Essay Abstract

Hello to all my FQXi Community friends. I am pleased to join you again this year, and I trust that we will be able once again to learn much from each other. My essay this year is the fourth in a series, and it addresses two themes my earlier essays each touched upon in different ways. First, we need to recognize and accept the fact that a complete empirical description of physical reality is inaccessible to us as reflective participants inside that reality. Second, our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith. I highlight some of the shared beliefs that appropriately guide the scientific enterprise, and provide a specific critique of certain common articles of faith that I believe interfere with productive inquiry. My plea is for a broader and more open conversation about the articles of faith that provide the foundation for our understanding of the physical world. My hope is that by doing so we will invite a deeper humility and a greater capacity for the experience of wonder, joy, love, beauty and meaningful participation, including the full and enthusiastic pursuit of science, in this most marvelous world we live in.

Author Bio

George Gantz is a writer, philosopher and 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. He created Spiral Inquiry (spiralinquiry.org) and serves on the Board of Promoting an Enduring Peace. He has given presentations and written articles on related topics for a variety of conferences and publications. His essay The Tip of The Spear earned 4th place in the 2014 FQXi essay contest.

Download Essay PDF File

You always bring us blessings George...

I trust this offering will be worthwhile guidance, as have your last installments. I have added it to my reading bin. I have faith that my essay will appear soon.

All the best,

Jonathan

    Dear George Gantz,

    You titled your essay "Faith is Fundamental." That Old Time Religion practitioners, and all modern physicists have provided us with the most grotesque lies ever perpetrated about the universe. They insist that the universe had a finite commencement.

    Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical and Christian misinformation ever became evident on earth.

    Joe Fisher, Realist.

      Dear George Gantz,

      I very much enjoyed your essay, and appreciate your perspective, which you summarize nicely: "the unexamined faith is not worth believing." You discuss the articles of faith underlying current physics after first discussing a series of problematic findings. I believe the obvious success of quantum mechanics is compatible with a new (improved) interpretation of QM, but that is for another time. You begin with the first problem of space and time, noting that time and space came to be visualized as a four-dimensional topological manifold. After briefly discussing other aspects of the problem you ask:

      "But what should we believe? That our everyday experience of the flow of time is a fraud?"

      Something is a fraud, and my essay reviews the historical development of the above in a way you might find interesting. I hope you will read and enjoy my essay and grace me with a comment.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear George Gantz, you wrote a great essay worthy of a winner.

        If the believer to ask: "where is your God". He will answer: "In Heaven" so I say that space is the body of God.

        He ascended into heaven - this means it went into his body.

        The fundamental should be very simple and straightforward. The idea of God is simple and straightforward. The world is one because God is one. This eliminates the theory of Multi Universe.

        Visit my essay, which I have some examples of trying to convince others of the fruitfulness of the principle of Descartes's identity of space and matter.

        Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

          Dear George,

          I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          I have thoroughly enjoyed this Essay George and not sure why it had the rating of 3 to begin with, possibly due to this defiant use of the word FAITH in it's title.

          Thank you for sharing these well organized thoughts.

          At some level of the regress you escape rational analysis and the turtles exist outside rational thoughts, we call it magic. http://churchof.space chapter one.

          Determinism as in your point 2 page 7/ does not represent a dead end. Any feedback loop on a otherwise deterministic system will lead to loss of determinism as in sensitivity to initial conditions as we know from chaos theory and non-linear systems http://chaosbook.org

          I hope you will read my essay submission for you may find much echo to your points. Specifically the standing waves of the fabric of space, the memory of the aether, seems to resonate with interesting forms guiding QM and existing outside of carbon or indeed atoms, in the vacuum itself. This memory foam, as visualized in the walkers ontology (and described in my essay, SR-Aether), seems to couple back to the particle and guide it in a dynamic that mimics quantum mechanics via the chaos theory formalism. In there the superposition principle emerges as the notion of chaotic intermittence or the dynamic shapeshifting of non-linear (self coupled) systems etc as expounded in the more tongue in cheek CoS texts.

            Thanks, Jonathan - I look forward to reading your essay as well! - George

            Joe - I think your anger is both unfortunate and misplaced, and your comment reinforces the basic thesis of my essay --- that we all need to undertake a serious self-examination of the articles of faith that we are carrying with us into the inquiry.

            Cheers- George

            Eugene - Thanks, I look forward to reading your essay and finding out who perpetrated what fraud!

            Cheers - George

            Thank you Dizhenchko - I will look up your essay. I am a half-fan of Descartes so I'm sure it will be interesting!

            Cheers - George

            Marc - I look forward to reading your essay. I quite agree, after counting "turtles all the way down" it certainly seems like magic. But as for feedback loops in deterministic systems - that means they are not deterministic. Nevertheless, I have heard very smart physicists say they believe if we just knew all the initial conditions precisely we would be able to know the entire future trajectory....

            Cheers - George

            This one speaks to me above all others. Thank you for writing it. I could easily write a 20 pg response to this 10 pg essay. This is not to say I agree with everything you wrote. I simply choose to believe otherwise, but that is beside the point. The point is that ultimately, the truth involves what we choose to believe. Note that this is a self-referential statement. If it is taken as fact, then it is self-contradictory. The self-referential paradox is central to the problem of the human condition. Instead we reject this and navigate around it with whatever cognitive tools we can find. There must be ultimate facts. We only believe in things that are real. The ultimate truth must be logical. The proof is out there, we're not looking hard enough. Ultimately, reality must be some sort of unique unidirectional hierarchy, or objective dualism with an equals = sign in between. Maybe we can choose to believe anything. (Another self-referential statement). How about; "Only falsifiable proposals qualify as fact" (Not a falsifiable statement). In my essay, I frame the problem in terms of realism and idealism. As far as I can tell, this approach hasn't garnered much attention. The belief in the uni-truth is pervasive. To not believe in the uni-truth, is a self-referential paradox. Consider the following multiple choice question: All reality A) originates from random behavior, B) is determined by the laws of physics, C) Is consistent and logical, D) A set of (incompatible) schools of thought, E) All of the above. I make the self-contradictory selection E). I can't prove or disprove anything about this question. This question addresses the ultimate nature by asking about "all" reality. I choose to believe that when I ask such an ultimate question, I find myself in a philosophical tailspin. I don't "understand" it in the usual sense. I simply recognize and accept it. Ideas such as free, determined, logical, and relativism, (ABC and D) are useful in particular applications, but when I ask ultimate questions i.e. "what is fundamental?" I can pretty much argue from any place on the map. BTW this is a version of Russell's paradox where choosing the whole menu is paradoxical. Typically, we posit F) none of the above, and navigate around the problem with choices we claim as fact. You quoted Hawkins; "There is no theory- or theory independent concept of reality". This is a self-referential statement. (because it is Hawkins conception). "...model dependent realism" is an oxymoron. But I believe he is right. If you have not done so, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

            and realize the whole thing is a self-referential proposal. I can fool myself into thinking I've found the unequivocal answer here, but then I've just contradicted myself. I've trapped myself in the self-referential belief: Overall reality is a contradiction. If this statement is true, then then it must be a contradiction. Round and round I go. I can't expect anyone to agree. It's not logical. The only way out is to use the F word. And I don't mean facts. I avoid using the F word in my essay. Instead I use words like choice, interpretation, belief, assumption, acceptance, etc.... The word faith conjures the fraudulent and infantile religious beliefs abhorred by the prevailing materialism. We should expect to be thrown overboard. This precludes you from winning and this can only be a testament to your goodness. To find examples of the philosophical tailspin at the ultimate edge of understanding, we need look no further than cosmology; Ex-nihilo violation of conservation, time beginning at a point prior to which was not, space "in and of itself" inflating within a void of non-space, and other self-subsistent paradox. At the opposite edge of the observable Universe we have the paradoxes of QM. None of this makes sense, but I'm OK with that because I (choose) don't expect it to. This attitude is called humility. Other examples of the philosophical tailspin are freewill and determinism, spontaneous emergence of order vs intention (teleology), hidden variables, contingent Universe, measurement problem, and so on. The reproducible feature of the physically observable is what determines the laws. Using causality, we turn this around and suppose the laws determine the behavior. But what about things that only happen once? i.e. big bang? We can thank Gödel for formalizing the unavoidability of the self-referential problem. To what extent can we extrapolate predictive science to the unobservable? String and multiverse theories have the empiricists on suicide watch. For me these essays are an exposition of the human condition. A bit of introspection and humility goes a long way here. To have faith in nothing is worthless. I choose to believe my eyes that see a marvelous and intentional endeavor willing to sacrifice Himself for our blessings. I am a thinker and one day I found these thoughts do not really belong to me. What is fundamental? You nailed it. Usack@optonline.net.

              Dear George,

              I think you perfectly captured the scholastic dictum: Credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand). But do you think that anything rational can be said about what underlies understanding and logic?

              Heinrich

                George,

                Great essay with a lot to digest. I cannot help thinking of looking at our galaxy from the inside and the flaws in perception we experience -- BICEPs 2 for example, when reading "By analogy, we exist as conscious observers inside a box. Some of what we are trying to learn could only be observed from outside the box." More generally, we are looking at our universe from the inside rather than from the outside.

                These words are also true: "One of the consequences of a more open and honest discussion of our belief framework would be, I believe, an increase in our shared humility" I also try to emphasize that we may be too wedded to established thinking like "the Big Bang" and must keep our eyes and options open: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3035.

                So far, I think your essay is one of the best.

                Jim Hoover

                  5 days later

                  Victor - I read your extended comment with great interest. If you have not read them, I'm sure you wold enjoy the works of Lewis Carrol. I do not find the unraveling of realism or reductionism to be upsetting - just very curious and maybe a bit inspiring. As Carroll's character pointed it, it just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. So let's stay curious! And humble, of course. I look forward to reading your essay.

                  Heinrich -

                  Absolutely, we can talk about "what underlies understanding and logic" rationally, but on the important questions we have to give up the notion of infallibility. The frontiers of empirical knowledge, in my view, point to (but do not prove) truths about the wholeness of reality we experience, and the wise person will follow those pointers in assembling a worldview (faith and knowledge) that best serves the purposes of being human. I look forward to reading your essay.

                  Cheers - George

                  Thank you Jim for your kind words. In addition to looking at the universe from the inside, we are also looking at others from the outside. Much of the time we have to guess - best to do so cautiously and with utmost humility.

                  I look forward to your essay! - George

                  George,

                  I assume that your statement 'that faith may be interfering with physics' alludes to the perceived irreconcilable relationship between faith and reason, by which I am interpreting your interpretation of 'faith' as being religious convictions.

                  But the term 'faith' has much wider, generally applicable meanings; that of conviction, trust, reliance, assurance, belief, devotion, loyalty, etc. that are often applicable to scientific theories that have not been established and endorsed as 'true'. Indeed what scientific knowledge is unequivocally certain and correct for all time? Your point is well taken when you state 'There are some conundrums in mathematics, however, that will never be solved'; not withstanding our understanding that 'never' is a long, long time. As you have further stated; 'the incompleteness findings apply to every branch of mathematics.' From a practical point of view we need not seek perfection in terms of the absolute truth but rather proceed until we have achieved tentative conclusions that have utility values.

                  Concerning your question 'How does intelligence emerge from unintelligent components?'; your answer preceded your question; i.e. that 'all interesting structures' ... 'exhibit increases in order, structure and variety quite at odds with the Second Law' 'All' is a dangerous word to use but I get the gist of your point - that evolution compounds complexity.

                  The notion that '... anomalies are all explainable within the laws of nature' is more succinctly posited if we substitute the word 'principles' for 'laws'. Strict laws are absolute while principles accommodate deviations within limits.

                  To state that there are 'no' non-physical causes the 'no' cannot be confirmed (much like 'never' and 'all' referred to above). These terms should not be used if we are trying to convey the truth as we know it. If there is a God he (she or it) may well call you to account unless he elects to expose himself physically.

                  The issue of a single universe vs. the multiverse theory is not going away soon. I think that you are correct in suggesting that 'the choice boils down to an ideological one - what are you comfortable in believing?'

                  Your conclusion is exquisitely stated.

                  Thank you.

                  Gary.

                  Gary - Thanks for the comments.

                  No, I am not using the word "faith" as meaning religious teachings, but in a broader sense: s belief, a conviction, that something is true (or almost certainly true) even when evidence may be weak, scarce, totally theoretical or inaccessible. The philosophical commitment to a choiceless cosmos (reflected in determinism and in the multiverse theory) is an example. Other essays are also quite critical of these and similar ideological commitments and the ferocity with which they are sometimes defended.

                  On the other hand, if we define "religion" more loosely, in line with what Einstein suggested, then I would agree that articles of faith are indicative of one's religion.

                  Moreover, I would argue that faith and reason are not irreconcilable - they should be partners in our open inquiry into the foundations of life as well as science.

                  Thanks - George