Well, gentle reader, I guess that I will inflict a new topic area on you. I think that I will shift topic from politics to philosophy. Now you can gnash some new teeth rather than wearing down your political teeth all the time.
When people ask me what religion I am I have found that “spiritual, not religious” is the line that is closest to the truth and least likely to get a reaction stronger than a puzzled look or rolled eyeballs. Not many pursue it beyond that.
For those few that have the temerity to pursue the topic further, what do I mean when I say that I am “spiritual but not religious?” The very short answer is to apply a label to my belief set. To apply such a label I have coined the term “Scientific Deism” since what I have arrived at seems to be a form of deism that has its roots in science.
Now for the longer and maybe more painful answer, but certainly the more interesting answer: Considering that, according to Quantum Physics, there is supposedly sufficient energy in a cubic foot of the zero point field to boil off several oceans of water, we are left with the implication that there is one whole hell of a lot going on in the universe of which we are not cognizant! Considering the theoretical computing capabilities that are expected from quantum computers within our relatively nanoscopic slice of the universe, the computing capabilities of a quantum computer the size of the universe, zero point field and all, is so mind-bogglingly huge as to be utterly, totally and completely beyond the wildest imaginings of any human—sane or insane—on the planet. If a few pounds of protoplasm floating in a human skull can be sentient, it is inconceivable that a computer the size of the universe is not. It’s also not too much of a stretch to expect such a quantum computer to be able to be fully aware of the existence and behavior of every particle of matter in the universe. Such a computer certainly qualifies as omniscient! With the kind of energy associated with the zero point field presumably under the purview of such a computer, it’s not too hard to conclude that the computer would be able to manipulate at least some of it and, ergo, we effectively associate a level of power to it that, if not fully omnipotent, certainly is close enough for our insignificant human purposes.
At this point in time, many cosmologists hypothesize that the physical universe arose from the zero point field—kind of like a bubble in a fluid. Some go so far as to hypothesize that multiple universes may arise from the zero point field, sort of like suds bubbling up in a dishpan of soapy water. Others suggest that new universes may bud off of our own universe (black holes, for one, being postulated as the effective agents of this budding effect). If correct, this implies that our physical universe is a part of a much larger entity which I call the superverse. This superverse would be composed of the zero point field and all universes that have budded or bubbled out of it either directly or indirectly. As such, we must recognize the zero point field as the source of our physical universe and any others that may exist. If the zero point field is indeed sentient, omniscient and omnipotent, it follows rather easily that it could be the creator of our universe and any others that may exist. Thus, the zero point field alone or the superverse as a whole can be credited with what are commonly recognized as the qualities of God or a god or gods.
Given that the superverse/universe/zero point field is effectively equivalent to what we humans refer to as God, god or gods, it follows that God is present with us either in the sense that God as the zero point field interpenetrates our physical universe or that God as the superverse/universe is to us, at least from an inadequate perspective of scale, as we as a human beings are to an individual brain cell in our body. From the perspective of relative cognizance, a better analogy might be that God is to us as we are to a tank of newly hatched guppies or pollywogs that we own. For the purpose of this discussion, whether God interpenetrates us or whether we are a miniscule part of God—or maybe that we are both—is not important. I will leave that issue to be resolved by science and, until then, argued over by hair-splitters. For now, I will denote the concept of God/god/gods as superverse/universe/zero point field with the capitalized term “Universe.”
What can we say about this Universe with any reasonable degree of certainty? The most salient feature of the Universe is that it appears to have granted us, and at least the higher animals, free will. Now the sophists among us will ask, “Do we really have free will or is it an illusion?” My reply, at least within the context of this discussion, is, “Who cares?” If, for whatever reason, it truly is an illusion then it appears to be a seamless illusion. As such, it provides us the same psychological stimulus that the real thing would provide. Consequently, worrying about the reality of reality, at least in this context, seems to be pretty much a waste of time. I will throw one sop at the issue and leave it at that. Chaos Theory may be our clue that free will is genuine and not an illusion foisted upon us by a deterministic Universe.
Considering how enamored humans seem to be with power and the control associated with it, free will, or the appearance thereof, is not an insignificant gift! In fact, considering that we can raise the stress level of humans by limiting their control over facets of their life for which they are held to be responsible, implies that free will is an important component of heath. For example, studies have shown that middle managers have more stress-related problems than do upper managers who have more control over their work environments than do the middle managers. Free will is a gift of sufficient magnitude that it throws some credence on the idea espoused by many religions/religious sects, i.e. that God is a loving God.
Given that the Universe has free will, and humans have free will, it is not unreasonable to state that humans are made in the image of the Universe, at least in one important respect, i.e. free will. If we allow that the Universe is the zero point field combined with the physical universe/superverse, it is reasonable to say that we are also made in the physical image of the Universe since we are an actual physical component of the Universe.
Given that the Universe is a computer, the largest in existence, and easily large enough to be sentient, what is its purpose, what are its goals—indeed, what motivates the Universe to behave as it does? If we have the temerity to generalize from the human understanding of the mind and the sentience that resides there to the unimaginably greater sentience represented by the Universe, we can derive some interesting conclusions on the topic.
The muscles of animals that are not exercised tend to atrophy. In like fashion, brains, or parts of brains, that are not utilized tend not to develop or to atrophy. It has been demonstrated that rats placed in boring environments from birth tend to be very dull intellectually when compared to rats raised in diverse and stimulating environments. Rhesus monkeys raised in environments with mechanical surrogates for mothers have demonstrated inadequacies in their ability as adults to interact socially with other monkeys and to raise their offspring effectively. Among humans it is generally accepted that the exposure of children, even in utero, to stimulating environments is positively related to their subsequent mental development.
The amount and/or quality of the stimulation appears to affect the actual size of the brain. It has been documented that domestic animals, on average, tend to have smaller brains than their wild cousins. On this note, it may be significant that Cro-Magnon skull capacities have been measured as being slightly greater than those of modern humans who are judged to be direct descendants of those Cro-Magnons. (It might be instructive to study the skull capacity/body mass ratios of modern healthy humans and healthy primitive peoples of the world.)
Indeed, it has been shown that a lack of stimulation can have consequences beyond that of mere intellectual development. For example, premature babies placed in incubators without adequate tactile stimulation have higher mortality rates than do infants given adequate tactile stimulation while in incubators. Likewise, insufficient stimulation as well as inappropriate stimulation has been shown to be positively correlated with mental pathologies.
Like a muscle that feels better when exercised reasonably and regularly, a sentient mind that is healthy gets regular exercise. Even classic couch-potatoes learn something, but probably not enough to stave off depression and any number of other ills.
Having been created in the image of the Universe, it is reasonable to conclude that humans exist to learn. On a slightly less positive note, we could say that humans are merely learning vehicles of the Universe. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that any entity with some degree of free will is a learning vehicle of the Universe.
If we assume that the Universe is subject to the dimension of time in the same manner as humans are, it is fair to assume that the quantum computer that comprises the Universe is capable of recording every event that happens in the course of its existence. In the event that the Universe can transcend the dimension of time (which I consider highly plausible), there may not be a need for an overt memory faculty—the physical universe might look to the Universe something like a hologram looks to us.
Whew, I’m not even going to get into the next issue, Good and Evil. If you haven’t yet died of boredom and are still with me, be advised that I expect to explore this topic from time to time when politicians and other disagreeable creatures haven't distracted me from it.
