An auspicious week for Science (in history)

This week is quite special for the natural sciences... On the 4th of January we commemorate the birth of Sir Isaac Newton, the brains behind 'Newtonian physics'. Without it we would not be able to build bridges, dig tunnels or even drive motorcars.

In two of my books I discuss the significant role that Sir Isaac Newton played in the development of our understanding of the Universe. Some persons have challenged my positive view of Newtonian physics, questioning whether it has any relevance in the light of quantum mechanics and quantum physics.

My answer to them is quite simple - Newtonian physics is as valid and important to physical science as my childhood is to my adult life! Simply because one's knowledge and ability has complexified and increased, it does not mean that one completely rejects where one has come from, what one has gained from those early experiences, and even the manner in which one gained those experiences and insights. Value is a somewhat subjective measurement. For example is the song 'Jesus loves me this I know' less valuable than the magnificent Wesleyan hymn 'O for a thousand tongues to sing' (written by Charles Wesley in 1739)? Or, to state it differently, is the simple and sincere confession of faith by a 9 year old any less valuable than the complex and systematic confession of faith by say, John Calvin or ? No, each has unique and special value within its context, and each enriches the value of the other.

I discuss this notion of integrative, holarchic, interdependent value in my book 'Christ at the centre' - you're welcome to download a copy here, simply read from approximately pages 45 to 53. In short, one could ask whether a letter of the alphabet is more valuable than a page of a book? Well the answer is that neither is more valuable than the other in the context of a story - letters make up words, words make up sentences, sentences make up paragraphs, and paragraphs make up the narrative of a story on a page. Without individual letters of the alphabet one would not have any words, and without words (into which the letters are arranged) the letters themselves are not all that informative. So, one can see that each component is related to the others, both giving and receiving value through that relationship.

So, quantum physics is essential but it does not exclude the value of Newtonian physics. Try to build a bridge using only quantum physics and you may just find that it is not possible!

So, happy birthday Sir Isaac Newton!

Then, this week commemorates the death of the African American scientist George Washington Carver (5 January 1943). He did a great deal to improve our understanding of argriculture and alternative crops. What is particularly significant about his contribtion to science and the academy is that he was a significantly positive role model to counteract the stereotype of African Americans in the late 1800's in America. He did so much to show that any person, regardless of race or background, can make a significant contribution to scientific endeavour.

Well, it sure is a scientific week!

Create multiple Universes for just US $20!

I have always been intrigued by the possibility of the existence of multiple Universes (is that even marginally correct grammar!?) A large portion of my Masters degree research in Systematic Theology considered the influence of 'the new science' (mainly quantum theory, but also microbiology) on our vision of reality. I read persons such as Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky, Talbot, Bohm, Russel, Heisenberg, Sharpe, Capra, Schroedinger, Tipler, Zukav and Keepin; oh, and of course the converging point was Ken Wilber...

Perhaps, however, in this regard David Deutsch was one of the most influential contributors to my understanding of the possibility of the existence of a 'multiverse' (as opposed to a 'universe'). See Deutsch, D 1985. Quantum theory, the Clark-Turing Principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal society of London A400. You can take a peak at my Bibliography from my research proposal here: Bibliography science religion.rtf.

Simply stated, in a quantum universe, is it feasible to think that we are the only true existence (and here I'm not talking about aliens!) that operates in a linear fashion filling all of reality? Is it not possible, even plausible, to consider that the EPR paradox operates on a vastly more complex and real manner, allowing for the existence of an infinite number of parallel Universes where each decision made by each person causes a split in reality that allows that set of events to run their course to their conclusion? It is a little like streams branching of the primary tributary of a river, with each split an infinite number of new possibilities come into being - the radical complexity of these splits may appear chaotic, but when one traces them recursively one is able to observe some sense of order.

Of course there are some astute theologians who have considered similar possibilities. Take for example Teilhard de Chardin (who wrote in the early part of the last century about such reailities, even before the EPR paradox was even considered in the mainstream scientific community).

Creation, incarnation, and redemption constitute the one movement, which Teilhard calls 'pleromization'. It is a movement towards the 'pleroma', the fullness of being, in which God and his completed world exist united together (Lyons commenting on Teilhard in Lyons 1982:156).

The notion of increasing complexity, of 'collapse' in order and a movement towards the radical complexity of Christ (what Teilhard calls the 'Christ omega'), is in keeping with Christian scripture and Christian tradition (see for example Col 1.16-20 (see esp. v.20), Eph 1.10 - which is, of course, the verse that inspired the 'Father of the Church' Tertullian to formulate his doctrine of recapitulation of creation in Christ and Christ in salvation (anakephalaiosis about which I'm sure Steve Hayes could tell us a whole lot).

Anyway, I had two thoughts about this whole thing of 'alternate' Universes. First, I was thinking, if this is true, which one of the multiple Dion's am I? And, in relation to this, I wonder if the other Dion's experience as much blessing and joy as I do? Of course, in relation to God, I was also thinking how incredibly wide and deep the love of God would need to be in order to incorporate not only the complexity and potential of this universe, but the complexity and potential of an infinite number of Universes! A great mystery of love indeed!

Well, here's something to think about - with just US $ 20 you can emulate a multitude of universes! Of course this is just an illustration of the concept (and not a creation of it). But, I thought it was quite interesting regardless! From boingboing.

Are you willing to take on the responsibility that comes with bringing trillions of universes into existence, each teeming with sentient life? That's something to ponder before plunking down $20 for this make-your-own-universe kit, created by artist Jonathon Keats.

If two events are possible, quantum theory assumes that both occur simultaneously - until an observer determines the outcome. For example, in Schrodinger's famous thought experiment, in which his cat may have been killed with a 50 per cent probability, the cat is both alive and dead until someone checks. When the observation is made, the universe splits into two, one for each possible outcome. For example, Schrodinger's cat would be alive in one universe and dead in the other universe.

According to the theory, any kind of measurement causes the universe to split and this is the basis of Keats' new device. His universe creator uses a piece of uranium-doped glass to create a steam of alpha particles, which are then detected using a thin sliver of scintillating crystal. Each detection causes the creation of a new universe.

The make-your-own-universe kit

So here's what I'm thinking...

Life can be messy, and I'm glad that it is this way. The sorrow of one moment becomes the joy of the next. Being separated from a loved one for a short while creates an intensity of love and appreciation that breaks the regular ebb and flow of life that can so easily lead one into a position of taking your most precious relationships for granted.

This week has been a truly remarkable week of learning and growing for me. I am pleased that there is still so much to learn about life, loving God, and serving Christ. For some years I was treated as 'a font of knowledge' for others - I was approached for counsel, sought out to teach and preach, and asked to participate in various think tanks and meetings. These things flattered my ego, but they also covered a great truth - the truth is that I don't know very much! Titles can be deceptive, they tools of social engineering, employed to create a perception that may or may not be true (or is true in varying degrees). I have two titles, Reverend and Doctor. The one denotes an office within the Church, the other an achievement within the academic arena. For some time these titles were a cause of secret pride (and sometimes not so secret pride!) However, in recent months they have been the cause of great humility and struggle. You see, with a title comes an expectation - the title Reverend seems to carry the social and religious expectation of Godliness, maturity, wisdom, and care. I am not particularly good at any of these, although I do strive to do my best in each. The title Doctor carries with it the expectation of great learning, exceptional insights, and deep thought. Well, with the exception of a few very esoteric and rather eclectic subjects (neuroscience, applied mathematics, artificial intelligence, quantum physics, African philosophy and certain areas of Christian doctrine) I don't know much at all! Well, at least I don't know much about the things that truly count in life!

I am learning.

Before going further, I am aware that some would dispute that 'The Reverend' is in fact not a title, but rather a style of prefix used to address Christian clergy. The point is, I cannot live up to the social expectation of either of the titles that I have, just as little as I can truly be a perfect husband or father. I do my best, but there is tremendous room for growth.

Well, this week I sat in meetings, conference halls, Churches, offices, and around tables with people who were often much more interested in my titles than in my person. What I am learning is that I need to be as patient with them as I hope they are with me! You see, they too are subject to the pressures of socialization. So I guess I could state it more accurately by saying that this week I was learning to learn. I was having to think not only about what I was learning about people, but also about how I was learning what I was learning - for example when I met the head of the Ugandan Revenue service (she jokingly calls herself the 'Chief tax collector' of Uganda) I had to take time to separate the person from the title. The office that she holds is one of immense responsibility, power, and of course respect. But, when she spoke with me (a minister) she was looking for support, affirmation, encouragement, and prayer. I had to make the distinction between the person and the title and ask God to give me the grace to be sensitive to minister to her felt needs as she felt them, not as I perceived them. I am learning to learn!

Well, this was a good week!

I have learned a lot! I have learned a lot about myself, I have learned a lot about others, I have learned a lot about Argentina, and Uganda, and Japan, and Thailand, and Australia, and Iran, and Spain, and Denmark, and a host of other countries and regions...

The meetings were remarkable, my intellect was stimulated, my heart was touched, and my spirit was renewed.

Amazingly though, the highlight of this week came from a town called Paarl, thousands of Kilometers away. The highlight of this week for me was the gift of a child for my friends Angus and Heather, you can read about that gift here: http://gruntleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/zachari.html

We continue to learn... That's what I'm thinking!

Tomorrow morning I shall be leaving Mar del Plata, driving to Buenos Aires and then catching a boat to Uruguay. There I shall have further opportunities to learn. I do feel that this 'season' of my life is a season of service. I am trying to learn how to serve those that I work with, and serve those that I encounter. It is not easy to serve when almost all of western culture tries to teach one to rule and direct. So, do say a prayer for me. I am learning.

Is radical unity between God and creation (and created beings) New Age, or is it in fact a Biblical view of reality?

A friend emailed me a few days ago to ask a question about some research he is doing. I hope to be able to chat with him in person when he comes down to Cape Town. However, one aspect of our email conversation struck with me.

I have often been confronted (because of the nature and content of my own research) with the question about the quantum theoretical view of reality and fundamentally interconnected and interrelated and some elements of new age spirituality. In particular persons have asked me whether what I propose is not some form of new age spirituality - my response is quite simply NO! I believe that a view of reality in which everything lives, and moves, and has its being in Christ is the only truly Biblical view that one could hold with any Christian integrity (Acts 17:28)! Whilst God is wholly 'other' from creation (in the sense that God is creator whilst we are creation) does not suppose that we are separate from God! There is great unity in distinction! The mystery of the Christian Trinity is a testimony to 'otherness' in radical unity....

Anyway, here's a version of the email that I sent to my friend explaining some of my reasoning, and pointing to some things that I've written about this radical unity between God and God's beloved creation.

----

This is a very interesting topic indeed! I have written a few things in this area, and done some research on identity, consciousness and the new science. Here are a few documents that you can download to see some of what I've written on this subject. I prefer to speak of quantum theory and integrative theory rather than pure quantum mechanics (which is a sub-field of quantum science, which in turn is a sub field of quantum theory - one of the things that we learn in the 'new science' is that the boundaries between science and spirituality, or for that matter identity and being, are quite thin, and often don't exist).

A) You can download a copy of my doctoral thesis here: http://www.spirituality.org.za/files/D%20Forster%20doctorate.pdf This has the most detailed discussions I've yet written on some of these ideas (quantum theory, identity, relationship and consciousness). In particular you may find the following of interest:

1. Simply search for 'quantum', 'tunneling effect', 'EPR', 'implicate' or 'Bohm' in the PDF and see what I've written about quantum theory.

2. There is a chapter devoted to your subject (Chapter 3 that is entitled 'Consciousness and the functioning of the human brain: A discussion of biological, physical and philosophical theories relating to individual human consciousness and the brain'. In particular section 3.4.3 is worth considering, the first part talks about computational models of the brain from the perspective of classical physics (i.e., Newtonian physics and Euclidian mathematics), and section two in that same subsection discusses quantum theories of the brain and consciousness in relation to identity - it is entitled 'A holographic model of the conscious brain: A perspective from quantum physics'.

3. Chapter 4 of the thesis is, in my opinion, much more radical than quantum physical (or quantum spiritual) theories of identity and conscious. In this chapter I present and discuss the incredible work of Ken Wilber the integrative theorist who is a brilliant scientist, philosopher, and a deeply spiritual person (Buddhist, not Christian... But we pray!) Section 4.3 is of particular interest, it is entitled 'Holistic consciousness in relation to Ken Wilber's four quadrants of reality'. In summary all of quantum theory would fit into the upper right and lower right of Wilber's four quadrants, then there are the upper left, and lower left which are largely not considered by even the most enlightened of quantum theorists!

4. I also do some work in chapters 5 and 6 on the relationship between all of this 'stuff' and African models of relationship and identity which are much more balanced than those of the dualistic 'West'....

So, that's enough for the thesis.... By the way, it is soon to be published as a book. The working title is 'Why you're not who you think you are: Adventures in neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and theology'

B) I have also done some work on the quantum stuff in one of my recent books entitled 'Christ at the centre - discovering the Cosmic Christ in the spirituality of Bede Griffiths' You can download PDF copies of the book here: http://www.spirituality.org.za/2008/04/copies-of-my-three-most-recent-books.html In this book I devote just short of a chapter to quantum physics (and micro biology in relation to the 'new science'), you'll find it at around pp. 34-52.

C) In my recent little book 'An uncommon spiritual path - finding Jesus beyond conventional Christianity.' you'll find a similar discussion around pp. 79 ff. You can also download a copy of that book in PDF format here: http://www.spirituality.org.za/2008/04/copies-of-my-three-most-recent-books.html

D) Finally, I wrote his paper which gives some insight into the relationship between quantum theory and the evolution of the cosmos from the 'gross' material level to the 'subtler' spiritual levels. This is quite a controversial paper in and of itself... Here I argue that the extinction of humanity may well be part of God's evolutionary plan for the perfection of creation... The problem with us humans is that we tend to centre all of reality upon ourselves (even God)! So, this may be one possible way of placing God at the centre of creation once again.... Anyway, it was more tongue in cheek than serious, plus it got published because it was so contentious! You can download the paper here: http://www.spirituality.org.za/files/Post%20human%20evolutionary%20cosmology%20Teilhard%20de%20Chardin.pdf

Well, there you have it... Since my understanding is clearly that quantum theory is one possible explanation of the breakdown of duality between spirit and matter, and so a measure of identity in which we come to discover the mystery of the person of Christ who draws all creation truly into himself (Ephesians 1:10), and the Holy Spirit who holds all things in constant, present, existence (Colossians 1:16-17), I do believe that there is value in appropriating and understand this new 'language' for the purposes of expressing and grasping the mystery of being fully alive in Christ. I do not think this is 'new age' in any way. I think is fundamentally biblical and scriptural! One of the HUGE problems with the characterization of such spirituality as 'new age' is that it is based more on Western dualism than scriptural unity. Most of the Bible (the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures) does not have the radical dualism between spiritual and profane, between religion and ordinary life, and between divine reality and the created order. This dualism was introduced INTO the New Testament through neo Platonists (of which the Apostle Paul was primary), and the Gnostics - Hebrew is the clearest neo-platonic dualism in scripture.... That is interesting in and off itself since it is supposedly the most 'Hebrew' of the New Testament books, yet it has the most impeccable Greek of all the New Testmanet writtings and displays a clear textual vorlage to the Septuagint and the Greek philosophical schools of the time... But. of you read the chapter listed under B) above you'll get quite a detailed discussion on how we went from Old Testament harmony between God and creation, interior life and exterior life, through the Greek philosophers, to Descartes, Netwon, Francis Bacon, and ultimately Western metaphysics. The point is quite simply that most of the Old Testament, and some of the most 'lucid' elements of the New Testament (which is the majority of the teaching in Christian scripture) proposed an integrated view of reality (which has sadly been lugged in with the 'new age movement' when in fact it is simply Biblical!), not the dualistic view of reality that conservative evangelicals have labeled as orthodox...

----

Well, let me know what you think (if you have the mirth to wade your way through my scattered A.D.D thoughts!)

The science of becoming batman - how to become a superhero without any superpowers.

I would venture a guess (without wanting to offend any of my friends and readers) that most of us fall into the same 'mediocre' level of natural human development. Other than Angus, Wessel, and Gus I don't know any superheroes.... And then, Gus is only special because he has a supernatural love, Pete is a superhero because he's kind, caring and courageous, and Wessel... Well, he was first in line when they gave out brains.

As for me... well, no superpower that I can detect (although my daughter does thing I am great! In spite of the fact that I 'walk funny' - perhaps it is my 'bionic leg' that makes me special!? For more about that simply search this site for 'motorbike' and 'accident')...

But, here's the kicker! Did you know that you could (possibly) become a superhero just by doing a few special exercises!? Well, that's what the author of this new books suggests.

If I were to be a superhero I would ask that I get a costume that was not too tight (otherwise I would have to stay in shape just to wear it), Oh, and I would ask that I can wear my underpants under my pants (i.e., UNDER pants... ) not like Superman, Batman and a host of other so called 'super' heros... Not so super when you can't figure out how to wear your underpants, now are you!?

E. Paul Zehr has a book coming out in October called Becoming Batman: The Possibility of A Superhero, about the physical and mental training one would need to become a superhero without any supernatural powers. Zehr, a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, is also a karate expert. Over at Scientific American, JR Minkel interviews Zehr about how one might train as the Dark Knight. From SciAm:

What's most plausible about portrayals of Batman's skills?You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess. Most of what you see there is feasible to the extent that somebody could be trained to that extreme. We're seeing that kind of thing in less than a month in the Olympics.

What's less realistic?A great example is in the movies where Batman is fighting multiple opponents and all of a sudden he's taking on 10 people. If you just estimate how fast somebody could punch and kick, and how many times you could hit one person in a second, you wind up with numbers like five or six. This doesn't mean you could fight four or five people. But it's also hard for four or five people to simultaneously attack somebody, because they get in each other's way. More realistic is a couple of attackers.

Batman and science (Scientific American), Pre-order Becoming Batman (Amazon)

The neuroscience of selling your stuff... Here's why it hurts!

Before getting to the interesting 'brain' stuff story, the good news is that I have completed the text for the next book that Dr. Wessel Bentley and I are working on! The working title of the book (that is being published by the Methodist Publishing House) is 'What are we thinking: Reflections on Church and Society by Southern African Methodists' We intend launching this fantastic book at the Methodist Church of Southern Africa's annual Conference in Bloemfontein (September 2008). So, keep an eye on this space!

Now that I have done with that project I am returning to a perennial project that seems to have been a part of my thinking for some years now... A book that considers and discusses some elements of the relationship between neuroscience and Christian theology. I have not yet decided on the final title for the book, the working title is 'Why you're not who you think you are! Adventures in neuroscience and theology'.

Whenever I am working on a project I tend to notice posts and publications that relate to my topic much more frequently. So, my 'neurons' have become quite sensitive to just about everything I can find about... well, neurons!

I came across this interesting post on Boingboing late last night and thought it was quite informative. As my wife (and friends) will tell you, I tend to like gadgets, and I tend to be quite fond of holding on to them! I still have my tiny little Libretto 100CT computer (with a 486DX 233Mhz processor and 32MB of ram...)

Well, this may explain why we struggle to sell things that we own (and like):

We sometimes say that it "hurts" to part with our stuff even if it's junk, and we know it's junk. Behavioral scientists call it the endowment effect, a theory that people put higher values on things once they own them. Turns out though that it actually does hurt to sell something you own, and it has nothing to do with overvaluing. Stanford University and University of Pennsylvania psychologists recreated the endowment effect in volunteers while scanning their brains with MRI. From Nature News:

If the reason for the endowment effect came from the products being overvalued by their owners, (professor Brian) Knutson’s team expected to see a part of the brain called the nucleus accumbus change during the test. It didn’t, “whether buying or selling, the activation in the nucleus accumbus looked the same”, says (co-author professor Scott) Rick.

But others part of the brain, the insula, which has a role in the experience of pain, and the greater mesial prefrontal cortex became activated when the subjects contemplated selling one of their items. If they had ranked that item as one they particularly liked, the change in the insula was greater.

According to this research, this is because of loss aversion, says Rick. “It is not because people are overplaying the positive [aspects of a possession].” Rather, we just become attached to objects we own — so much so that it takes a lot to convince us to part with them.

Link

Scanning the brains of jazz musicians.

This research shows that Jazz musicians 'switch off' (or at least slow down) parts of their brains - I know a few first year students who have the capacity to do the same thing! Ha ha.

Seriously, this is quite interesting. Since Jazz requires the capacity to move outside of the confines of what is generally acceptable in the composition music (through the inclusion of 'blue notes', crossing octaves, combining irregular timing etc. in the composition). I'm sure that there are many other things that require a similar capacity (e.g., surgeons who deal with the gore of cutting up a human body, social workers who face the brutality of human frailty and economic subjugation in their clients, sex workers who have to perform unnatural acts for survival, ministers who are constantly faced with crises, deaths, and sorrow, oh and of course Justin Timberlake fans.... say no more).

I thought this was quite interesting.

According to new research, jazz musicians unconsciously switch off regions of the brain involved in self-censorship and firing up the area linked to self-expression. The scientists from Johns Hopkins University and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders used fMRI to scan the brains of jazz musicians as they played a specially-designed piano keyboard. From a press release:

The scientists found that a region of the brain known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a broad portion of the front of the brain that extends to the sides, showed a slowdown in activity during improvisation. This area has been linked to planned actions and self-censoring, such as carefully deciding what words you might say at a job interview. Shutting down this area could lead to lowered inhibitions, Limb suggests.

The researchers also saw increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which sits in the center of the brain’s frontal lobe. This area has been linked with self-expression and activities that convey individuality, such as telling a story about yourself.

“Jazz is often described as being an extremely individualistic art form. You can figure out which jazz musician is playing because one person’s improvisation sounds only like him or her,” says (professor Charles) Limb. “What we think is happening is when you’re telling your own musical story, you’re shutting down impulses that might impede the flow of novel ideas.”

Link to press release, Link to scientific paper in Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE (via Michael Leddy's Orange Crate Art)

Technorati tags: neuroscience, the human brain, control

Singularity and the Matrix... Spiritual Machines... Mmmmm... Contemporary crazies!? Maybe not?

John van de Laar gave an interesting persepctive on a 'religious movement' that has formed around the central ideas of the first Matrix movie.
I can certainly understand the appeal - after all, throughout history generations have always attempted to locate the sacred within the tools, symbols, and nomenclature of their contemporary culture. The Matrix seems to be so expressive of some of the existential questions, queries, and framing aspects of our reality (these include such issues as the relationship between humans and our technology, eternal existence in terms that we can understand, issues of good and evil etc.)

Some scientists have suggested that these issues may have a far greater influence, and in fact be truer than just sociology, theology, and psychology, could explain. Some others have suggested it is in fact nothing more than 'wish projection' (along the lines of Feuerbach and Freud's theory).

In short, every generation has a built in need to believe that there is more to life than just being born, living, and dying - we seek a transcendent truth (which you can read about in my Doctoral Thesis, by the way - please see the chapter on Neuroscience (chapter 3 I think it was) where I discuss the holistic and transcendent a-priori neural operators that are present in the human brain from birth). In our generation the 'mythology' of our time is intrinsically linked with technology (particularly those technologies that make our lives easier, and in some sense bearable).

A final perspective, which I think is the most rational of them all, is the perspective offered by Professor Cornel du Toit, who suggests that any duality that we create between ourselves and our technology is a false duality. Just think about it, your cell phone is not just an object that performs technological functions, it has become an integral part of your life. For many of us it extends our ability to communicate, it offers us a sense of security, connection with others, and for some (like myself) it even regulates how one lives one's life (e.g., my cell phone has a diary function that alerts me to appointments etc.). Another example cited by du Toit is contemporary banking. We have created both a hard technology (notes, coins, cards, ATM machines) and a soft technology (values, exchanges, commodities etc. which cannot be felt or weighed, or seen, but which have value). Just try to live your life without money and you will soon see how we have allowed a 'created' technology to become an integral part of our identity. How many people do you know whose identity is formed by what they earn, what they drive, and what they use?

I tend to agree with this - faith and technology are not separate realities that are discovering one another, they are complex interwoven system of creating and forming meaning. Both are dependent upon each other.

Anyway, enough of my 'ramblings'....

Read the article below for more on the concept of 'singularity':

Science fiction writer and mathematician Rudy Rucker takes a running swing at the idea of the Singularity, the moment in human history when we disassemble raw matter, turn it into "computronium" and upload ourselves to it, inhabiting a simulation of reality rather than real reality. It's a fine and provocative turn from our Mr Rucker, who has a fine and provocative and deeply weird and wonderful mind.

Although it’s a cute idea, I think computronium is a fundamentally spurious concept, an unnecessary detour. Matter, just as it is, carries out outlandishly complex chaotic quantum computations just by sitting around. Matter isn’t dumb. Every particle everywhere everywhen is computing at the maximum possible rate. I think we tend to very seriously undervalue quotidian reality...

This would be like filling in wetlands to make a multiplex theater showing nature movies, clear-cutting a rainforest to make a destination eco-resort, or killing an elephant to whittle its teeth into religious icons of an elephant god.

This is because there are no shortcuts for nature’s computations. Due to a property of the natural world that I call the “principle of natural unpredictability,” fully simulating a bunch of particles for a certain period of time requires a system using about the same number of particles for about the same length of time. Naturally occurring systems don’t allow for drastic shortcuts.

Link (via Futurismic)

By the way, my own doctoral research considered some of the theological issues in relation to these notions - you can download a copy of my Doctoral Thesis here (please see chapter 2). Two other superb books to read are:

The age of spiritual machines, and Are we spiritual machines. By Kurzweil.
Wiredlife - who are we in the digital age? By Jonscher.

Technorati tags: The Matrix, Singularity, Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil, Dion Forster

Pictures of the machine that is intended to find the 'God particle'...

Trying to prove God's existence by reason and science is ultimately a futile endeavor! After all, if we could contain God's essence, God's being, or God's self within any part of our human reason or logic, we would be able to contain God within our minds (logically that would mean that we would be more knowledgeable than God! Surely we can see that this is a logical inconsistency!) It is for this very reason that belief in God will always require FAITH, the belief that what one experiences to be true can be true even though it cannot be explained, quantified, or measured.

We do this all the time in our ordinary relationships - I love Megan! I cannot measure that love objectively (i.e., I could not tell you how much it weighs, what shape it is, or even exactly what makes up this complex emotion called 'love'). Even if one were to stimulate the brain to oscillate at the same frequency, and ensure that the same chemicals were present in the brain as when I feel love for Megan, that would not be love. Love has an element of the mysterious to it. There is something about it that does not require understanding, rather it is intended to be enjoyed, to be loved, and experienced!

That, is in some poor way, a representation of faith.

Another great misunderstanding about the relationship between science and faith is that faith is the 'stuff' of religion, whereas fact is the 'stuff' of science. Nothing could be further from the truth! Both science and religion depend on both fact and faith. Science has a great deal of faith within it. For example, when one builds a large bridge, it is built in accordance with the principles of Newtonian Physics (i.e., as long as it is strong enough, and the two ends meet, it should join up and you should be able to travel along it. We 'believe' this to be true because this is what we have come to experience to be true. However, if you are a Quantum physicist you may not be as confident in this fact - Schroedigger's principle shows that at a quantum level we cannot accurately predict the exact outcome of any supposed mathematical 'certainity'. At times when particle is fired into Gate A it will exit through Gate A, but at other times when fired at Gate A it will (for some unknown reason, called the 'uncertainty principle' exit through Gate B.) That something will happen the way we anticipate it to take place is as much a matter of faith as it is of fact. We cannot assume that science is based entirely on facts!

Of course the same goes for religion, not everything in religion is based on indisputable 'facts' (in the sense that this word has come to be in modernism). To say that my wife has eyes as blue as pools of clear water does not mean that they are 4 meters deep and can be used to quench the thirst of animals! BUT, but the same token, it does not mean that my statement is NOT factually true! Quite on the contrary, it could be one of the most trustworthy and true things that I know about my love for her. Context moves faith to fact (and allows facts to take on a variety of 'true' meanings).

I hope this makes sense. So, does a God particle exist? Perhaps! Does it prove that God exists... Well, I could spend the billions of Dollars used on that machine in far better ways to prove that a loving, healing, life changing, God exists - for some food will be the truth, for others it will be medicine, for another it will be a job... Yes, God's existence can be proved. It can be proved in love.

Anyway, here's an interesting scientific experiment.

Great photos and an article in Nat Geo about the Large Hadron Collider being built and tested at CERN in Switzerland to search for the so called ‘God particle,’ the massive Higgs boson which is believed to exist, but no one has seen one yet. I like this description from the article about the difficulty in finding it:

Building a contraption like the LHC to find the Higgs is a bit like embarking on a career as a stand-up comic with the hope that at some point in your career you’ll happen to blurt out a joke that’s not only side-splittingly funny but also a palindrome.

Technorati tags: Science and Religion, CERN, The God particle, Large Hadron Collider

Many world quantum theory, an easy explanation using a multiplay Super Mario game!

This is so cool! Multi world quantum theory explained in a fun way!

The Mechanically Separated Meat blog has created a merged video of hundreds of games played against "Kaizo Mario World" (an insanely difficult homebrew Mario level) and used the resulting video as the jumping-off point for an extremely stimulating and enlightening discussion of the Many Worlds hypothesis in quantum physics. If I had to explain Many Worlds to an eight-year-old (something I expect to have to do in, oh, about eight years), this is where I'd start. I'm especially enamored of the choice of Mario for this, since it's just the right blend of puzzler and jumper to make you want to explore all possible choices (I've recently become brutally addicted to Paper Mario, which now occupies about 10 percent of my brain on a more-or-less permanent basis as a kind of low-grade background process).

This said, tiny quantum events can create ripples that have big effects on non-quantum systems. One good example of this is the Quantum Suicide “experiment” that some proponents of the Many-Worlds Interpretation claim (I think jokingly) could actually be used to test the MWI. The way it works is, you basically run the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment on yourself– you set up an apparatus whereby an atom has a 50% chance of decaying each second, and there’s a detector which waits for the atom to decay. When the detector goes off, it triggers a gun, which shoots you in the head and kills you. So all you have to do is set up this experiment, and sit in front of it for awhile. If after sixty seconds you find you are still alive, then the many-worlds interpretation is true, because there is only about a one in 1018 chance of surviving in front of the Quantum Suicide machine for a full minute, so the only plausible explanation for your survival is that the MWI is true and you just happen to be the one universe where the atom’s 50% chance of decay turned up “no” sixty times in a row. Now, given, in order to do this, you had to create about 1018 universes where the Quantum Suicide machine did kill you, or copies of you, and your one surviving consciousness doesn’t have any way of telling the people in the other 1018 universes that you survived and MWI is true. This is, of course, roughly as silly as the thing about there being a universe where all the atoms in your heart randomly decided to tunnel out of your body.

But, we can kind of think of the multi-playthrough Kaizo Mario World video as a silly, sci-fi style demonstration of the Quantum Suicide experiment. At each moment of the playthrough there’s a lot of different things Mario could have done, and almost all of them lead to horrible death. The anthropic principle, in the form of the emulator’s save/restore feature, postselects for the possibilities where Mario actually survives and ensures that although a lot of possible paths have to get discarded, the camera remains fixed on the one path where after one minute and fifty-six seconds some observer still exists.

Link (via Kottke)

Neuroscience meets mail room...

I love the mind... I love the way the brain, the most complex of human organs, functions to help us construct reality... It is truly one of God's most wonderful creations - much more than just a 'sack of neurons' floating in an 'electrical storm' and a 'chemical bath'...

NOW, my love for Neuroscience has found a new application - postage stamps!!! Heck I would LOVE to receive a letter with a 'brain' stamp on the front of it!!!!

Here's what I'm talking about:

The University of Washington's Neuroscience For Kids site has a fantastic gallery of postage stamps from around the world that feature neuroscience-related themes. From left: USA/Medical Imaging, United Nations/Drug Abuse (opium poppy in background), Belgium/Drug Abuse, Israel/Medical Engineering. Link (via Mind Hacks).

10 Stephen Hawking quotes - stand aside Chuck Norris, you're no match!

From time to time I get the feeling that some people think I am a Geek... After all, I like computers, I love complex equations, I have a doctorate in Strong Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience...

BUT, then I am reminded that my _geekiness_ is nothing compared to some of the world's UBER Geeks!

Stand aside Church Norris, I have just reassigned your spot to a new superhero... Stephen Hawking! Not only is he a genius, he's also got a great sense of humour!

taken from here.

I have recently been reading up a bit on the life and work of British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. In my reading, I have run across a number of his famous quotes that are both funny and insightful. He is widely considered to be among the most intelligent people living today. Here is what he has to say...

10. "Einstein was wrong when he said "God does not play dice". Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."

9. "I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."

8. "My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all."

7. "I find that American & Scandinavian accents work better with women." In response to a question about the American accent of his synthesiser.

6. "Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales. In the end, however, I did put in one equation, Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2. I hope that this will not scare off half of my potential readers."

5. "My expectations were reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has been a bonus."

4. "To show this diagram properly, I would really need a four dimensional screen. However, because of government cuts, we could manage to provide only a two dimensional screen."

3. "Life would be tragic if it weren't funny."

2. "The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."

1. "Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end."