Can We Help A Supernaturally- Obsessed WSJ Letter Writer Overcome His Fear Of Materialism?

Americans have more than enough to occupy their worry hours lately, what with the spread of white nationalism, mass shooting threats and Trumpist insanity and lies. The latter was on display last week with Trump's dog and pony show with the Ukrainian Prez.  Then there is the constant financial turbulence (again no thanks to Dotard) , diseases such as EEE and vaping pneumonia,  preternaturally strong hurricanes like Doria.  So why add  supernatural phantasmagorias to that existential load?

Well, one WSJ letter writer named Paul Malocha appears to want to, writing in a letter four days ago:

"Neurons provide the material for human consciousness but cannot create it. A rational soul is necessary. Without the latter you have a bunch of data and processes only...Of course, the materialist philosophy behind this quest (for thinking machines) rejects that there is such a thing as a soul, rather holding that consciousness is simply an emergent property of electric meat."

But it is vastly more than "electric meat! And that's where Mr. Malocha goes astray and so allows supernatural babble like "souls" to enter the picture.  In fact, the departure from the crude materialism that Malocha invokes is made possible by the introduction of quantum mechanics into neural processing and brain dynamics.   We have to thank physicist Henry Stapp (Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, p. 42)  who  first posited that that uncertainty principle limitations applied to calcium ion capture near synapses shows they (calcium ions) must be represented by a probability function.  The latter is described by quantum mechanics, so entails a wave form (de Broglie waves) - not just matter- and we move beyond "electric meat".

More specifically, the dimension of the associated calcium ion wavepacket scales many times larger than the calcium ion itself. This nullifies the use of classical trajectories or classical mechanics to trace the path of the ions.  It thereby opens the door fully to quantum mechanics.  Ultimately (using additional work by physicist David Bohm) one can arrive at a "quantum potential", defined:

V_Q=   {-ħ²/ 2m} [Ñ R]² / R

for a wave function, U = R exp(iS/ħ)

where R,S are real.

But let's back up a bit to units we call neuronal assemblies, and super assemblies. These are amenable to a particular type of neural network processing that relies on "clustering algorithms" and for which quantum dots can be located at critical junctures in the network to minimize input variations and assure specific outputs. To fix ideas, I direct readers to parts A, B and C of Fig. 1.

 Part (A) shows a neuronal super-assembly, part (B) a biological and quantum analog to one center of neuronal action, and part (C) the workable neural network known as the radial basis function.  Part (A) shows a neuronal super-assembly, part (B) a biological and quantum analog to one center of neuronal action, and part (C) the workable neural network known as the radial basis function.

A neuronal assembly can also be described by connections to some N-synapses (where N> 100,000). This is shown simplified in the left side of the same diagram(B), where the neuron A now has 4 rays: AB, AC, AD, AE representing four connections of the same neuron to four different synapses. Bear in mind the neuron A has any number of quantum wave state possibilities associated with it: firing or not firing, action-potential or no action potential and perhaps one million others. In a higher-order neuronal assembly one might have 1,000 neurons each connected to 100,000 synapses for which an extremely complicated figure would result!

Consider now the the quantum aspect. A neuron 'A' either fires or not. The 'firing' and 'not firing' can be designated as two different quantum states identified by the numbers 1 and 2. When we combine them together in a vector sum diagram, we obtain the superposition. where the wave function (left side) applies to the neuron 'A'. What if one has 1,000 neurons, each to be described by the states 1 and 2? In principle, one can obtain the vector sum as shown in the above equation for neuron A and combine it with all the other vector sums (using the quantum superposition principle) for each of the 999 other neurons. The resulting vector sum represents the superposition of all subsidiary wave states and possibilities - at least those for the 'firing-not firing' states! The end product of this is a neuronal 'assembly' or aggregate of neurons (and associated synapses, axons, dendrites, etc.) which performs some function or acts like a circuit (for example a simple reflex arc, as when one burns a finger and automatically removes it from the source).

At a higher level of the hierarchy, one refers to the neuronal super-assembly(A) or 'super-circuit’ within which considerations such as networks, and optimization of paths as well as 'adjacency and order' take precedence. Each solid black circle denotes a neuronal assembly such as described above. These are intimately connected, each to the other, to perform some specific function. (For example in the brain region known as the limbic system, there is a structure called the hippocampus, within which an agglomerate of neuronal assemblies is dedicated to maximizing retention of events as memory.)

We then ask: What form or type of operational network can best exploit these properties to attain the desired function we want? That is, to be able to shut down or minimize negative inputs that contain information that amplifies unwarranted fears? The diagram (C) gives the clue: it will be a network for which a clustering algorithm is optimized, since this same clustering emulates the neuronal assemblies.

In the clustering algorithm view(C), the center for action (the m's) are going to be neurons, as occur in neuronal assemblies. As each cluster center m(i) is moved closer to the x(n) because the relevant equation minimizes the error vector, [x(n) - m(i)]. The relevant equation here is:

m(i)' = m(i) + a{x - m(i)} 

where a is the "learning rate" or in this case, the information processing (flow and refresh) rate in the network. The iterative aspect of the equation, emphasizes the fact that the algorithm is applicable for clustering the input vectors in real-time as they are acquired sequentially. Thus, the quantum gates will have an ongoing active role and continually update inputs as well as outputs.

What about the RBF network itself? This is shown in Fig. 2. 

Cursory inspection shows some similarities to the previous considered (numerically vetted) MLP network but also key differences. For example: the hidden layer j = 0, 1, 2 ....p has no bias inputs such as X(0) for the MLP. Both hidden layer operators transit to Y(k) and Y(m) which in turn feed into one bias point per cluster at Phi(0).

The output of a neuron in the output layer is then defined according to: y(k=j) = f(jth output of j = 0, 1, 2.....p neuron of hidden layer) which can be controlled by placing a quantum gate (likely NOT gate using the function for the Pauli spin matrix σ(z) = (1, 0¦0, -1), where as before, the left pair is a matrix 'top' and the right pair a matrix 'bottom' )

In effect, with correct placement of quantum dot NOT gates in the hidden layer, it will be possible to alter an input (0, 1) to an output (0,-1) say at the bias point Phi(0). That switching effect will then transfer to the output layer, inverting the outputs for the k = 1, 2,.....m neurons principally for the points y(1), y(k=j) and y(m). The key advantage of the RBF over an MLP network is that the RBF leads to better decision boundaries and improved classification of the information from the hidden layer. (Which might be very critical since not all information going to the amygdala is negative. Some is available evolutionarily, for example, to arouse an alert for a real threat!)

A remaining question or issue, is whether or not one quantum NOT gate is required for each neuron in the hidden layer. I am going to argue 'no', given the fact that quantum superposition superposition of data elements can apply such that: U = U(1) + U(0), where 1 and 0 denotes bits entrained to move along as information to the outputs y(1), y(k=j) and y(m). In principle, then, it is feasible that each quantum gate can - according to its qubit (not bit) capacity, match up to many more neuron bits in transit within the hidden layer.

For example, an ordinary (computer) register only holds one of eight possible 3-bit combinations at a time, say: 001, or 010, or 011. By contrast, a qubit register (or quantum gate acting as one) could accommodate all eight possible 3-bit combinations: 000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, and 111. In general, for any given n-bit combination, with n a whole number, a qubit register could accommodate 2 to the nth power total combinations at one time. Thus, 16 combinations could be held in memory for 4-bits, 32 for 5-bits, and so on. This change marks an exponential (two to the 'n') increase over any classical counterpart.

The task now will be to check the workabilty of the RBF network by using a simulation code that can encode qubit capacity and be integral with the key network equations for the RBF network. What might be one way we know we're on the right track? Well, apart from getting the outputs we want at (1), y(k=j) and y(m), we also would like to see or ensure that the error function remains Gaussian, and doesn't suddenly change. For example, it can be shown that the relevant error function for a given neuron designated for the output bias is:

Phi(n) = exp {[x(n) - m(i)] ²/ 2s(n) ² where [x(n) - m(i)] is the Euclidean distance between x(n) and m(i) and which should not exceed the distance for which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is applicable, e.g. ~ 300 nm, and s(n) is the standard deviation applicable to all neurons in the hidden layer subject to quantum gate effects. (It is also sometimes taken as the width of the Gaussian associated with the cluster algorithm prototype.).

All of the preceding is consistent with the "holarchy" cited by Mensan Christina Anne Knight (see my July 12 post)  in her 'Systems Approach to the Afterlife'  and first used by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine .   As she points out and Koestler notes, this embodies  the "interdependence, interrelations and interaction of subsystems which results in a form of self-organization from which a larger system is an emergent product".  

In other words, consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain but an "emergent product".    This is  assured by the novel role of QM and especially the uncertainty principle which allows the sort of creative behavior and thought we associated with a highly functioning consciousness. Hence, no "soul" is needed for consciousness to operate. Moreover, it has the capacity to be fully rational in its capacity and operation, Donald Trump being the exception, obviously. And the consequences at death, again, Ms. Knight's words:

"If the conscious mind is located at the apex of this holarchic system , then the collapse of the substructure beneath it has terminal consequences."

Thus,

"The conscious mind becomes just another impermanent system subject to physical laws.  It does not survive death because it cannot exist outside the holarchic structure from which it emerged"

It would appear then that the WSJ letter writer underestimates the power of Materialism (in its quantum based form - called Monistic physicalism) to account for consciousness, as well as rendering any "soul" redundant.

Selected Questions (And Answers) From All Experts Astronomy Forum (Big Bang, proper time, quantum cosmology etc.)

The following were culled from cosmology questions asked on the All Experts Astronomy forum over 2010--2012:


1-What is the evidence for the Big Bang and how was it discovered?

The evidence for the Big Bang is the 2.7 Kelvin degree, cosmic background radiation. The key aspect that makes it evidence is that it has the same intensity in all directions- wherever one observes in the sky. No ordinary radiative or local explosive source (e.g. supernova) would produce such a characteristic. The only feasible explanation to account for it would be a vast “explosion” occurring in the distant past and affecting the entire universe. Its entire volume.

The isotropic (all directions) radiation was discovered during a sky survey at the Bell Laboratories in 1965, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. They had pointed their radio telescope in different directions in the sky and received the same “buzz” no matter where they observed. After rigorous data reduction (removal of data detritus and effects of bat guano), plus later confirmation of the “universal buzz” - it was later identified by Robert Dicke as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the radio remnant of the Big Bang, they realized they’d discovered the relic radiation left over from the Big Bang.

In 1978 the pair received the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery

2- If there was a Big Bang can we say the universe had a beginning, or not? What came before the Big Bang?

Asking ‘what came before the Big Bang’ is like asking ‘what’s north of the north pole?’ It’s the kind of question that at first glance seems logical, but really isn’t. The key thing here is that the time continuum we use to measure instants or epochs starts at the Big Bang, using the Hubble constant. Going to epochs before the Big Bang isn’t feasible because there is no temporal template to go by.

Though we can use the current Hubble constant to measure the proper time since the Big Bang as 13.7 billion years we can’t go any further than that. Or, into any “negative times” – as defined “before the Big Bang”. The reason is that so far there is no physically operational meaning to these.

3- You mentioned “proper time” – what’s that?

Proper time   τ   is defined in terms of the relativistic factor  (from special relativity):

g  =   [(1 - v  ²/c²)  ^-1/2]  

where v is a specific velocity- say of an observer’s frame, c is the speed of light.

Then the proper time is:   dτ   = dt/ g

Reversing the above, we can say that when the (relativistic) clock advances by increment dτ   then  the clock time that elapses on Earth is given by:

dt  =    g   dτ  

Why use proper time? Basically, because normal time measures are unreliable and subjective owing to relativity. For example, even saying or asserting the energy is greater or less at one time (t2) than time (t1) is impossible since energy (like mass, time, length) varies depending on the observer’s frame.

For example, consider the energy of an object moving at velocity v in the simple diagram below:


But, to the observer O moving in a reference frame with the same velocity, the object appears at rest so its kinetic energy = 0. In more technical consideration, on the basis of the Lorentz transformation (google!) the energy E’ in a new frame will depend on the energy E in an older frame according to:

E’ =  g _o (E –  v _o  p _x )

Where  v _o is the velocity and  p _x   the momentum in direction (x).

The factor  g _o   =   1  / [(1 - v _o ²/c²)^½]  


The point is that the energy in the new frame E'  depends on the momentum in the old frame, p _x . If this momentum is not conserved, then energy won’t be conserved in the new frame.

Note here that the relation of the new p' _x momentum  to the old,  p _x is:

p' _x    =  g _o (p _x   –  v _o  E/   c² )

Bottom line, unless one employs corrections using proper time to make energy estimates or statements, he will end up talking nonsense.

For example, let’s say you are looking at an object receding at a velocity of 0.5 c, and assert based on careful ordinary time measurements that it emerged 1 billion years after the Big Bang. Or – 12.7 billion year removed from your observation. But how does this compare to the proper time?

We have: dτ  = dt/ g

Where dt = 12.7 billion yrs.

g  = [1 – (0.5c/c) ²]  
 
 = 1/  Ö[1 – (0.25)] = 1/  Ö[0.75] = 1.155

Then the proper time interval dτ   is: (12.7 x x 10 ⁹  yr)/1.155 = 1.1 x x 10¹⁰  yr

Or 11 billion years not 12.7 billion.

This obviously also means that one cannot say or assert that from the Big Bang there has been “an infinite” amount of time, or instants. No, there hasn’t, and one can do the computation for the actual time interval using the proper time format.


4- What is meant by Quantum Cosmology and how does it work? Can it explain the Big Bang?

Quantum cosmology means that we use terms, conditions and parameters that are peculiar to the quantum level – for example quantum variables – in examining how they might work in explaining aspects of cosmology and yes, origins.

Quantum cosmology also is not for the faint of heart, or those who haven’t done a lot of physics – including taking quantum physics courses. In other words, one can’t simply approach its basis or claims using common sense or even ordinary logic. I believe it was Richard Feynman in one of the prefaces to his lectures who wrote: “Don’t even try to go down the rabbit hole of understanding quantum mechanics, or you will be lost forever.”

What he meant by that is that we don’t approach quantum formulations on the basis of trying to understand them, like one might wish to understand how an electronic amplifier works. We approach them from the mathematics we use, and let those math results lead the way.

At least one theory of the origin of the cosmos uses quantum cosmology in what we call “quantum bootstrapping”. This means, formulating a quantum fluctuation which could have incepted the cosmos via the Big Bang.

The starting point for these sorts of theories actually resides in a real world phenomenon. Particle production is one- wherein particles are created then quickly destroyed with energy release.

The typical pi meson (call it p ) lasts 10 ^-16 sec then vanishes yielding two gamma ray photons in its wake,viz.

 p    -> g   +   g

Thus, rest energy is real energy and is capable of doing work. In the case of the pion above, the total mass 2.4 x 10^-28 kg, is converted to electromagnetic energy.

The amount of the energy can be estimated using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the energy-time format:

D E D t   <  ħ  (where   ħ   is the  modified Planck constant: 

 h/ 2p =   1.05 x 10^-34 J-s

Thus,  if the time uncertainty for disappearance of the pi meson is:  D E = 10^-16 s

Then the energy available that comes off is:

   D E =    ħ  / D t   = 1.054 x 10 ^-18  J = 6.5 eV

In the same manner, a number of theoreticians (e.g. T. Padmanabhan) have speculated the universe could have emerged like the pi meson using the same basis for energy arising out of “nothing”.

Padmanabhan’s full paper: Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, can be found in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756.

String Theorist Ed Witten Offers A Take On Consciousness - It Will Never Be Solved

Ed Witten - examining an aspect of String Theory. He isn't convinced that consciousness can ever be solved by physics.

It was interesting pulling up a blog post by chemist Ash Jogelekar where he quoted physicist Edward Witten as writing:

"I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness... 

Understanding the function of the brain is a very exciting problem in which probably there will be a lot of progress during the next few decades. That's not out of reach. But I think there probably will remain a level of mystery regarding why the brain is functioning in the ways that we can see it, why it creates consciousness or whatever you want to call it. How it functions in the way a conscious human being functions will become clear. But what it is we are experiencing when we are experiencing consciousness, I see as remaining a mystery... 

Perhaps it won't remain a mystery if there is a modification in the laws of physics as they apply to the brain. I think that's very unlikely. I am skeptical that it's going to be a part of physics."


This may be so, but I don't believe the problem is as insuperable as he and many other physicists believe. But it will require patience and getting our theories tested properly in terms of what could be considered an environment conducive to human consciousness. Jogelekar himself adds:

"what Witten is saying here is in some sense quite simple: even if we understand the how of consciousness, we still won't understand the why. This kind of ignorance of whys is not limited to consciousness, however"

Which is true! I have no idea WHY solar flares and coronal mass ejections are often linked together and  erupt where they do but I have a detailed idea of how they do.  In science this is the most one can really aspire to: answering the 'how' as opposed to the 'why'.

In the case of consciousness it would seem  that a logical starting point is the physical scale of the synaptic cleft. The scale is on the order of 200-300 nm and hence subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  Once so subject, then it embodies the laws of quantum mechanics. Wave forms, as opposed to simple classical trajectories of particles (e.g. electrons) are enabled, because uncertainty principle limitations applied to calcium ion (Ca++) capture near synapses shows they (calcium ions) must be represented by a probability wave function. (Cf. Henry Stapp, Mind, Matter And Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1983).

Consider the 4D  wave function U(X,Y,Z, t) . Then brain dynamics and function at a time t is contingent upon the neuron and its connections to synapses at the same time t. We therefore  want networks that invoke the above function and Pauli spin operators as effective gates.

Application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to Ca+2 ions (at body temperature) discloses the associated wave packet dimension increases to many times the size of the ion itself. Thus we can represent the ion uptake superposition as a separate contributor to the aggregate (sub-complex) or neuronal assembly:

U (A₁....A _n) + U (Ca+2) _n


 It was physicist David Bohm who first pointed out ('Quantum Theory', p. 169), a very precise analogy of quantum processes to thought. In particular, the quantum "wave packet collapse" (e.g. to a single eigenstate, from a superposition of eigenstates) is exactly analogous to the phenomenon of trying to pinpoint what one is thinking about at the instant t he is doing such thinking. More often than not, when one does this, as Bohm notes - "uncontrollable and unpredictable changes" are introduced into the thought process or train of thought.

Often, people are heard to say: "Sorry, I've lost my train of thought".

What they really mean is the thought coherence they had enjoyed has since been obliterated, so that they have to commence the thought process anew. The coherent state has "collapsed" into a single state which they now no longer recognize. In this way, as Bohm pointed out, the "instantaneous state of a thought" can be compared to the instantaneous position of a particle (say associated with a de Broglie wave or "B-wave" in a brain neuron). Similarly, the general direction of change of a thought is analogous to the general direction of change in time for the particle's momentum (or by extension, its phase function).

Now, let's get into more details.


From the foregoing remarks (on thought), Bohm   - in another work ('Wholeness and the Implicate Order', 1980) could also regard meditation as a possible "channel" by which the individual mind can access the Dirac Ether. I have dealt with similar conjectures before, in terms of the 'quantum potential".

In general, the quantum potential defined by Bohm (ibid.) is: 

 V_Q= { - ħ²/ 2m}  [Ñ R]² / R          

Where ħ is the Planck constant of action h divided by 2π , m is the mass, and R a phase amplitude. The quantum potential computed for a pair of Gaussian slits is shown below (cf.  Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J.: Foundations of Physics, Vol. 12, No. 10, p. 1001):


Now assume the total set of one's thoughts contains waves of frequencies ranging from f' (highest) to f, then the empirical  quantum potential ( V'_Q) can be expressed:

V'_Q = h(f' - f),

where h is Planck's constant.

Thus, V'_Q has units of energy as the other potential functions in physics, e.g. gravitational and electrostatic. On average, the greater the number of possible states, the greater the difference (f' - f) and the greater the empirical quantum potential.

In a real human brain, of course, we have a "many-particle" field (especially since we're looking at neuronal complexes) so that the quantum potential must be taken over a sum such that:

V_Q=  { - ħ²/ 2m}  å _i  [Ñ R_i]² / R

The velocity of an individual B-wave is expressed by:

v(B)= Ñ S/ m

Where m is the mass of the particle associated with the B-wave, and S is a phase function obtained by using:

U = R exp( iS/ħ)

A neuron in sub-complex 'A' either fires or not. The 'firing' and 'not firing' can be designated as two different quantum states identified by the numbers 1 and 2. When we combine them together in a vector sum diagram, we obtain the superposition.

 Y  (n ( A] =  Y  (n1 ( A1] +  Y (n1 ( A2)]

where the wave function (left side) applies to the collective of neurons in 'A', and takes into account all the calcium wavepackets that factored into the process. What if one has 1,000 neurons, each to be described by the states 1 and 2? In principle, one can obtain the vector sum as shown in the above equation for all of the neuronal sub-complex A, and combine it with all the other vector sums for the sub-complexes B, C, D and E in an optimized path. The resulting aggregate vector sum represents the superposition of all subsidiary wave states and possibilities in a single probability density function. Configure the action of Pauli spin gates as well, and radical emergence is allowed, of the type that could even account for the effects reported by Robert Jahn (from his students) on computer random number generators.

The Pauli spin matrix-operator σ  _x  = (0,1¦1,0) where the left pair is a matrix 'top' and each right pair a matrix 'bottom' - since they are usually written in a rectangular array form.

Similarly, the other Pauli gates would be defined by: σ _y  = (0,-i¦i, 0)and  σ _z = (1, 0¦0, -1), where i denotes the square root of (-1).  Incorporation of such Pauli (quantum) gates meets a primary application requirement for feed forward networks, in describing synapse function. (See e.g. Yaneer Bar-Yam, 'Dynamics of Complex Systems', Addison-Wesley, pp. 298-99.)

The advantage is consciousness is elevated out of the strict machine-like model of an ordinary computer to one that can explain more features of the human experience.

This post is intended to show just how complex the integration of consciousness into an existing, accepted theory of physics can be.  Empirically, I don't believe anyone can move forward on this topic until the Pauli spin gates' actions are actually tested via neural networks in the brain. When or how this can happen given our current technology is anyone's guess - but it will likely require actual quantum computers.  A first marker may well be the extent to which quantum entanglement might emerge for discrete quantum systems.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/numerical-testing-of-mlp-network.html

"At Its Heart Science Is Based On Faith?" -- Errr....No!

The issue of whether science is based on faith, like supernaturalist religion, is one that repeatedly occurs in debates - almost like the return of a bad penny. But in fact it is nonsense.

Look at your computer:  laptop, desktop or Ipad,  at which you're sitting and reading this post. Is the computer real?  Can you interact with it, i.e. scroll down, change pages, reduce scale ....etc....or is it merely a figment of your imagination in which you must invest faith that it really exists? I submit you know it is real and you need no "faith" to believe so or that you can interact with it.  In fact, the computer comprises  hard core evidence of the factuality of science - specifically quantum mechanics - because without the phenomenon of quantum tunneling computers could not exist, nor could video games, HDTVs, smart phones or dozens of other devices we take for granted.

My point here is that if  scientific knowledge is based merely  on an internal (subjective) faith in its methods of inquiry, there would be no hardware ever emerging from discovery of first principles. Nor would there be advances in the hardware. The reality of the hardware (such as working telescopes - like the one shown in the image accompanying this blog-  and computers,  scanners, GPS systems etc), implies that science must be based on something radically different from faith. In essence, there must be a substantial and objective dimension to scientific knowledge, i.e. that exists apart from the scientist's mind and personal beliefs.

For example, there is no disputing the reality of high-speed computers and micro-processors, medical imaging and diagnostic devices (e.g. MRIs), more efficient telecommunications systems -including fiber optics relays, and novel advances in gene mapping (such as to arrive at the human genome) and splicing techniques as applied to genetic engineering. Collectively, these show two things: 1) that science as a process cannot be "standing still" - since technology advances and technology is the offspring of applied or basic scientific research, and 2): these researches can generate real, physical counterparts in the objective world. (So they are in no ways the same as "souls", "demons" etc.)

Let's go one further and refer to the monumental achievements of celestial mechanics. The name conveys exactly what the subject embodies: Mechanics applied to the dynamics of celestial objects. A typical diagram from my own Celestial Mechanics notes when I took it at Univ. of South Florida, is shown below:














The diagram shows assorted "orbital elements" for a planet of mass m2 (the Sun is m1) and these could be used as a basis for orbital energy analysis and also to predict future positions.  By inclusion of Newtonian dynamics one could also map the trajectories of spacecraft to distant planets, as well as the Moon.

Is the wonderfully sophisticated mathematics of celestial mechanics and astrodynamics based on "faith"? Hardly! If it were indeed so then we'd never have been able to land men on the Moon- nor would we have trusted "faith" to get Apollo 11 there first, on July 20, 1969. Nor would we have used it to send the Mars Curiosity Rover to the Red Planet, e.g.

or indeed would we have been able to dispatch the NASA New Horizons spacecraft on its recent flyby of the planet Pluto to capture extraordinary images, e.g.
 
The fact we have been able to accomplish these space feats shows clearly celestial mechanics is not based on any "faith" but on precise physical and mathematical laws which remain invariable over appreciable lengths of time. (Hence, enabling me to predict the position of Jupiter 100 years from today's date.)

It was therefore disturbing to read a recent (Mar. 2) WSJ essay by Matt Emerson ('At Its Heart Science Is Faith -Based Too') that attempts to portray science in the same mold as religion - based on faith.  But mixing science and religion up like he does serves the interest of neither.

To attempt to validate his argument he quotes a passage from Paul Davies' book, 'The Mind Of God':

"Just because the Sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will tomorrow. The belief that it will, that there are indeed regularities of nature - is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science."

Emerson seems not to grasp that just as there is artistic license, there is a degree of "scientific license" in popular books written by serious physicists. This is the case here, because if the laws of celestial mechanics are indeed precise - and moreover apply at the macro level of space craft, planets and asteroids (so exist independent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) then indeed the Sun must rise tomorrow, meaning that the Earth will continue rotating on its axis so that the current night side will see the dawn. (The Sun itself does not move, of course.)

What we actually have then isn't faith, but a mathematically -based expectation that is repeatedly confirmed. In order for it not to be confirmed all the laws of physics and celestial mechanics would have to be suspended and as even Davies acknowledges on the same page (81) if this were to transpire science would become merely a "charade"  since all regularities would then be treated as belonging to the realm of the random.

In this case you'd never be able to trust that the Newtonian law of gravitation remains as it is, as opposed to being suspended,  with disastrous consequences. Instead of rain or snow falling to Earth then one fine day it might levitate up toward the sky, and your  cup of coffee would instantly disperse as if suddenly in a weightless environment. Hence, all laws of physics would then become quixotic and chaotic.

Alas, Emerson misreads these fundamentals and hence misreads recent scientific discoveries such as the gravitational waves by LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) when he writes:

"When the scientists searching for gravitational waves set up LIGO to detect the waves they did so believing that Einstein's mathematics would be reliable and deep space would respond as their calculations had forecast. And they  kept us this faith even when by 2010 they saw no confirmation.."

In fact, this sustaining of the LIGO project was not predicated on "faith" but on the realization that more time was simply needed to find the source object (in this case, 2 colliding black holes) which could generate the necessary magnitude of gravitational waves to meet the measurement threshold.. Einstein's tensor equations were already known to be more than up to the task once the required source object was found.

Of course, given his earlier missteps it was inevitable Emerson would reach his last bogus conclusion in the form of a plaintive (if pathetic) question:

"If the combination of faith and reason can deliver the sound of two black holes colliding over a billion light years away - confirming a theory first expressed in 1915- what is so unthinkable about the possibility that this same combination could yield the insight that God became Man?"


Well, a number of reasons.  For one thing there is no hard evidence for the localization of a purported infinite entity into the form of a human. Secondly,  real science must always explain the unknown in terms of the known, or the relatively more known. Supernaturalists, by contrast, inevitably invoke the more unknown to explain the unknown. How, for example, does Emerson account for his God at all? He doesn't! Classical logicians refer to this fallacy as:  ignotum per ignotius:  “explaining the unknown by means of the more unknown.”  This is the fallacy Emerson has committed, given any natural object - like a black hole  - will always be more known than a supernatural construction like a god-Man.

More to the point, the claim fails other tests that negate any remote comparison to the gravitational wave find.  Can it be set against original and actual scientific hypotheses? No, it cannot.  Can it admit the basis of numerous empirical tests- and moreover- can it be susceptible to any form of prediction? NO, again, it cannot.

 If the answer is ‘No’, then we cannot place it into any scientific context. It will then have to be admitted that “faith” be enjoined to embrace or accept it, since no scientific rationale will permit true scientific inquiry. Hence, an incarnated deity cannot be a genuine object of scientific inquiry.

We can, however, pursue gravitational waves, black holes, colliding galaxies, pulsars and other astrophysical objects knowing the a priori physical tests can be met.  It is this testing of reality which provides a coherent basis for scientific claims, and which bestows on science a legitimacy founded in reality rather than wish fulfillment fantasies.  This is a basis, moreover, for which theological claims have no counterpart, despite that fact that theologians have often tried to make their claims sound like proven theories. The most often used tactic is to present some sort of "evidence" or other for a theological fiction, thereby exposing themselves to scientific scrutiny and criticism.

The best policy for Emerson, to prevent subjecting religious claims to harsh scientific scrutiny, would be not to mix issues of faith and science in the future. No matter how much he may want it,  neither modern physics  nor any other branch of science  will validate the basis that a god-Man ever existed. And not to put too fine a point on it, but even many theologians (such as based in the Jesus Seminar) deny any credible basis for such a belief. 

 See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/god-and-astronomy-what-bob-berman-gets.html