Monday, March 5, 2018
CONSERVATION WITH AN ATHEIST PART 3
Many Doors to God and the Universe
Disclaimer: It is not my intention to belittle anyone’s religion or belief system. The purpose of these discussions is to provoke thought. My real reason for presenting this dialogue is to explain some of the findings of Close-Neppe, Neppe-Close TDVP theory in a less pedantic way.
CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST Continued
I stopped trying to discourage my atheist friend. He was persistent, and we seemed to be making some progress. So, I took a break from my research and invited him to have a latte at the local Starbucks. We sat down, and he began:
“As you know, I’m a member of MENSA, I have a degree in physical chemistry. I minored in probability theory, and I’ve also had a serious interest in cosmology for several years. So, I know something about science. But, I can’t buy the idea that the complex universe we live in came about through a series of random events because I’ve calculated the probability of just a few of the conditions that are necessary for the formation of stable, life-supporting structures, and because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is no way it could have happened in the 13.8 billion-year age of the universe!”
I agree. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all finite physical systems tend to break down over time and decay toward maximum entropy – complete disorder. The energy of the big bang pushes everything apart, and if a few spinning particles got together to form a compound structure, it would deteriorate before it could encounter other particles, and because the universe is rapidly expanding, the chance of that would get smaller and smaller with the passage of time. (It seemed that we were finding some common ground!) There must be something else going on.
“Exactly so. But, I can’t buy the intelligent design theory either, unless we’re in an experiment that was arranged by someone who set things up and then went off somewhere and forgot about us, letting cause and effect and survival of the fittest take over.”
Well, I responded, I can’t buy the idea that Darwinian evolution explains the complexity of our universe either; especially consciousness. My research suggests to me that consciousness, not matter, is primary.
He Shook his head. “Why? And why do you think that this gimmel thing has something to do with consciousness? I follow your math. Given that elementary particles are spinning, and are made up of quantum units, something other than the mass and energy of quarks and electrons is necessary to complete the symmetry of protons and neutrons, but why try to relate it to consciousness?”
It’s inevitable. If it is not matter or energy, what else is there? Besides, it explains away quantum weirdness.
Are you familiar with the double-slit, delayed-choice experiments, and Bell’s theorem and the Aspect experiment?
“I think so, at least in general. They have to do with resolving the EPR paradox, don’t they?”
Yes, that’s right. They resolve the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and establish the “weirdness” of non-locality and particle entanglement. If the ‘stuff’ of which everything is made can be either mass, energy or gimmel, then these experiments proving that particles or waves of matter and energy don’t exist as localized phenomena until observed, finally make sense!
“Are you saying it’s all gimmel until observed?”
You got it! And as gimmel, it doesn’t register as mass or energy.
“Let me mull that over and re-read your blog posts on gimmel, and maybe we can get back together tomorrow.”