THE BIG BANG: ETHICS and IRRATIONALITY

ETHICS, GOD, and THE BIG BANG

[This piece continues the theme of earlier blogs, as promised earlier.  Please refer to them as necessary.]

ethics

To preface what follows: It’s been my purpose for the past several years to try to justify the physical world with the metaphysical (science with the spiritual).  Science being a child of philosophy, the two approaches to truth historically were one.  I believe that they are on parallel tracks that will link again when we finally know the truth.  It’s my goal to meld the two approaches insofar as possible while realizing that full spiritual understanding is out of my range.  Metaphysics is yet (if ever) to be mastered, and I’m certainly not the one to master it.  I’m now putting my personal views and beliefs, for what they’re worth, on the line.  You may disagree.  I ask only that you permit me the latitude to present my case.

That said, we proceed:

Some scientists have referred to the Higgs boson (which may have been discovered in 2012) as “the God particle”.  There are good reasons why, because it would go a long way toward the resolution I’m seeking.

Think about it:  There has to be a cause, extant prior to the Universe, because the Universe is an effect of it (and therefore lesser than it).  A power greater than the universe?  Unimaginable—truly awesome.  What could it be?  Whatever, it would seem to be rather significant.  And so we come to the ultimate question of belief, transcending even religionIS GOD?

Leaving prejudice aside and taking the biblical story (Exodus 3:14 which, factual or not, is what there is of historical record) at face value, “I AM what AM” or “I AM that I AM”  is a most profound and all-inclusive pronouncement to have been made those many thousands of years ago, by any standard.  We may still question what it means, but it literally says it all.  Even more profound is an earlier translation: “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.”  In a prior discussion of consciousness as the foundation of reality, [http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=762], we posited that consciousness can realize (literally, make real) anything it wills merely by manifesting itself of innumerable possibilities as any form, at any time, in any place (collapsing waveforms, in simplified quantum-speak).  The biblical statement would appear to eerily presage one of the foundations of quantum theory only recently discovered (or not), but it’s pretty remarkable when you consider the millennial time spread.  And recall the pronouncement “Let there be light!” (Genesis 1:3), which necessarily assumes a previous infinite total darkness [http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=727].  Both are profound and arguably impossible to comprehend, but not easily written off when considered in terms of quantum theory, particle physics and the beginnings of time.

Back to the question:  IS GOD?                                                                                                    

If the infinite, eternal (by definition) consciousness—universal foundation—that simply IS (rather than exists) wills to manifest as God, then the rejoinder could be: Could be… .   If this singularity that can be and do, not-do and undo anything (or not) that it intellectualizes at any time (because time is not a factor) willed to appear, it could have happened.  The same goes for the burning bush (Exodus 3) not consumed.  We may doubt it, even laugh at the idea, but can we summarily write it off just because we can’t conceive of it?   After all, what do we know?  Besides, we’ve considered several things that are virtually impossible to think about; why not this?  I don’t know, nor do you.  Being the underlying base and source of everything including all knowledge, and pervading the universe as the foundation of every thing (and not-thing) in it, consciousness must be integral to us as well and, as a matter of fact, we know that it is (if it weren’t, we couldn’t know anything at all).  Plato was onto something nearly 2500-years ago when he posited a demiurge of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos, and Plotinus, a third-Century pagan, brought this into clearer focus defining “the One.”  Religions have merely provided this underlying consciousness with a face for those who must have something physical to identify with—why not a father (an ultimate authority figure)?  Again, I don’t know, and neither do you, but we can at least think about it.

Irrational?  Of course!  How could it be otherwise?  We’re only now beginning to develop a sufficient awareness to deal with it at all, let alone rationally.  And if that’s the case, we can only deal with it as best we can—as a well-founded possibility (i.e., not an impossibility).  We’re currently not smart enough to write this off as impossible. It is after all beyond classical physics. The Higgs field strongly suggests the possibility of something (as we understand it) from nothing (as we understand it), and the Higgs boson confirms the Higgs field (if we have indeed isolated it).  To me at least, such a phenomenon translates as creation. Hence: the God particle, for better or worse.

If the Big Bang (some 13.7 billion years ago) can be described as other than something from nothing (a thing created), or unless I’ve missed something, I will reconsider my position, but for the present I am open to considering such a creation that seems not to conflict with science.

Does this justify science with spirituality?  Of course not, but it certainly points in that direction rather than away from it.  As for me, I’ve been lucky enough to have seen the light (literally—imagine light with no shadows and no, I’m not crazy).  More about this in the future, but see http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=620 in the meantime…

I’m open to any and all feedback (including challenges to my views, but not my sanity).

Leave a Reply