I first heard the anecdote about turtles when it starred Wittgenstein. In some class he taught, supposedly, they were referring to the Indian cosmogany in which the earth sits on the back of an elephant and the elephant is on the back of a great turtle. A student asked "what does the turtle sit on?" Supposedly Wittgenstein said "from there on it's turtles all the way down." There is no real proof that Wittgenstein ever said that. Googling the phrase, it is associated with him without proving who said it. Moreover, no one knows what it means. I've seen about six interpretations. It's always associated with the sort of flippant remark a skeptic might make about religious answers. Here I use it as a metaphor for the arrogance of scientism to think that scientific exactitude and certainty rules out the possibility of other realms and forms of truth that science can't seek.
One of the most solid things in modern science is the Greek concept of the atom, and Greek atomism stands as atheistic symbol and as the basis of scientific thought. The reason atheists use an atomic symbol for their own is becuase they harken back to Greek atomistic view as a replacement for belief in deity. Science shows us all, we know the basic building blocks of reality, sub atomic particles, and thus we know there's no need for a God, yada yada yada. When we examine those bulwarks of modern thought we see that they are shaky and as uncertain as the one about the turtles. This is especially apt for sub atomic particles; science has never found a basic particle, it seems there is always a smaller one, it's particles all the way down.
The Issue of Transcendence
Are there
realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of
our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that
metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of
science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment. Victor Stenger,
however, wants to be able to assert that he’s disproved them so he argues that
the magisteria do overlap. “There exists a widespread notion, promulgated at
the higher levels of the scientific community itself, that science has nothing
to say about God or the supernatural…”[1] He
sights the national academy of sciences and their position that these are non
overlapping magisteria, “science is a way of knowing about the natural world.
It is limited to explaining the natural world. Science can say nothing about
the supernatural. Weather God exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral.”[2] Stenger disagrees. He
argues that they can study the effects of prayer so that means they can
eliminate the supernatural.
Two things
are wrong with Stenger’s approach. First, he doesn’t use Lourdes
or any other empirical record of miracles. He’s going entirely by double blind
studies which can’t control for prayer from outside the control group; that
makes such studies virtually worthless. So in effect Stenger is taking the work
of people who try to empirically measure what is beyond the empirical, then
when it doesn’t work he says “see, there’s nothing beyond the empirical.” That
proves nothing more than the fact that we can’t measure that which is beyond
measuring. Secondly, he doesn’t deal with the real religious experience studies
or the M scale. That means he’s not really dealing with the empirical effects
of supernature. I deal with the M scale at length in my book The Trace of God. I’ve just demonstrated good reason to think that supernature Is
working in nature. It’s not an alien realm outside the natural, it’s not a
miracle it’s not something that sets its self apart form the daily regular
workings of the world. Supernature is of God but nature is of God. God made
nature and he works in nature. We can tell the two apart by the results. Now I
am going to deal with the other two issues, are there realms beyond the
natural? Are there evidences of a form of supernatural in the world that stand
apart from the natural such that we can call them “miracles?”
Are there
realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a
direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and
thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no
evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be
evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect?
Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics
is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is
the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They
talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits
of stuff. They are not solid matter.[3]
Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory
comes in.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental
particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are
one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the
direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current
theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the
other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains
for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the
equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be
precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than
4.
So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses,
but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang
on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence
of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair
point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak
predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you
conceptualize extra dimensions?[4]
There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they
may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet
reductionists make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not
because the quantum universe realms are tangle or solid or material they are
not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are
mathematical. In fact why can’t they be
the same realms?
Then
there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond
our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own,
certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some
scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these
universes, but some don’t.
Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42
billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the
one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same
laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me)
accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go
further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different
physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions.
Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief
proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a
dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of
galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with
your name who are reading this article.[5]
Well there are two important things to note here. First,
that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically.
There’s a professor at Columbia
named Peter Woit who writes the blog “Not Even Wrong” dedicated to showing that
string theory can’t be proved.[6] There
is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved
either.[7]
That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving
it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t
be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things it’s about
disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes
them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They
posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work
not because they have any real evidence.[8]
We could
make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those
possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s
no proof that this is place one can actually go to, but the idea of suggests
the possibility, there’s the world of anti-matter, there are worlds in string
membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own.
In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these
as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard
material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go
further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the
rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making
God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists
that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we
know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these
realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause
and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the
philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove
it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the
fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any
proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must
not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the
critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate
about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in
the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the
distaste for religion.
All that is solid melts into air
This line
by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking
about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The
reductionst/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is
no proof of anything not material and not ‘physical” (energy is a form of
matter). We see this in the quotes at the beginning of the chapter. The hard
tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the
notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way,
even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the
physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about
“particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little
balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very
tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not
made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact
we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.
We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't
adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In
physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking
about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles
that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is
stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far.
Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a
blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter
needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental
particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional
vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence
non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical
cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three
fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades.
The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work
in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11
(M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.[9]
Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of
solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence
we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the
supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is
illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite.
Composite are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that
elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is
unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really
don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are
willing to believe in things they don’t understand.[10] While
it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis
of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate
truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural” (by the wrong
concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly
arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable
reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to
the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we
need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in
propositions. We have confidence placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be
scientific although some of it is. That will come in the next chapter. The
point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such
as supernatural and supernature.
[1] Victor Stenger, God and
The Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst:
New
York:
Prometheus Books, 2012. 225.
[2] Stenger, ibid, quoting
National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
Science. Washington DC:
National Academies Press, 1998, 58.
[3] STFC “are there other
dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Scinece and Facilities Council,
2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx
[4] ibid
[5] George F.R. Ellis. “Does
the Miltiverse Reallly Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line versoin URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist
George F.R. Ellis is Proffessor Emeritus in Mathematics
at University of Cape
Town. He’s been proessor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA
(Trieste)
[6] Peter Woit, Not Even
Wrong, September 18, 2012
blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
[8] Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal
Theory. “Sring Theory.” Website
URL: http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm
[9] STFC ibid, op cit.
[10] Sylvie
Braibant; Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and
Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd
ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media,
2009, pp. 1–3.
Order the Trace of God by Joesph Hinman on Amazon!
Order the Trace of God by Joesph Hinman on Amazon!
