|
In higher mathematics there exists something called a differential equation. The solution to a differential equation involves, believe it or not, an element of creativity. There is no one solution in the 1+1=2 sense. In Copenhagen in the early 1930's the greatest minds of the physics community created the above solution to the measurement problem in a manner similar to the way one would find a solution to a differential equation. In the 1950's an alternative solution, an alternative mathematical approach, to the measurement problem was discovered: the many worlds interpretation. This involved the possibility of a totally material reality. When an event involving two possible outcomes occurs at the particle physics level the entire universe divides into two separate space-time continuums, identical except for the above mentioned different possibilities which are actualised in each of the two separate universes. Given the vast number of possible quantum level events that might be happening in the tip of my pen as I write, the vast, and ever increasing, number of universes is mind boggling. But the mathematical solution is more elegant than that of the Copenhagen conferences. It makes greater mathematical sense. And it more closely resembles the materialistic, mechanistic and deterministic conception of reality that has become synonymous with western thought. When Newtonian physics was thought to be a complete description of a physical reality, it was considered true that once the starting conditions of a system, even the entire universe, were known, then the behaviour of the system in question could be mapped with complete accuracy. Within the context of this paradigm, religiosity, where it is recognised as valid, is usually seen as a function of a God that is separate from reality, Who, if He intervenes in His creation at all, does so in miraculous events, such as the incarnation of His only Son, the God-man, events that involve the suspension of the mechanistic laws which He instituted at the same time as He created His material universe. This would have been Isaac Newton's view. The human soul is often seen by believers as evidence of God's miraculous intervention. In general, however, a functioning material universe is increasingly seen as evidence of His absence, and then of His non-existence. Almost any physicist will describe the workings of sub-atomic reality in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation as a matter of course. She might just mention the many worlds interpretation, but only as a technical possibility and not as one taken seriously by 'anybody'. If a physicist who actually took this possibility seriously could be found he would seek to convince us with reference to complex mathematical facts. Almost all physicists regard the absurdities of the 'many worlds' outweigh these arguments. In practical physics laboratory situations the Copenhagen interpretation pragmatically amounts to what 'might as well be happening', but what 'actually is happening' is, in a sense, anyone's guess. Even a many worlds advocate would be asserting the likelihood of this model and not its certainty. Mainstream western philosophy tends to take a different view however. Reductionism is a core dogma and goes a bit like this: centuries ago it was generally thought that all reality was composed of indestructible atoms and that the behaviour of all reality was deterministically described by the behaviour of, and interaction of, these basic building blocks - reductionism is a development of this idea. The behaviour of reality is always to be described by the behaviour of more basic entities. Some would say that reductionism seeks to clutch at materialistic straws. Materialism, in an absolute sense, is considered unlikely by physicists. However I have heard various and diverse philosophical sources insist that, as the many worlds approach is the preferred materialistic and quasi-deterministic option, the capacity of human choice is the final arbiter of the issue. Accordingly the option preferred by the materialists is, objectively, true. Anything is possible, but some possibilities are so absurd as to make dismissing them completely reasonable. The above example from the world of physics involves two genuinely realistic possibilities. In science things are not so much true as likely in varying degrees. Present scientific knowledge reveals two possible starting points in particle physics. One is considered by physicists to be far more likely than the other for reasons involving scientific expertise. But I have encountered philosophical sources insisting that, because the materialistic option is possible, it is acceptable to insist that it is true for propaganda purposes, and that it thus becomes true in fact. Ideology can force a choice against the expertise of scientists. Research would then be channelled in this direction. Any physicist who was not engaging in propaganda would say that both are possible - neither could be ruled out; but that given the present level of knowledge one approach is far more likely than the other. A definitive answer would require new discoveries which, of course, might also involve a third, and new, possibility, unknown to us at present. The point here is that we negotiate reality with knowledge that is always partial, tentative and expanding. For example there can never be a completed physics or a completed understanding of our world. And in general possibilities are all that exist, and probabilities. But we should not delude ourselves that it is the human will alone that creates likelihood. The above describes sound science on the one hand and dishonest atheistic dogma from the philosophical community on the other. Whatever the 'truth' of any matter is, it can never be whatever suits us just because it suits us. If it is possible therefore is it so because and whenever it suits 'me' personally? Here we have a war of all against all, together with the crippling of scientific progress and allied technological development. We rapidly tend towards blind dogma. The opposing view recognises the fact that we all inhabit the same world and, whatever our cultural or other differences, we all spring from the same common reality the ultimate nature of which is what some call God. Those of us who grew up in or around the Ireland of the 1960's will remember 'Our Lady of Fatima' and how the world would be taken over by communism and then saved by the rosary. My involvement with the academic philosophical community has created in me an eerie feeling. Political communism is all but vanquished. However the philosophical basis for this form of political structure is termed scientific materialism. Soviet schoolchildren would have had scientific materialism classes just as we would have had Christian doctrine classes. Throughout academia in western society this very ideology, minus any pretension of communistic morality, largely directs research, directs those avenues of research that are pursued. It is not that research findings are faked but that the direction of research is channelled in the preferred direction. The question of the fundamentals of the physical sciences is but one, very important, element in this program. These distortions create the illusion that religious belief is absurd and do so deliberately. Similarly the idea that there cannot possibly be any objective morality is created and then seemingly proved. The basic social unit is the amoral human being and we relate in purely economic and legal terms. All opinions are considered equally valid. There is no truth. To demand grounds for a belief or to seek evidence for an opinion is regarded as a symptom of lack of character. To point to evidence is misinterpreted as seeking to recruit support. The superior man stands alone even if he is in a personal universe of complete nonsense and lies. Just as long as one can get away with it. Karl Marx would have been proud of his western progeny. A great deal of the western power structure is in the hands of advocates of this philosophy. Career advancement frequently depends on orthodoxy. These people are not elected but they are powerful. The decision as to what forms of knowledge are to be pursued and those which are to be discarded is in their hands.
Brendan Burke MA(Phil)
Cork Unitarian Church |