Faith is Fundamental by George Gantz

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

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.

Hi George Gantz

Very good flow of writing ... "our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith" is correctly said Best wishes to the essay , hope this also will go better than ..."Tip of the spear" dear George Gantz

............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.... You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Hi George,

I find you just amazing! Your writing radiates peace and well being AND provides well thought out content. You give every visitor to your blog something that will help them. In the last essay contest I was grousing about Max Tegmark and how he used the contest to further his own agenda...Your response to me was "sometimes you just have to go for the bait".... I started laughing and am still laughing!

You could have used the word "belief" instead of "faith" in the title of this work and gotten a higher score. But that is not how you work... faith is closer to what is really fundamental.

Thanks for lighting up this contest.

Don Limuti

George,

Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have scored yours on 1/23. Thanks for your kind words about mine.

Jim Hoover

Dear George Gantz,

excuse me that I write my comment without blank lines - the fqxi's formatting system seems to have a bug. I read your essay and must say that you present well-balanced and reasonable arguments to handle the question "what is fundamental?". Not only are your arguments reasonable intellectually, but they also consider the emotional part of every human being - be it a scientist, philosopher, biologist or otherwise interested reader of the essay contest's topic. You present valuable and logical arguments, and none of them try to eliminate the very tool with which we can come to our conclusions, namely consciousness. Moreover, it seems to me that you take it as not irrational to conclude from the existence of consciousness that the latter has to play a certain important role for answering the essay contest's question, since without consciousness, there would be no question. Again, moreover, you value the fact that there are not only self-aware beings, but these beings are also aware of an external reality which surprisingly can be modeled to a certain degree by mathematics. All in all I like your essay very much, since it is out-of-the-box of exclusively arguing only for fitting certain mainstream ideas. It escapes the transformation of physics into another social science, but keeps the psychology, the very causa finalis that drives all participants trying to fathom the depths of existence and its overall meaning. In my opinion your essay is too important to be not under the finalists and I give you my 10 points so it may succeed this purpose and we can see how the judges decide. Since in this forum it may well happen that you are downrated after some good score, I tell you that you are now by 5.9 with 8 ratings and you will be by approximately 6.4 and 9 ratings after my scoring.

Dear George Gantz,

Congratulations on a thoughtful and perceptive essay. I particularly liked the remark 'the unexamined faith is not worth believing in'!

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah