling such large distances? Any culture attempting such a humongous project would go bankrupt and destroy itself before the first spaceship left. Should they get a ship into space it would be generations before arriving here. Indeed, if the distance of Kepler 22-b is typical then it will take 600 years to send a message to them and 600 years to get a reply.

However, there is one other possibility which no one ever seems to want to confront and that is that we are alone in this universe. OK, so we share the universe with intergalactic bacteria but in terms of what passes for intelligent life we are alone and what is more there is a theory which fits perfectly all of the scientific facts and which concludes exactly this.

Based on the anthropic interpretation of quantum mechanics the idea of ‘The Rational God’ acts on the premise of intelligent life being a necessary component of a universe in much the same way that space or time are necessary components. A universe can only exist if it has the attributes of space and of time, The Rational God also adds ‘intelligent life’ to the list of necessary attributes. This is not as contentious as it might appear given what we know about the quantum realm.

In quantum mechanics the observer of a physical system plays a role in the collapsing of that system from a quantum state into a single real state. At a universal level, the universe from the moment of Big Bang would exist as an infinite quantum system until a time one of those infinite quantum universes evolved intelligent life. At that Adam and Eve moment the quantum system would collapse into a single real state which is the universe we now find ourselves in.

Given this interpretation of quantum mechanics there are a number of consequences to such a view. First of all it is inevitable that universes evolve intelligent life. That is, the probability that intelligent life exists within a universe is 1: Intelligent life is a necessary condition for universes.

Following from this are a number of extraordinary conclusions that seriously challenge our current view of who we are and how we arrived here. For example, the process of evolution is no longer one of pure chance, though we do need to qualify what we mean when we use this phrase. Each individual circumstance of genetic adaptability does occur by chance – nothing new there – but the process of intelligent life arising from a Big Bang leaves nothing to chance. In fact there is a case for claiming the universe which will become real from a quantum system containing infinite possibilities will be the universe which takes the shortest possible route from Big Bang to intelligent lifeforms. Therefore not only is the universe necessarily dependent on intelligent life existing, that intelligent life will arise in the shortest time it could possibly take.

This places the mathematical arguments for the existence of extraterrestrial life in to a completely different context.

Consider for example, the case of the possible universe which is the second fastest at evolving intelligent life. It no longer exists, instead it was collapsed out of existence when the quantum realm collapsed the fastest intelligent life evolving universe into reality. And whereas the intelligent life which has evolved by necessity arrived by the shortest evolutionary route in time that is possible, any further independent intelligent life to evolve on other planets within this actual universe has to evolve by pure chance alone. The history of evolution on this planet may not be a truly representative guide to the speed of evolutionary processes in other parts of the universe. Given that it isn’t, it is highly unlikely there is intelligent life anywhere else.

Fate and Final Causes

by

Science is often characterized as a study of cause and effect. Prior to science Aristotelian causes was the method of study, one of his four causes being the ‘final cause.’ A final cause reversed the process of cause and effect, making the effect the reason for the cause rather than the principle which modern science requires – the cause is responsible for the effect.

For example, an explanation using final causes would claim that a hammer exists so that nails can be banged into wood.

In contrast, the scientific reason for the hammer existing is because someone shaped a piece of wood, forged the head from metal and connected the two together. If the hammer is handled with skill it can be used as a tool which bangs nails into wood.

It is such a simple and widespread idea that it barely needs stating. Things do not exist for what they do; they exist because of the chain of events leading up to their creation. What is obvious to us now was not so obvious 400 years ago. Explanations of why were very often answered with the final cause answer; “things exist to perform the function they perform.”

The removal of teleology and its replacement by cause and effect is one of the most solid principles of what science does, and for the most part is desirable. But is it always desirable? As in most things, at the extremes the rules very often break down. Where a strict application of cause and effect is in most danger of breaking down is at the beginning of the universe itself.

Why? Consider how and why we are here. To get to the current moment in time in the universe’s history we can (if we had sufficient information) trace back the sequence of causes and effects back to the beginning. But what do we find at the beginning and what is the cause of the first cause? Whatever the conditions or principles are present at the first moment it is they which are responsible for all subsequent events. We can then quite legitimately pose the question, ‘Could things have been any different to the way they are now?’ We can also ask ‘Is it possible that things could have been any different to the way they are now?’

There have been a number of philosophers who have felt the need to make this point. Nietzsche’s eternal return is the view that the universe is destined to repeat over and over for all eternity. Spinoza decided ‘everything is as it is and could be no other way.’
Physicist Paul Davis points out that such a view is a valid option today. Video Here

The seed, or set of initial conditions, contain within them the blueprint for all that is going to occur and all that is going to exist. This leads us to quite a different view to the one commonly held that we are here by some pure chance or slice of good fortune. It could be that we are here because that is the only way the universe can be. We are every bit a part of the fabric of the world and every bit as important to the universe’s existence as anything else. The universe is spiritual in its essence equally as much as it is material.

It may be the case that we are the chance occurrence of large configurations of complex molecules which give off blips of thought….. But the evidence does not rule out the case of humans being of fundamental importance to existence and having been written into the blueprint of existence from the very beginning. The final cause of creation is us; the processes between the beginning and now are the causal and necessary links between the two.

A Definition of Monism

by

A Definition of Monism

Metaphysical monism is an ancient problem which still continues to this day, at least for some. A definition of monism can be framed quite succinctly; monism states that there is just one kind of thing that exists in the universe, everything is thus reducible to this one thing.

The earliest form of this problem was in ancient Greece. The Greeks had a scientific belief that the world was made up of earth, fire, air and water. What they attempted to understand was whether these four constituents of the universe were ultimate, or was there something more fundamental that underpinned or gave rise to them. They were asking, “Is the world made up of earth, fire, air and water or is the world made up of just one thing that can appear as earth, fire, air and water.”

From our modern post scientific perspective such a view can seem rather primitive. We know for example that the four primitive substances of the ancient Greeks are all reducible to molecules and atoms. We can continue the reduction to protons and neutrons and still further to quarks, or at least to quarks and electrons. The problem has been solved then, or at least the problem as the Greeks saw it has been solved. The debate concerning monism is still alive for some, though in a different format.

There is more A Definition of Monism here

Define Pantheism

by

Define Pantheism

Pantheism is one of the oldest belief systems there is which purports to offer an overall view about the nature of the universe. It is a metaphysical scheme that is robust to criticism more than most and a worldview which is often supported by intellectuals and scientists. How we define pantheism can allow for a very broad range of beliefs under the pantheism umbrella; it allows for a material interpretation as well as spiritual interpretations and dualist accounts. Before investigating the precise nature of pantheism, we should first offer an account of how to define pantheism.

When we define pantheism we have a long history of belief to work from. We also have many different varieties that we can use as a resource. Pantheist groups have existed within all the major religions, independently from organised religion and sometimes even atheist groups have claimed to hold a pantheist system of how to understand the universe. So how can we define pantheism to accommodate such a wide range of beliefs?

The Most Interesting Worldview

Pantheism, in its most simple expression, is the belief that God and the universe is the same thing. For most people the implications of such a statement are not immediately obvious, the common response is often a “so what.” Richard Dawkins accuses pantheism of being no more than sexed up atheism, which is a very simplistic philosophical view whilst Einstein, Carl Sagan, Kurt Godel amongst others were often heard to be speaking of God with the implication that it was the Pantheist God to which they were referring.

There is more Define Pantheism, Click here

Verification and Falsification

by

Verification and Falsification

The process of science is undertaken through two similar but distinct paths; verification and falsification. The two, though different, have more similarities than they have differences. Verification and falsification are based on two strands of knowing something; these are empirical data and rationality.

Empirical knowledge is basically that knowledge which is presented to our senses. Direct empirical knowledge is generally considered reliable and so is a route to knowledge. If I can report that there is a white thing in front of me that appears to have the characteristics of a wall, then it is reasonable to assume that I am standing in front of a wall.
Taking a step away from this direct knowledge does lead us away from certainty. For example, if I was to claim that yesterday I had a wall experience then I am adding another category of explanation to my wall experience, that of memory. A remembered experience is not as reliable as a current experience. But a current sensory experience is one of the best and most reliable chunks of knowledge that we can have.

There is more Verification and Falsification, Click here

The Structure of Nature: The Nature of Structure

by

I have been working on two posts over the last couple of days. The first to be posted I have decided to place on The Rational God website as a more permanent fixture of what the book discusses. It is an analogical discussion which is fairly tight and should give you a better idea of the books content. The title is “The Structure of Nature: The Nature of Structure.”

You can come back here to post any comments.