Can God find a place in physics? St. Augustine\'s philosophy meets general relativity by Ettore Minguzzi

Dear Dr. Crowell,

How do you arrive at this equation? Are you saying that the created is in addition to, added onto, and independent of its Creator? How is that possible? How does reality exist outside of infinity? What is your scientific basis for attributing the 'property?' of infinity to a Creator? Perhaps you might explain: What is the cause of the universe? What is the nature, not name, of any fundamental cause? And: What is the scientific explanation for the origin of intelligence? Can dumbness give rise intelligence? Is there empirical evidence for such a phenomenon?

James

I am not a theologeon, but as I see it God is sort of the infinite unknown or unknowable. Even the Bible references that. Job is told "where were you when I laid the foundations...?" to signify that specific answers are not available about God. Paul makes reference to that in Hebrews "Faith is the evidence of things unseen ..." So theological ideas are not effective in science, which is about the evidence of things seen.

The "cause" of the universe is some quantum fluctuation. The nothingness is a vacuum that is unstable. Of course this might not be exactly a philosopher's idea of nothing, but it is good enough. The universe is then a map from one form of nothingess, this vacuum configuration, to another that is an Minkowski spacetime or void. In conformal geometry everything else in between in this map, or time evolution, is also in fact nothing. This is not exactly how I see things to be honest, but it is somewhat close.

Cheers LC

Dear Dr. Crowell,

Thank you for your reply. Quotes from the Bible may or may not have relevance. I was asking about scientific explanations. Science for us is limited to what empirical evidence tells us. It is the case for theoretical scientists that scientific answers are not limited as such. For theoretical physicists, imagination is important because it can be applied in the form of names and ideas to otherwise unknown properties.

"The "cause" of the universe is some quantum fluctuation. The nothingness is a vacuum that is unstable. Of course this might not be exactly a philosopher's idea of nothing, but it is good enough. The universe is then a map from one form of nothingess, this vacuum configuration, to another that is an Minkowski spacetime or void. In conformal geometry everything else in between in this map, or time evolution, is also in fact nothing."

The cause of the universe is not some quantum fluctuation of 'energy?'. At least it isn't until physicists can explain what is energy other than a mechanical type idea applied to mechanical type theory. What is energy? Is there even a thimble full of energy held somewhere in a labratory so that we may witness its substance? Is energy the real God? Then perhaps 'energy' theory can give at least a clue to the origin of intelligence?

Re-quoting: "The universe is then a map from one form of nothingess, this vacuum configuration, to another that is an Minkowski spacetime or void."

What is the official definition of 'nothingness'? Minkowski spacetime is only of use to theorists. We have never been able to contain any portion of either space or time. There is nothing, (or is there?), upon which we can experiment that would tell us anything about fundamental properties of either space or time. There is only evidence about how objects move and sometimes change? How does this evidence tell us anything about life and intelligence?

Can dumbness morph into intelligence? There is no point in pushing atheism until there are better and more relevant answers offered than: The vacuum, (nothing?), fluctuated? Or: A ,(force?), caused that effect? Or: That Minkowski or Einstein gave us anything more than theory that fit, in the manner that they made it fit, the patterns observed in empirical data?

My point is this: Neither you nor I can define a Creator. Neither you nor I can explain the origin of intelligence. There is no equation that can capture the essence of either of these (except perhaps new work such as Dr. Klingman's).

The Bible is not the basis of my questions. I think that pronouncements about the origin of the universe, life, and intelligence are philosophical choices. So long as those pronouncements are put forward as personal opinions, there is no problem. When they are put forward as scientific knowledge, then they need to be challenged for authenticity.

James

My point is not atheism. It is that God is a category, or a set of attributes, which by their basic definition are not amenable to scientific study. This essay by Minguzzi draws some parallels between Augustine's ideas about time or timelessnes with the Taub-NUT spacetime. It really only goes that far, but it does not prove the existence of God per se.

Cheers LC

Dr. Crowell,

Actually there are properties that might lead one to believe in God, other than the testimonies of disciples. They are the most important properties of the universe, life and intelligence. Physics, at this present time, does not officially, as far as I know, have anything of importance to add to the investigation of intelligent life. I have noticed that you take opportunities to challenge theism, but I have not noticed a willingness on your part to challenge atheism. If you are not promoting atheism, then I have misjudged you.

However, if there is anyone out there who believes that atheism is bolstered by empirical evidence or theoretical science, then I would be interested in hearing their arguments. As someone, i.e. myself, who does not have a religion, but, also someone who recognizes that atheism has nothing to support its view other than a mechanical ideology that has been artificially pressed upon theoretical physics, I look forward to conversations with those who would claim physics evidence as demonstrating that a Creator is unnecessary to explain the existence of physicists and all other intelligent life.

Although I do not personally know the ultimate final answer to the origin of the universe, it does seem clear to me that up to this point atheism is the silliest, certainly not scientific, answer. Any evidence of intelligence requires the pre-existence of an intelligent source. Saint Augustine demonstrated that as a fact.

James

Theism as a route to explaining the natural world amounts to saying there are supernatural processes, call it magic maybe, involved with things. So it means there are fundamental barriers to certain questions imposed by supernatural interventions. This is not really a statement of atheism, but it does mean that theism is not an effective approach in scientific research.

Cheers LC

Dr. Crowell,

Theism is no more supernatural than is theoretical physics. To say that theism is supernatural while theoretical causes of changes of velocity are natural is purely opinion. They both rely upon unknown cause or causes. However, theism has the advantage of relying upon natural properties for its beliefs. They are the real properties of life and intelligence.

The theoretical properties of theoretical physics are unnatural, by definition, until they can be proven. What is electric charge? What train of cause and effect of any of the mechanical type causes of theoretical physics can demonstrate a credible linkage between the fundamental properties of the universe and human free will?

We do not know what cause is. Is it your position that we do know what cause is? What would be an example of an explanation of the nature of a cause? Obviously I ask for more than its name and effects. Is there a logical connection between such an example and the evolution of intelligent life? What about intelligence? What is its cause? Such a cause must already be a primary part of any natural explanation of the nature of the universe.

James

From a scientific perspective I don't know what the nature of consciousness is. I am not a neurophysiologist.

Religious explanations of things do tend to rely on the supernatural, such as water into wine, or God said, "Let there be light."

Cheers LC

Dr.Crowell,

I have not introduced any religious explanations, you did. I keep trying to keep my remarks based in empirical science. However, let's venture into the turbulent difficulties of religious belief. You quoted: "God said let there be light." If you rely upon the Hebrew word instead of the English word you will find that that word 'light' is all inclusive. It refers to physical light, awareness, understanding, intelligence, everything that is more properly represented by the word English word 'illumination'. In other words, it is illumination in its fullest sense.

James

There are a number of Hebrew words for light, of which some do mean the same as a general meaning "illumination." What you are talking about is more of a metaphysical "beingness," which is the same as Hawking's question on why to the equations "fly." This is an interesting thing to think about, but honestly I think they fall outside the domain of science. There are not likely to be empirical supports for any conjecture along these lines.

Cheers LC

DR. Crowell,

I know you are correct about that. My intention was not to claim legitimacy for religious beliefs, but rather to suggest that the fundamental causes put forward by theoretical physicists are no more proven natural than are some other types of beliefs. I think the word natural is often used to exhalt theoretical, mechanical type ideas about fundamental cause above the clearly natural properties of information and intelligence. I do not think that those who believe in the reality of mechanical type causes should be left free to claim the word natural as applying solely to their belief system. I say that information and intelligence are the natural, first principles of the nature of the universe. Everything else results from the natural application of these two properties.

James

I have been conversing with Dr. Crowell here in Dr. Minguzzi's forum. I had already read Dr. Minguzzi's essay earlier and rated it a 10. My exchanges with Dr. Crowell were intended to bolster the writings of St. Augustine and their application to physics theory. ST. Augustine was no fool. He was a superior intellect. He was Christian and he did promote the Christian faith. However, for the purposes of theoretical physics, I want to point out that he was the one, perhaps not the first, but the one who's writings still exist where he logically establishes that the pre-existence of intelligence is required in order for human's to understand anything at all.

His position was that everything that we could possibly learn was due to our internal source of intelligence that already contained everything that we would ever learn. He credited the internal aspect of Christ with giving us that knowledge. I will not go that far for scientific reasons and because I do not have a religion. What I will point out is that: Whatever anyone wishes to credit our intelligence with, empirical evidence establishes that we do already contain all understanding necessary to make sense of all information we receive from the outside world. St. Augustine's argument in favor of this is found in his book 'Concerning The Teacher'. My apologies to Dr. Minguzzi if I have improperly used his forum to argue this case.

James

Minguzzi's paper is meant to draw parallels between Augustines ideas about time, of which he had several (a potter's wheel count time etc). The article is interesting, though it is clear that Augustine had no concept of relativity or spacetime physics. He was educated in his day by Aristotelian philosophy, which he applied to the theology of Christianity. He was also guided by a sense of the fragility of world, as the ancient world was collapsing around him.

However, I pretty adamantly think that theological notions are outside the thinking of science. Further, to equate postulates of physics, or what might be called physical axioms, with theology is post-modernism. Physical postulates describe a world system that results in repeated or consistent observations. Theological statements of faith don't fill that role.

Cheers LC

Dr. Crowell,

It was good that St. Augustine had no concept of the theory of relativity or spacetime physics. That would have made him susceptible to the errors of modern theoretical physics. Rather he was clear thinking in establishing the priority of the real property of intelligence. Information and intelligence are the prime ingredients of the nature of the universe. These properties are not theological notions. Perhaps I should ask first: Do you think they are theological notions?

James

St. Augustine addressed the problem of the existence of intelligence. Modern theoretical physics has nothing to say about the same. Any theory put forward about the nature of the universe must address the existence of intelligence. Any theory that does not do this is merely a theory of mechanical convenience.

James

Dr. Crowell,

Quoting you: "Physical postulates describe a world system that results in repeated or consistent observations. Theological statements of faith don't fill that role."

Actually the physical postulates of theoretical physics describe a robot world that results in repeated or consistent observations of imaginary mechanical type causes and real mechanical type effects. I do not make theological statements of faith. You are playing the wrong game with me. I make statements about the existence of information and intelligence. I have seen nothing that you have said that addresses anything to do with properties the universe that give rise to intelligent life. If you think that the causes of these properties are known, then please at least name them so that we may discuss them.

James

If you read my essay you will see that it connects with quantum information. As for consciousness or intelligence, I am not prepared to make any declaration about that from a physics perspective. These faculties do appear to be involved with the brain and its physiological or biological basis. I am aware of, but no expert on, studies of brain dynamics which cast pretty serious doubts on the deux ex machine or ghost in the machine idea.

I am not making any strict atheistic statement here in line with Dawkins and others. Yet, I do think that theological ideas and science are largely separate, maybe analogous to the separation of churck and state idea. I think too much of an overlap results in corruption of both science and religion,

Cheers LC

Dr. Crowell,

I did read your essay. I do not agree with the approach. However, I do recognize that your work represents advanced theory. Your skills are high and to be respected. I gave you a 10 for sharing what you know and think at such a high level. You essay entry was an important contribution to the quality of this contest.

James

Thanks for the high score. Of course I came in at a 3.4 or so, so I did not enter the winner circle. Minguzzi's paper was pretty good as well. I can't remember what score I gave yours, which was a month ago or so.

Cleers LC