The Limits Of Scientific Inquiry & Research (1)

An unnerving item that appeared not long ago referenced that only a handful of people read nearly half of all scientific papers.  One estimate is that  1.8 million articles  are published each year, in about 28,000 journals. This elicits the question: who actually reads those papers?

According to one 2007 study, half of academic papers are read only by their authors and journal editors. This is nothing short of astounding but makes sense if one gets inside what research scientists actually do, which is to narrow their focus almost exclusively to their specific specialty areas  In addition, specialty areas themselves can be reduced to sub specialties, for example solar physics has a sub-discipline of solar flare magneto-hydrodynamics, another of solar flare predictions. Perhaps the former comprises 5 percent of solar physics and the latter 2 percent. Take the overlap between them and you may only find 50 solar physicists. Will they read beyond the 250 papers published annually in those two areas? Doubtful!  There simply isn't the time to do so, in addition to lecturing, attending conferences to present papers, etc.

Even more sobering, the authors found that 90 percent of papers published are never even cited by other researchers. Again, this isn't surprising. and let's also bear in mind that papers are of unequal quality - much of the lesser quality due to the "publish or perish" pressure. This mandate means professors will churn out papers merely to meet the quota mandates of their institutions, and may not have anything genuinely novel to report. Hence, the low quality.

This brings us to the other aspect: what methods are used by the researchers? Not only in astrophysics but physics as a whole, biology and chemistry.  If then academics are not clear on their methods, or what justifies them, then we are bound to see a wide array of quality. This is often because of the peer review process itself, see e.g.

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

And the fact not all journals and peer-review processes are created equally. All of this evokes questions of how rigorous scientific methods are applied to any scientific discipline and whether a specific reliable method exists in the first place.

According to biologist Lewis Wolpert, writing in his book 'The Unnatural Nature Of Science' (1992):

"It is doubtful there is a scientific method except in very broad and general terms".

Some of the advice referenced by Wolpert distilled from practicing scientists includes: "never try to solve a problem unless you can guess the answer, seek simplicity, seek beauty".

All of which are fine aspirations, but let's face it, rarely achieved in doing real science - say in stochastic realms like climate science and solar flare physics.

He follows these examples by reinforcing his original claim (ibid.):

"No one method, no paradigm, will capture the process of science. There is no such thing as the scientific method".

Which is a statement very likely to shock most high school science students, who will swear their teachers have shown them exactly what the scientific method entails, viz.

- Define the problem in respect to the specific phenomenon being investigated

- Gather information, data related to the problem

- Observe the phenomenon related to the problem

- Formulate a hypothesis related to the phenomenon and problem

- From the hypothesis make predictions that can be tested

-  Observe and/or experiment to test the hypothesis

Of course, in real life there is no such set formulaic pattern. Indeed, one can point to discoveries in the history of science (e.g. black holes such as Cygnus X-1) and show that scientists are led by theory almost as often as they are led by the observations.  There are also many permutations which led Wolpert to make the claim that "there is no such thing as the scientific method."

The single template presentation  - such as presented in high school science teaching- is a myth, an artificial scheme, rarely followed. It is only used for pedagogic purposes and convenience.. The fact is, when one reads most scientific papers - including in physics and astrophysics - there are large assumptions made and no particular method has been followed other than perhaps to gather the data as methodically as one can, usually by painstaking observations or experiments, and subject it to critical statistical or mathematical analysis. The latter usually entails the development of a consistent mathematical model.

However, and here is the kicker - depending on one's overarching choice of underlying philosophy, there may be no connection of the model to physical reality. Among the philosophies of science most powerful right now are positivism and reductionism. In the first case, one does not expect coincidence with physical reality but rather that the model "works" mathematically. To quote Stephen Hawking from his hypothesis for quantum coherence ('The Nature of Space and Time', p.3-4):

"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality. All one can ask is that its predictions should be in agreement with observation."

The original positivist emphasis in physics perhaps appeared in the quantum theory first, with its Copenhagen Interpretation. In this interpretation, the wave function Y  is purely statistical in nature, following the original proposal of Max Born. We cannot use it to effect specific computation concerning individual particles of a quantum system but are constrained to work only with collective properties.

In Born's view, the presence of i (the imaginary number i = Ö(-1)) in the quantum wave function divested it of any real, physical significance. A wave with an imaginary number is an abstraction - nothing more. In Born's statistical interpretation, it was useful for describing the changing probability of finding a micro-system in a particular quantum state. However, one was sensible enough not to take it literally, as a physically real entity.  Thus, the positivist interpretation or CI which still holds sway for most physicists.

Quantum theory accurately predicts the wavelengths of spectral lines, e.g. for hydrogen and other  spectra:









so whether it "really"  embodies physical reality is less important than that its observational predictions can be verified.

Reductionism is also a recurring and mesmerizing motif in most physics approaches, though it has also now diffused to other scientific disciplines. The pinnacle of reductionism, not surprisingly, was achieved in classical physics, based on Newton’s laws of motion. Its quintessential form, Mechanics, ultimately became the model for all of science by virtue of its sophisticated and elegant mathematics. Its power, particularly to make predictions, was so beguiling that it led to an entire mechanical paradigm for the universe. 

An illustration can help to clarify why mechanical reductionism became so beguiling to later scientific minds. One of the more interesting systems is the Attwood machine in which we have two masses suspended at opposite ends of a string on a single pulley, but with one mass exceeding the other, e.g.  m2 > m1. Then, when set up, the masses will accelerate in the direction of the greater mass, since an unbalanced force is now acting, e.g.

 A typical  problem for this simple pulley system is to find the acceleration resulting. Since m2 > m1 the acceleration is in the direction of  m2, and using two free body force diagrams (right side of graphic)  we may write (since T1 = T2 = T) 2 separate equations of motion:

m2 a = m2g – T

m1a = – m1 g + T

Adding the two equations:    a(m1 + m2) = (m2 – m1)g

Hence:  a =    (m2 – m1)g / ( m1 + m2)

Thus, if we take m1 = 0.5 kg, m1 = 1.0 kg and g = 10 N/kg  then:

a = (1.0 - 0.5)kg (10 N/kg)/  (1.0 kg + 0.5 kg) =  5 N/kg / (1.5) = 3.33 N/kg

Perhaps the single comment that embodies both positivism and ardent reductionism comes via Victor Stenger’s  attempt  to dash the validity of real quantum nonlocality (cf. God and the Folly of Faith, 155) :

It does not matter whether you are trying to measure a particle property or a wave property. You always measure particles. Here is the point that most people fail to understand: Quantum mechanics is just a statistical theory like statistical mechanics, fundamentally reducible to particle behavior

The biggest contradiction to Stenger’s interpretation comes by way of.  J.S Bell ( Foundations of Physics, (12, 989 ):

Although Y is a real field it does not show up immediately in the results of a ‘single measurement’, but only in the statistics of many such results. It is the de Broglie –Bohm variable X that shows up immediately each time.

These examples are meant to show why there is so much disagreement among physicists to account for differing observed phenomena.  For example, this is manifested to an extreme degree in the recent controversy over quantum "qbism", e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/qbism-remains-quantum-stepchild.html

This underscores a point made by Julian Baggini in his book, The Edge of Reason ('Chapter Two, 'Science for Humans',):

"The quirks and deviations from the official version of pure experiment and deduction are deeply embedded in the way science works".

Something that can be easily gleaned just by referring to the link above. Or, one can get hold of any number of different scientific papers, say from different journals. Is there one method of approach? No there is not.   If I had one major gripe about discussing scientific methods, approaches it is in ignoring that ultimately scientific advance is predicated on successive approximations. If high school (or even university) students learn anything, it is to master this subtle principle.

You have data, and accessory information which leads to some initial result (observation, experimental outcome)  which tests a particular hypothesis- call it 'x'. You then acquire better data (perhaps because of refined instruments, techniques ) and are led to a modified (improved) result such that:

x (n+1) = x + P(x) where x(n +1)

denotes an improvement via iteration, with P(x) the process (acting on x) that allows it.

Later, more refined data become available, such that:

x(n + 2) = x(n + 1) + P'(x + 1) and so on, and so on and so forth.

Each x, x(n+1), x(n+2) etc. being a successive approximation to what the objective, genuine value should be.

Beyond this, one must grasp different approaches are dictated depending on the discipline or sub-discipline and their respective empirical limits. Take the cases of the solar physicist and the lab plasma physicist. The solar physicist - with few exceptions, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/12/coronal-mass-ejections-successfully.html

 

is perforce afforded a more passive role than his lab plasma physicists counterpart. And while the solar physicist can apply plasma physics principles to his object of inquiry, say solar flare plasma of differing polarity deduced from  vector magnetograms.

he cannot extract that flare plasma and subject it to experimental or diagnostic tests - say to check the Debye length of the plasma.  In effect, solar physics differs from lab plasma physics in the respective degrees of control which can be exerted on the lab and solar plasma. This then must be understood from the outset in order to fully appreciate the methodology applied in each discipline.

Even so, there are huge assumptions often made before the investigator in either discipline can proceed. That also often means skating over "outliers" in data, and ignoring minor discrepancies in order to arrive at a larger, overarching picture more amenable to publication. We will get into some of these in the next part.

"Calculus is so last century"? Hardly!

Two months ago a WSJ op-ed ('Calculus Is So Last Century') by Tianhul Michael Li caught the eyes of many mathematicians as well as physicists (and I can assure you, many space and solar physicists). In it Li basically argued that calculus is primarily of the last century as it "is the handmaiden of physics - invented by Newton to explain planetary and projectile motion."

Adding:

"While its place at the core of math education may have made sense for Cold War adversaries engaged in a missile and space race, 'Minute Man' and 'Apollo' no longer occupy the same prominent role in national security and prosperity they once did."

Which makes one wonder what alternative universe and planet this guy is living on? Surely not the one that I'm on!

A feature story in Saturday's NY Times, for example, expatiated on the latest developments including "hypersonic targeted warheads" not only under development by the U.S. but China and Russia as well. The U.S. has a non-nuclear version but the take is that the Russians and Chinese are developing nuclear warheads- independent of missiles- that can be hurled into space then come down on an enemy with little or no warning time. This is in contrast to Cold War ICBMs that general gave about 30 minutes advance notice, unless launched by submarines)

Most alarming is the drive by a number of nations, including the U.S., China and Russia, to develop low yield nukes which - as the article put it- could make their use much more likely than the "mutually assured destruction"  (MAD) model of the past allowed. Indeed, the Russian already have a military posture firmly in place that permits the use of tactical nukes (with 10- 25 kt warheads) in the event that NATO forces overwhelm Russian positions in Eastern Europe. (And cruise missiles are also being outfitted with low yield nukes.)

The current U.S. proposal to "modernize" its nuclear warheads is also seen as possibly destabilizing the existing system and rousing the Chinese and Russians to action in their own warhead development.

Far from national security having switched away from H-bomb Cold War worries, we are evidently entering a new era wherein nuclear "swords of Damocles" literally hang over our collective heads, in the form of targeted hypersonic warheads, or even nuclear-armed satellites,

None of these systems will use linear algebra (the math Li mainly advocates teaching) to reach their targets, but plain old brute differential calculus, of a form I described in earlier blog posts, e.g. from May 6, 2013 (the rocket problem).

Surely then, Calculus isn't passé if it is still central to the ultimate form of nullifying any national security or 'prosperity': nuclear war,

Meanwhile, in fields as diverse as astrophysics, astronomy, quantum mechanics and plasma physics - not to mention climate science -  differential calculus is as critical as ever. While it is true algorithms and numerical simulations, models have been developed in all these fields, it is also true that differential calculus underscores that development and continued tweaking of those models depends on the actual math, not just crunching numbers into numerical or statistical data sets.

Li is correct when he asks at the outset 'Can you remember the last time you did calculus?'  But that question could also be asked about linear algebra or finite mathematics, or a course in multivariate statistics.  The point is that any form of advanced learned in high school or college will fall by the wayside if it is not used in some way later on, irrespective of how it was taught.

Li argues that he isn't saying calculus shouldn't be taught, as it is "great mental training" which is most gracious of him. But if nuclear warheads are going to be set off in detached form and land on my head, I'd be curious as to the math underlying the dynamics. I don't want to just read about it in the NY Times.

Where I do agree with him more, is when he criticizes the "single drive toward calculus in high  school and college" which "displaces other topics more important for today's economy and society".  These include "statistics, linear algebra and algorithmic thinking" (such as revealed in finite math.)

I concur because I've always been skeptical of the high school AP Calculus curricula and whether students are really of sufficient mental maturity that the courses serve any useful purpose (apart from the usual academic 'feather' in the cap to expand their choice of college). And I never saw the reason for pre-med students to be taking calculus. In each case then, perhaps some finite math course or statistics would better serve these populations as opposed to differential and integral calculus.

Calculus then, ought to be here to stay, certainly for most college math and science majors and perhaps even some others (e.g. Philosophy) interested in exploring the role of quantum mechanics in modern expositions, say involving quantum nonlocality and entanglement.

The EPR Paradox and Quantum Nonlocality (Part 2)

Continued from Part One:

3. Bohm’s Version of Quantum Mechanics

  Regarding the various violations of the Bell Inequality, David Bohm  with colleague Brian Hiley developed an alternative form of quantum mechanics to integrate it within existing observations. This began by treating the de Broglie wave as a physically real entity not merely a statistical one.  Also, Bohm and Hiley refined the concept of the pilot wave, originally proposed by Louis de Broglie

     If matter waves, or de Broglie waves, can be “piloted” then clearly they will have far more theoretical impact than if mere products of random encounters or observations. Hence, Bohm and Hiley ‘s development of a “pilot wave” theory to accompany the acceptance of B-waves physical reality.

     To understand the “clocking” guidance system for these waves, we begin with the basic energy definition for the quantum given some rest frequency, f _o.   

     Then the energy quantum associated with this frequency is, by Planck’s equation:

E_o  = h f_o

     Where h is the Planck constant. Then we can also write:

f_o  =  E_o /  h

In the relativistic limit, for photons:  f_o  =   m_o  c² / h

Now, change to angular frequency w_o to make the synchronous mechanism consistent with that proposed by de Broglie and Bohm, Hiley[1]. Then:

2p  f_o  =   m_o  c² / h

Replacing the Planck constant by ħ = h/ 2p , the Planck constant of action:

2p  f_o  =   m_o  c² /  ħ  

Then:

w_o =  m_o  c² /  ħ 

Which is the “clock frequency”  in the photon rest frame.

     There is also an additional condition, known as the Bohr-Sommerfield condition, for the clock to remain in phase with the pilot wave:

∮ p dx =  n ħ

     Now, the momentum p =  m_o  c , so that the integral becomes:

2p x (m_o  c) = n ħ

And the de Broglie wavelength emergence (l_D = h/ p) is evident in the equation. In this sense, we have:

2p x  =  n (h/ m_o  c)  =  n l_D  

     Or the same expression (2p r =  n l_D)  for the standing waves in an atom.  In Bohm’s own development, the procession of B-waves is actually enfolded within a “packet” of P-waves[2].  A basic diagram of the arrangement is shown below.

  
The axis labeled E is actually the real part of the electric field component, E_z. The width of the p-wave packet is denoted by the spread:

Dk = p / (x – x_o)

     Where x_o  denotes the center point of the wave packet. In other words, if the center point is at  x_o = 0, the packet width is just Dk = p / x.

     The wavelength, l = 2p / Dk then  is much less than the width of the packet. E.g. if Dk = p / x then:

 l = 2p / (p / x) = 2x. so if x = 1 nm, then l = 2 nm and:

 Dk = p / x = p / (1 nm) = p  nm, but p (nm) > 2 nm.

    The maximum of the wave packet is approximated closely by the square of the amplitude:

[ E_z ] ² =    4 sin² Dk (x – x_o) / (x – x_o) ²

   We can check the limits of the preceding. Let x_o = 0 then:

[ E_z ] ² =    4 sin² Dk x / x ²

And: 

[ E_z ] ² =      4 sin² Dk /  x

Conversely, let x_o = x, then:

 [ E_z ] ² = 0 =  4 sin² Dk (x – x) / (x – x) ²

   

     Thus, the p-wave packet ceases to exist as a discrete or localized entity and thereby loses its particle properties. But what about  the photon mass?

     Mass can be derived as a basis for the wave packet spread Dx =  (x – x_o). Thus, a “particle” is represented as a finite wave packet with wavelength-based spread Dl, such that, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

Dx =   D k =  D  (1/l) ~ 1

Now:  l  =   h/ m vg

Where: g   =  (1 – v ²/c²)  ^-½

Recall we saw the basic clock frequency (in the zero reference frame):

w_o =  m_o  c² /  ħ 

Which may now be generalized for relativistic speeds:

w =  m g  c² /  ħ 

In terms of the Compton wavelength:

= ħ/ mc 

w =  g (c/ x )

Given a spread in the velocity D v =  D k =   D (vg) then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states:

D x D p  » ħ   where D p  =  D (m vg)

Therefore: D x D (m vg)    » ħ  

Or, since the “ultimate” lower limit on D x is of the order of the Compton wavelength, i.e.  D x  » x  or  ħ/ m c,  we have:

m »  ħ/ D x c

Where D x  denotes a lower limit to D x. And it can be shown that the quantity 1/ x possesses the additive and inertial properties of mass.

4. Bohm’s Version of the Uncertainty Principle:

     In Bohm’s case, the Heisenberg relations are embodied in his theory as a limiting case over a certain level of intervals of space and time. However, the potential exists for the fields to be averaged over smaller intervals and hence, subject to a greater degree of self-determination than is consistent with the Heisenberg principle. As Bohm concludes[3]:

From this, it follows that our new theory is able to reproduce, in essence at least, one of the essential features of the quantum theory, i.e. Heisenberg’s principle, and yet have a different content in new levels

     Bohm is primarily concerned with the canonically conjugate field momentum, for which the associated coordinates, i.e. Dt,  Df_k  fluctuate at random. Thus, we have, according to Bohm:

p _k = a (Df_k  /Dt)

Where a is a constant of proportionality, and Df_k  is the fluctuation of the field coordinate. If then the field fluctuates in a random way the region over which it fluctuates is;

(d  Df_k) ²  = b (Dt)

Taking the square root of both sides yields:

(d  Df_k)   = b ^1/2   (Dt)^1/2 

Bohm notes that p _k   also fluctuates at random over the given range so:

d p _k =  a b ^1/2 /   (Dt)^1/2 

Combining all the preceding results one finally gets a relation reflective of the Heisenberg principle, but time independent:

d p _k   (d  Df_k  ) = ab

This is analogous to Heisenberg’s principle, cf.

dp dq  <  ħ

Where the product ab  plays the same role as ħ

Problems:

1) Consider the details of the Einstein ‘box’ thought experiment in which he attempted to out wit Bohr. Based on the hypothetic measured quantities given, how much uncertainty would be expected in the mass? In the weight? (Find the mass uncertainty in kg, and the weight in N.)

2)An Aspect-style experiment is carried out and th e result is found to be:

S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV =

2.65 + 0.10

Explain whether Bell’s inequality was confirmed or not. If not, explain why not.

3) Consider a theoretical  wavelength, l = 2p / Dk, where Dk is the expected width of the wave packet.  If Dk = 0.5 nm, and x = 1 nm with x_o = 0.5 nm, then compute the E-field amplitude:  E_z 

4) In a particular experiment to test Bohmian quantum mechanics on a computer, the uncertainty in one input turns out to be: Dt  =   10 ^-39 s  and in the other,  Df_k  = 10 ^-51 m. From this data, find the quantity b. Then compose a form of the Uncertainty principle and obtain the product ab. (Where ab plays the same role as  ħ in the conventional form of the Uncertainty principle.)

Comment on how your product ab compares to ħ.

---

.[1] Bohm and Hiley:  Foundations of Physics, (12), No. 10, p. 1001.

[2] See, e.g. Bohm, D: Quantum Theory, Dover, p. 169, 1951.

[3] Bohm, op. cit.,. 91.

Universal Salvation Belief a One Way Trip to “Hell”? HELL NO!

Sign from a Fundie's blog warning any who accept universal salvation to watch out! Their final destination is HELL!

According to Wikipedia, Universal Reconciliation or Salvation is:


“the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God.

Universal salvation may be related to the perception of a problem of Hell,, standing opposed to ideas such as endless conscious torment in Hell, but may also include a period of finite punishment similar to a state of purgatory.Believers in universal reconciliation may support the view that while there may be a real "Hell" of some kind, it is neither a place of endless suffering nor a place where the spirits of human beings are ultimately 'annihilated' after enduring the just amount of divine retribution”

I first became acquainted with universal salvation while debating an Anglican Priest in Barbados in 1982. At one point I mocked the concept of “Hell” as infantile, and basically “apartheid theology” based on gloating over the suffering of those unlike you, who don’t subscribe to your special beliefs- but whom you condemn to everlasting perdition. I also mocked the notion that the presumption of Hell meant every sect or Christian denomination could, in effect, pass judgment on every other sect or denomination. Fundies could hell bind Catholics, Catholics could hell bind Fundies, both could also consign Jews and Muslims to the everlasting pits as the Muslims could return the favor to Christians! It was an afterlife MUTUAL ANNIHILATION PACT!


The priest laughed and conceded the point, and I won the debate – scored by objective observers – based on that line of attack. After the debate, however, the priest confided to me that in the upper echelons of the Anglican hierarchy (recall here that King James, of King James Bible fame was an Anglican too) no one took Hell seriously and there was no doctrine of Hell or of exceptional salvation for the few. Instead all Anglican seminaries taught Universal Reconciliation – Salvation. The priest told me he didn’t teach it himself nor did any other Anglican padres he knew. They had to instead teach Heaven or Hell because that is what their parishioners expected. He told me that if they attempted to teach the actual doctrine of universal salvation most of the faithful would leave that Church because their skewed sense of moral right and wrong dictated the “evil” receive the ultimate punishment. But he said this dichotomy troubled him no end!


Well, no wonder! It had to be mentally pathological to know what your religion’s actual doctrine is on the one hand but not be able to openly teach it on the other. Schizoid personality disorder anyone?

But he has a point. Because most believers function at the level of children, and need a cosmic daddy to “take the rod” to the bad boys or girls, they cannot accept the conceptual notion of an afterlife wherein everyone is brought together. Even many Christian leaders who ought to know better buy into this codswallop. In a memorable final Phil Donahue show on MSNBC in 2002(still have it on videotape), he included people from five major religions, including the head of the Southern Baptists, and a leading Rabbi. When Donahue brought up the thorny issue (which most evangelicals prefer to sweep under the rug) of what happens to the Jews when ”Armageddon” is all over and the "Antichrist" (sic) is defeated, the Southern Baptist fundie didn’t mince words:

“Most will be bound for the fires of Hell, because it is appointed that only 144,000  Jews shall be saved. “

Donahue’s eyes rolled twice over then nearly popped out, as did the Rabbi’s who then entered into a furious exchange with this bigot, prefaced by the words:

“How DARE you! How dare you decide to dispatch Jews into afterlife fires when over six million have already been roasted in Hitler’s crematoria!”

The Southern Baptist didn’t blink, merely responding mechanically:

“I don’t decide that. It’s the word of the bible, not mine. Unless a man be born again and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ he cannot enter the gates of Heaven. Since nearly all Jews reject Jesus as Savior, they can’t enter the heavenly kingdom”.

This pompous display of assholinity prompted Phil D. to quip:

“Yeah, but it’s all fine and dandy that Israel be used as the setting for Armageddon in the Valley of Megiddo. Once Israel fulfills its biblical prophecies, then I guess it’s perfectly okay to send all the Jews to Hell…..oh, except for the special 144,000. And by the way, what’s so special about them? Why do they get a heavenly pass and not the others?”


The Southern Baptist  (Albert Mohler) was speechless. Or rather, perhaps so dumbfounded he wasn’t able to respond. Just as well, as the Rabbi was about to lacerate him verbally!

Now, just so we are clear, as an atheist I lean toward the probability that when you’re dead, you’re dead. I am not dogmatic or absolutist about it, but that's my take. (And no, I've seen no convincing evidence for 'near death experiences' which in any case, have nada to do with actual death!) That’s it! Finito! However, in previous blogs I have left a minuscule probability that human consciousness can survive death but in a nonlocal form, embodied in quantum wave energy. See, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/has-stuart-hameroff-explicated-way-out.html

However, for the sake of this blog, let’s argue from the believers’ perspective that there is a conscious personal afterlife and a putative deity to preside over it. We assume the form of this deity is in line with the attribute most often declared by deity worshippers, i.e. "infinite".

IF God as infinite is taken literally, this can only mean there is no place where he isn't. Either he is infinite or not infinite. If he is infinite, and HELL also exists, then Hell must be part of the same infinity. It cannot be isolated from it or else we have a condition where Hell is apart from God's being. If this be so, then there exists a domain ("Hell") where God isn't, so he can't be infinite! In other words, God is actually a limited being.

Another way to put this is that something (Hell)  exists in addition to God's being  hence that being must be de facto delimited. If delimited it can't be infinite.

So, we have these ineffable logical conclusions:

1) EITHER - Hell exists but GOD is not infinite.

OR

2) GOD is infinite, and Hell must exist WITHIN God. (But Heaven does also)


Up to now, no fundie or evangelical  has been clever enough to resolve the Hell-God=infinite paradox. There could be two reasons: 1) none of them is smart enough to do it, or 2) they know deep down in their little atavistic pea -brains that the paradox is logically insoluble because their assumptions are in error. (Or, just as bad, they allow the blatherings in an ancient book to trump the importance of examining the assumptions.)

Thus, if they want to preserve their "Hell" they will have to admit their God isn't infinite. If they demand God to be infinite, they will have to jettison their "Hell'.

Beyond this, if modern quantum mechanics is taken seriously, then reality is one universal whole (called “nonlocal” in QM terminology) and there are no separates or localities – say wherein something can occur that doesn’t affect the rest of reality. Hence, concepts such as David Bohm’s Holomovement come front and center and these impersonal concepts can supersede that of an angry old white man in the skies that hurls unbelievers and do-badders into perdition.

In effect, it appears those sects and denominations that accept the Universalist perspective are more likely to be au fait with at least the basic underlying theme of the wholeness and unity of reality, as demonstrated for example in the Aspect experiment (1982). That set up is depicted below:

A1 ( ) <--------->( )A2


The idea being that twin photons appear interconnected (via their polarization detection) at the analyzers A1 and A2. Some have misconstrued this as violating Einsteinian relativity (e.g. fast than light signal propagation) but the superior interpretation by physicist David Bohm holds that the two photons were always connected in a higher dimensional reality, which he has called the “implicate order”.

If there is an implicate order, which is also holographic, then it very well means the Universalists have been right all along ….assuming there is a God inhabiting this implicate order, of course! Maybe the fundies and their ilk need to take more seriously the words of Philosopher Alan Watts ('Behold the Spirit', p. 244):

"Taken literally as a doctrine of everlasting torture, 'Hell' amounts to blasphemy itself- for if it were in the power of human freedom-choice to produce a consequence of this kind there must be something radically diabolical in the order created by God, and in God himself. Such an interpretation may vindicate human freedom but at the cost of demonizing God."