The Ethernatural
The following are several vital but simple scientific concepts or theories of which people are not generally aware. Each are remarkable on their own, but taken together, they may give us a glimpse of the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, also known as, The Big Picture. While this is by no means a scientific inquiry into the nature of the cosmos, these serious theories do offer a way to look at the Big Picture through a lens of rose colored intuition.
>>The first concept, and the most difficult to understand intuitively, is the multidimensional nature of reality. Several favored physics theories offer 10, 11 and 24 dimensions, including our 4 dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time). We're asked to think of these dimensions to be where space curls in on itself. The curled up concept it the most difficult for us humans to deal with. One way to wrap our brains around it is to think of our four dimensions as being extruded from all those other dimensions, likely during the Big Bang 13 billion years ago.
Two questions come to mind: could there be an infinite number of dimensions, and is the nature of time we have here the same as it was before--if "before" can have any meaning at all. With an infinite number of dimensions, time would be reduced to nothing, one against the infinite....time would be timeless. Humans are unequipped to comprehend anything (e.g. God) that has "always been", or that there has to have always been something that came before. Timelessness offers an answer of sorts--there was no before. What was, is and will be, would all be just what "is". There'd be no First Cause.
Thankfully, the other concepts are a little easier to grasp:
>>The Planck-epoch is the first and smallest period of space and time. The minimum values are well defined and widely accepted, albeit infinitesimally small. A Planck-time and Planck-length, are the smallest divisions possible to time or space. The first instant of our four dimensional universe was approximately 10 to the -43 seconds after time zero; and the distance light would travel in that time is 10 to the -35 meters.
Yes they are incredibly small values, but the fact that there are limits to the division of our four dimensions begs the question, would these limits apply to any or all other dimensions? Could the fabric of the universe be like a sieve, straining, enclosing or 'curving out' our four dimensions, yet impervious to other dimensions, or other as yet undefined entities?
>>Seth Lloyd, an MIT Professor of Mechanical Engineering and designer of the first feasible quantum computer, makes an excellent argument (in Programming the Universe , 2007) that the Universe is indistinguishable from a quantum computer. To imagine the power of such a computer, a quantum computer's power the size of today's digital computers, would be comparable to comparing a digital computer to an abacus. A digital bit can be either 1 or 0, but a quantum computer's qubit can be 1, 0 or both! Now, imagine the universe itself as a quantum computer.
Consider the implications if such is the case. It would mean that every event from the quantum level on up, including our synaptic intercourse, would not only be abiding by the natural laws governing the computer/universe, it's reasonable to suppose that each interaction is being recorded.... for replay...or erasure. (This last supposition is my own, not Dr. Lloyd's)
>>So, you ask, what about quantum uncertainty? There are many competing interpretations of quantum mechanics, but only one, not yet in general scientific favor, which answers ALL quantum weirdness. It's John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but the price those answers is a big one: quantum interactions between particles are transacted both forward and backward in time. Problematic, yes. but then consider the universe as a sieve which the transaction waves might pass "behind" timelessly, and we may have something to assuage our intuition yet.
______________________________________________________________________________
Now put all this together. Could whatever's on the other side of that sieve be what we've come to call the supernatural, but is in fact perhaps what we could more properly call, the Ethernatural--the whole set of natural laws in a cosmos with infinite dimensions, not just four.
Comments welcome. The Truth stands on its own and error will eventually fall. Our purpose as individuals and as a society, is to pursue the several aspects of Truth via the infinite paths that lead to it. Verum est Deus.
______________________________________________________________________________
The following is an exchange on this issue that occurred in another venue:
Assertion: Skeptics, in general, insist that perception is unreliable and unverifiable. Scientists are skeptics and accept that their perceptions and cognitive skills are limited. Objective truth is a probability estimate (guess) based on available information.
No, skeptics, in general, insist that blind faith is unreliable. Realists (scientists) insist on a reliance on reason when dealing with reality. Pure hearsay evidence should be dismissed out-of-hand until such time as corroborating evidence surfaces. It's 13,700,000,000 years and counting with no such evidence presenting itself, and massive quantities of evidence against it.
Our body of scientific knowledge is information that has been deduced and proven to be universally and immutably consistent with natural law. For instance, the fact that we don't know everything about gravity doesn't mean we are unable to know anything about it. There is no reason to assume otherwise until such time as an apple falls up from a tree--and we can eliminate the possibility of artificial gravity.
Keep in mind, this is not evidence for or against God, only against divine intervention; intervention which would negate our free will.
Again, there is no divine revelation. All I'm suggesting is that our universe may exist "within", or be associated with, a larger framework of more elaborate natural law, which, until now, has been assumed to be supernatural or the suspension of natural law.
The only evidence we have for divine revelation is hearsay evidence passed on to us (most likely invented) by people who, given human nature and temptation, are much more likely to be doing what they do for self-serving purposes.
Yes they are incredibly small values, but the fact that there are limits to the division of our four dimensions begs the question, would these limits apply to any or all other dimensions? Could the fabric of the universe be like a sieve, straining, enclosing or 'curving out' our four dimensions, yet impervious to other dimensions, or other as yet undefined entities?
>>Seth Lloyd, an MIT Professor of Mechanical Engineering and designer of the first feasible quantum computer, makes an excellent argument (in Programming the Universe , 2007) that the Universe is indistinguishable from a quantum computer. To imagine the power of such a computer, a quantum computer's power the size of today's digital computers, would be comparable to comparing a digital computer to an abacus. A digital bit can be either 1 or 0, but a quantum computer's qubit can be 1, 0 or both! Now, imagine the universe itself as a quantum computer.
Consider the implications if such is the case. It would mean that every event from the quantum level on up, including our synaptic intercourse, would not only be abiding by the natural laws governing the computer/universe, it's reasonable to suppose that each interaction is being recorded.... for replay...or erasure. (This last supposition is my own, not Dr. Lloyd's)
>>So, you ask, what about quantum uncertainty? There are many competing interpretations of quantum mechanics, but only one, not yet in general scientific favor, which answers ALL quantum weirdness. It's John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but the price those answers is a big one: quantum interactions between particles are transacted both forward and backward in time. Problematic, yes. but then consider the universe as a sieve which the transaction waves might pass "behind" timelessly, and we may have something to assuage our intuition yet.
______________________________________________________________________________
Now put all this together. Could whatever's on the other side of that sieve be what we've come to call the supernatural, but is in fact perhaps what we could more properly call, the Ethernatural--the whole set of natural laws in a cosmos with infinite dimensions, not just four.
Comments welcome. The Truth stands on its own and error will eventually fall. Our purpose as individuals and as a society, is to pursue the several aspects of Truth via the infinite paths that lead to it. Verum est Deus.
______________________________________________________________________________
The following is an exchange on this issue that occurred in another venue:
Assertion: Skeptics, in general, insist that perception is unreliable and unverifiable. Scientists are skeptics and accept that their perceptions and cognitive skills are limited. Objective truth is a probability estimate (guess) based on available information.
No, skeptics, in general, insist that blind faith is unreliable. Realists (scientists) insist on a reliance on reason when dealing with reality. Pure hearsay evidence should be dismissed out-of-hand until such time as corroborating evidence surfaces. It's 13,700,000,000 years and counting with no such evidence presenting itself, and massive quantities of evidence against it.
Our body of scientific knowledge is information that has been deduced and proven to be universally and immutably consistent with natural law. For instance, the fact that we don't know everything about gravity doesn't mean we are unable to know anything about it. There is no reason to assume otherwise until such time as an apple falls up from a tree--and we can eliminate the possibility of artificial gravity.
Keep in mind, this is not evidence for or against God, only against divine intervention; intervention which would negate our free will.
Q: Is Divine revelation from the ether-natural?
Again, there is no divine revelation. All I'm suggesting is that our universe may exist "within", or be associated with, a larger framework of more elaborate natural law, which, until now, has been assumed to be supernatural or the suspension of natural law.
The only evidence we have for divine revelation is hearsay evidence passed on to us (most likely invented) by people who, given human nature and temptation, are much more likely to be doing what they do for self-serving purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment