Theory of everything? Metaphysics, God & evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
61

I do not believe that a scientific theory could ever quantify the totality of reality because I do not believe reality is limited to what is quantifiable. Like I said, I think science is only possible because of the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe and as a result science can never tell us about reality which is outside (not a part of) that structure. All science will ever be able to tell us about is the physical universe.

Having been through a year of graduate level Topology, this is pretty rudimentary stuff for me. What can I say but that this is all correct and legit. Oh I know what I can tell you… I did one of the science fiction novels I wrote (not published) in a world with the topology of a projective plane. How can I describe it to you? It was a world with a north pole and an equator but no south pole. In other words when go from the north pole past the equator and keep going you end up back at the the north pole (from the opposite direction you left).

Hmmm… where might you have seen a projective plane before? Perhaps in a computer game where the play space or map is made to wrap around in way so that you when you leave screen or map you come back at the point directly opposite the point you left (defined by drawing a line through the center of the screen). In a game like that you are playing on a projective plane. It is just a subtle difference not a huge one. But it is a bit difficult to represent such a thing in 3 dimensions, but here is an attempt from wikipedia.

1 Like
62

Hello again,

I’ve done a bit of a look through the whole discussion so far. A lot has indeed been said. One way of looking at this thread so far is that there have been two broad themes (overlapping like circles in a Venn diagram … but still seperate)

  1. Discussions about the nature of the Bible and God
  2. Somewhat scientific and sometimes philosophical propositions as to what the spiritual realm is and how it works

I’m going to try and focus more on point 2. for a while - point 1 is interesting for sure but the deeper intension of this thread is to really hammer out point 2, particularly with reference to the scientific and to see where that leads.

To that end, I’ll make some brief comments below for now and let’s see where that goes (hopefully any points not yet addressed by others will be as the discussion continues)

Hmm, feels very dualistic. I guess my thoughts right now about a comment like that are that such a view may be very limiting of the possibilities we could actually discover. I think I know what you mean generally however the take away extrapolations could hinder honest investigation, if taken to heart.
I’m thinking of Corpernicus as he looked through his telescope up into the sky all those years ago; stroking his chin, making his notes, doing his reading - thinking and musing over what he was seeing for years. If he and anyone like him just accepted
“well the Bible and general philosophical thought says the earth is the centre of it all, I better just believe that and let it go” - our knowledge of actual reality today would be so much less. In a similar way thoughts like “the material and spiritual worlds are seperate and the material world cannot know or perceive the spiritual” may act as a wall over which certain people are not prepared to climb over.
I feel there do lay before us possibilities not yet properly explored about how we might understand the supernatural - the unseen, the unknown, the ‘next to the normal’ (paranormal). I feel it’s time, like Darwin and like Copernicus, who were ridiculed, derided and attacked though not dissuaded, to not let old ways of thinking hold us back from amazing things we may find if we have the courage to, gently and respectively but nonetheless decisively, set aside old ways of looking at the world … to take a second look with a new perspective, a new honesty and a humility that we may not actually be right about what we think … and that the world may have a bunch more to show us yet.

On this note, I feel if we (humanity) carefully, thoughtfully and determinedly apply the scientific method to what we consider certain aspects of the spiritual/paranormal - we will eventually start to see some very interesting things.

Stepping out in that direction - I’d like to put out here my current hypothesis- a hypothesis about what the result of several hypothesis combined into some kind of mega study would be. It is this:
If approximately 20 well considered hypothesis were set out, hypothesis about how the unseen/spiritual/paranormal realm might indeed relate to the laws of physics etc, and if these hypothesis could somehow be tested, we would by the accumulation of those findings begin to breakthrough into uncharted scientific waters. This would almost certainly eventually lead to all kinds of incredible scientific breakthroughs previously never considered possible

I have been tinkering around with a few hypothesis, they indeed are not easy to formulate. In thinking many things through, I throw out the following teaser - it is only one, there are a lot more on the bubble and I’d love to hear some other ones from people reading (give it a go :slight_smile:

Hypothesis 1:
The electrical current generated in our bodies can, in very infinitesimal yet significant ways, be effected by our mood/emotional state and by the emotional state of others - this is why we can ‘sense’ the tension in a room - because we are actually picking up on electrical brain waves of a certain pattern that impact us in a deep way.

General comments:
I am aware some research of this nature already exists, e.g. EEG Brain waves and emotion measurement but also a lot, lot more. All very interesting (I am not well read in this area, but slowly intend to get more informed)
I’m not exactly sure right now … but I think the spiritual realm might be a lot more connected to this general area than we currently realise. I’ll come up with some other hypothesis later to flesh this idea out … but somehow I believe the essence of a living person can continue on after their physical body stops working (commonly held view by most of the world) - perhaps this is in a similar way to how once an electron is observed it seems to react to the observer (I understand?) - in a similar way brain waves, emotion, the spirit, our perception and memories may well be intertwined more than we realise such that someone’s ‘active force’ can continue on after they have passed, especially in those it already touched but also to those who might come into contact with what it came into contact with.

It’s this kind of thinking I’m really hoping we can all flesh out together. What an amazing experience that would be to work on … and in the end, I am very confident it would end up both glorifying God, that is the ultimate Highest Being there is (and improving our understanding of him, especially if we look at this with his spirit in us). In that vein, I’m confident honest investigation into this general area could strengthen both our faith at the same time as very much deepening our understanding of the universe that we live in as a whole - more than likely leading us to have to reassess a lot of our old assumptions …

63

Paul speaks of a tradition in 1 Cor. 15, written in the 50s, just two decades after Jesus’ resurrection. Compare that to the Pentateuch. Hebrew had no written tradition until alphabetic script was adapted to their language around 1000 BC. By the most conservative interpreter’s reckoning, Moses would’ve lived around 1500 BC, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a thousand years prior to that. (I’ll set aside Adam and Noah.) The stories of the patriarchs would have to have been passed down orally for more time than has passed since Jesus’ death. (Again, by the most conservative reckoning.)

Imagine if no written language existed until our own time, and the gospels were just now set down in written form. Would we expect it to quote Jesus word-for-word? But we expect the conversations recorded in Genesis 12-50 to be word-for-word inerrant? The only way that works is if the Holy Spirit dictated the Bible word-for-word to the original authors, and that model of inspiration turns the authors into puppets.

The comparison is by no means exact, because we haven’t lived in an exclusively oral culture for thousands of years. The game of “telephone” doesn’t apply because the stories of their ancestors were the ties that bound the community together, so great value would’ve been placed on transmitting that narrative from generation to generation.

This is stepping into the deep end, but the prophetic critique of priesthood and monarchy started long before the captivity. I previously took the position of the most conservative dating of Moses and the patriarchs. Now, I’ll take the most liberal view, using Isaiah as my example. Even by the “school of Isaiah” view that divides the book into three “authorships,” Isaiah 1-39 was written in the mid-eighth century (~750 BC). Other 8th century BC writing prophets were Amos, Hosea, and Micah. All of these were written centuries before the Exile. In short, the prophetic critique of ANE empire isn’t anachronistic to the Exile. It just received sharper focus.

More tomorrow. My wifi has been intermittent the past few weeks, and my wife needs to commandeer my work space to connect to her Zoom meetings. She’s working on COVID-19 research trials for UNM, so who am I to complain?

3 Likes
64

Angelic visitations and indeed, visitations from God and the spiritual in general are a big theme through the Bible. I do wonder whether anyone has ever done some kind of review of such things - even just to see how common they are and understand them a bit more.
The whole topic of angels is a very interesting one … what and who are they? How they do fit into the context of the earth being 4 billion years old??
Job 38:4-7 says
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
‭‭Are angels then literally billions of years old??? @gbob being a biblical literalist … what do you reckon? (have been meaning to officially ask you that for a while). And what have those angels, in this way of thinking, possibly been doing all that time?? A million years is a mere day so to speak (I’d expect a ‘the way they view and experience time is different to us’ type answer and no doubt it would be … but would be fun to read something a little more creative haha. I tease).
We’re angels just watching us evolve? Did they know God’s mind and plan? What were they doing that whole time and when oh when did the ‘war in the heavens’ Revelation 12 speaks of happen?

Angels can appear as human and even eat food (Genesis 18) … if they can eat food, what else can they do?? Clearly they are able to move between the spiritual realm and natural realm.
In a similar way - and I’ve been wanting to say this for a while too - Jesus says of what things will be like after the resurrection;
“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭12:25‬ ‭
Jesus is the “firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18) and so his ‘body’ after his resurrection typifies what ours will be like … and according to Mark 12:25 it is like the body of angels. As such, Jesus , like many of the angels is able to ‘suddenly appear’ (Luke 24:36) and yet eat food (Luke 24:41-43). By what means might this happen?? Well @Mincaesar I reckon you’re onto it when you say:

All matter - spiritual and physical has to be linked, in some way by means of angels being like how we will be after the resurrection and Jesus showing us that we can still be touched, have a body and eat food and yet - appear and disappear.

I do realise that how this all works is basically a mystery that is being purposely hidden from us
“But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭ESV‬‬
But it is interesting to think about…

65

Time only applies to beings in this universe. Time and space are intertwined via general relativity. So, unless you believe that angels are creatures of this universe and subject to these laws, their age is a question that doesn’t apply.

Nice try at a gotcha question. This is the kind of question I get from those who wish to make fun of my views rather than doing the diffucult job of actually thinking about the data I have presented. It is ok, it comes with the territory when one wants to propose something outside of the group think of the day.

66

And if the spiritual is not composed of matter?

Right.

Let’s see …

  1. Ehrman was only partially correct. Because humans have logic, reason, language, and the ability to understand the intentions/goals/beliefs of another creature (empathy and theory of mind), we have the capacity to understand God well enough to have a relationship with him. What we lack is the ability to completely comprehend God’s thoughts or reasons for acting. In other words, there is a gulf between us and God, but the gulf isn’t completely unbridgeable.

  2. Right. (See above)

  3. I answered this one about separating what is “real” about spiritual matters a week ago in post #59. We cannot absolutely know whether the spiritual exists or doesn’t. Belief is a choice. We can examine the various human constructs (religions) and choose between them based on reason, experience, and intuition, but if you’re looking for certainty, you won’t find it.

Here’s an article by Lara Buchak of UC Berkeley that you might find helpful:
Can it be Rational to have Faith?
“I seek to develop a unified account of statements of faith concerning mundane matters and those concerning religious faith. To do so, I consider the sense in which faith requires going beyond the evidence, and argue that faith requires terminating the search for further evidence.”

I’m unlikely to write any more BioLogos articles, but that’s a good idea for a future essay on my podcast/blog. The simple answer is that to represent God on Earth and have a loving relationship with him and our fellow human beings, we required certain capacities. God guided our evolution to achieve that end. Unfortunately, the capacity for moral choice also entailed the capacity to choose evil, which is what we did. “The Fall” occurred first (~65 kya), since abstract language developed first within the social realm, and God left us to our own devices. By the time that the process of globularization was finished, all the various “modules” of thought were integrated and humans invented other religions. Obviously, the “God aspect” comes from Scripture, but the rest is backed up by solid science. I’m in the process now of contacting and interviewing the key folks. Stay tuned. :wink:

1 Like
67

Sorry to double up. You might also find this interesting: Animal Suffering, Darwin Evolution, and the Goodness of the Christian God.

I’m glad to kick around Genesis some more, but I’m out of time for today. The main problem there is that you apply modern standards of historiography to ancient documents.

2 Likes
68

Please know that I’d never want to do that @gbob - I have respect for those who decide to take a literalist view, that position being taken usually for deep reasons connected to logic and consistency. It’s the ideal default position, I think, of anyone who wants to be truly real about their faith. Unfortunately many find it simply unsustainable and so we have the ever moving circus of “how to actually understand the Bible. It’s fun for everyone”. It’s not fun. It’s exhausting and ‘hollows the soul’ at least in my experience, my experience so far anyway. And sorry to anyone offended - I mean circus in the sense of the amazing and unique feats of mental prowess that are required rather than commenting on people - I’m in the tent as well, I kind of want to get out at times. But Jesus, maybe a tad like Where’s Wally, is in the tent too and I love him and want to stay primarily for that reason. Plus a sense of loyalty and belonging … but I’m looking at all the gymnasts flipping around between those hanging rings (imagine the sound and effort) … and I’m like :roll_eyes::shushing_face::face_with_hand_over_mouth: not like :drooling_face: seem it all before … and I’ve been up there hopping m flippin on those rings myself … maybe not as high as others, but still. The thing is, you don’t want to fall, cause it’s a hard landing.

The idea of a literalist view still being held despite everything that seems to strongly point in other directions is honestly intriguing to me - intriguing in a good way. I can be a bit candid in my language but I never intend to make fun, ridicule or otherwise. Maybe it’s an Aussie thing too? Aussie’s having a greater degree in their culture perhaps of the natural human desire to use humour, even slightly jesting humour, as a sign of endearment. That was where I was coming from :slightly_smiling_face:

And

Everyone has buttons and one on my keyboard right now is broad brush statements like “time only applies to beings in this universe” … don’t such “go to” safe houses cut against the grain of the “doing the difficult work of actually thinking” :thinking:
There are many other such statements around the place - and I’d certainly make them too - but they’re a little tired and on this thread I’m going to (hopefully gently) point them all out.
Indeed, statements like these just slap a
‘Right everyone, this is how it works (because I know). Period” label on something and leave it. It’s dealing in absolutes … and only a Sith … (sorry, joking - Star Wars reference … for anyone who might get it?? :cricket::pleading_face::cricket::weary: Obviously @gbob I’d consider you more some kind of Jedi, of course.

Anyhow. What if some version of time does apply to angels and demons etc? We can guess that it doesn’t - but time in the sense of experiences that happen now as opposed to happened in the past and will happen in the future … are you suggesting angels don’t experience that because they are not in this universe?? Isn’t that a bit Buddismy (there’s a word for everyone).
Personally I think angels would experience a version of time even if not the same as us but I’m not gonna go around saying they do or they don’t - I don’t know.

The logic in your reasoning … if we combine it with Jesus being the first born among the dead after his resurrection (Col 1:18) and post resurrection bodies being like the angels (Mark 12:25) is that Jesus reigning in heaven right now isn’t experiencing “time”. At all. Of course he probably isn’t like we are but what is he and the angels and the spiritual world in general experiencing? What is their version of reality (reality being defined in this sense as “experience”??) “We don’t know so don’t ask” might be the answer (which I’d point out conveniently acts as the opposite to the “I do know so will tell” dynamic). I reckon there’d likely be some interesting revelations in this territory - of what version of the reality that heaven experiences (the fullness of reality I can hear someone think - and probably rightly) that are worth considering

I’m thinking of the verse
“He knows the begging from the end” (Isaiah 46:10)
Does Jesus and do angels see a version ‘of it all’? Is the fact Jesus has been saying “I’m coming back soon” for 2000 years somehow connected to the different outlooks on time between the natural world and in the heavenly world?? And … (me thinking out loud) are we ever going to get this discussion into more scientific territory or will it abide in theological land?? Sorry to sound (insert negative adjective here lol) (or don’t, maybe don’t :pleading_face:) I just want to talk about the likely science of the spiritual realm … and take a little excursion outside that tent … clear my head from the band’s noise (trumpets, cymbals crashin, snares a snarin) - have some space to think away from the high energy of all the ring flipping and trampolining and such …

69

Ok, I apologize for thinking what I thought. I know just how much this area can hollow the soul–it almost drove me to atheism. It is unsustainable in my opinion because no one in 200 years has offered a realistic/scientific way of having Scripture be true. Always searching and never finding is very unsustainable. Sadly most people are not prepared to move Adam back as far as I think is required by the scientific data. Thus, they don’t take a serious look at what I have done. And the other half don’t care if the Bible is untrue. But having a way to make Scripture historically/scientifically true is a faith enhancer.

The only thing that makes data which points in the other direction is the conventional interpretation of Scripture. If one doesn’t cling to the commonly accepted views of Genesis 1 but tries the Days of Proclamation view, One can do a credible job of matching Gen 1 with science. Because it views the days as pre-temporal /pre-creation proclamations by god. It is the planning for the universe not the creation of the universe. This view goes back in part to St. Basil of the 4th century.

The statement that time only applies to beings in our universe is not a broad brush statement. It is a scientific fact. I am a physicist. Time came into being with space and one can warp both space and time by gravitational masses and by speed. But Time as we know it can not exist without our space. So, no, this isn’t some broad statement made without knowing the science. Stephen Hawking had a lecture on this:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. "http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I don’t believe he does experience time. He is looking into the universe from outside of it. He is god, he is at all points in history at all times. Some other things don’t experience time, according to physics. Photons don’t experience time. The laws of relativity say that something traveling at the speed of light time passage = 0.

This guy hosts Astronomy Cast and said this about photons:
"*Just think about that idea. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, **

but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed** again.*"Does Light Experience Time? - Universe Today

I beleive his is at the beginning and end at all places at once and yes, sees it all.

1 Like
70

Very interesting thoughts to digest there, fascinating stuff this whole area. I’ll comment more on the specifics later. Do you think Angels have a conscious experience of past events as distinct from present and future events? It seems this topic of how time is experienced and the spiritual world is an interesting one.

I have heard one line of thought (not saying I believe it but it is very interesting) that ‘higher beings’ exist in a different spectrum of ‘higher vibration’ than us - to my laymans mind on physics this is an interesting thought - and could somehow relate to electromagnetic energy (ie the force that moves the electron around the neutron, if I have that right - and where does the proton fit in on that, I forget?)
I wonder if it is by this mechanism (of vibration frequency) that beings are able to move between our state of existence and theirs - it being clear biblically that such things happen (Gen 18, Genesis 6 sons of god with daughters of men and corresponding reference in Jude, etc)
Just saying :man_shrugging:

71

Daniel would seem to say they know of other events. I will say I don’t know if they are ‘past events’ to them or not. I suspect not.

I think you mean proton. Neutron has no charge and is electrically neutral. The proton has a positive charge opposite to the electron

I don’t think any of the laws of physics apply to us going to their domain.

72

It’s an fascinating area. I was just doing some tidying up just then (working from home this week) and put some of my son’s little magnet toys away, in the process feeling that ‘push’ effect of the magnet till I flipped it around so it ‘pulled’. Can you remind me what exactly that push is again? (being a physicist I know you can :wink: is it ‘charged particles’ literally in the air pushing against - what? What’s going on in the air between those little gaps of each magnet piece?

Also - another thought - with the whole ‘high as the heavens’ and ‘cast down’ thing going on with angels and demons - and that idea of ‘higher vibration’ beings … I can totally at a conceptual level at least imagine whatever mechanism by which angels and demons exist may be somehow related to whatever spiritual physical laws that must be a lot play - quite possibly related to something to do with vibration of energy. What are your thoughts on that?

73

In the case of magnets, what is called the dipole moment of the iron atoms tend to be aligned in the same direction with North pointing one way and South the other. The push comes from trying to force magnets with the same pole into each other. The pull comes from having a north and south pointing at each other and they can pull very forcefully. This is because electromagnetism is a far stronger force than gravity. Here is a diagram. Im off to bed.

image

image
image716×301 50.6 KB

1 Like
74

Sorry, took a while to get back - life has a way of getting in the middle of my intentions haha.
Thanks for that … but I was more thinking what is it exactly that is in the space between the two repelling magnets - is it particles as such or is it a force? And if a force, how is that force not particles?

If a magnetised metal gives off a ‘force’ around it that interacts either to attract or repel a correspondent force … what actually is that force? What I mean is - if I were to somehow analyse the air in-between two repelling magnets with some kind of electron microscope … what would I see? Would it be atoms vibrating at a much more intense level than in the air around it - the vibrations meaning I couldn’t fit any more atoms in that space? Obviously that deduction couldn’t be completely true, as I can very easily put billions more atoms in that space by passing my finger through it with no resistance … so it’s not like the air is ‘full’ and nothing else can fit. Do the atoms in my finger simply ‘move around’ the magnetic force or does the magnetic force just shoot through them?
What exactly - at a deep level - is actually going on when magnets repel? What is literally in the air? If the answer is magnetic force and not ‘more atoms’ … is that still a material force per se?? :thinking:

Clearly more than one ‘thing’ can fill the air - atoms in my body, light particles, radio waves, magnetic force and probably a hundred other things.

I propose the there would be other energies that we - science - doesn’t yet understand that at times would fill the air. Forces and energies that we don’t properly understand but hopefully will begin to more overtime. It’s this kind of thing I’m hoping to work through in this thread.

75

That is an extremely good question. I am going to have less time for this as I am buried in other things, but according to quantum mechanics, the force is mediated by photons in the case of the electromagnetic forces. Force carrier - Wikipedia

I am also finding I am getting very tired from the work I have put in and my strength is no longer what it used to be. I may have to take a break soon and do nothing, but that is so hard for me.

2 Likes
76

Hi @gbob from my understanding of an earlier post (on the thread about the Ethical implications of evolution), you had ‘laid low’ for a while and only recently returned to the BioLogos discussion forum. Many people will no doubt be appreciative of your return and ongoing contributions. I guess as in the quantum world, it’s all about balance - would hate to see you go but can appreciate how taxing all the thinking and replying can get.

I’ve had a look at some of those links. Wow. Just trying to get my head around the deep implications of some of those statements is immense - and definitely has relevance I believe for the overall theme of discussion here

In quantum field theory, force carriers or messenger particles or intermediate particles are particles that give rise to forces between other particles.

Intermediate particles? That give rise to forces between other particles?? By what means do they give rise to creating force in other particles? What is that ‘force’? Is it something that is the particles or some kind of by product of the particles? (Thinking outloud) In thinking what these intermediate particles are, I notice the link goes on say

These particles are bundles of energy(quanta) of a particular kind of field. There is one kind of field for every type of elementary particle. For instance, there is an electromagnetic field whose quanta are photons.[1]

Um, what the? Bundles of energy - with each elementary particle having a corresponding energy field? That’s a lot to get ones head around. How might such ‘forces’ interact with other forces - eg can general radiation effect any of those (whatever radiation is exactly, there’s another layer to consider). What about anything within the light spectrum or other ‘forces’ - electricity etc?

The article linked in to the one you mentioned says:

QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.

So, by this theory, particles are just ‘excited states’ of underlying fields. Ahh, hm, um - woah. What does that mean? What could that mean?? Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and spiritual realities I’m sure have a great deal more in common than we may currently realise.

I’m feeling a bit dizzy from all that deep physics theory - feels like I couldn’t possibly begin to understand it from reading physics … do you (or anyone reading) know of any YouTube videos where people do a pretty good job of summarising these themes for the layman?

The plot thickens.

77

Jay. I want to be you when I grow up. Trouble is I’m 65 and losing it; all too little too late. Superb Jay. Superb.

1 Like
78

Maybe a few are happy, my experience here is that most are not. lol Thank you for the kind words. My views are different but they match observational data and that is the sign of a good theory

1 Like
79

I think it can be entirely reasonable to hold on faith beliefs one cannot completely justify. Some insights into our own nature resist that kind of grounding, being far more confessional than empirical. That places such personal truth beyond the realm of peer review. But one should not expect the template of science to apply everywhere, though one may hold such an expectation on faith I suppose.

1 Like
80

Haha. Thank you, my friend. I’m 58 and give myself a 50/50 chance of surviving coronavirus if I catch it. Everything feels too little, too late. Nevertheless, “As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.”

2 Likes