"The God Equation" is about Einstein's impersonal god

I bought theoretical physicist Michio Kaku's latest book, The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything, after seeing him interviewed by Stephen Colbert. 

I enjoyed the book, though I agree with some Amazon reviewers that it doesn't really break new ground. But since my understanding of the old ground is shaky, I enjoyed Kaku's take on familiar topics.

Particle physics. Relativity theory. Quantum mechanics. Big bang. The search for common ground between how relativity and quantum theories view reality. String theory.

Spoiler alert: physicists haven't yet come up with a viable Theory of Everything. String theory is the leading candidate, but string theory suffers from not-so-minor drawbacks such as an almost complete lack of ability to test its validity.

To a theoretician, all these criticisms are troublesome but not fatal. But what does cause problems for a theoretician is that the [string theory] model seems to predict a multiverse of parallel universes, many of which are crazier than those in the imagination of a Hollywood scriptwriter.

...Some might argue that these alternate universes are only mathematical possibilities and are not real. But the problem is that the theory lacks predictive power, since it cannot tell you which of these alternate universes is the real one.

Still, there's a lot to like about string theory.

It could resolve the conflict between relativity theory (space-time is smooth) and quantum theory (the subatomic realm is lumpy) by positing that extremely tiny strings are the fundamental constituents of reality.

Mystics would resonate with that notion, a point I made in my first book, God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder. Here's how Kaku puts it.

As a result of the torrent of equations, a new picture was beginning to emerge. Why were there so many particles?

Like Pythagoras more than two thousand years ago, the theory said that each musical note -- each vibration of a string -- represented a particle. Electrons, quarks, and Yang-Mills particles were nothing but different notes on the same vibrating string.

What is so powerful and interesting about the theory is that gravity is necessarily included. Without any extra assumptions, the graviton emerges as one of the lowest vibrations of the string.

...As physicist Edward Witten once said, "String theory is extremely attractive because gravity is forced upon us. All known consistent string theories include gravity, so while gravity is impossible in quantum field theory as we have known it, it's obligatory in string theory."

So while a huge amount of work remains to be done on string theory, there's a possibility it could live up to the title of Kaku's book, The God Equation. 

However, this wouldn't be the God most people worship, but Einstein's God.

In this and other letters, Einstein despaired of answering questions concerning the meaning of life, but he was clear about his thinking concerning God.

One problem, he wrote, is that there are really two kinds of Gods, and we often confuse the two. 

First, there is the personal God, the God that you pray to, the God of the Bible who smites the Philistines and rewards the believers. He did not believe in that God. He did not believe that the God who created the universe interfered in the affairs of mere mortals.

However, he believed in the God of Spinoza -- that is, the God of order in a universe that is beautiful, simple, and elegant. The universe could have been ugly, random, chaotic, but instead it has a hidden order that is mysterious yet profound.

In his final chapter, Kaku speaks about meaning in a familiar fashion that resonates with me.

In the end, I believe that we create our own meaning in the universe.

It is too simple and easy to have some guru come down from the mountaintop, bearing the meaning of the universe. The meaning of life is something that we have to struggle to understand and appreciate.

Having it given to us defeats the whole purpose of meaning.

If the meaning of life were available for free, then it would lose its meaning. Everything that has meaning is the result of struggle and sacrifice, and is worth fighting for.

Comments

[albert]

Empirical knowledge is not only prized by the rational mind, it is essential. Therein lies the whole problem with attempting to prove subjective experiences that are "non-material", i.e. "spiritual".

In 2012 scientists at CERN finally found the infamous Higgs-boson which is the "particle that gives all other fundamental particles mass". Empirical science is only concerned with the origins and evolution of the material universe, its laws and its secrets. Our five senses which allow our minds to compare, contrast and analyze material forms are aimed outwards, toward the material universe. The tangible, tactile world is all that physicists are desiring to understand and describe, reveling in a never-ending presentation of changing theories. Likewise, the discovery of the Higgs-boson has not led to a single understanding of either the origins of matter or the origins of consciousness. No one knows which came first: Consciousness or Matter.

To be seated anxiously at the edge of one's seat, awaiting science to supply anything of concrete value regarding the secret of life, is a waste of precious time and energy.

You came first...matter followed as a necessary accretion for experiences with resistance, pleasures, pain, suffering, desires, deterioration and death...a very long saga, indeed.

[Appreciaitve Reader]

"Empirical science is only concerned with the origins and evolution of the material universe"

There is evidence for no other.

"Our five senses which allow our minds to compare, contrast and analyze material forms are aimed outwards, toward the material universe."

There is evidence for no other.

" The tangible, tactile world is all that physicists are desiring to understand and describe, reveling in a never-ending presentation of changing theories. "

That is the nature of the scientific method. New evidence gives rise to new theories, in a virtuous cycle of expanding (collective) awareness and knowledge.

"No one knows which came first: Consciousness or Matter."

There is no evidence of consciousness other than in and from matter.

"To be seated anxiously at the edge of one's seat, awaiting science to supply anything of concrete value regarding the secret of life, is a waste of precious time and energy."

To each their own. We are free to use our time and energy as we please. We each define for ourselves what is a worthwhile use of our time and energy.

"You came first...matter followed as a necessary accretion for experiences with resistance, pleasures, pain, suffering, desires, deterioration and death...a very long saga, indeed."

There is no evidence that this kind of a worldview is anything other than fancy and wishful thinking.

[Appreciative Reader]

"(Einstein) believed in the God of Spinoza -- that is, the God of order in a universe that is beautiful, simple, and elegant. The universe could have been ugly, random, chaotic, but instead it has a hidden order that is mysterious yet profound."

All hail to Einstein's scientific genius, but do we really need to defer to his unevidenced philosophizing?

Spinoza's God (I had to look it up --- concisely presented here for those who likewise might need to look up, or at least brush up, their Spinoza: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu) suffers from three drawbacks, or so it seems to me: first, it is a redefinition of an already existing word/term that causes unnecessary confusion and serves no real purpose; second, his "ontological proof" seems to be no more than question-begging; and, third, his God, while less outre than the more vulgar forms that people tend to worship, nevertheless lacks evidence, and is, therefore, for all intents and purposes equally as non-existent as the more dramatic conceptions of God.

-------

I seem, of late, to be channeling that wise soul, x/cc, whom I often used to disagree with in the past. *shrug* One's views change, I suppose, evolve with time. Or they should. Much like scientific theories.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Appreciative reader is all over the place clutching at every which way straw that comes wafting across its wayward uncomfortable intellect"

-------

You may be right. There's no reason, after all, for me to keep shooting my (figurative) mouth off.

Apologies for unnecessarily hogging the comments.

[Uchit]

Who needs Einstein when we got RSSB and GSD, rebranded as Science of the soul. Once you've worked out that RSSB is just deception and a fake science, and that you have been tricked most of your life, you can sort out your own life and get on with it.

[Who's watching this movie]

Human nature vs neurological science
Where the fck are you going with this 'scientific research program'?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158232735848177&id=21641548176

[albert]

Evidence that satisfies everyone is impossible, AR. Ultimately, you and you alone are the arbiter of all your experiences. Extracting evidence from the sensory-intellectual arena of normal mental functioning is but one small diameter of conscious perception, relegating proofs to only material outcomes.

There are wider and more expansive fields to explore with one's own awareness. I think you would agree, n'est pas? For example, take Brian's wonderful explorations with Tai Chi and his resulting keen perceptions about life. Unfortunately...or fortunately...these subtle energies cannot be measured by any material equipment made with physical materials, for the energies of perception and comprehension are non-molecular. Thus the terms "metaphysical vs. physical", or "esoteric vs. exoteric" come into stark contrast.

One's experimentation with these more refined and subtler energies, accessible by every human being if there is a desire to do so, necessarily remain in an intimate subjective domain characterized by individual efforts and evaluations that are private.

To me, life is dry and barren if only empirical science is allowed to dictate one's beliefs. Subjective experimentation with one's own gift of intelligence and conscious awareness is what Roddenberry may have really alluded to: "Consciousness...the final frontier. These are the voyages of the pilgrim soul."

His conscious explorations were appreciated worldwide.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, albert.

Pardon my having butted in on to your comment uninvited. I myself enjoy testing my views against others', and it is in that spirit I'd posted that earlier comment, and this one as well.

-------

"Evidence that satisfies everyone is impossible, AR"

Agreed, but isn't that something of an irrelevancy? Because we're not really looking to an argumentum ad populum here. Indeed, there was a time, in the past, when a great many people would witness to miracles (led either by suggestibility, or some such). That did not make them true.

I realize it would be a bit of an issue if a scientist found himself the sole witness of his evidence, which in a sense is comparable to the kind of mysticism you're probably speaking of, am I right? But that is an issue only for the bona fide mystic, who's himself actually had those "observations", and not for others who might have heard of such at second or third hand. And even for the bona fide mystic I can think of a great many tests to validate their experience. But still, there's a bit of a gray area there, or there might be, I'll give you that much.

-------

"Ultimately, you and you alone are the arbiter of all your experiences. Extracting evidence from the sensory-intellectual arena of normal mental functioning is but one small diameter of conscious perception, relegating proofs to only material outcomes."

Actually that is the issue I had with your original comment, and that prompted me to speak out. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? You speak of "only material outcomes". What other kind do we have evidence for, and, therefore, what other kind have we grounds to accept?

There is the *possibility* of supra-material realities, sure. But that would apply to just about anything our imagination can think up!

-------

"There are wider and more expansive fields to explore with one's own awareness. I think you would agree, n'est pas?"

That I would, albert, and without reservation! In some humble way I'm part of that experimentation myself.

But being open to other possibilities is different than accepting such prematurely.

-------

"For example, take Brian's wonderful explorations with Tai Chi and his resulting keen perceptions about life. Unfortunately...or fortunately...these subtle energies cannot be measured by any material equipment made with physical materials, for the energies of perception and comprehension are non-molecular. Thus the terms "metaphysical vs. physical", or "esoteric vs. exoteric" come into stark contrast.

One's experimentation with these more refined and subtler energies, accessible by every human being if there is a desire to do so, necessarily remain in an intimate subjective domain characterized by individual efforts and evaluations that are private."

Again, albert, those "chi" forces, we don't really have evidence for them, and so no grounds, really, to think of them as anything more than superstition and myth -- albeit worth exploring further if we want to, why not?

-------

"To me, life is dry and barren if only empirical science is allowed to dictate one's beliefs."

But why?

I agree, life might be thought of as limited, if one's explorations were limited by what empirical science has already uncovered. That much, I'm 100% in agreement with. But why jump the gun, as far as actual belief?

-------

"Subjective experimentation with one's own gift of intelligence and conscious awareness is what Roddenberry may have really alluded to: "Consciousness...the final frontier. These are the voyages of the pilgrim soul."

His conscious explorations were appreciated worldwide."

I'm afraid I'm not aware of Roddenberry. I'll check him out.

And as far as "subjective experimentation" -- the experimentation part -- I'm in full agreement with you, and with Roddenberry.

But only as far as experimentation, as well as, naturally, whatever bona fide results those experiments might yield. Not premature acceptance of any results, or any worldview that is based on such presumed results.

[Appreciative Reader]

Oh, that was a Star Trek reference, was it? Cool.

And here I was thinking you were quoting some medieval RCC mystic or something. *rueful smile*

[Manoj]

The quest for a theory of everything

Just ask GSD, a know it all who knows nothing but thinks he knows everything

This one book has more to gain from, than the Greed filled GSD & the non religion, religion rrsb.

In the end, I believe that we do create our own meaning in the universe.

So its always best to bin the trash, that's where GSD & the rubbish Rssb belong