In a subsequent post you posted the following quote, again without making any comment –

‘memetics has implications for the nature of our very selves.

According to Dennett a person is ‘a particular sort of ape infested with memes’. We all pick up countless memes throughout our lives and these (along with our genes and the environment in which we live) make us the unique individuals we are. But isn’t there a real self inside who lives this life? Isn’t there a real ‘me’ who makes my decisions, and holds my beliefs. Isn’t there a real self who has consciousness and free will? I would say no. The self is just a word around which memes can gather. All sorts of memes benefit by us having the false idea of a self inside. So the self is just a complicated memeplex, created by and for the memes themselves for their own protection and replication.’

Having concocted the fanciful notion of memes, memetics and memeplexes, do the proponents of this supposed infliction by theoretical non-substantive particles proffer any solution to their own self-created dilemma?

Anti-meme inoculation? Aerial spraying of conflict zones with anti-meme-icides? Meme-resistant creams and potions? Search for an anti-meme gene? The adoption of a diet that is rich in anti-memetic compounds or of meditative practices that enhance one’s resistance to memes such that one can eventually become a meme-free zone unto oneself? Memetic-based therapies? Counselling for early childhood meme-abuse?

But then again all of these solutions would be fought tooth and nail by pro-memetic supporters.

Mass rallies of support for memes-rights would result. Organizations would be set up to champion the cause of endangered ethnic, tribal and cultural memes. Legislation would be passed limiting meme research and ensuring their protection. Astronomers would begin to search for alien memes and start to discover meme holes. Meme museums would be built and sacred-meme spiritual movements would be spawned leading to the construction of meme shrines. The emerging conflicts between the supporters of various memes would lead to meme wars and the emergence of meme-liberation and meme-rights terrorist groups would mean …

It is often great fun to take a factoid – in this case the notion that such a thing as a meme has any existence in actuality – and take it for a walk, as it were.

I guess the difference is that I understood what Richard meant when he said everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong – in that everyone has been searching for the meaning of life within the existing human condition, by way of either materialistic or spiritual pursuits – which then meant that I didn’t waste the opportunity that meeting Richard presented by indulging in knee-jerk reactions or wallowing around in doubt. Once my interest and my own enquiries established a prima facie case the next thing to do was obvious – give it a go.

I’m giving it a go, and part of giving it a go involves questioning things that clang with either my personal experience, knowledge or common sense. The prima facie case has been established. The way I see it so far, Richard is spot on with regard to the human condition. There are personal hang-ups involved in my own process (naturally enough), but I am trying to separate those from purely objective matters of fact. Finding Richard to be genuinely free from the human condition (and an expert on most of its varieties) does not automatically imply an infallible insight into the objective facts of this universe. To question some of his (and your) assertions on matters of fact is not to be a materialist or a spiritualist, or to ‘wallow’ in doubt.

When I came across Richard it gradually became obvious that he was an expert in matters of spiritualism and mysticism – indeed whilst I had been busily dabbling around in the shallows he had been doing laps of the pool for years. Given what he had to say about the revered spiritual teachings and mystical traditions I took the time, and made the effort, to investigate whether what he was saying was correct and this investigation also involved enquiring into the extent to which mysticism and spiritualism continues to influence much of the world of science. Whilst you may not be able to readily see that theoretical physics and cosmology embody the ancient mystical traditions of science it would be an opportunity wasted not to investigate the matter for there have been other correspondents on this mailing list who have turned away from actualism rather than inquire in to their own mystical ‘hang-ups’.

*

As for Richard being ‘a well-meaning madman’, that was a definite attraction. And my ‘proven track record of long-term devotion to causes that ultimately lead to disillusionment’ apparently means that I have a far better experiential understanding of the inherent failures of spirituality than any of my peers.

Perhaps also a propensity to interpret the whole of human endeavour in stark binary terms, based on your personal experiences.

And yet it was the PCE, an experience that is common-to-all and not personal, which revealed that peace on earth already exists in the actual world. And it was the PCE that which revealed that despite this already existing peace on earth all human beings are either passionately involved in a ‘self’-centred grim instinctual struggle for survival and/or desperately believe in the existence of a fairy-tale or science-fiction mystical other-worldly realm.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who say there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t.

This appears to be a comment aimed at denigrating the fact that a new experiential discovery has been made about the fundamental workings of the human psyche – one that renders all past theories, propositions, myths and legends utterly redundant.

In the mid 16^th century a Flemish physician by the name of Andreas Vesalius was appointed a lecturer in surgery at the University of Padua with responsibility for giving anatomical demonstrations. At first, Vesalius had no reason to question the theories of Galen, the 2^nd century Greek physician whose books on anatomy were still considered as absolutely authoritative in medical education in Vesalius’ time. However, in 1540, breaking with this 1400 year old tradition of relying on Galen, Vesalius openly demonstrated his own method … doing dissections himself, learning anatomy from cadavers, and critically evaluating the ancient anatomical texts. His own hands-on experience of the human anatomy soon convinced him that Galenic anatomy had not been based on the dissection of the human body, a practice, which had been strictly forbidden by the Roman religion. Vesalius revealed that Galenic anatomy was an application to the human form of conclusions drawn from the dissections of animals, mostly dogs, monkeys, or pigs.

‘Vesalius’ work represented the culmination of the humanistic revival of ancient learning, the introduction of human dissections into medical curricula, and the growth of a European anatomical literature. Vesalius performed his dissections with a thoroughness hitherto unknown. After Vesalius, anatomy became a scientific discipline, with far-reaching implications not only for physiology but for all of biology; medicine became a learned profession’. Encyclopaedia Britannica

As can be seen it took the inquisitiveness of one man and his willingness to engage in hands-on empirical research as well as his having the audacity to question the revered ancient texts to wipe away 1400 years of misinformation and mythology in order to set medicine on the path to being an empirical science. Radical discoveries such as these make all the previous ‘wisdom’ of all the previous venerated ‘experts’ completely redundant and entirely useless.

Vesalius’ discovery of the actual structure and workings of the human anatomy is directly analogous to Richard’s empirical observations as to the actual structure and workings of the human psyche and his ground-breaking discovery that it is possible to rid oneself of the instinctual passions that give rise to human malice and sorrow.

Everything that is not actualism is either materialism or spiritualism, hence 180 degrees wrong.

Yes. 180 degrees wrong, in that everyone has been, and still is, searching for the meaning of life via the pursuit of a thoroughly outdated archaic wisdom based solely on myth and legend and not on facts and sensibility.

Given freedom to define the terms, you can pull any rabbit out of your hat, as you have done with Einstein and Paul Davies and other ‘spiritual scientists’.

I haven’t pulled a rabbit out of my hat – I deliberately inquired into theoretical physics because they were proposing theories about the universe that did not gel with my own experience of the infinitude of the universe that I had experienced in a PCE. What I found was that theoretical physics and cosmology is rife with mysticism – other-worldly thinking, totally engaged in wish-fullness, based on thought experiments and competitive imagination, completely devoid of practicality and sensibility.

*

It is also a bit rich to criticise a theoretical physicist, whose job is to construct explanatory models that are consistent with observable phenomena, for ... doing his job.

Rather than speculate upon what ‘readers of his books would conclude’, here is what Paul Davies himself has said on this very subject –

‘There is no doubt that many scientists are opposed temperamentally to any form of metaphysical, let alone mystical arguments. They are scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle or ground of being that would underpin reality and render its contingent aspects starkly arbitrary. Personally I do not share their scorn. Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly. It seems at least worth trying to construct a metaphysical theory that reduces some of the arbitrariness of the world. But in the end a rational explanation in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to proceed beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of ‘understanding’ from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is the way to such an understanding. I have never had a mystical experience myself, but I keep an open mind about the value of such experiences. Maybe they provide the only route beyond the limits to which science and philosophy can take us, the only possible path to the Ultimate. pp 231-2, The Mystery at the End of the Universe. The Mind of God. Paul Davies. Penguin Books 1992

Given that he so blatantly champions the cause of metaphysics and the mystical, it is no wonder he was awarded the Templeton Prize of 795,000 Pounds Sterling – ‘the Templeton Prize honours and encourages the many entrepreneurs trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity’. Website of the Templeton prize

…

No comment? You raise an objection claiming that Paul Davies has been misrepresented, I respond by posting Mr. Davies’ own words and then you don’t even bother to respond. Perhaps it is that you consider my response somewhat moot? If so I will let Mr. Davies say a bit more on the subject –

‘Although metaphysical theorizing went out of fashion after this onslaught (by the empiricists), a few philosophers and scientists refused to give up speculating about what really lies behind the surface appearance of the phenomenal world. Then, in more recent years, a number of advances in fundamental physics, cosmology, and computing theory began to rekindle a more widespread interest in some of the traditional metaphysical topics. The study of ‘artificial intelligence’ reopened debate about free will and the mind-body problem. The discovery of the big bang triggered speculation about the need for a mechanism to bring the physical universe into being in the first place. Quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and observed are interwoven. Chaos theory revealed that the relationship between permanence and change was far from simple.

In addition to these developments physicists began talking about Theories for Everything – the idea that all physical laws could be unified into a single mathematical scheme. Attention began to focus on the nature of physical law. Why had nature opted for one particular scheme rather than another? Why a mathematical scheme at all? Was there anything special about the scheme we actually observe? Would intelligent observers be able to exist in a universe that was characterized by some other scheme?

The term ‘metaphysics’ came to mean ‘theories about theories’ of physics. Suddenly it was respectable to discuss ‘classes of laws’ instead of the actual laws of our universe. Attention was given to hypothetical universes with properties quite different from our own, in an effort to understand whether there is anything peculiar about our universe. Some theorists contemplated the existence of ‘laws about laws’, which act to ‘select’ that laws of our universe from some wider set. A few were prepared to consider the real existence of other universes with other laws.

In fact, in this sense physicists have long been practicing metaphysics anyway. Part of the job of the mathematical physicist is to examine certain idealized mathematical models that are intended to capture only various narrow aspects of reality, and then often only symbolically. These models play the role of ‘toy universes’ that can be explored in their own right, sometimes for recreation, usually to cast some light on the real world by establishing certain common themes amongst different models. These toy universes often bear the name of their originators. Thus there is the Thirring model, the Sugawara model, the Taub-NUT universe, the maximally extended Kruskal universe, and so on. They commend themselves to theorists because they will normally permit exact mathematical treatment, whereas a more realistic model may be intractable. My own work about ten years ago was largely devoted to exploring quantum effects in model universes with only one instead of three space dimensions.’ Paul Davies. Professor of Mathematical Physics. University of Adelaide. pp 32-33, Reason and Belief, The Mind of God, Penguin Books 1992

*

All of this clangs for me.

Aye. The only reason that one would even dare to leave mystical imagination behind is if one wanted to live the actuality that one experiences in a PCE, 24/7.

I remember one incident that particularly stood out for me at the time I was enquiring into the differences between imagination and actuality was when I watched a TV documentary on the Voyager spacecraft missions. (Voyager I, launched on Sept. 5, 1977, flew by Jupiter in March 1979 and reached Saturn in November 1980. Voyager II, launched on Aug. 20, 1977, sped by Jupiter on July 9, 1979, passed Saturn on Aug. 25, 1981 and flew past Uranus on Jan. 24, 1986. It encountered Neptune on Aug. 24, 1989.)

Here’s what I wrote about it soon after –

‘I recently watched a television program documenting the first Voyager spacecraft flyby of the planets in our solar system. It was intriguing to watch the scientists’ reactions as the first photos and data streamed in from the first planet. They were stunned at what they saw as the pictures began coming in – what was actual was indeed beyond their wildest imaginations and theories. As each successive flyby happened the scientists’ astonishment only increased to the point that by the last flyby of the outermost planet they had already abandoned their theories and concepts and were utterly fascinated by what they were seeing with their eyes. In a similar vein, I heard an entomologist say that the insects that exist in the average rubbish bin are far more astonishing than any imagined creature from another planet thus far dreamt up by any science fiction afflictionados’. Peter to No 22, 3.1.2001

A pragmatic example that the actuality of this infinite, eternal and only universe far exceeds the paltry imaginations of anything the ancient mystics, and their modern day pseudo-scientific equivalents, have ever – or could ever – dream up.

Well, here we are in complete agreement. The actual is far more intricate, astonishing, wonderful than the wildest imagination could ever devise. By contrast with what is actually there, imagination is indeed a pitiful thing.

And yet despite your ‘complete agreement’ you made no comment to Paul Davies’ call to abandon pragmatic empirical physics in favour of the imaginary world of metaphysics and also you made no comment with regard to Vesalius’ discoveries that put paid to Galen’s imaginary scenarios of human anatomy. These omissions appear to indicate that your complete agreement is a conditional agreement – conditional on how far you are willing to question the human reverence for imaginative thinking and passionate feeling and especially those theories that continue the mystical tradition of insisting that the physical universe is ephemeral.

*

I see people keenly interested in the psychological, physiological and practical implications of actualism, but I also see quite justifiable reservations regarding actualists’ assertions outside their area of expertise.

I presume you are commenting on the current thread of discussion concerning one particular aspect of the mystical tradition that permeates all of the sciences. The emergence of empirical evidence-based science from the ignorance, superstition and mysticism of the past is an on-going struggle – an emergence of fits and starts, often resisted tooth and nail by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the mystical tradition at any cost.

The mystical tradition is still very much alive and kicking in all scientific education as it is in any discipline. My architectural education had two distinct streams – one was pragmatic, down-to-earth and practical and the other was mystical, fanciful and ‘creative’ and it was instilled into me that the latter was more meaningful than the former. To be pragmatic, down-to-earth and practical was seen as boring, mundane and ‘uncreative’ whilst to be mystical, fanciful and creative was where the true meaning of life really lay.

Apparently the same applies in the fields of scientific endeavours as not only are whole fields of science devoted to the pursuit of the mystical, the sacred and the profound but many mystical scientists have won fame and fortune and the accolades of his or her peers for championing the mystical tradition. In fact, a clear-eyed look at the current state of the sciences reveals that a significant turning back to the mystical roots of the past has been occurring – a turning back that closely parallels the current fashionable obsession with Eastern spirituality and philosophy.

The discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition renders the whole mystical tradition not only irrelevant but it exposes it for what it is – an aberration from the dim, dark ages of humanity. Far from being outside of an actualist’s area of expertise, the mysticism still taught and practiced in current day science is precisely the field of expertise of an actualist. A practicing actualist has a hands-on experiential understanding of the workings of the human condition (including the instinctive lure of mysticism and spiritualism) and as such is more capable of making sensible down-to-earth observations and evaluations and is more readily able to discern between what is mere belief or theory and what are the facts of the matter, unlike an impassioned scientist steeped in the mystical tradition.

My personal observation, for what it’s worth, is that the questioners often seem to be at least as open-minded, i.e. willing to refine or modify their synthesis of the facts, as the answerers.

I do appreciate that it is early years for actualism. Because it is such a radical departure from the previously accrued wisdoms and because it represents a complete break with the past, the sensibility inherent in actualism will take a long time to be understood, appreciated and absorbed – but now that the findings are published the wisdoms of the past will increasingly fall into the category of historical curiosities.

I also see that questioners are in a bit of a double-bind. Success in this enterprise is not possible without total sincerity. Total sincerity is only possible if one can assuage one’s doubts concerning the bona fides of Richard and Actualism w.r.t. matters of fact. If the attempt to assuage these doubts is not directly pertinent to the daily practice of being happy and harmless, they are intellectualising, dealing with peripheral issues, or not fulfilling the raison d’etre of the mailing list, or having ‘knee-jerk reactions’.

I regard myself as having a sincere interest in what actualism offers. I have had a glimpse of its central motivation and guiding light (the PCE), and the psychological/emotional aspects of Richard’s teachings are making good sense. I see the purpose of these dialogues as opportunities to share both experiences and ideas, but sometimes I sense that questioners are being spoken at, rather than spoken with. It creates resistance that would not otherwise be there.

By this logic Vesalius should not have had the audacity to present the facts of his discoveries to his Galen-influenced colleagues – as in ‘spoken at’ them – but rather should have ‘spoken with’ them as in allow at least a bit of Galen-influence and mysticism to be incorporated into his empirical discoveries. No matter how he presented his discoveries, no matter what ‘style’ he adopted, the amount of resistance of his Galen-influenced peers to his discoveries was solely dependant on each individual’s penchant for clinging on to the revered knowledge and authorities of the past.

As for my style – speaking at rather than speaking with, as you put it – I tend to use my time writing as productively as I can which means I attempt to put as much information and facts into each response as I can, on the basis that maybe some of it may be of use to anyone who reads it. When I first read Richard’s report of his discovery I found that I had to overcome my instinctive reluctance to read what was obviously heretical and iconoclastic in order to be able to concentrate on understanding the substance of what he was saying. Because of this experience, I always assume that anyone reading my reports of the nuts-and-bolts of practicing actualism will need to do the same if they want to understand the gist of what it is I am reporting.

The facts: There are plenty of physicists who do not believe in God – and not agnostic – but are atheists – who also think the evidence (red-shift, 3K radiation, etc) for the big-bang is overwhelming. This demonstrates that there are plenty of physicists that are led to endorse the big-bang theory based upon the evidence (as they see it) rather than using belief in God as evidence.

You would probably be aware that I am on record as saying that Richard was the only thorough-going atheist on the planet, so we are going to get bogged down on this point straight away. Stephen Hawkins, a self-declared atheist when asked if he believed in God is on record as saying ‘I do not believe in a personal God’ – a somewhat equivocal statement, and Einstein is on record as saying ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings’ and I can think of none of the major players in the formulation of the Big Bang theory who did not believe in some form of mysticism or did not have some type of spiritual or religious belief. I guess the only way one could establish that your fact is a fact is if one conducted in-depth interviews with each of the ‘plenty of physicists’ that you know to be atheists to determine whether they are thorough-going atheists, i.e. that they hold no metaphysical, mystical, spiritual or religious beliefs whatsoever.

The fact that you have gotten Stephen Hawking’s name wrong multiple occasions as ‘Stephen Hawkins’ makes me wonder whether you have difficulty typing or remembering his name – or whether you don’t really know much about what you are talking about (this is at least the third time on record you have spelled his name incorrectly as ‘Hawkins’).

By the same logic I could just as well say that someone who has misspelt the word ‘Mississippi’ as well as the word ‘encountered’ in the space of three sentences maybe doesn’t really know much about what he is talking about, but I am interested in having a sincere conversation about this topic and not in indulging in tit-for-tatting.

Spelling was never my forté, which is why I rely on the spell checker in my word processor to correct my spelling for me. Although my credibility horse has apparently already bolted, I will add ‘Stephen Hawking’ to my auto-correct.

I am wondering why you say ‘my credibility horse has apparently bolted.’ What do you mean by that?

To put it plainly, you were speculating that I don’t really know much about what I am talking about, as in it has no credibility, because I have misspelt Steven Hawking’s name. And not only that you now go on to confirm that ‘it doesn’t appear to be a typo any longer’ – hence you dismiss the credibility of what I am saying for the lack of a ‘g’.

As I said, I would not want to get into an argument over principles with you – it could well go on for years.

*

Putting that aside: I can understand that you can ‘think of none of the major players in the formulation of the Big Bang theory who did not believe in some form of mysticism or did not have some type of spiritual or religious belief’ but it would indeed be a good idea to remain ignorant no longer about ‘major players’ that continue to ‘formulate’ and ‘buttress’ the scientific theory of the Big Bang.

Okay, but I did make the following point, which you seem to have ignored –

I guess the only way one could establish that your fact is a fact is if one conducted in-depth interviews with each of the ‘plenty of physicists’ that you know to be atheists to determine whether they are thorough-going atheists, i.e. that they hold no metaphysical, mystical, spiritual or religious beliefs whatsoever.

As such, when you claim that ‘it would indeed be a good idea (for me) to remain ignorant no longer’, on what basis you claim a superior knowledge of the beliefs or lack of beliefs of the major players – by what they have written (or not written) about their personal beliefs presumably? That’s also what I do initially but I also broaden my assessment to include what they are saying about the theoretical nature of the universe and of its supposed beginning. To ignore this evidence is to sidestep the main topic of this conversation.

I was specifically focusing on their non-belief in a creator or god. If you throw in the ‘metaphysical, mystical, spiritual’ beliefs they may hold – it may indeed be difficult or require ‘in-depth interviews’ with each person in question.

In fact over the course of this conversation, it was you who led me to yet other theoretical models of the universe that were less likely to be taken as implying the belief in a creator or god and more readily seen as advocating that there is an underlying metaphysical reality to the physical universe. In other words, I am not throwing in ‘metaphysical, mystical, spiritual’ beliefs, rather it is that many relativistic cosmologists are proposing model universes that are more in accord with metaphysical, mystical and spiritual beliefs than mono-theist beliefs.

Also, you may have a different definition of a ‘thorough-going atheist’ than I do since you (I think) have claimed that at one point you realized that Richard was the ‘only atheist’ on the planet. I simply take the word ‘atheist’ to mean a person who does not believe in a god of any kind.

Most people use the word atheist to mean that they do not believe in the Christian God … thereby leaving the door open to all sorts of pantheistic, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical beliefs. You have been around on this mailing list long enough to know what an actualist means by the term a ‘thorough-going atheist’ – if not, then I suggest you read what is on offer again as you may be kidding yourself as to both the scope and the intent of actualism.

I find it best to keep one’s criteria fairly simple.

I would hardly call keeping to your own personal definition of what is a thorough-going atheist simple. If you want to water down the definition of a ‘thorough-going atheist’ to ‘atheist’, meaning someone who doesn’t believe in the Christian God, then that is your business but it sure ain’t an actualist’s definition.

You don’t have to conduct in-depth interviews for traces of belief in metaphysics to determine whether someone is an atheist – or worry about what they might want to believe on Sundays. It is easily discoverable by reading their writings for example that Hawking, Kurtz, Asimov, Stenger, Grunbaum, and Weinberg are all atheists.

I take this to mean that you have read sufficient of their writings to know that none of them believe in the Christian God. That’s fair enough, but do you see that you are again attempting to restrict the discussion to theist belief, whereas I have been trying all along to steer the discussion into a consideration of the broader aspect of relativistic cosmological theories.

*

I’m aware that God occupies the thoughts of Stephen Hawking – but as you yourself say – he is a ‘self-declared atheist’ and his theories are specifically designed to eliminate the need for a God from big bang comsmology –

I agree with you because Stephen Hawking is on record as saying ‘I not believe in a personal God’ so he would hardly specifically design a theory that gave credence to a personal God.

The more I have read about the history of relativistic cosmology, and most particularly in the last 50 years, it has been a progression of inventions of model universes each specifically designed to more and more distance big bang cosmology from any claims that a Divine or supernatural force was involved in the alleged beginning of the universe. This continual invention of yet more models seems to have much more to do with the age-old battle between the secular mathematical philosophers and the spiritual metaphysical philosophers for the intellectual, ontological and cosmological high ground than it has to do with anything remotely resembling authentic scientific enquiry.

But more on that later in the post.

personally, I don’t see his fetishism for talking about the ‘mind of God’ as supporting pantheistic belief – rather, it has to do with demolishing the need for a god in the big-bang theory.

Are you saying that when someone talks about wanting to know the ‘mind of God’, he is doing so in order to demolish the need for a God in his theories? Personally I find the difference between the term ‘mind of God’ and the word ‘God’ to be somewhat moot but presumably there is a difference between the two in the minds of philosophers and theoretical physicists.

In Hawking’s case – the phrase is used somewhat ‘tongue in cheek’ – it is not to be taken literally. I also have to wonder whether it might have something to do with a willingness to be ambiguous as to exploit the public’s fascination with the divine in order to increase sales. In order to make physics interesting, it is common practice [I am not saying it’s sensible] to blur the lines between science and religion in order to increase the hype accompanying one’s writing. It might be comparable to a phrase like ‘ghost in the machine.’

Ah. So when I read the writings of Stephen Hawking and come up with the phrase ‘the mind of God’ you tell me he is using the term in ‘tongue in cheek’ fashion or that he is using the term in a non-literal meaning. And yet you have just told me –

You don’t have to conduct in-depth interviews for traces of belief in metaphysics to determine whether someone is an atheist – or worry about what they might want to believe on Sundays. It is easily discoverable by reading their writings for example that Hawking, Kurtz, Asimov, Stenger, Grunbaum, and Weinberg are all atheists.

And yet you now tell me that I should not take the words of Stephen Hawking at face value. So much for a persons atheism being ‘easily discoverable by reading their writings’, hey.

You might have noticed that the same thing happens when people come to this mailing list and say that actualism is not new to history and make reference to some teacher or some teachings. When an actualist then points out that the teacher or teaching is talking about a God by whatever name or a Greater Reality by whatever name, we are told that we are being pedantic, or we are taking the words too literally, or we are twisting their words, or that we are being defensive or being aggressive or whatever. When someone passionately holds to a belief, the very passion with which they hold to it prevents the possibility of any sensible discussion about the facts of the matter.

*

But then again, from what I read, Stephen Hawking’s theories have already been superseded by yet more theories specifically designed to eliminate the need for a God from the big bang cosmology.

No doubt – Hawking is not the only atheist doing big bang cosmology.

And no doubt not the only ‘atheist’ who claims to not believe in ‘a personal God’ and yet talks about ‘the mind of God’.

*

Here’s another major player for you – Steven Weinberg – atheist, through and through who wrote the book ‘The First 3 Minutes’ all about big-bang cosmology.

From what I can glean, Steven Weinberg is affronted by the fact that the spiritualists and deists have clasped relativistic cosmology to their bosom, so much so that he is at the forefront of the efforts to design models of the universe which, whilst remaining faithful to the theories of big bang cosmology, attempt to avoid, deny or distance themselves from the big bang central proposition that all of the space, matter and time of the entire universe was created in a singular near-instantaneous event out of no-space, no-thing, and no-when.

Just why you say that something coming from nothing is ‘the big bang central proposition’ has got me beat. Who would you say is the authority on what is the ‘central proposition’ to the big-bang theory – even as many theorists don’t seem to have a need or use for what you are proposing is a ‘central proposition?’

I was simply looking at the original theory that embellished the then-merely-budding big bang theory and as I understand Edwin Hubble’s theory that the space in the universe was expanding, by extrapolation, led to a theory that at some point in the past all of the space and matter in the universe must have been infinitely dense, i.e. there was zero space. And I gather this is still the basis of most cosmological theories –

Most cosmological theories imply that the universe is expanding, with the galaxies receding from one another (as is made plausible by observations of the red shifts of their spectra), and that the universe as it is known originated in a primeval explosion at a date of the order of 15x10⁹ years ago. Encyclopaedia Britannica Time in General Relativity and Cosmology.

Which is not to say there haven’t been a slew of other theories that modify or even dispense with this central proposition – which in turn is why it seems to me inappropriate to call these ‘other theories’ big bang theories.

*

However, he [Steven Weinberg] stands on shaky ground in defending the facticity of relativistic cosmological theories, as this response to a question about the certainty of relativistic cosmology reveals –

It is just about certain that the universe has been expanding for at least ten billion years and that it will go on expanding for at least another few billion years. During that time the sun will almost certainly get too hot for human life as it now exists on earth. It appears that the expansion began to accelerate a few billion years ago, but we will need more data to be sure about this.

All plausible theories, moreover, indicate that the universe will either continue to expand and cool or will recontract to a state of enormous temperature and density, just as a ball thrown straight up in the air will either escape the earth’s gravity or fall back to the surface. I can’t think of any third alternative, but perhaps someone will. The ultimate decay of all matter into electrons and radiation is far from certain, but there is a good chance that this question will be settled soon experimentally. All this is neither a fallacy nor a fairy tale – it is just the best we can do right now to predict what will really happen to the universe. The Future of Science, and the Universe (New York Review November 15, 2001)

I’m sure that he would not agree that his qualifications for uncertainty constitute ‘shaky ground.’

But this is not what he was asked and nor is it what he said in reply. When asked about certainty of relativistic cosmology it is clear from his words that he does not claim certainty – i.e. he did not claim any of the theories to be fact.

He is acknowledging that at best, the evidence suggests that a particular theory is correct – at the same time acknowledging that the theory could be wrong.

I recently watched a TV documentary on Stephen Hawking in which a theoretical physicists made the comment that Hawking has done a disservice to science by popularising relativistic cosmology because many people have been led to believe the theories to be fact.

But then again, that is clearly not what people want to hear because they do like to hang on to their fantasies.

*

Like all supporters of relativistic cosmology, he is so enmeshed in the theories of relativistic cosmology that he would not even begin to question the validity of the entire progression of theories that have been built upon Einstein’s original subjective thought experiment.

It was the theoretical scientists themselves who enthusiastically clasped Einsteinian relativity to their bosoms and then set about inventing a brand-new metaphysics consisting of flexible space, non-material particles, non-constant time and miraculous thus-far-inexplicable events, and by doing so they played into the hands of the mystics, spiritualists and deists. To now turn around and blame the mystics, spiritualists and deists for meddling in the affairs of science is, to say to least, a bit rich. The theoretical scientists who concocted relativistic cosmology in the first place dug their own hole and instead of abandoning it they are busily digging themselves an ever-deeper hole.

From what I read, Steven Weinberg is also at the forefront of the fight between science and religion as to who can best explain why the universe is here, where it came from and what is its underlying reality –

Weinberg addressed the audience at the 22^nd annual Freedom From Religion Foundation convention in San Antonio last November on ‘insidious’ creationist arguments, the Big Bang and its evidences, public misunderstandings of the scientific method, and his rejection of religion. Weinberg confessed he has almost envied his friends in evolutionary biology for being on the front lines fighting the creationists.

‘But these people in Kansas have done me the great service of attacking the standard cosmological theory, the Big Bang theory, so that we cosmologists are now in the thick of it along with our friends in evolutionary biology. I think that’s simply wonderful.’ Freethought Today, April 2000 Freethought Today, April 2000

I can see now why you objected to my use of the term creationist cosmology – there is a battle raging between the materialists and the spiritualists and anyone who uses the term ‘creationist’ to describe the theory that the universe was created out of nothing is apparently waving a red flag at a bull. What I find cute is that both materialists and spiritualists have a passionate investment in supporting big bang cosmology – one side claiming it to be science and the other claiming it as proof of spirituality – and neither group is prepared to abandon it for to do so would be to admit defeat in the battle.

I am well pleased to be an actualist.

As for Steven Weinberg’s self-declared atheism, it is apparent from the following quote that he is uncomfortable with his atheism –

Question : What is your response to scientists like Paul Davies, who say they do see a point to the universe and they think that science itself supports that?

Mr. Weinberg : I think it’s true that there is a mystery about nature which is not likely to be cleared up in any way that I can now foresee. That is, we can look forward to a theory which encompasses all existing theories, which unifies all the forces, all the particles, and at least in principle is capable of serving as the basis of an explanation of everything. We can look forward to that, but then the question will always arise, ‘Well, what explains that? Where does that come from?’ And then we – looking at – standing at that brink of that abyss we have to say we don’t know, and how could we ever know, and how can we ever get comfortable with this sort of a world ruled by laws which just are what they are without any further explanation? Steven Weinberg. Faith & Reason Transcript. PBS Org

From what he says he is yet another ‘atheist’ seeking the meaning of life ‘somewhere else’ but here in this place in space and ‘sometime else’ but now in this very moment of time.

You are right that he is ‘uncomfortable’ with his atheism. He has explained some of his pessimistic statements as ‘nostalgic’ for a universe run by God.

And that uncomfortableness would explain why he is still trapped into looking to solve the mystery of the supposed underlying reality to the physical universe … rather than seek to intimately experience the sensuous magic of the physical universe, as any thorough-going atheist is free to do.

*

Just a few more atheist big-bang proponents are Isaac Asimov, Paul Kurtz, Victor Stenger, and Adolf Grunbaum.

I’ll pass on Isaac Asimov as it is obvious that a science fiction writer would be an avid supporter of relativistic cosmology. So I will start by commenting on Victor Stenger as he is the only theoretical physicist in the group.

Is it ‘obvious’ that a science fiction writer would be an avid supporter of relativistic cosmology? Asimov also wrote science books. What sort of reasoning are you using to conclude that it is obvious that Asimov would be a supporter of big bang cosmology merely based upon the fact that he also wrote science fiction?

Relativistic cosmology is science fiction – it is nothing other than a concocted conglomerate of theories based upon abstracted mathematical computations.

If a spacecraft disappears into a black hole or travels to a parallel universe via a worm hole, then fiction will become fact, if an alien spacecraft does crash land and someone can dent it’s fender with a hammer, then fiction will become fact, when Scottie does beam someone ‘up’, then fiction will become fact – until then the very down-to-earth question of why human beings insist on wasting this moment of being alive by feeling malicious or feeling sorrowful still remains the most pertinent question facing human beings today.

*

Victor Stenger has written a book entitled ‘The Timeless Reality’ and this quote is from a summary he has published –

While we can never be certain of the nature of ‘true reality,’ modern physics provides the best window available to us. Many believe that the laws of quantum physics represent a deep, Platonic reality that goes beyond the material objects that are observed by eye and by advanced scientific instruments. < … >

Time symmetry at the quantum level makes it possible to draw a model of underlying reality that is simpler and more symmetric than the conventional view. This reality is timeless, with no beginning, no end, and no arrow of time. < … >

Nothing rules out the existence of many universes besides our own and such a multiverse is strongly suggested by modern theories of cosmology. But whether reality has one universe or many, it had no beginning and no creation. It neither was nor will be. It just is. Victor Stenger, Summary, The Timeless Reality

Keep in mind that there are (at least) two different kinds of ‘Platonists.’ There are spiritual Platonists – that have affinities with Plato’s spiritual philosophy. Secondly, there are mathematical ‘platonists’ – small ‘p’ – not my usage, I’m taking it from others who use the terms that way – that only think mathematical objects like sets are objectively existing things, eternal, etc. ‘platonism’ – with a small ‘p’ does not commit one to a belief in God.

Yep. The revered wisdom of the world is a tangled web of confusion, obscuration, duplicity and fantasy. It’s so good not be enthralled by it, or enmeshed within it, any more.

*

Stenger appears to be offering a cosmological model that has much in common with Buddhist philosophy – as I said, relativistic cosmology seems to be only digging itself an even bigger hole in its efforts to fashion a metaphysics that is somehow distinct from that of the mystics, spiritualists and deists.

As a footnote to Victor Stenger – you are probably aware that he is an avid campaigner against supernatural beliefs and I came across this article in the Skeptic magazine in which he talks about time reversibility – the basis of the theoretical model of the universe he presents in his book ‘Timeless Reality’.

Most of us were taught in school that certain physical processes are irreversible, that is, can only happen in one time direction. In the absence of an external energy source, heat never flows from lower to higher temperature. Broken glasses do not spontaneously reassemble and people do not get younger. And air inside a chamber never rushes out of an aperture, leaving behind a vacuum. All these processes are forbidden, we were told, by one of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Well, we were mislead. Reverse processes are not strictly forbidden by any known principle of the mechanics of particle motion. A broken glass can reassemble if its molecules just happen to be moving in the right direction. A dead man can even rise. The air molecules in the room can be moving in the direction of the door at the instant the door is opened and kill everyone inside.

True, these are highly improbable events and not likely to happen in the age of our universe. But, technically they are not impossible. Time’s Arrows Point Both Ways. The View from Nowhen. Victor J. Stenger. Publ. in Skeptic Vol. No. 4 2001 pp. 92-5

I post this as an example of how far into fantasy those who support relativistic theory have to go in order that metaphysical theories are not seen for what they are. It appears that it is politically correct to be sceptical of the super-naturalness inherent in spirituality but it is politically incorrect to be sceptical about the super-naturalness inherent in relativistic cosmology.

…

I notice that you haven’t commented on the quote from the Victor Stenger article. Given that you have offered him as an expert in support of your case, I would like to know whether or not you regard what he is saying is credible? And the reason I am asking this is that I know by experience how easy it is to sweep issues under the carpet or turn a blind eye to an issue. I spent years doing this in my spiritual years but when I became an actualist I found that I had to make a deliberate effort each time again to stop sweeping issues under the carpet or turning a blind eye to them because I was no longer content with being a believer – I wanted to discover the facts of the matter.

*

Moving on to Paul Kurtz, a secular humanist. Secular humanists are, by their very training and conviction, ethically motivated to challenge religiosity and support science and, as such, many have misguidedly taken up the cause of supporting relativistic cosmology whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to its mystical and spiritual roots.

Skeptics have focused on the examination of paranormal claims. They do not deal with religious claims per se, unless they can be examined empirically. Secular humanists, on the other hand, do wish to deal with religious claims, testing them as best they can. Interestingly, in recent years the borderlines between the paranormal and religion have blurred and it is often difficult to tell when we are dealing with paranormal or religious phenomena.

Thus spiritualism, near-death experiences, and communication with dead people interest both paranormal and religious investigators. Similarly for the appeal to intelligent design – a classical philosophical argument – now introduced within evolutionary biology and cosmology. Paul Kurtz ‘Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?’ Centre for Inquiry conference. Nov. 9-11, 2001, in Atlanta.

I’m curious as to what point you are making about Paul Kurtz? You are aware that Kurtz is ultimately arguing against anything ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal’ – right?

Which only begs the question as to why he would be an avid supporter of relativistic cosmology? Could it be that he, like all of the other conditional atheists you mention, still believes (or remains open to believing) that there is an underlying reality to the physical universe or is it that he too would be ‘uncomfortable’ in letting go of that belief … let alone having to find a new job?

But again this is a side issue to the topic as Paul Kurtz is not a relativistic cosmologist, he is merely someone who by the nature of his profession, feels compelled to support science in its age-old battle with religion, even if this means turning a blind eye when science well and truly dabbles in metaphysical.

*

Adolf Grünbaum is a secular philosopher and secular philosophers are, by their very training and convictions, ethically motivated to challenge religiosity and support science and, as such, many have also misguidedly taken up the cause of supporting relativistic cosmology whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to its mystical and spiritual roots.

I found the following quote to be of interest as it threw some light on the whole issue as to why it is so hard to get philosophers interested in discussing the facts of the matter –

‘No physicist or philosopher can be justly criticized for failing to answer a causal question inspired by that mistaken demand for an external cause.’ Adolf Grünbaum, University of Pittsburgh, Theological Misinterpretations of Current Physical Cosmology * originally published in PHILO, Vol 1, No 1, pp 15-34, Spring-Summer 1998

From this I take it that it is pointless to ask either a philosopher or a physicist what was the cause of the miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event that is supposed to have brought all of the physical matter of universe into being. Apparently philosophy has its own inbuilt principles, aka logic, that serves to put ‘off-limits’ any sensible down-to-earth questioning of relativistic cosmology.

What makes you say that such questions are considered ‘off-limits’ by philosophers? It’s a mystery to me first why you conclude that Grunbaum considers such questions off limits –

Because he makes a generalized statement of principle, apparently applicable to all physicists and philosophers –

No physicist or philosopher can be justly criticized for failing to answer a causal question inspired by that mistaken demand for an external cause.’

and secondly a mystery to me why you would then generalize that to be also true of philosophy in general.

Because he makes a generalized statement of principle, apparently applicable to all physicists and philosophers –

No physicist or philosopher can be justly criticized for failing to answer a causal question inspired by that mistaken demand for an external cause.’

Also, considering that there is much thought given to exactly those questions by philosophers and physicists – I don’t understand why you would come to that conclusion.

Presumable physicists or philosophers are themselves free to think about such questions but, by some form of logic –

No physicist or philosopher can be justly criticized for failing to answer a causal question inspired by that mistaken demand for an external cause.’

I presumed that you might know what sort of logic Adolf Grünbaum is using, but to me it is nothing but a clever principle designed to protect philosophical abstract thinking from the rigours and demands of common sense scrutiny. Questions of cause and effect are the very basis of the scientific method – questions as to the cause of disease have lead to cures, questions as to the cause of physical phenomena have lead to the harnessing of these physical energies and forces for the benefit of human beings and so on. Questions of cause and effect are vital to the actualism method – what caused me to feel angry right now, what caused me to say that to that person, what caused me to feel bored right now, what caused me to feel sad right now and so on.

To call a spade a spade – for anyone to claim exemption from being concerned with cause and effect is a sure sign they are off with the fairies.

*

Adolf Grünbaum goes on to attempt to philosophize-away the ‘universe was created out of nothing’ dilemma that haunts relativistic cosmology with the following argument –

A second version of quantum cosmology is furnished by the socalled wave-function models (22-25) whereas the semiclassical inflationary models quantize only nongravitational fields, the wave-function models quantize all fields. But, like the former, they also feature an inflationary episode. The temporal structure of the wave-function models is that of the Case (i) Big Bang model, but with the important difference that there is no singularity at the initial state t=0. Thus, here there is a bona fide first state of the universe. But it cannot have an earlier cause, since there is no prior time. Nor is there any basis for thinking that its initial state has a simultaneous asymmetric cause supplied by divine volition.

The third set of quantum cosmologies, the vacuum fluctuation models, are quite distinct from the first two, although there are quantum fluctuations in the course of the careers of the other models as well. Quentin Smith (26) has lucidly outlined a series of these models, beginning with Tryon’s in 1973, and including those of Brout, Englert, Gott and others. Their cardinal feature is that there is a preexisting background space in which our universe is embedded, and that our world is a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum of this larger space. Yet our world is only one of many vacuum fluctuation worlds that emerge randomly from the embedding vacuum space.  Adolf Grünbaum, originally published in PHILO, Vol 1, No 1, pp 15-34, Spring-Summer 1998

I take it that such explanations mean something to philosophers … but to me they are nought but slight-of-hand denial.

Sure, it’s not a satisfying answer at all. But – it is an answer, which demonstrates that such questions are not ‘off-limits’ for Grunbaum.

I take it that in philosophical circles the point is to come up with an abstract answer to a question and because the answer is abstract it then poses an abstract question which then leads to an abstract answer which … means the whole philosophical game continues on ad infinitum – an endless game of intellectual ping-pong that men have indulged in for millennium. And the game is played out in so-called secular philosophy as well as spiritual philosophy.

No wonder I found the utter down-to-earthness and utter simplicity of actualism so appealing.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity