A Theory of Everything is science's mythical "God"

Often my journey from true believing to churchlessness has felt like an exciting amusement park ride.

Descending from the heights of religious dogmatism, I'm both thrilled and unsettled by a sudden drop, Wheeeeee!, as beliefs drop out from under me. Then I hit a plateau and roll along comparatively smoothly until...

Wow! Another free fall, as I realize that the spiritual philosophy I embraced after discarding an Eastern form of fundamentalism is still unduly faith-based.

So I'm off on another abrupt descent, figuring that now maybe I've reached some sort of ontological ground floor where life's meaning, or the lack thereof, has a solid foundation.

I'm beginning to think that there's no end to my psyche's roller-coaster ride. A few days ago I started reading a book that I'd seen mentioned in the "Recommended" section of Scientific American and couldn't resist ordering.

Here's how Marcelo Gleiser's "A Tear at the Edge of Creation: A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe" was described in the magazine.

For centuries scientists have been searching for a single theory of the universe that reveals an elegantly simple order behind the apparent complexity of the natural world. That quest continues today with the hunt for a "grand unified theory" that joins Einstein's theory of relativity with the laws governing quantum mechanics.

This is a misguided mission, argues physicist and former "Unifier" Marcelo Gleiser of Dartmouth College. It is the messiness of the universe -- not the beautiful symmetries -- that holds the key to its origins.

Since I wrote a book about the teachings of Plotinus, a Neoplatonist Greek philosopher, called "Return to the One," I could instantly identify with the term former Unifier.

I've always enjoyed the notion of oneness. Ultimate simplicity, which I like to think of as pure existence (absent existents), sends a pleasurable chill up my philosophical spine.

Gleiser, however, points out in an early chapter that the quest of science for a unified Theory of Everything is the secular counterpart of religious belief.

Given that the Final Truth necessarily explains the origin of the Universe, we now see how these two quests are one and the same: the Final Truth contains the First Cause; the First Cause contains the Final Truth. Can we, limited beings that we are, explain creation in all of its astonishing complexity?

We know at least two answers.

"Sure!" exclaim the Unifiers. "There is a fundamental set of physical laws, writ deep into Nature's essence, behind all there is. Given time, we will uncover these laws and make sense of it all. Together, these laws are the embodiment of the unified field theory, the supreme expression of the hidden mathematical symmetry of Nature. We call it the Theory of Everything."

"Sure!" exclaim the Believers. "We already know all the answers. They are written in our Holy Book. Creation is the work of our all-powerful God. Only a supernatural power could exist before space. Only a supernatural power could be before time. Only a supernatural power could transcend material reality to create it."

Powerful. Eye-opening. Thought-provoking. And disturbing, in that above-mentioned Wheee!, there goes another cherished belief sort of way.

Reading just a few chapters of Gleiser's book made me realize that he's probably right: while science is much more justified in believing that a Theory of Everything lies at the end of the investigative rainbow than religion is in its God-belief, these are still beliefs.

Here's how Gleiser summarizes his alternative to the stance of the Unifiers and Believers.

For millenia, we have lived under the mythic spell of the One. Kneeling at our temples or searching for the mathematical "mind of God," we have yearned for a connection with what is beyond the merely human; we have dreamt of an abstract perfection that we could not find in our lives.

In doing so, we closed our eyes to ourselves, refusing to accept the fragility of our existence. It is now time to move on. It is now time to shake free of the old imperative for perfection and embrace the lessons of a new scientific worldview that explores the creative power of Nature's imperfections and accepts that there are limits to knowledge.

[Update: you can get a feel for Gleiser's book in less than four minutes via a video I found linked to on his university faculty page. Scroll down to "Research Interests," click on "Personal web page," then on the video.]

Comments

[Willie R.]

Suppose the scientific method eventually leads to a cogent, unequivocal, irrefutable "theory of everything"? What do we do with it? Will we have found a way to modify or amend the laws of thermodynamics, so that matter does not disintegrate into chaos? Will we have invalidated the entire history of the universe by discovering that we have always had the power to create anything we desire? Will we invalidate our own desires by finding out that thermodynamics is the reason we have any desires at all?

I borrow the word "thermodynamics" from the scientific lexicon to refer to the blatant, empirical, and clear observation that all structures are temporary in nature. Unfortunately, after mulling over that oft- recurring observation, I tend to jump right into the metaphysical realm and postulate that even the very idea there are any structures at all to disintegrate is itself a temporary structure. Further (the name of Ken Kesey's bus):

We don't need no steenking "Theory of Everything". We don't need no steenking "God". Reality is not a problem. All that there is to do is be it. Mission already accomplished, forever (whatever that is).

[Walker]

[Note: Walker's posts were deleted because he started engaging in "identity theft" on this blog. See "Jerk leads to comment moderation":
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/08/jerk-leads-to-temporary-comment-moderation.html

I never delete comments because someone disagrees with me. Comments get deleted because they violate this blog's commenting policies. If Walker plays by the rules now, he'll get to stay in the comment playground. If he doesn't, he won't. -- Blogger Brian]

Geisers book and your comments are exactly what I was saying last year on this blog, comments you, and tAo and others shouted down and refused to debate, with the result you angered me by your claims of being open, yet deliberately deleted my comments.
Brian, why accept it when published in a book yet put me down when I have said exactly the same things?

[Walker]

[Note: Walker's posts were deleted because he started engaging in "identity theft" on this blog. See "Jerk leads to comment moderation":
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/08/jerk-leads-to-temporary-comment-moderation.html

I never delete comments because someone disagrees with me. Comments get deleted because they violate this blog's commenting policies. If Walker plays by the rules now, he'll get to stay in the comment playground. If he doesn't, he won't. -- Blogger Brian]

In my posts, which you kindly deleted, I drew the same parallels as this book that science and religion shared similarities, a post that clearly angered you, and others, causing you to accuse me of not knowing science (despite my professional life as a scientist)
Brian, I am not alone amongst the ex RSSB group (and possibly a considerable group of RSSB doubters but afraid to make the decision and take the step) who read your post, but do not wish to become embroiled in your egotistical defensive responses that result from a post. I follow occasionally because your blog has one value, you do from time to time read interesting books, saving me the search and boosting Amazon sales.

Keep up the good work Brian, but dont think your many readers use this blog for much more than I do, simply links to some good reading and forget the comments, especially yours and tAo's.

[hukai]

pretty autocratic approach to free thinking I would conclude

fundamentally based eastern philosophy supplanted by autocratic style free falling decent into oblivion.

so where to from here

you about to conclude that you just an accident of nature

a conglomerate of molecules and organisms derived out of matter.

Intellect will never know anything worth knowing, like all those destined for the boneshaker aiming for a wake up call reminiscent of Hiroshima

[tAo]

hukai writes:

"fundamentally based eastern philosophy"

-- where do you see that that author espouses eastern philosophical fundamentalism??

"Intellect will never know anything worth knowing"

-- you mean that all the technology that YOU use, that btw has been invented and has resulted directly from the human INTELLECT -- such as the computer you are using, the internet that you are using, the house hyou live in, the car you drive, the phone you talk on, the TV you watch, the lights that illuminate your home and your town, the machines that harvest and process your food, the refrigerator that keeps your food from spoiling, the stove that cooks your food, the water heater that makes your bath or shower hot, and the hundreds of other things that you use everyday -- you mean that all those convienences that have resulted from the human INTELLECT are not worth anything to you at all??

if thats what you say, then you are a liar and a fool in denial. and please take your moronic Luddite mentality elsewhwere.

[McSkepticalson]

amen tAo. amen!

[hukai]

Its pretty clear you don't read too good, neither it seems do you use that intellect that was given you to distinguish true from false or rationalize with very well.

Brian said in quotes

"Another free fall, as I realize that the spiritual philosophy I embraced after discarding an Eastern form of 'fundamentalism' is still unduly faith-based".

Intellect is the attribute of mind given humans to discern or discriminate supposed right from wrong, or true from false, or to build airplanes, computers, Disney parks, ships and boats, or monuments, or jot down notes, or attempt to communicate in language or in scientific or mathematic models with, as we attempt do now.

Intellect is pitifully incapable of recognizing or knowing that which is worth knowing, ie. yourself.

When you realize that much then you can begin to start telling me or any others how advanced you truly are.

Till then better you get to grips with who you are, and start utilizing your mind and intellect for what it was intended, because you highfalutin opinion of yourself is way out of sinc with any true form of reality at all.

[hukai]

well tAo I answered your inaccurate assesment of my comment but it was wiped off by the moderator, (not that I can in any way fathom why - it was a perfectly lucid to the point answer to your pre-judgmental inaccuracies)

So better you let sleeping dog's lie because thats how the status quo here prefer the state of innacurate subjective suppositions to remain.

Nevertheless it would still be a reasonable question to inquire, so where to from here, since some of you are free falling into your blissful non knowing subjective oblivion, who in fact are you, if not a conglomerate of randomly collected flukes of elemental material nature?

[Brian Hines]

hukai, in deleting a more obvious "troll" comment, your previous comment got unpublished inadvertently. I restored it, even though it doesn't make any sense and is on the edge of troll-ishness. So far you haven't said what you do consider to be real and true; you've mainly cursed the supposed darkness of this blog.

[hukai]

well I don't think I've specifically cursed anyone or suggested any of you are being in anyway 'dark', just misinformed, and in your inadequate or inaccurate assumptions, perhaps misleading and misinforming others.

Anyway thanks for reposting the comment, perhaps it helps, perhaps it don't. In tAo's case I somehow doubt it will.

Cherio for now, and good luck

[tucson]

hukai,

Blogger Brian said: "So far you haven't said what you do consider to be real and true;"

As usual you ignored the issue presented to you by saying we are "just misinformed, and in your inadequate or inaccurate assumptions, perhaps misleading and misinforming others."

hukai, What do you consider to be real and true?

[tAo]

hukai says:

"Intellect is pitifully incapable of recognizing or knowing that which is worth knowing, ie. yourself."

-- i already know myself... i am myself.

"When you realize that much then you can begin to start telling me or any others how advanced you truly are."

-- i already realize. but i have no need to tell anyone "how advanced". i don't claim to be anything. so there is nothing to tell. you are the one who says that others are "misinformed" and "inaccurate", yet even when you have been asked, you present nothing whatsoever. you imply that other folks are all ignorant, but yet you offer no knowledge.

"Till then better you get to grips with who you are"

-- not necessary, as i already know who am i.

"you highfalutin opinion of yourself is way out of sinc with any true form of reality at all."

-- i have no "opinion" about myself at all. i have no need for such opinions.

"well tAo I answered your inaccurate assesment of my comment"

-- you did not answer anything. nor did you answer anyone else's specific questions or their comments.

"it would still be a reasonable question to inquire, [...] who in fact are you"

-- i already know who am i. so i have no need to inquire.

"well I don't think I've specifically cursed anyone or suggested any of you are being in anyway 'dark', just misinformed, and in your inadequate or inaccurate assumptions, perhaps misleading and misinforming others."

-- hukai, you are the one with all the "assumptions". all of your comments are quite indicative of that. and i am not "misleading" or "misinforming" anyone. no one is required to accept my comments. they do so only because my comments are reasonable and rational and factual.

"thanks for reposting the comment, perhaps it helps, perhaps it don't. In tAo's case I somehow doubt it will."

-- there is nothing to indicate tyhat i am in need of any help. and i am not i need of your "help". if i was, then i would have asked you. you come to this blog and condemn people and act as if everyone else is lost in ignorance and misinformed, and that you are not. but yet you never offer anything positive, nor any better information or knowledge. you are like an empty clown or trollish jester dancing around in the shadows. you have no credibility at all.

at this point hukai, either you offer up something of substance to back up your claims and innuendos, or be ignored and possibly deleted. in other words, your tiresome trollish bullshitting isn't getting anywhere, and its boring.

[George]

lol - i think coochie believes he knows the Truth, which is that there is no point to the intellect and such discussions.

However, he cannot explain the Truth and apparently no-one can, apparently the answer is: to go within and be led by a living master of whom only RS apparently have today.

There is no other way or room for discussion.

[George]

I think what binds all of us, and i may be wrong, is that we wonder if there is more to this material existence and what our purpose is, if anything at all.

Some ppl may have resolved that question better than others, I have not at all. And it seems that Hoochie has resolved it completely.

Hooochie knows (believes) that this reality is delusion, but does he not want to know if his knowledge is itself delusion?

Is he completely sure he knows the truth, and thats its not what he wants to be true or what he believes to be true as a result of his RS conditioning?

I am not trying to antagonise. If I were to have an enlightement experience where i saw the gurus astral form or floated thru the spheres, i'd want to know if my mind was operating correctly, if what i was experiencing was actually real and not a type of dream or illusion which the extremely complicated human mind is prone to.

How does one know for sure that one's experience whether drug-induced, dreaming, hallucinating, or RS-induced is real?

[tucson]

Hoochiehukai,

George makes a very good point, IMO, when he says:

"Hooochie knows (believes) that this reality is delusion, but does he not want to know if his knowledge [RS teachings] is itself delusion?"

--What do you say hoochiehukai...more trash talking? Don't bother. We know what you think of us. You've said it loud and clear numerous times. But what do you think about what George said? Really, can you not admit that RS teachings could be delusion? If not, why?