Response to : "Who Created you?" (2)
Aparthib Zaman
In response to Ryan:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3131
=====================================================
First I
must clarify that I don't usually send a post with just one person in mind.
And I apologize if I misquoted Ryan or anyone. But my thrust was
on the views shared by those who seem to ask the rhetorical question "Who
created you" to suggest a divine designer , and hence my points were
quite general against that for everyone's consumption, although I just
happened to hit the reply button to Ryan's post as thats when I thought
I could throw in my few cents . I will continue to follow that spirit while
addressing some specific questions raised by Ryan.
Ryan wrote: >>>>>>
>"IT IS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. What is not known is what is the
underlying natural cause, if any, behind the existence of THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS." SO, am I correct in asking you that it MAY NOT be the laws of Physics?
Even though the 'PROBABILITY' may be 99.9%? COULD it be that 'SOMETHING'
actually MAY have 'made' these laws of Physics? I am not an expert on
anything, I am only asking you, as I am here to learn and exchange
ideas.<<<<<<<<
The above clearly shows that my original assertion was not read
carefully. By UNKNOWN I was referring to the underlying natural CAUSE, IF
any, BEHIND the EXISTENCE of LAWS of PHYSICS. That is not the name
as saying : "It MAY NOT be the laws of Physics?". I
said quite precisely what I meant. I was referring to our inability
to say anything beyond the laws of Physics, which explains reality. Any talk
about beyond the reality (both tangible like matter, e.g electrons, chair etc
and intangible like hyperspace, super string etc) is bound to be a vague
metaphysical speculation. And any question about the realm beyond reality
may not be even meaningful question with a meaningful answer, BECAUSE an
unknown cannot be necessarily discussed in terms of the known always. The
question/issue of what is the ORIGIN of scientific laws itself, (
i.e the question as to why does a set of scientific laws exist at all
which explains this universe and life so beautifully?) is thus not necessarily
a meaningful question. This is because an effect cannot be used explain the
cause of the effect. And an effect may not always have a cause as we
understand it. Besides if the origin of the laws of Physics (Lets call it
superphysics) were explainable by Physics then that Superphysics would be
simply subsumed within physics, physics will only expand its domain. The
origin of Physics will remain an unknown and logically impossible to explain.
The "Why/How" about ultimate reality assumes there is an answer and
we have a language to express it, thus breaking the cycle of whys. But this
may not be the case. The cause-effect chain may not
end fat all. We don’t know. Physics is the limit of our whys.We humans find
it hard live with the possibility of unexplainable, ultimate ignorance,
hence they artificially invent circular terms like
God, Creator, etc, without realizing that such inventions of mere words do not
dispel the ultimate ignorance about the origin of reality. And finally a note
on humility. Once Nobel laureate Feynman
said "If anyone thinks he knows Quantum mechanics he doesn't know Quantum
mechanics".
That quote of Feynman was made to emphasize that Quantum Mechanics
is extremely difficult to comprehend and is not fully understood even now by
any Physicist. Metaphorically speaking, one needs to understand at least
90 % to know that they don't understand it 100%. It is the most profound
insight of human understanding of nature, and it still has unsolved mysteries,
like the notion of "time", role of observer in observation to
name a few. So anyone who says he/she understands it does not even understand
it 90%, so in effect does not understand it. Similarly to appreciate the
limits of human knowledge one need to know and understand what those limits
are (i.e the laws of Physics) well. When a theist, who does not know
much about cosmology and Quauntum Mechanics speaks about limits of human
understanding to emphasize that nothing can be ruled out does not merit much
attention. Because in argument from ignorance nothing can be ruled in either,
not much can be said meaningfully one way or the other.
Now to discuss further the problem of asking the nature of the ultimate
reality, imagine a group of humans forming a pattern on a large field
each following instructions as appropriate to form the pattern. An
observer on a plane or atop a tall building above can see the pattern formed
by the humans below. A particular human below who is a part of the human
pattern can never see the pattern while being part of the pattern. And if that
human is never told about the pattern, blindfolded, not knowing he is with
some fellow humans forming a pattern, then question as to what pattern he and
others around him are making would not even make sense to him
or enter his mind. Our position in reality is similar. We can understand
reality only upto certain level. Anything further beyond that level is pure
speculation and mostly meaningless, especially if that speculation is made
without even understanding what is
known (the limiting level, i.e science). Thus most of the speculations of
mystics and theists are meaningless constructs and conclusions (to humans race
collectively, not may be to them individually).
Anyway, Physics or any science is not a closed book. The frontier of
science is ever expanding. Science being self-correcting, any flaws in it, if
any, can only be detected by scientists through the scientific method, and
are eliminated. The case of "discovery of cold fusion" serves
as a prototypical example of that self-correction. Science has LIMITS,
not FLAWS. There is a huge difference. What is the cause behind the
existence of the laws of Physics? Maybe nothing, maybe it is there
from eternity till eternity uncaused. Or maybe not. Maybe some more
fundamental cause exists a layer above it. But thats
all it can be said about it. Nothing more or specific. And saying
sa "maybe'" would not be profound anyway, but an
acknowledgment of finiteness of our perception. Please read the
following if you want my detailed view (or formulation thereof) on
this question:
http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion.html#article10
Ryan wrote: >>>>>>
>"Cool, so please explain the PROVEN existence of BLACK HOLES! :-)
If 'EVERYTHING' is governed by the laws of Physics (which may not be the 'be
all and end all' as you yourself implied) then please explain
why BLACK HOLES are NOT governed by the laws of Physics? It has been
proven that 'NO PHYSICAL LAWS EXIST IN BLACK HOLES' Nothing can
ESCAPE the PULL of a BLACK HOLE, not even the FASTEST 'THING' in
EXISTENCE which is LIGHT! So obviously not 'EVERYTHING' is governed by
Physical laws! :-)
First the statement: "BLACK HOLES are NOT
governed by the laws of Physics" is
WRONG! Black holes represent an INTENSE gravity in a SMALL scale. The intense
requires Full Machinery of
General Theory of Relativity. The SMALL requires the Full machinery of Quantum
Field Theory. Both are individually well-founded. But the marriage of the two
(Quantum Cosmology) is incomplete. Thats why a full analysis of the INSIDE of
a BH is not possible by present mathematical technology. Once quantum
cosmology is developed fully, black hole physics will be in a tractable form.
It is the limits of contemporary PHYSICISTS, not PHYSICS that Quantum
cosmology is incomplete(to date). So it is not that Physics breaks down, but
that the Laws of Quantum mechanics and General relativity separately breaks
down inside a BH, but not the synthesis of the two.
It is a technical issue among Physicists, and it is interesting to see how
layfolks can paraphrase their words
to draw vague metaphysical conclusions.
BTW, Black holes (i.e singularities) ARE predicted (explained) by the general
theory of relativity of Einstein. Chandrasekhar derived it by
ingenious work on Einstein's equation (Chandra was famous (or infamous) for
pushing the limits of equations to extreme by painstaking math. It is said
that he could write hundreds of lines of math in one stroke on the board
without any math. He predicted Black Hole 60 years ago. He was
vindicated fortunately before his death through the Nobel award in physics. He
wrote a highly mathematical PHYSICS text on Black Holes 650 pages
long! And to say that Black Hole is not governed by the "laws of
Physics" is to say he wrote nonsense, the text book taught in
prestigious graduate schools by a Nobel Physicist is gibberish (And FYI
no physicist makes such statement about Black Hole).
Ryan wrote
>>>>>> "The nature of the laws of physics" You
mean the 'potentially FLAWED' natural laws of Physics? :-)
You probably meant it. Not me :). See my preceding discussions. Now let me respond to your following comments (The heart of this post):
Ryan wrote
>>>>>>So these leading Physicists and Biologists are
ABSOLUTELY right? And their word
is 'law'? Can you not question anything yourself? Could
they be wrong in 'some' ways? Surely you can think for yourself right? :-) You
seem to think that 'Science' (I use the term loosely) is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
Well I can tell you its not! Nor is MATH! But dont take my word for it, read
this book and tell me what you think:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/046087411X/ref==bxgy_sr_text_a/103-0389065-5350236
DOUBT EVERYTHING! EVEN SCIENCE! :-)
My challenge to you: quote from any science book, any scientist, the statement that "SCIENCE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH". I did not "think" that either. I wonder how
can one read (or attempt to) anyone's mind through in cyber space :)
Anyway moving on. It is doubting itself that led to the emergence of scientific method and hence science in the first place. Science and doubt (skepticism) go hand in hand. So it does not make sense to doubt doubt itself. Science is self-correcting. It is the scientists who can make statements like "That was the biggest blunder of my life" Guess who said that and why? None other than the man of the 20ty century Einstein referring to the inclusion of a cosmological constant in his equation of general relativity. He was wrong from 1929 upto 1998 when new observations about inflation of space validated his original inclusion albeit much smaller in value. The book cited above is by Descartes. Most medieval philosophers are irrelevant today. They are of historical interest to trace the evolution of human thought. But even Aristotle is child if judged by today’s intellectual advancement. So it is an anachronism to resort to ancient or medieval philosophers for contemporary issues, issues that are scientific in nature. Figuratively speaking, When the average human knowledge is 1.5, then an insight of 3.0 is extraordinary. But when the average intellect advances to 5.0, 3.0 is not worth writing home about. Its all relative. Here's an interesting quote by Dawkins from his BBC lecture in November 1996 :
"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. And you could thrill him to the core of his being. Aristotle was an encyclopedic polymath, an all time intellect. Yet not only can you know more than him about the world. You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works. Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
For the remainder of Dawkin's lecture go to:
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/dimbleby.htm
So, I would rather suggest reading Daniel Dennet, Paul Davies, David Deutsch, Robert Rosen and others, to get a good glimpse on the latest state of human understanding about reality. And to understand the limits of science and human understanding I would recommend books by contemporary distinguished scientists and philosophers themselves like "Doubt and Certainty" by Sudarshan and Rothman, (see http://www.california.com/~rpcman/doubt&certainty.htm ) "The Limits of Science" by Sir Peter Medawar and another book on the same topic by John Barrow, whose title I can't recall at the moment, but that topic is covered also in a chapter in his other book "Between inner spoabce and outer space" I am not sure what point you tried to make in this content by referring to that book by Descartes, it would have been preferable to make the point directly and show how it clashed with what I said, which reflects the views of contemporary scientists and philosophers (I am just the messenger here:)
But it will be a travesty of facts to stretch the meaning of limits to draw the conclusion that there is no objective truth (If not absolute). Let us take a simple example. A
nuclear bomb is made applying the laws of Physics (Quantum Physics applied to nucleus). It can be made repeatedly without fail by applying those laws of physics. Secondly, an airplane is designed using the basic principle of Physics known as Bernoilli's principle. Now would you say the principles of physics behind the making of a nuclear bomb and an airplane are not objective truths, or why not even absolute truths?
If it feels like absolute truth, if it looks like an absolute truth, then it is an absolute truth! Can you cite the criteria to be met by a given truth to be a candidate for absoluteness.
The point is that not ALL truths are absolute by any criteria, but SOME will be, has to be, otherwise the statement "absolute truth" itself will cease to be a meaningful English construct, worth even debating. Humans don't invent words or expressions that point to any non-existent entity.
It is a trivially true statement that human knowledge and understanding is and will always be limited. It cannot be an issue of debate. But our observations should correctly reflect hat we know and what we don't. And that is often a problematic issue and worthy of debate.
Finally, I just want to make this redundant statement jsut for the not so alert reader that everything I said so far is consistent with the paradigm that human mind (scientists, you and ME anyone) has limitations. Not all is known that can be known. There are lot more to learn.
Aparthib
======================================================
