Realms Beyond
I've
demonstrated in other posts, that transcendent realms were not the origination
comcept of suernatural. That is, however, the modern Western concept.
Thus, we might as well ask, 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’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
reductionsts make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms?
It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangible 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 it 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). 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 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.
3STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider.
Website. Science 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 Really Exist [preview]”
Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line version URL:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist
George F.R. Ellis is Professor
Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been
professor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA
(Trieste)
6 Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted
on September
18, 2012 by woi
blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
8 Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “String Theory.”
Website URL:
http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm
9
STFC ibid, op cit.
10 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.
