I want to talk about some passages from a book: God & The New Physics by Paul Davies. It’s a bit outdated, but he is able to explain things in a way that is refreshing. He poses more questions than answers and encourages me to keep an open mind when pondering God’s existence.
[In response to superstring theory,] the skeptical theologian will reply, even a single superforce and a handful of simple particles require an explanation. Why that particular superforce? In fact, why any law at all?
The scientist, however, may wish to challenge the assumption that an infinite mind (God) is simpler than the universe. In our experience, mind only exists in physical systems that are above a certain threshold of complexity. The brain is a highly complicated system. While it is possible to imagine a disembodied mind, there must be some means of expression of the pattern, and the pattern itself is complex. So it could be argued that an infinite mind is infinitely complex and hence far less likely than a universe, many parts of which are far too short on complexity to support a mind.
In other words, Occam’s Razor dictates that the uncaused eternal existence of the universe is a simpler explanation than God because Occam’s Razor requires simpler beginnings, and it can be argued that God is “infinitely complex.”
Perhaps, then, God is not a mind, but something simpler? Does it in any case make sense to talk about a mind existing timelessly? Aren’t thoughts, decisions, and so on things that take place in time? But if God cannot decide (or hope, or judge, or converse) in what sense is he responsible for the nature and existence of the universe? Is such a being anything that we would recognize as a God at all? Despite these doubts, we are still left with the complexity and specificity of the universe to account for. Why this universe?
Why this universe, indeed. If M-theory is correct, however, it’s quite possible that many parallel universes exist, then our universe can be explained by the anthropic principle. IF M-theory has any truth to it.
We have seen how physicists think of space and time as a sort of four-dimensional sheet (or perhaps balloon) with the possibility of other disconnected sheets. Could the soul reside in one of these other universes? Alternatively, spacetime may be envisaged as enfolded by, or embedded in, a higher dimensional space, much as a two-dimensional surface or sheet is embedded in a three-dimensional space. Might not the soul inhabit a location in this higher dimensional space which is still (geometrically speaking) close to our physical spacetime, but not actually in it? From this higher dimensional vantage point the soul could ‘lock on’ to the body of an individual in spacetime, without itself being part of spacetime.
It’s a plausible scenario that has been suggested by philosophers for hundreds of years. I don’t know of any physical evidence for it, though.
Further problems crop up when one turns to the question of time. A soul is not in space, but is it in time? Presumably the answer is yes. If the soul is the source of our perceptions, then this must include our perception of time. Moreover, many recognizably human mental processes are explicitly time-dependent: planning, hoping, regretting, anticipating, for instance.
There would be grave logical difficulties with a timeless soul. What meaning do we then attach to the soul’s existence after death, if the before-after relation is transcended by souls? What about the soul’s situation before the birth of a body?
The same basic temporal dilemma runs through all discussions of immorality. On the one hand is the desire for a continuation of the personality after Earthly life has ended — not merely in a frozen or timeless existence, but involving some sort of activity. Jesus spoke of ‘life everlasting,” which carries connotations of the unending passage of time.
On the one hand, such notions are strongly tied to our perception of time in the physical world and do not accord well with the alleged separation of the physical and spiritual realms. The difficulty is exacerbated if one entertains the possibility that there may actually be an end to time: there may be no ‘everlasting’ anyway.
In summary, it seems there is a logical incoherency between a belief that the soul experiences “emotions” of some sort, yet is at the same time timeless. The experience of emotion requires the principle of cause and effect. How can something be timeless and undergo cause and effect at the same time?
That’s enough for now. More later, perhaps. Are you exercising your brain?
Other stuff:
I totally failed at the whole “post a piano video every Monday” thing. Alas, life got slightly busier (and I greeted that change with open arms).
I spent the early part of this week figuring out what classes I’ll be taking for the next year or so at UAB. Today was orientation, which was surprisingly a very nice experience. I’m finally taking some serious math courses; it’s about damn time, I say. It’s funny how something as silly as planning my classes has given me a much more positive outlook on life. I feel like I’m going places now. Perhaps I’m just at a place in my life where I very much welcome change.
