Chapter 18 Chapter 15 Newton's Sleep

The poet, painter, and revolutionist William Blake used "Newton's sleep" as a metaphor for Newton's physics as a frog in a well, and Newton's own (incomplete) escape from mysticism.Blake thought the idea of ​​atoms and light particles was ridiculous, and Newton's influence on human beings was like "the devil".A more general criticism of science is that it is too narrow.Because of our well-documented fallibility, outside serious discourse, science refuses to consider courts, varying degrees of exhilarating imagination, playful notions, sincere mysticism, and jaw-dropping wonder.Without objective evidence, science does not recognize spirits, souls, angels, demons, the body of Shakyamuni, and aliens.

American psychologist Charles Tate found the evidence for the existence of the supersensory convincing, writing: Why do "spiritual" experiences always challenge our notions of matter and not conflict with other notions?There is no doubt that matter (and energy) exists in the everyday world, and the evidence abounds.In contrast, as I mentioned earlier, the evidence for the existence of immaterial "spirits" or "souls" is very questionable.Of course, each of us has a rich inner world.But, given that the physical world is surprisingly complex, how can we prove that our inner lives don't all come from the physical world?Yes, there are many things about human consciousness that we don't fully understand or explain neurophysiologically.Human beings are limited, and scientists understand this better than anyone else.But a few generations ago, many phenomena in nature that were considered mysterious were thoroughly understood through the means of physics and chemistry.At least some of today's mysterious phenomena will also be thoroughly revealed by our descendants.Just because we can't yet give detailed explanations for changes in conscious states through brain chemistry, for example, doesn't mean that the existence of a "spiritual world" is an immaterial miracle.Just as before we understood phototaxis and plant hormones, it was evidence of a veritable miracle that a sunflower always faces the sun.

If the world isn't exactly how we want it to be, is it science's fault?Or is it the fault of those who impose their will on this world?All mammals, and many others, experience emotions: such as fear, desire, hope, pain, love, hatred, and the need to be guided.Humans may think more about the future, but there are no emotions that are unique to humans.On the other hand, how can science be said to "dehumanize" when no other species has pursued science like humans? The world seems so unfair: some people starve and die young while they are still in their infancy; while others live rich and luxurious lives simply because of their birth.A person may be born into an insulted family or a cursed race, or be born with some kind of disability, and live his whole life in the tricks of fate until he dies.Is this the end of life?Is it just a dreamless, never-ending sleep?Where is the justice?It was bleak, cruel and unforgiving.Shouldn't we have a second chance on a level playing field?Wouldn't it be nice if our birth in the next life depended on how hard we worked in the previous life, no matter how the fate of the previous life was against us.Or, if there is a judgment after our death:—if only we play the part for which this life is destined, and be humble, honest, etc.—we will be rewarded in a permanent refuge from the pain and turmoil of this world Live happily till the end of time.If the world is considered.It was designed in advance, and to be fair, it would be like this.If those who suffer pain and suffering are to receive the comfort they deserve, it will be like this.

So societies that lead people to be content with where they are now, with the expectation of something in return after death, tend to inculcate complacency and resistance to change.What's more, the fear of death, which is to some extent originally an adaptation in the struggle for survival and evolution, becomes inappropriate in war.Cultures that proclaim the afterlife of great happiness for heroes (or even those who simply do what authority tells them to) may gain some competitive advantage. Therefore, the idea of ​​spiritual permanence after death and the concept of an afterlife should have little trouble being peddled by religions and states, and we cannot expect widespread skepticism on this issue.People are willing to believe them despite little evidence.Yes, brain damage can cause us to lose most of our memories, can turn us from madness to calm, or from calm to madness; changes in brain chemistry can make us believe there is a massive conspiracy against us, or make us think Heard the gospel of God.But while this provides evidence as strong as our personalities, traits, memories (souls if you will) are rooted in the matter of the brain, it would be wise to dismiss this evidence and avoid it. Credibility is easy.

If the existence of an afterlife is maintained by a strong social system, it is not surprising that dissent is small, silent, and hated.Some Orthodox, Christian, New Age, and Platonists insist that the world is unreal, that suffering, death, and matter itself are illusions, and that nothing really exists except "thoughts."Contrary to this, the prevailing scientific view is that thought is the way we perceive brain activity, i.e. thought is a substance made up of countless neuronal connections in the brain. Since the 1960s, a strange academic view has arisen that all views are equally arbitrary, true and false as illusions.Since literary criticism, religion, aesthetics, and much of philosophy and ethics cannot be proven or tested experimentally like the theorems of Euclidean geometry, scientists have long considered the humanities to be merely subjective.Perhaps, the purpose of this point of view is to try to reverse the disadvantages in the debate among scientists.

For those who expect everything to be possible, their reality has no limits.They feel that people's imaginations and desires demand more than science can teach people about what they can rationally be sure of.Many New Age gurus (actress Shirley MacLean is one) have gone so far as to embrace solipsism, asserting that the only reality is their own mind.In fact, they often say, "I am God." "I really think we're creating what is in reality," McLean once told a skeptic. "I think I'm creating what's in front of you." If I dream of meeting dead parents or children, can anyone tell me it doesn't "really" happen, if I feel like I'm floating in space looking down on Earth, maybe that's true too, scientists who can't share these experiences , who can tell me this is only happening in my head?If my religion taught me that it is God's inalterable and infallible assertion that the universe is only a few thousand years old, then the scientists of the time were wrong, offensive, and impious when they claimed that the universe was billions of years old.

Exasperatingly, scientific assertions draw boundaries on what we can do, and even on what principles.Who said we can't go faster than the speed of light, they said before that we can't go faster than the speed of sound, didn't they?If we do have powerful instruments, who can stop us from measuring the position and momentum of an electron at the same time?If we're so smart, why can't we make a "first kind" perpetual motion machine? (That is, the energy does not have to be balanced, and the energy output is more than the energy supplied.) Or create a "second type" perpetual motion machine?Who dares to draw a line on the inventive genius of mankind?

In fact, nature sets boundaries.Embedded in such unattainable behaviors are fairly complete and very simple laws of nature about how the universe works.Clearly, pseudoscience and superstition attempt to show that there are no limits to nature."All things are possible," they proclaim, they promise an infinite output, but their supporters are only disappointed and fooled. Another related charge against science is that it is too simplistic, too "reductionist"; science naively assumes that the ultimate explanation of the universe is just a few natural laws (perhaps very simple ones) that can explain anything.The subtleties of the whole world, the crystals of snow, the latticework of spider webs, the spiral galaxies, the sparks of human insight, can ultimately be reduced to these laws.Reductionism seems to have little respect for the mottled and complex universe, and it seems like a strange product of arrogance and laziness.

For Isaac Newton (who, to his critics of science, was reductionism personified), the universe was like a clock.The regular and predictable orbits of the planets around the sun and the moon around the earth can be described precisely by essentially the same differential equations as our familiar pendulum swings and spring oscillations.Now there is a tendency to think that we are in a position of noble superiority, and that the poor Newtonians can only see so narrowly.But under certain reasonable constraints, the simple harmonic equations that describe the operation of clocks do describe the motion of celestial bodies throughout the universe.This is a deep, not superficial correspondence.

Of course, there are no gears in the solar system, and the components of the various parts of the 'clock' of gravity do not conflict with each other.In general, the motion of planets is much more complicated than that of pendulums and springs.The clockwork model no longer holds true in some circumstances: gravitational pulls from distant objects (the effect on a few orbits may seem negligible) build up over a long period, and some small bodies may deviate unexpectedly from their original orbits .However, pendulum clocks also have some phenomena similar to chaotic motion. If we move the pendulum ball too far from the vertical position, chaotic and weird motion will follow.The solar system keeps time better than any mechanical clock without the thought of setting time.Precisely from the observed motion of the sun and stars.

Surprisingly, similar mathematical principles can be perfectly applied to clocks and emperors.In fact, it is not surprising that we have not imposed it on the universe.It's just the way the universe works.If that's called "originalism," then it is. Until the middle of the 20th century, among theologians, philosophers, and many biologists, there was a strong belief that life could not be "reduced" to the laws of physics and chemistry, but that there was a "life force," a "principle of life." ", a kind of "Tao", a kind of "Mana" that enables living things to survive.It "activates" life.It is impossible to imagine that atoms or molecules alone can explain the complexity and delicacy, the harmony of form and function, of living life.Thus, religion was born: God or gods give life and soul to inanimate things. The 18th-century chemist Joseph Priestley was trying to find "life force" by measuring the mass of a rat both alive and dead.There is no doubt that the results of the two weighings are exactly the same.All such attempts ended in failure.If there is soul matter, it is evident that it has no mass—that is, it is not composed of matter. Yet even biological materialists have reservations about this; perhaps, even if plants, animals, fungi, and microbes are soulless, understanding life still requires as yet undiscovered scientific principles.For example, British physiologist J. S. Hardin (father of JBS Hardin) raised this question in 1932: But only a few decades later; humanity gained knowledge about immunology and molecular biology, completely unraveling these mysteries that were once considered incomprehensible. I vividly remember how, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the molecular structure of DNA and the nature of the genetic code were first elaborated, biologists studying macroscopic organisms denounced those advocates of molecular biology as "reductionist" ( "With DNA, they can't even figure out a worm").Of course, reducing everything to "vitality" is not much better than "reductionism."But now we know very clearly that all organisms on the earth, every living thing, carry genetic information in the form of codes in nucleic acids, and basically use the same set of codes to execute genetic instructions.We've seen how to break these codes.Biology keeps reusing the same dozens of organic molecules to perform various functions.Scientists have identified genes that cause cystic fibrosis and breast cancer.The 18 million base pairs of DNA that make up the 1,743 genes of the EHF bacterium have been sequenced.The specific functions of most genes are understood in detail: from making and folding hundreds of complex molecules, protecting against heat, resisting pathogens, increasing the rate of mutation, to rigorous self-replication.Much of the entire genetic repertoire of many other organisms, including roundworms, has also been mapped.Molecular biologists are now busy documenting the three billion nucleotide sequences that define human traits.In another decade or two, they'll be able to finish the job.Whether the benefits to humanity from this achievement will outweigh the risks seems uncertain at present. The close connection between atomic physics, molecular chemistry, and the most divine nature of reproduction and heredity has now been established by scientists without requiring the introduction of new scientific principles.It seems as if only a few simple facts are enough to understand the extreme complexity and variety of living organisms.Molecular genetics also tells us that every organism has its special properties. Reductionism is better applied to physics and chemistry.Later, I will describe an unexpected consistency in which our understanding of electricity, magnetism, light, and relativity can be brought together into a single framework.For hundreds of years we have known a handful of relatively simple laws that not only explain but quantitatively predict a surprisingly wide variety of phenomena.These phenomena not only occur on the earth, but can also occur in the entire universe. From the book "Natural, Reality and the Sacred" (Natural, Reality and the Sacred) written by the theologian London Giquet, we see this point of view: the so-called universal laws of nature are just a bunch of easy to commit crimes. Preconceptions imposed on the universe by wrong scientists and their social milieu.He longed for other kinds of "knowledge" to be as valid in its domain as science is in its domain.However, the order of the universe is not a hypothesis, but an observed fact.We can detect light from distant quasars only because the laws of electromagnetism work just as well 10 billion light-years away as they do here on Earth.We can discern their spectra only because quasars and Earth have the same elements, because both obey the same laws of quantum mechanics.The motion of galaxies around each other obeys the well-known Newton's law of gravitation.Gravitational lensing and spin-downs of pulsar binaries reveal general relativity in the depths of the universe.We may be able to live in a universe where every region has different laws, but it cannot be done without awe and awe. We may live in a universe that cannot be understood by just a few simple laws. The natural world is too complex for human comprehension. The laws on Earth do not apply to Mars or distant quasars.However, the evidence we have (note, not preconceptions, but evidence) proves the opposite.We are so fortunate to live in a universe where many things can be "reduced" to a few relatively simple laws of nature.Otherwise, our intellect may not be strong enough to understand the entire world. Of course, we can make mistakes when applying reductionist methods to science.As we know, perhaps many things cannot be reduced to a few relatively simple laws.However, in light of the findings of the last few hundred years, it seems foolish to complain about reductionism.It is not a flaw, but one of science's chief successes.To me its discovery fits perfectly with many religions, although it does not prove the truth of the religion.How can a few simple laws of nature explain so much, and apply to the entire vast universe?Isn't that what one would expect from the creator of the universe?Why do religious mystics object to a reductionist approach to science rather than to their misplaced love of mysticism? For centuries, religion has been on the agenda to reconcile its differences with science.At least those who are unwilling to stick rigidly to the Bible in words or leave no room for allegories and metaphors.The crowning achievements of Roman Catholic theology are the Summa Theologica and the Compendium Against Heresy by St. Thomas Aquinas.In addition to the twelfth- and thirteenth-century vortex of sophisticated Islamic philosophy pouring into Christendom, so were the books of ancient Greece, especially Aristotle (whose great achievement even a casual search would reveal) Come.Is this ancient learning in harmony with the Word of God? (Original Note: For many people, there is no dilemma. St. Anselm in the 11th century said: "I believe, so I understand.") In "Summa Theology", Aquinas attempted to reconcile Christianity and ancient classics Between 631 questions.But how can this be done in the face of apparent disagreement?This task cannot be accomplished without some additional organizing principle, some better way of understanding the world.Often, Aquinas turns to common sense and the natural world—that is, science—as a means of correcting errors.By distorting nature and common sense somewhat, he managed to solve all 631 problems. (When "push" becomes "squeeze," the desired answer can be simply imagined. At this point, reason always gives way to religious devotion.) Judas and post-Judas and medieval Islamic philosophy , is also littered with similar attempts. But the core teachings of religion can be scientifically verified.This has led some religious and believers to be wary of science.Is the Eucharist, as the Church preaches, not just an evocative metaphor, but in fact, the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ?Or was it just a little slice of matzo bread (the so-called "Holy Wheat") that the priest handed you, whether chemical, microscopic, or otherwise? (Original note: For a while the answer to this question was a matter of life and death, and Miles Phillips, an English sailor, stranded in Spanish Mexico, was brought before the Inquisition with his companions in 1574. They recalled: "Do we believe that the bread of the Lord and the red wine in the chalice that the priest holds above his head are the real and indisputable flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Savior, yes or no?" "On the question," Phillips added, "If our answer is not 'yes,' then we are dead." Because this Mesoamerican ritual has not actually been performed in 500 years, we can reflect on those successful Thousands of voluntary and involuntary victims were dedicated to the Aztec and Mayan gods, who reconciled themselves to this fate by quiet faith and certainty that their death was to save the universe) God sacrifice, at the end of the 52-year cycle of Venus, will the world end?' An accidental uncircumcised Jewish man, than he obeys the ancient covenant with God (God requires that every male worshiper cut off a Is the religious companion living worse off with a small piece of foreskin as an offering?As the Nation of Islam asserts, is a mad scientist of the white race made out of the black race?Surely the sun would never rise if the Hindus did not perform sacrifices (as asserted in Satapatha Bramana it does)? By studying those unfamiliar religions and cultures, we can gain insight into the human roots of those who pray.For example, a cuneiform inscription was inscribed on a Babylonian cylindrical seal in 2000 BC: Saddam Hussein of Ningma existed a long time ago.Although Ninlil and Enlil are the main gods - the whole of Western civilization has prayed to them for more than 2000 years - is poor Mili Spark really just praying to a fantasy, a product of the imagination that society can forgive ?If he is, what about us?Is this a forbidden, profane question?To the worshipers of Enlil this certainly was the case. Does prayer really work?What function do they play? There is a class of prayers that beg God to intervene in human history, or simply to undo some real or imaginary injustice or natural disaster.For example, bishops in the American West begged God for help to end a devastating drought.Why is it necessary to pray?Doesn't God know about this drought?Didn't he realize that drought threatened the bishop's people?What does it mean to be limited by a god who is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient?The bishop also asked his followers to pray together.Is God more likely to intervene when more people pray for mercy and justice than just a few?Let's take a look at the following request (published in "Prayer and Action Weekly: Iowa Christian Weekly Message" in 1994): We discussed faith healing.Does Prayer Make You Live Longer?The Victorian statistician Francis Galton believed that the British monarch should live a very long life, because millions of people all over the world chanted devoutly every day, "God save the queen (or king)".Yet monarchs did not outlive other members of the wealthy and pampered aristocracy.China has called the emperor "long live" since ancient times.Almost everyone in ancient Egypt prayed to the gods that the pharaoh would live forever.These common prayers have all failed, and their failure is a testimony to history. By claiming that religion is testable (even in theory), religion enters, albeit reluctantly, the scientific arena.So long as religions do not cling to secular power, if they fail to compel belief, they can no longer make unchallenged assertions about reality.This of course angered followers of certain religions, who sometimes terrorized doubters with the most horrific punishments imaginable.Consider the contrasting results of religion or non-religion as described by William Blake in his book, inadvertently titled The Signs of the Innocents: Of course, many religions are not challenged by science, but supported by scientific discoveries because they are keen on respect, reverence, ethics, etiquette, community, family, charity, and political and economic fairness.Therefore, the conflict between science and religion does not necessarily exist.On a certain level, they play similar and harmonious roles together, and they need each other.Public heated debate, even skepticism of the divine, dates back to the Christian tradition of John Milton's On the Liberty of the Press (1644).Some mainstream Christian and Jewish denominations involve and even expect at least some degree of humility, self-criticism, rational discussion, and even questioning of the best accepted knowledge that science has to offer.But other denominations (sometimes called conservatives or fundamentalists, which now seem to be on the rise, while mainstream denominations are barely heard or seen) still stand for things that are easily falsifiable , and thus terrified of science. Religious traditions are often so rich and varied that there are numerous opportunities for renewal and revision, especially when sacred scriptures can be interpreted figuratively or allegorically.So, there is a buffer zone for acknowledging past mistakes.As the Roman Catholic Church admitted in 1972 that Galileo was right after all, that the earth does indeed move around the sun.Although this acknowledgment took place 300 years later, it was courageous and greatly welcomed.The modern Roman Catholic Church no longer argues with scientists about the Big Bang, whether the universe is 15 billion years old, the origin of first life from inorganic molecules, or the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors, even though it insists that "God made man soul" point of view.Most mainstream Puritans and Judaizers hold the same stubborn position. One of the questions I often ask religious leaders when discussing theology is how they would react if a central tenet of their faith was refuted by science.Religious leaders of individual denominations replied that, in that case, religion would have to change. Further, I asked, what if it is indeed a central doctrine? That's the same, he replied. But, he adds, it is often extremely difficult to disprove central teachings. Frankly speaking, he was right.Religious teachings insulated from falsification have little reason to fear scientific progress.As in many religious beliefs, the great idea of ​​a creator creating the universe is such a teaching that it is equally difficult to prove or disprove. Moose Maimonides pointed out in "Guide to the Lost Way" that only by studying theology and physics freely and openly at the same time can one truly understand God. What will happen if science proves that the universe is infinitely old?Clearly theology had to undergo a major revision.In fact, this is one conceivable scientific discovery that would prove the non-existence of a Creator.Because the infinitely old universe was never created, it has always existed. There are other teachings, interests, and concerns that equally worry about what science will discover.It might be better not to know about the findings, they suggest.If it turns out that men and women have different genetic traits, wouldn't that be an excuse for the former to oppress the latter?If there are genes for violence, wouldn't that be a valid reason for one race to oppress another (or even planned bloodbath)?If psychosis stems from brain chemistry, wouldn't that make us give up trying to grasp reality and take responsibility for our actions?If we were not the handwriting of a creator, if our basic moral codes were the invention of fallible legislators, wouldn't that weaken our struggle to maintain a well-ordered society? In these examples, whether religious or secular, we would be much better off now if we had known the most effective approach to the truth and were more open to the mistakes of past recognized interest groups and religious systems.In each case, the damage done to religion by the fact that the truth is generally understood has been exaggerated.Furthermore, our wisdom is not yet fully aware of what serves a higher social purpose, especially in the long run, whether in the face of lies or even in the face of mixed facts.