Metaphysical “Choices” – Philosophical Theology

As I continue to structure the metaphysical thoughts behind the world in Evolved, a useful framework has been offered in John Polkinghorne‘s book, Science and Religion in the Quest of Truth. The book is part of a science and religion discussion group offered at my Congregational Church.

A huge challenge while writing Evolved was understanding how things like quantum physics and general relativity worked. An even larger question loomed in the back of my mind, which I did not recognize until after I had finished writing. It was the question of why things worked in such a way. This led me into philosophical questions, and then into spiritual explanations.

In his book, Mr. Polkinghorne refers to Philosophical Theology, a close relation to the Philosophy of Religion. Philosophy Theology sits on top of base layer of metaphysical topics like causality and consciousness, as well as theology studies focused on deity belief systems. It is a broad term that includes most major religions, although Buddhism may fall outside its scope due its denial of a deity.

To explain Philosophy Theology differently, Dr. Polkinghorne offers a look at one form of structure within its teaching. Ian Barbour created a taxonomy of stances when considering the relationship between science and religion. The four positions are conflict, independence, dialogue and integration.

At one end, conflict encompasses individuals who deny the other side offers viable answers. An atheist writer like Lawrence Krause and the biblical inerrancy belief system of fundamental christian denominations, like Baptism and Presbyterian, would fall into the “conflict” arena. Often our science versus religion debates get high-jacked by this conflict-laden approach. However, Mr. Polkinghorne argues each side’s antagonist views are based on an apples and oranges debate. Science is asking more of a “how?” question about the world while religion is asking more of a “why?” question. Recognizing this discord helped me set aside the typically bombastic arguments coming from each side.

My writing in Evolved is much more about the hope of finding balanced integration between science and religion. Thus I am seeking at least a “dialogue” between the two sides, with the hope of finding some integration. Philosophical Theology provides a framework to find a balance, without one side dominating the other. It also sets up well for the research I have already completed into science, philosophy and the spiritual (see Metaphysical “Choices”).

Personally, by writing Evolved I have discovered I am seeking a truth about the world. What is “Real?” Science explains many things but also is fairly limited in its scope. By definition it is an objective practice, striving to figure out how things work through repeatable experiments observed by many. Yet the world we perceive is by definition subjective. We cannot truly understand how another person experiences the world, or if they are even conscious as we believe ourselves to be. One person may perceive a miracle, something that seems to violate the laws of physics. By definition, this experience is not likely repeatable and therefore objective analysis is impossible. Therefore, science discards it.

My thoughts and feelings perceive more than science can explain. The more I look inward and open myself up, the more I perceive a universe beyond the objects that surround us. The more I search for the “You” in others, the greater my understanding of reality. Buddhism strives for “emptiness,” or a lack of objects to achieve enlightenment. Can science offer answers in an existence without objects?

Metaphysical “Choices” – Chance and Causality

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When researching and writing Evolved a great deal of thought went into metaphysical questions about reality. After all, the setting is a couple thousand years in the future and the topography of the universe (explained in the book) should fit within current scientific theories and philosophies.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Scientists tend to overlook it, but it illuminates the assumptions we make about our reality, as well as the holes in current scientific theories. Questions about causality, cosmology, time, and consciousness have consumed much of my thoughts even after writing Evolved.

Structuring the overlapping and conflicting arguments about each of these topics has been a challenge. In addition, all of these questions force a deeper dive into quantum physics (the apparent root system of our reality), and even slivers within the overall field like quantum statistical mechanics. My path over the past few years has been equal parts of befuddlement and enlightenment. A few books I have read half a dozen times in an effort to fully appreciate the author’s wisdom.

At some point one has to put a stake in the ground and begin building a world around it. Let me start with the stake planted around causality. In Evolved, humanity believes in an open future, a Neils Bohr reality (explained below) and one in which humanity has control over its choices (free will) and real chance exists. The mechanism I use in the book to explain the mechanism behind the measurement problem is cosmological in nature to allow for this metaphysical existence.

My protagonist, however, comes to believe humanity exists in a deterministic world, a David Bohm world (explained below). Part of his challenge is to overcome the deterministic nature of the physical world to save humanity’s apparently preset course of destruction. The mechanism to allow for this level of control also comes from a cosmological theory. With that, a little explanation of quantum mechanics is in order.

From a quantum perspective there are two ways of looking at our reality, and it involves the uncertainty associated with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The fundamental question about the probabilities found at the quantum level is whether they simply reflect ignorance or an indeterminate reality.

Niels Bohr is one of the founding fathers of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum probabilities. This interpretation of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is that we understand quantum wave lengths completely, but they are not deterministic. Most scientists intuitively favor this interpretation because it depicts a world of becoming, allowing for an open future, or indeterminate reality. In other words, chance is allowed for within this interpretation, which is seemingly supported by observation and mathematical constructs like chaos theory.

Yet, the Copenhagen interpretation leaves some puzzles. Foremost is the measurement problem. The theory enables extremely accurate predictions of relative probabilities at the quantum level based on deterministic wave functions calculations, but we do not understand the actual process that provides a seemingly indeterminate definitive answer on each occasion of measurement. In other words, what is the mechanism that allows for this indeterminate reality?

David Albert takes a stab at this mechanism in his book Time and Chance. Dr. Albert lays out the challenge of finding the mechanism within the Copenhagen interpretation.

The idea … is to stick with the standard way of thinking about what it means to be in a superposition, and to stick with the idea that a quantum-mechanical wave function amounts, all by itself, to a complete description of a physical system, and to account for the emergence of determinate outcomes of experiments … by means of explicit violations of the deterministic differential equations of motion, and to try to develop some precise idea of the circumstances under which those violations occur. – David Z. Albert

Dr. Albert offers one fully worked out scientific solution, which involves the GRW theory. Within this theory the wave function of a single particle almost always evolves according to linear deterministic equations of motion, except for a probability within the wave function itself for a random localization of the particle to occur. Furthermore, the effects of these “jumps” will convert superpositions of macroscopically different states in a way consistent with standard-mechanical probabilities. This mechanism allows for real dynamical chance to enter into scientific discussion and our observable reality.

David Bohm, on the other hand, produced a complete quantum theory arguing the probabilities reflect our ignorance about the complete nature of the quantum mechanical wave function. Bohm argued wave functions act like force fields, guiding the particle along a particular course. In this sense our spatial reality is fully deterministic since the wave function is deterministic. Or, in other words, the future movement of every particle can be calculated into the future if we had a complete understanding of the wave function. In this theory, chance does not exist.

Another set of theories fall into modal interpretations, which differentiate between dynamical state (determines what may be the case) and the value state (represents what is actually occurring). Since the dynamical state always evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, the evolution of our reality is entirely deterministic within these modal interpretations. Only the probabilities associated with the value state are real dynamical chances.

Quantum decoherence was developed by David Bohm. The theory does not explain a mechanism for the wave function collapse, but instead a mechanism for the appearance of the collapse. The appearance is due to “leaking” of quantum information into the environment so that the superposition of the wavelength exists, but beyond our ability to measure it. Decoherence became fundamental to Hugh Everett’s many-world interpretation and has been incorporated into various theories. Since decoherence does not provide an actual mechanism, it cannot offer an opening for chance to enter into our reality.

So with that it should be obvious it remains an open question as to what the probabilities of quantum mechanics mean. We naturally prefer to think of ourselves in control, with free will. It is decidedly unwelcome to consider the possibility that we live in a deterministic reality. But that, to me, is a fun avenue to explore since it will make the reader uncomfortable and force more consideration about ourselves.

One last note. I am by no means an expert on quantum physics or philosophy. So please leave a comment if you believe I am wrong on a theory, or misrepresented an argument.

Chance – Does Humanity Have Any?

Does chance exist in our reality?

Do we live in an indeterminate universe?

Two different questions, but closely related. The first asks whether anything is truly random. The second incorporates the first but also asks whether we can actively change how the future plays out. Is there room in our universe for free will?

You might be surprised that scientists and philosophers find it quite difficult to allow an opening for chance to exist in our reality. Time is asymmetric, but just because we can’t perceive the future doesn’t mean it is random in nature. Theoretically, the laws of physics should determine how the future unfolds.

Those probabilities in quantum mechanics? In the wrong place to allow for real chance. The probabilities reflect our inability to measure effectively at the quantum level. They do not allow for random wave functions, unless one incorporates the GRW theory into the model. GRW theory implies an inherent randomness within the quantum wave functions, allowing a wave function to randomly reset itself every billion years, or so. (It also implies many dimensions exist beyond what we perceive)

So, does humanity have any chance? It would appear the answer is no, or at least an extraordinarily small degree. Does that mean we have no free will? Let’s return to that idea of extra dimensions.

String theory implies ten, or even eleven dimensions if you include time. GRW theory implies more dimensions than that. Other theories suggest we live in a multi-universe, which requires multiple dimensions. Science, and math, consistently suggests something more is going on than we perceive with our limited senses.

Do extra dimensions open up the opportunity for free will? Does consciousness use extra dimensions to change the deterministic universe we perceive? Is consciousness simply a receiver of something from extra dimensions, manipulating this reality for some greater purpose? Is life’s ability to create order in a less organized environment a hint of its higher purpose? These are the questions explored in Evolved.

When I started writing Evolved I entered through a well-defined sturdy portal with a neon light blinking “Science” above it. When the writing was finished I had unexpectedly popped out of some twisted rabbit hole into a reality well beyond what we perceive today. It is something I hope to share with the world one day.

Is the Separation between the Divine and Us a Continuum or Absolute? Or, Something Else?

One of the benefits of spending the summer out on a lake without a television or accessible road is the chance to read and ponder bigger question (One of the “hardships” is limited access to the internet and thus less opportunity to post). Using the time to consume and process, I recently read two books asking bigger questions. The first, a secular historical perspective on Jesus; the second, a spiritual look at God from a perspective outside religious structure. Very different questions asked, and arguments made.

The first book I read was How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman is a secular scholar of the Bible with many books to his name. He teaches the history of early Christianity and while his views may have a bias towards an atheist opinion, he provides an insightful view of how the understanding of Jesus evolved. My main takeaway from his book is that many Christians in the first century believed Christ was human who became divine when resurrected. It was later opinions, especially from the Gospel of John (one of the last gospels written), that made Christ divine from the dawn of time. Today most Christians believe Jesus has always been divine and simply entered our world to provide guidance. I had never really considered the question of whether Jesus started out human or was always divine, so the book was quite thought provoking.

I should also mention, this post is really a follow up to an article I wrote for Daily Zen, “Where is God For You?” In the article I ask whether Jesus would consider God “up there,” all around us (including within us), or something else. Ehrman asks a similar question, although does not ask whether God is within us. Instead he assumes there is a difference between mortals and deities. He asks how a mortal becomes a deity, or how a deity descends down into a mortal. It sets up the question of whether the divine realm is a series of levels or whether the divine realm is completely other, separated by an infinite space. In short, from researching quantum physics, cosmology, and neurology for my book Evolved, I have come to believe neither is a fair representation of reality.

Dr. Ehrman does a good job explaining the belief systems at the time of Jesus. Judaism was the only religion that believed in a singular God. Roman culture, similar to Greek mythology, had many gods in a hierarchy and it was believed humans could elevate themselves through actions, or gods would periodically descend to Interact with mortals. The Roman emperor Caesar Augustus was known as the “Son of God”. There was even another commoner, Apollonius, who lived a little later than Jesus, who was a Pythagorean philosopher who worshiped the Roman gods, and was considered a son of god by his followers. Ehrman argues that Jesus was considered completely human during his life. It was only after his death that he began to be considered the “Son of God” in competition with the Roman authority. It was only a few centuries later that Roman society adopted Jesus as a favored religion as a way to promote unification within society.

The time period of Jesus is interesting because there was such a dynamic amount of religious development. Taking a big step back and not getting bogged down in the influences during the first few hundred years of Christianity, religions evolved from many gods to largely a singular God and the perception of the divine realm in the west changed from one with our reality, or at least connected through a continuum, to another separate mortally inaccessible place. Now I doubt the divine realm itself changed much during this period. So the question becomes – why did western society change its perception of the divine realm? More insight? The influence of the teachings by Jesus? A simple winner take all human debate that occurred during the few centuries after Jesus lived? Or, a more convenient man-made way to create social order within a highly regimented Roman Empire seeking a unifying deity?

Sorry, no answers. Ehrman has his agenda as a non-believer, arguing the transformation of Jesus from mortal to God occurred gradually after his death through the work of his disciples once he had departed this world, not during his life and resurrection. My point is that I think Ehrman is asking the wrong questions in his book. He assumes two separate worlds that are subject to different laws of reality. Yet, there are enough cosmological and quantum puzzlements to allow for both worlds to co-exist together.

The second book I read was The Future of God by Deepak Chopra. Dr. Chopra (who is a medical doctor) approaches spirituality from a more integrated reality, assuming God is all around and within us. While his views have a heavy mix of eastern religion, he does not define himself by a religion. Instead, arguing religions are relics of the past that hold us back. For Chopra, the question is not whether the separation between our world and the divine is a continuum or absolute. It is how we train ourselves to experience the divine all around and in us. In short, his arguments fit almost perfectly with the world created in Evolved. A complete shock to me since I wrote Evolved completely based on my research on scientific topics, not through the spiritual.

After seeing what emerged from me through the writing of Evolved, I am more firmly of the opinion that the divine is everywhere, including in You. It is through looking inside ourselves and finding the You in each other that we become closer to God. The teachings of Jesus actually provide wonderful guidance to help us on this journey when looking at God from this perspective. The Franciscan priest Richard Rohr does an incredible job teaching these lessons from this perspective.

But, only one man’s opinion from a singular spiritual path. Each one of us travels our own path, asking different questions, and finding different answers. Therefore I am very interested in hearing other perspectives. So, I keep asking the question – Where is God for You?

Present State

The challenge of Presence is a big part of Evolved. Presence both in the spatial and temporal sense. Mahayana Buddhism talks about Zen through meditation, a way of seeking emptiness for enlightenment. Judaism describes God in one form as Present. There is something special about the present, being present. In our world we tend to live in the past, highlighted by recent neurological studies focused on the time lag between subconscious and conscious thought.

The universe in Evolved is split into two (what we think of as reality and something else) through the interaction of a ten dimensional brane with a field of resistance. The mind of the protagonist, the Evolved, strives to make two back into one.  While writing Evolved I danced around the concept of presence through many re-writes, approaching it from a cosmological, quantum, philosophical, neurological and then psychological angle. When I finally felt like I had wrestled the concept into something that made sense, I read Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” and Richard Rohr’s “Immortal Diamond.” They approached this concept from a religious and spiritual perspective. Their message came together with what I had written like a thunder clap in my head. Richard Rohr discusses Presence from the Christian faith:

In some ways, presence is the “one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42), and perhaps the hardest thing of all. Just try to keep your heart open, your mind without division or resistance, and your body not somewhere else. Such simple presence is the practical, daily task of all mature religion and all spiritual disciplines. Once you are “present and accounted for,” you grow from everything, even the problematic and difficult things. If your presence is wrong, you will not recognize the Real Presence even in the Eucharist. The Presence will be there–it always is–but you won’t be. I love to say that it has been much easier for Jesus to teach bread and wine what it is than to teach humans, who always resist their deepest and simplest identity.

– Richard Rohr

Eagle Eye Shared

The path that led me to write Evolved began firmly in science and logic, studying the properties of chemical elements, space time structures, and neurology. It eventually led me to something I called the “Real” in the book as I dove into psychology, specifically the subconscious. It was only at the end that I felt I had missed something in the series of objects I had logically patterned out. Eventually I was guided to Richard Rohr, a Franciscan monk, who explained what I had wrote completely.

To be clear, I believe Christianity is merely one path we can follow to find the “Real.” Most other religions, spirituality and even science also seek to guide one to the same truth. However, our ego gets in our way and every faith or mindful effort focuses on different aspects. In designing the symbol for Evolved, I wanted most faiths and even mindful thinkers to see meaning. After all, the ancient Greeks touched on deeper truths in their math and science discoveries.

This morning I received the weekly summation of Richard Rohr’s writings. “Shared Identity” speaks to what I touched on in “Eagle Eyes Penetrate.” The following is an excerpt:

“Francis spent much of his time praying in solitude in nature. He practiced contemplation, or ‘a long loving look at the real,’ which allowed him to see in a new way. Seeing from a pair of glasses beyond our own is what I call ‘participative seeing.’ This is the new self that can say excitedly with Paul, ‘I live no longer, not ‘I’ but it is Christ now living in me’ (Galatians 2:20). In the truest sense, I am that which I am seeking. This primal communion communicates spaciousness, joy, and a quiet contentment. It is not anxious, because the essential gap between me and everything else has already been overcome. I am at home in a sacred and benevolent universe, and I do not need to prove myself to anybody, nor do I need to be ‘right,’ nor do others have to agree with me.”

– Richard Rohr

Standing on Giants

Over the summer I plan to go through my sources of inspiration for Evolved. This is partly for my own benefit as I refresh my understanding of various theories. It is also to recognize the brilliant minds that have transformed my life over the past few years. Finally, it will help you understand the road I have traveled to date, and how I arrived at this point.

The path started innocently enough with the thought, “What if humans could adapt to non-organic elements and unlock new capabilities?” This initial idea quickly swept me into chemistry, neurology and psychology, followed almost immediately by cosmology and particle physics. Quantum mechanics and time philosophy took some time to wrap my head around, but boning up on general relativity helped me to understand at least the basics. I’ve always enjoyed moral philosophical debates like “sacrificing the many for the few,” as well as arguments around free will and determinism. One book on chance I read at least five times before it clicked.

When the second draft of the manuscript was complete I took a step back and thought, “there is something more to this.” After showing the draft to a minister at my church, I was blown away that the world I had created was explained almost perfectly by spiritual teaching. Not only that, but Christian, Judaism, and Buddhism belief systems all seemed to explain the supra conscious element I had developed, especially Native American spirituality. Ancient Greek philosophy suddenly sprang into relevance for me. It became clear my mind was wrestling with deeper questions than I had recognized. This realization has been transforming me, urging me on to deeper understandings in all the areas mentioned above.

It has been very cool to go into science and emerge out of spirit. Hope you enjoy the ride.