Observations

27 June, 2023
Observe

Photo source

The statements below are my subjective observations, assumptions, questions, and interpretations about the world around us. Ultimate origin, science, Creator, theories, axioms, consciousness, universe, God's sensor, good vs evil, etc. Don't take it seriously.

I am not a biologist, not a mathematician, and not a physicist. Therefore, I recommend that you do your own fact-checking.

The work on this list is ongoing and its content might be updated periodically.

assumption WB3

We are like 2D people trying to grasp the 3D ideas

Relates to:
  • Imagine a world of 2D people
    • They operate with 2D concepts of circles, rectangles, triangles, XY-axis, etc.
    • But they also want to grasp 3D concepts like a cylinder or torus
    • When a 3D cylinder intersects the 2D world its section might look different: from a circle, through an ellipse, to a square
    • When a 3D torus intersects the 2D world it sometimes is seen by the 2D people as one ellipse or sometimes as two independent circles, or sometimes as one circle inside another
    • Some 2D people may say that there is no such concept as a cylinder, but there are only concepts of circles and squares
    • Some 2D people may say that there is a concept of a cylinder, but a cylinder itself is not more than a circle
    • The idea that a cylinder can be a circle and a square at the same time might sound contradictive to the 2D people
  • We're in a similar situation, except we're 4D people (let's say we have XYZ + Time) trying to think about higher dimensions
    • We live in a lower-dimension (closed or limited) system
    • Spirituality might be such a higher dimension
assumption BZ4

We are like a fetus in a mother's belly trying to think about life after birth

Relates to:
  • How hard is it for a baby inside a mother's belly to think about the outside-belly world?
  • Is it hard for a fetus to grasp the concept of higher education, for example?
  • Is there a life after birth?
observation BS3

Every physical object that we can grasp has an origin or a cause

Relates to:
  • We can continue asking the "What was before" or "What caused it" questions until we get stuck
  • Example
    • A program has been created by an engineer on the laptop while drinking a lemon tea
      • An engineer has been "created" by his/her father and mother
        • The engineer's mother was "created" by an engineer's grandma and grandpa
          • ...
      • A laptop was created by another engineer out of many pieces
        • Some pieces were created out of silicon
          • ...
      • A lemon tree grew from a seed
        • A seed was produced by a grand-tree
          • Lemons are a hybrid of citrons and bitter oranges
            • ...
  • There is no object that we know or understand appeared out of nothing
observation EV2

Theory of Evolution doesn't have an answer to the question of life origin for now

  • The question of the ultimate origin of the universe is out of evolution's scope
  • However, it is interesting to mention that the theory doesn't answer the question of the origin of life on Earth either
    • It starts with the self-replication LUCA (last universal common ancestor)
      • The accurate inheritance (self-replication) of the phenotype for future generations is one of the three pillars of evolution along with mutation and natural selection
      • Evolution requires accurate self-replication
        • Giraffes with tall necks must produce giraffes with tall necks to win in the natural selection
        • The feature that helped you to survive must prevail and be accurately carried from generation to generation
        • Otherwise, evolution won't work
      • Evolution, however, doesn't explain how this accurate (99.9999%) cell self-replication appeared
      • Accurate inheritance is being taken as an initial state of LUCA
    • Science doesn't answer the question of where did LUCA come from or how the self-replication appeared
    • LUCA for biology (and evolution in particular) is like BigBang and Singularity for cosmology
      • For now, science can't answer the question of what was the origin in this case either
  • It is worth noting, that Evolution theory itself has several fundamental explanatory deficits [1]
    • The following were mentioned during the Royal Society Meeting in London in 2016 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
      • Phenotypic (visible body structure of an organism) complexity
        • The mechanism of mutation and natural selection doesn't explain the origin of new body plans and body types
          • i.e. eyes, ears
        • Complex behaviors
          • i.e. how beavers know how to build dams
      • Phenotypic novelty
        • Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life [7]
          • These mechanisms do a good job of optimizing or modifying the pre-existing forms to generate a small scale variations
            • i.e. the Galapagos finches that get their beaks a little longer, a little shorter, in response to varying weather patterns
          • But they do a poor job of explaining the origin of those forms
            • i.e. where we get things like birds in the first place
          • A few decades after Darwin, Hugo de Vries expressed it best when he said that "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest"
      • Combinatorial problem
        • The ratio between life-allowing/creative and non-successful mutations is enormously low [6] [8]
          • For example, the ratio of the "Functional protein folds of a given length" to the "Number of sequences of a given length" is 1 / 1077
          • Detailed calculation
            • There are 20 standard amino acids that are commonly found in the proteins (Alanine, Arginine, Asparagine, Cysteine, etc.) [45]
              • This means that for a protein with n amino acids in its sequence, there are 20n possible combinations.
            • Some proteins may consist of only a few dozen amino acids, while others can have hundreds or even thousands of amino acids in their sequence
              • For instance, a small protein like insulin consists of two polypeptide chains, A and B, with 21 and 30 amino acids (51 in general), respectively
              • On the other hand, large proteins like titin, which is found in muscles, can have over 38000 amino acids in their sequence.
            • Therefore, the number of possible ways to arrange these 20 amino acids to form insulin-like proteins can be calculated as: 2051 ≈ 2.25 x 1067
            • For the titin the number of possible ways is: 2038000 ≈ 2 x 1092805
          • Even on the standard geologic time scale (~4B years of Earth's history), the time available to search is not nearly enough to search the number of 10 to the 77 possibilities.
            • To put this number in context, there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe [9]
            • There was only been 4.35 × 1017 seconds since the Big Bang (≈13.8 billion years) [46]
      • Non-gradual forms or modes of transition
        • Where you see abrupt discontinuities (gaps) in the fossil record between different types
    • The origin of information is not explained [10]
      • I.e. how the sequence of DNA nucleobases (C, G, A, T) was written or arranged
        • Such sequence function may be compared to the alphabetic characters in a language or to the sequence of zeroes and ones in the software code
        • Except that one copy of the human genome consists of approximately 3 billion base pairs of DNA [11]
          • If we see the Rosetta Stone or a word written on the sand we intuitively conclude that the message (the information) came from the mind (the intelligence) and not from the natural forces like wind and waves
          • What about the longest word ever written which consists of a 3 billions of letters C, G, A, T?
        • It is not the physical or chemical properties of the bases that are important to their functioning, but rather it is their sequential arrangement
    • The idea of chemical evolution, when non-living chemicals in a pre-biotic ocean arranged themselves to form the first living cell, is also debatable [12]
observation XGT

Science doesn't have an answer to the question of ultimate origin for now

Follows from:
Relates to:
  • We can continue asking the "What was before X" or "What caused X" questions until we get stuck
  • We are normally getting stuck at the Initial Singularity or at the Big Bang level
    • "The universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, approximately 13.8 billion years ago"
  • The following remain unanswered:
    • How the laws of the universe that singularity followed were created
      • How was it possible to operate with such concepts as temperature and density
      • In other words, where did the E = mc2 equation come from (or String Theory equation)
    • How the components (parts) of the singularity were created
    • What is the origin of time
  • The singularity represents a fundamental gap in our knowledge
  • The Simulation Hypothesis or Multiverses idea doesn't answer the question of origin as well
    • It is not clear how was the root universe or root simulation created in this case
    • This hypothesis might require the existence of some sort of the "universe-generation-mechanism" which needs to be created and fine-tuned in the first place
  • When people say that everything came to be out of "Nothing", and that after we die we go back to "Nothing", do they actually mean something magnificent behind those "Nothing" so that the meaning of "Nothing" has been substituted? [50]
observation HT9

In science, some theories are getting reconsidered over time

  • Science often operates with theories
    • Theory of relativity, String theory, Quantum field theory, Big Bang theory, Field theory, etc. (see more central theories)
  • Some theories get reconsidered or rejected by scientists over time
    • Geocentric Model
      • For centuries, the prevailing view in astronomy was the geocentric model
      • The model proposed that Earth was at the center of the universe, and the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolved around it
    • Steady-State Theory
      • The steady-state theory was a cosmological model proposed in the mid-20th century as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory
      • It suggested that the universe was eternal and unchanging, with new matter continually being created to maintain a constant density.
      • However, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 provided strong evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory and led to the decline of the steady-state theory.
    • Static Universe Model
      • Before the discovery of the expanding universe, it was widely believed that the universe was static and unchanging
      • However, Edwin Hubble's observations in the early 20th century provided evidence for the expanding universe, leading to the rejection of the static universe model
    • The slowing expansion of the universe
      • This belief persisted for several decades, with the understanding that the universe's expansion was gradually slowing down due to the gravitational attraction of matter
      • However, in the late 1990s, the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe due to dark energy was made through observations of distant supernovae
    • Phlogiston Theory
      • The phlogiston theory was a prominent explanation of combustion and oxidation in the 17th and 18th centuries
      • It proposed that a substance called phlogiston was released during combustion, which explained phenomena such as fire and the rusting of metals
      • The theory held that phlogiston was a weightless, colorless, and odorless substance that resided within combustible materials. When a substance burned, it was believed that the phlogiston was released into the air, leaving behind a residue known as the "calx" or "phlogisticated" substance.
      • The phlogiston theory explained why substances decreased in weight when burned since it was believed that phlogiston had negative weight. It also accounted for other phenomena such as the ability of metals to gain weight when they were calcined (heated) since it was thought that phlogiston was absorbed during this process
      • However, the theory was later discredited with the discovery of oxygen and the development of the modern understanding of oxidation and combustion
    • Newtonian Mechanics
      • In the early 20th century, the theory of relativity introduced a new understanding of gravity and motion that superseded certain aspects of Newtonian mechanics
      • Relativity showed that Newton's laws were an approximation valid only under certain conditions
observation HX2

In science, some theories are not accepted at first

  • General Relativity Theory
    • The theory was published by Albert Einstein in 1915
    • In the U.S., a few understood it, but, in general, relativity was ridiculed as “totally impractical and absurd.”
    • In Britain, his theories met with resistance, because relativity was seen as a direct challenge to the widely accepted theory of ether
    • Only around 1960 general relativity became central to physics and astronomy
  • Plate Tectonics
    • The theory of plate tectonics, which describes the movement of the Earth's lithosphere in plates, was initially met with skepticism when it was proposed in the early 20th century
    • It took several decades to accumulate evidence from geological studies, seismology, and oceanography to support the theory
assumption ML1

There is a non-zero chance that a scientific theory will be reconsidered or rejected in the future

  • A theory cannot be treated as an ultimate and unshakable truth
  • A theory is a way how we currently think about some phenomenon around us
  • A physical theory is our current attempt to describe and come up with a model of physical events around us
  • It is not wishful thinking though
    • A theory is judged by the extent to which its predictions agree with empirical observations
    • The quality of a physical theory is also judged by its ability to make new predictions which can be verified by new observations
  • The theory is like looking at the puzzling reflections in a broken mirror
    • By such fragmented reflections, we may assume how the reflected world looks as a whole
    • But these assumptions might be incomplete or skewed
    • All that we know now is partial and incomplete
  • We, as human beings, are in the progress of describing the indescribable
observation VG2

Science operates with axioms that need to be believed in

Relates to:
  • An axiom is a fundamental principle or statement that is taken to be true and is accepted without proof to serve as the starting point or a basis for a particular theory or system of thought
  • Believing refers to the acceptance of something as true, real, or valid without absolute proof or certainty
  • Examples
    • Playfair's axiom
      • In a plane, given a line and a point not on it, at most one line parallel to the given line can be drawn through the point
      • Sidenotes
        • It is interesting, that we easily operate here with absolutely ideal and abstract concepts like lines and points
        • Another example of an idealistic and abstract concept in math and physics is ∞ infinity, which we can't "touch/grasp/picture" but which is an unavoidable part of our theories
    • Euclid's Parallel Postulate
      • Similar to Playfair's axiom. If a line intersects two other lines and the interior angles on one side are less than two right angles, then the lines will eventually intersect if extended far enough
    • Peano's Axioms
      • A set of five axioms that provide a foundation for the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...). For example, the Axiom of Zero: there exists a number called 0.
    • Euclid's Common Notions
      • Things equal the same thing also equal one another
      • If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal
      • If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal
      • Things that coincide with one another are equal to one another
      • The whole is greater than the part
    • Axiom of Associativity
      • This axiom states that the grouping of elements does not affect the result
      • (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
      • (a * b) * c = a * (b * c)
    • More axioms
observation ME3

Every mathematical system relies on at least one true statement that cannot be proven

Relates to:
  • Gödel's theorems
    • The 1st incompleteness theorem
      • In any consistent formal system capable of expressing arithmetic, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system itself
    • The 2nd incompleteness theorem
      • No consistent formal system capable of expressing arithmetic can prove its own consistency
  • Examples
    • Goldbach's Conjecture
      • Every even natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers
    • Fermat's Last Theorem (conjecture)
      • No three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2
    • Twin Prime Conjecture
      • There are infinitely many pairs of prime numbers (p, p+2) such that both p and p+2 are prime. For example, the pair (3, 5), (11, 13), and (17, 19) are all twin prime pairs.
    • Riemann hypothesis, Paris-Harrington Theorem, etc.
assumption CW5

To answer the question of origin we need an axiom or a statement of the Creator / Initiator / Designer / God

  • We, as human beings, are living in a lower-dimension (closed or limited) system. See assumption WB3 and assumption BZ4
    • We might not be able to grasp the higher-dimension concepts clearly
    • We need abstractions that have connection points to our lower-dimension world to reason about higher-dimension concepts
      • For example, to reason about time, it is helpful to draw it as a 2D calendar or a 1D timeline even though the concept of time is not that straightforward (think about its connection to gravity for example)
      • The same goes with such concepts as love, which we express as simple actions, gifts, attention, sacrifice, etc.
      • You may think about 2D people trying to grasp the 3D cylinder that is passing via the 2D plane. They call it circles, squares, and ellipses, but they ultimately try to reason about a cylinder
    • The same is true for the question of the origin, we might need to have a simplified abstraction that will help us to grasp at least some facet of such a higher-dimension concept
  • In mathematics, it is common to come up with axioms and statements that we believe to be true without any proof except intuition
    • Such statements help us build theories on top of them to explain the lower-dimension system around us
    • It might be unavoidable for us to follow a similar approach in answering the question of the origin
  • To answer the question of origin we need an axiom or a statement (a true statement that is not provable) or a "closing technology" of God / The Initiator / The Creator / The Origin / The Designer [13]
    • The Designer, who is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial
      • Assuming that space, time, and matter were created with the Big Bang, the Creator must be beyond time and matter
    • The rest of our theories may be built on top of it: Singularity, BigBang, Cosmic Inflation, and so on...
  • The concept of God or the Creator is overloaded
    • Many cultural and religious concepts were attached to it
    • We need to avoid falling into the trap of unreasonable simplifications here and think broader
      • There are simplifications like "old grandpa sitting on the cloud"
      • We should rather remember the "2D-vs-3D Cylinder" example above
  • We also need an axiom of The Creator to answer the question of objective morality. See observation OM3
assumption HT4

Spiritual and scientific paths are not contradictory, but convergent

Relates to:
  • Mind and heart paths are not contradictory, but convergent
    • We as human beings are guided by logic and intuition
    • It doesn't work seamlessly sometimes, but still, we treat logic and intuition as one system (as parts of one control panel)
  • It is like looking at the same thing from different perspectives
  • It is like converging to the same understanding of reality from different starting points
  • Both paths complement each other
  • "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind", Albert Einstein [14]
    • The "religion" term is overloaded with tons of cultural meanings which skews our perception
    • To avoid this overloading trap, we may roughly use words like "heart", "intuition", "inspiration", or "imagination" here instead
  • "Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They speak different languages and use different powers of the brain.", Jonathan Sacks [48]
    • Science is powerful in explaining how things work, but it cannot give us meaning
      • Examples from Joghn Lennox [49]
        • "Why the water is boiling?"
          • Scientific explanation - the heat energy influences the molecules, etc.
          • Agent-related (personal) explanation - the water is boiling because I want a cup of tea
        • "You see 6 letters P-r-a-y-e-r on the wall"
          • Scientifically, those letters on the wall imply many physical/chemical/mechanical processes like printing, painting, friction, etc.
          • However, on top of these scientific processes those 6 letters immediately give you a meaning, you can tell that there is a message and the mind behind those letters
observation SQ4

Scientists' quotes about the Creator

Relates to:
  • Michio Kaku (Born: 1947)

    • "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence... Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance." [15]
  • Leonard Susskind (Born: 1940)

    • Answering the question "What kind of questions can science not currently answer and may never be able to answer?", he said: "Is there an intelligence out there that underlies the whole thing? You can call them with the G-word if you want. I can say, are we in a computer simulation with a purpose? Is there an agent, an intelligent agent that underlies or is responsible for the whole thing? Does that intelligent agent satisfy the laws of physics? Does it satisfy the laws of quantum mechanics? Is it made of atoms and molecules? There are a lot of questions... It seems to me that a real question is an answerable question. Well, the questions have to be answerable to be real. Some philosophers would say that a question is not a question unless it's answerable. This question doesn't seem to me answerable by any known method, but it seems to me real." [16]
  • Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr. (Born: 1941)

    • "A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world." [17]
  • Fred Hoyle (1915 — 2001)

    • "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." [18]
    • "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." [18]
    • "Imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling, of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." [18]
  • Werner Heisenberg (1901 — 1976)

    • "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" [19]
  • Albert Einstein (1879 — 1955)

    • "But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" [20]
    • Answering a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." [14]
    • "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion, the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." [14]
    • "I am not an Atheist. In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." [14]
    • "Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. [...] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God." [14]
    • "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same, this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive" [14]
    • "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are no laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." [14]
  • Max Planck (1858 — 1947)

    • Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists, He is at the end of all considerations. To the former, the God hypothesis is an essential prerequisite to any worldview worthy of being taken seriously, and to the latter, it is a matter of course that a purely mathematical worldview is a caricature. [21]
  • Louis Pasteur (1822 — 1895)

    • "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." [22]
    • "Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him" [23]
  • Michael Faraday (1791 — 1867)

    • "The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God." [24]
  • Isaac Newton (1642 — 1726)

    • "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." [25]
    • "Without all doubt, this world, so diversified with that variety of forms and motions we find in it, could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God directing and presiding over all. From this fountain [the free will of God] it is that those laws, which we call the laws of Nature, have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the wisest contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity" [26]
  • Johannes Kepler (1571 — 1630)

    • "Those laws [of nature] are within the grasp of the human mind; God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts." [27]
    • I had the intention of becoming a theologian... but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for "the heavens declare the glory of God" [28]
    • The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics. [29]
observation PW8

The Creator is more advanced than the Creature

Follows from:
  • A creature is not greater than its creator
  • Software engineer (a creator) writes a program (a creature):
    • A program operates with the concepts inherent to an engineer (such as math, words, etc.)
    • The program may do operations faster or with higher precision than an engineer, however, it can't jump out of the available concepts
      • A program might calculate the factorial faster, but it will still be operating in the concept of math
    • For a program to start operating with a new concept, the latter must be introduced to it by an engineer
      • A program may start creating music, but only after the concept of music was introduced to it by the creator (engineer)
    • A program here operates in the lower-dimension (closed or limited) system that was set up for it by an engineer and a program cannot jump out of this lower-dimension system
observation TG9

A child can be born only from father and mother

  • When a child is conceived, he/she inherits genetic material from the father and mother
  • Each parent contributes roughly half of the child's genetic makeup
  • The specific parts of the father's and mother's genomes that a child inherits are determined by the process of genetic recombination, which occurs during the formation of eggs and sperm
assumption BQ2

The Creator has consciousness and feelings

Follows from:
  • If a human being (a creature) has a concept of consciousness and feelings, then these concepts are inherent to his/her creator
  • The Creator is not just gravity or electricity or an abstract force
  • Consciousness and feelings are just some of the concepts or features that we share with the Creator
  • The Creator might operate with some other concepts or features that we, as human beings, can't grasp
  • Now, we can extend the definition of the Designer from the assumption CW5
    • The Creator is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, and intelligent
observation NW7

You and your physical traits are unique throughout the history of Earth

  • Fingerprints [30]
    • Each person's fingerprints are unique
    • Which is why they have long been used as a way to identify individuals
    • To date, no two people have ever been found to have the same fingerprints — including identical twins
    • The chance of identical fingerprints is: 1 in 64 trillion
      • 1 / 64.000.000.000.000
      • This the probability of 1.6 x 10-14
  • Iris [30]
    • Your iris is much more detailed than your fingerprint
    • It's so specific that your iris is unique not just in the world, but in history
    • The algorithm used for iris ID scanning targets about 240 unique features in an iris to determine the identity
      • This is about 5 times as many as fingerprinting
    • The chance of two identical iris (irides) is: 1 in 1078
  • Brain
    • "The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe" — Michio Kaku
  • DNA, Auricle, and more...
  • Compare the numbers above to the number of members of our species that have ever been born on Earth: 117 billion
    • 117.000.000.000
      • which is: 1 x 1011
  • See the visualizations of these numbers
observation EA5

The Universe is fine-tuned for your existence

  • Fine-tuned universe [31] [47]
    • 93 million miles (152.06 million kilometers)
      • Distance from the Earth to the Sun
        • <92 million miles — no life on planet Earth
        • >94 million miles — no life on planet Earth
        • Earth receives approximately 100% of its energy from the Sun
          • This energy from the Sun is crucial for various Earth processes, including photosynthesis in plants, heating the atmosphere and oceans, driving weather patterns, and supporting life on Earth
    • 23.5°
      • The Earth's tilt angle
        • Without a tilt, there is a risk of becoming a tidally locked planet
          • It is when one side of the Earth is stuck facing the Sun all the time, and the other side would never see the Sun
          • One side of the earth would get hotter and hotter until it could not sustain human life
          • While the other side would get colder and colder until it could not sustain human life
    • 6.67408 x 10-11
      • Gravitational constant G
        • If this constant varied by just 1 in 1050 parts, none of us would exist
          • If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars, and planets would not have formed in the first place
          • Had it been only slightly weaker, main sequence stars such as the Sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements
          • If, in contrast, gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material, which would have meant that they would have been much smaller and more short-lived
    • 2.888 x 10-122
      • Cosmological constant Λ
        • Controls the expansion speed of the universe
        • To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120
        • If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.
    • 40/60
      • Moon is one of the reasons for the Earth's tilt
        • 40% of gravitational pull happens from the Sun which pulls the Earth over
        • 60% comes from the gravitational pull of the Moon
          • The Moon and its pull are what allow planet Earth to sustain life
          • No Moon — no life
    • 21%
      • The percentage of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere
        • <19% of oxygen — no life on planet Earth
        • >23% of oxygen — no life on planet Earth
    • 1836
      • The mass of the proton to the electron ratio
        • When an atom binds with another atom to make a molecule, the charged protons and electrons interact to hold them together
        • If this ratio above changed by only a small amount, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised
        • In the end, this would prevent the formation of many molecules, including DNA, the building blocks of life
        • See the carbon puzzle for example
    • ...and many of such astonishingly fine-tuned dials more
      • The ratios of the constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other
        • Disbalancing of one constant cancel fine-tuning of some other ones
      • 1010123
        • Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence?
        • According to Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10123 to 1.[32]
          • In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros
          • This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms (1079) believed to exist in the whole universe.
      • Imagine dealing with a set of dials that have 10120 or 1050 or 1034 increments
      • Example
        • Imagine you are on a plane flying over a vast open area and you decide to throw out hundreds of thousands of loose pages containing random letters
        • The hope is that these pages, as they fall to the ground, will somehow arrange themselves in a perfectly organized manner to form a complete and coherent Shakespearean novel
        • The chances of the pages aligning in the correct order to produce a specific novel by random chance alone would be astronomically low
  • Anthropic Principle [33]
    • It is worth mentioning it in the context of fine-tuning
    • Indeed, we may say that, possibly, there were an enormous amount of parallel universes and only one of them statistically appeared like ours, where we, as living human beings, can observe it
      • We need to note here though
        • There is no scientific evidence for the multiverse existence yet
        • The "universe generator" itself would also require an enormous amount of fine-tuning
        • The probability of "generating" the fine-tuned universe is astronomically low
    • But even if the statement above is true, you may think about it in a Machine Learning way
      • Let's call the Universe a "Neural Network"
      • Let's call those fine-tuned physical parameters mentioned above the "weights and biases" of that "network"
      • The concept of parallel universes in this case is similar to the training process of the "neural network"
        • We're trying to find an optimal and precise set of "weights and biases" using forward/backward propagation and the loss/objective function
      • So even if such a training process took place and even if the concept of multiverses is true, we may assume that we have a "network designer" who started a "training process" and who set up a "loss function" or an "objective function" of inventing the universe that supports life
      • This doesn't make the universe we're living in less special or less fine-tuned for our existence
      • You may think about it as inventing and training an AlphaGo, or a ChatGPT-4
        • Does that myriad of attempts/fails/trials during the training process make the ultimate product any less valuable?
        • It is the opposite, it makes them even more special and valuable
  • Scientists speak about fine-tunning [34]
    • Dr. David D. Deutch
      • "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely."
      • "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."
    • Dr. Dennis Scania
      • "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."
    • Dr. Paul Davies
      • "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly."
    • Sir Stephen Hawking
      • "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
    • Fred Hoyle
      • "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
assumption PU9

You are unique and you have a purpose

  • The Universe and the nature around you give you hints
    • You're living in the Universe that was marvelously fine-tuned for your existence
    • Your physical traits are so unique that the chance that your "clone/copy" ever lived or is currently living on Earth is astronomically low
      • This may be extrapolated to your emotional and psychological traits as well
    • The millions of changes, possibilities, and probabilities must have been aligned and coincided to make you possible and to make you — you
  • You are many times more marvelous than "GPT-4" multiplied by a "Quantum Computer" together
    • Chat GPT-4 was created with a purpose, Quantum Computer is being created with a purpose
    • How can we think of ourselves (as much more advanced) that we're just animals that were born to eat, fight, have sex, and die
  • The purpose may be found within a Designer or a Creator
    • Quotes by Naval [35]
      • The value is in the knowledge, and the knowledge is inside the observer and the creator, in other words, a human
      • It's not inside the thing itself
        • For example, oil is useless unless you know how to refine it, burn it, and use it for combustion
        • Information is useless unless there's a brain there to receive it
        • There could be a signal broadcasting English into outer space, but if there isn't a creature capable of understanding what that language is, how it works, and who's conveying it, then it's just modulated electromagnetic frequencies that don't mean anything
        • So a lot of the information — a lot of the value — is within a particular knowledge-bearing entity
observation UR9

In most movies good defeats evil

  • In most movies, the traits of good are praised, and the traits of evil are there as a temporal antagonists till the good prevails or endures
    • Sometimes the distinguishment between good and evil is clear
      • "A meek Hobbit from the Shire and eight companions set out on a journey to destroy the powerful One Ring and save Middle-earth from the Dark Lord Sauron"
    • Sometimes the good is placed in the negative context, like when telling the mafia story but still praising the good traits like loyalty, sacrifice, and saving loved ones
      • "Don Vito Corleone, head of a mafia family, decides to hand over his empire to his youngest son Michael. However, his decision unintentionally puts the lives of his loved ones in grave danger."
  • See IMDb Charts for example
    • The Dark Knight
    • Schindler's List
    • The Lord of the Rings
    • The Matrix
    • Saving Private Ryan
    • Life Is Beautiful
    • Star Wars
    • WALL·E
    • etc.
  • The plot of the movie needs to resonate with the target audience, otherwise, the movie is going to be less profitable
    • Supply satisfies the demand
observation OM3

Consciously or unconsciously people refer to the ultimate/global good and evil

  • Regardless of the worldview people often intuitively say moral conclusions like:
    • "Why is the world so cruel"
    • "Why there is poverty in the world"
    • "War is bad"
    • "It is unfair to take people's freedom away"
    • "Repressing and suppressing of people is terrible"
    • "Why do injustice, raping, betrayal, and evil like this happen"
    • etc.
  • Consciously or unconsciously we often refer to the objective morality
    • The ultimate global statements of good and evil
  • These ultimate concepts are established neither by human beings nor by a majority, and nor by surrounding culture
  • Otherwise, all those bad things that are mentioned above (injustice, raping, betrayal, etc.) would be just "personal opinions" which might be treated as acceptable
    • Think about totalitarian regimes and their crimes and genocides for example
    • Culture is there, the majority (tens of millions) is there, and people's beliefs are also there
      • But can we say that those crimes and wars are acceptable?
      • Can we say that this is their "personal opinions" that must be listened to and respected?
      • Even those who proclaim that there is no objective morality, but only a personal truth and personal opinions, have a hard time accepting these bad things as "personal opinions" of a group of people that need to be respected
assumption HB5

Human beings have an embedded good-vs-evil "sensor"

  • Human beings can discern good vs evil from birth
    • Regardless of the culture, country, political or religious views, language, skin color, or gender
    • Most people genuinely admire true love, support, kindness, sacrifice, etc.
    • Most people feel genuinely disgusted once encountered injustice, raping, lying, betrayal, etc.
  • This explains the demand for movies where good conquers evil in observation UR9
  • An interesting experiment carried out at Yale University
  • Human beings are free to repeatedly suppress the signals of this internal good-vs-evil "sensor" and act against it
    • When acting wrong most people have an internal conflict or a conviction
    • By repeatedly choosing to go with the "conflict" signal rather than with a "confirmation" signal of the "sensor" a human being can "program" their way of thinking (the neuron trails and patterns inside their brain)
    • This formed and chosen way of thinking may get stronger over time and suppress the "sensor"
      • This is the situation when people may justify evil, calling it good instead
  • The possibility of discerning good vs evil may not be in sync with how humans ultimately behave
    • Most probably the reader has felt this kind of internal personal conviction as a consequence of some action recently (last month, or week, or even today)
    • People may do bad things and know that these things are bad at the same time because they have a free will
      • Free will to choose between good and evil
observation GS1

Human beings sense non-physical dimensions

  • Remember several most precious moments of your life
    • It might be watching the sun setting down over the infinite ocean horizon
    • It might be spending time with your loved ones (like seeing your kids playing)
    • It might be lying on the grass and watching the summer sky and clouds
    • It might be listening to music or composing music
    • It might be witnessing good conquering evil
    • It might be different things for different people
  • You can't easily plan such moments and the things that you sense there
    • You don't know when and where it comes from
    • You don't know where it goes
  • There is something in moments like these that is far beyond simply biological
    • Yes, we see it with our eyes, we hear it with our ears, and sense it with our skin
    • Yes, our brain does something with hormones, that, in turn, affect our heartbeat rate and so on
    • But this is all a mechanics, a logistics of it. The consequence, rather than the reason
  • We're trying to describe what is going on during the moments like these using words like
    • consciousness
    • awareness
    • happiness
    • intuition
    • inspiration
    • calmness
    • kindness
    • peace
    • hope
    • love
    • awe
    • joy
    • etc
  • The words above look like an attempt to describe something non-physical, something from a "higher dimension"
    • The words above are like an attempt by 2D people to describe a 3D object
  • Human beings sense non-physical dimensions, which is not so easy for us to describe
assumption GS2

Human beings have embedded God's sensor

  • God's sensor is a gateway for human beings to be able to sense higher dimensions
    • It is like giving 2D folks a chance or a glimpse of 3D concepts
    • It is a door or a channel through which human beings can do one step closer to the Great Designer
    • It is like the umbilical cord that connects man to his Great Initiator
    • It is like a wormhole that allows human beings to bypass the physical limitations
      • Wormhole allows bypassing the speed of light
      • God's sensor allows bypassing the 4D (XYZ + Time) limitations
    • It is like jumping out of the "closed system" and observing a wider context of it from the outside
      • It might be jumping into another closed system with a higher order though
      • But we're in a process, we are just several steps closer to the Initiator in this case
  • Human beings have free will to suppress or to listen to the sensor
    • 2D folks are free to deny the 3D+ world and call everything 2D
    • Human beings are free to cut their umbilical cord
    • Human beings are free to give up on exploring the door and the channel to the Great Designer
    • Human beings are free to choose the opposite
 

References

  • [1] — Stephen C. Meyer | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 43
  • [2] — New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | The Royal Society
  • [3] — Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News
  • [4] — Do we need a new theory of evolution? | The Guardian
  • [5] — Stephen Meyer explains Neo-Darwinism's false beliefs (Pt. 1) | Thought Hub
  • [6] — Stephen Meyer explains Neo-Darwinism's false beliefs (Pt. 2) | Thought Hub
  • [7] — Stephen Meyer | The Joe Rogan Experience
  • [8] — Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds | National Library of Medicine
  • [9] — How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe? | Universe Study
  • [10] — Stephen C. Meyer | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 43 (t=941s)
  • [11] — Base Pair | National Human Genome Research Institute
  • [12] — Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design | By Stephen C. Meyer
  • [13] — Professor John Lennox: God DOES exist | Oxford Union Society
  • [14] — Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein | Wiki
  • [15] — World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God | Science World Report
  • [16] — Leonard Susskind: Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and Black Holes | Lex Fridman Podcast 41
  • [17] — Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr. Quotes | AZ Quotes
  • [18] — Fred Hoyle Quotes | AZ Quotes
  • [19] — God, Science, and Society | By Anthony Walsh
  • [20] — Ideas And Opinions | By Albert Einstein
  • [21] — Max Planck | Wiki
  • [22] — Louis Pasteur Quotes | AZ Quotes
  • [23] — Too much science gives back to God | Universidad de Navarra
  • [24] — Michael Faraday Quotes | AZ Quotes
  • [25] — Isaac Newton Quotes | AZ Quotes
  • [26] — Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World | By Isaac Newton
  • [27] — Johannes Kepler | Wiki
  • [28] — Johannes Kepler Quotes | AZ Quotes
  • [29] — Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty | By Morris Kline
  • [30] — How Unique Are You | OkSo
  • [31] — Everything is Spiritual | By Rob Bell
  • [32] — Teleological Argument and Entropy | All About Philosophy
  • [33] — Anthropic principle | Wiki
  • [34] — "Probably" probably wrong | The Guardian
  • [35] — Humans Are Unique in Our Ability to Understand Things | Naval
  • [36] — Last universal common ancestor | Wiki
  • [37] — Initial singularity | Wiki
  • [38] — Big Bang | Wiki
  • [39] — Theoretical physics | Wiki
  • [40] — List of axioms | Wiki
  • [41] — Has a Superintellect monkeyed with our Universe's physics? | Mind Matters
  • [42] — Leonard Susskind: Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and Black Holes | Lex Fridman Podcast 41 (t=2484s)
  • [43] — IMDb Top 250 Movies | IMDB
  • [44] — Are we born good or evil? (naughty or nice) | BBC Earth
  • [45] — Amino acid | Wiki
  • [46] — Age of the universe | Wiki
  • [47] — Evidence that demands a verdict | Josh McDowel & Sean McDowel, PhD
  • [48] — The Great Partnership Quotes | Jonathan Sacks
  • [49] — Science DOESN'T Explain What You Think It Does | John Lennox
  • [50] — God is no-thing | Pete Holmes



Subscribe to the Newsletter

Get my latest posts and project updates by email