Atoms, Stars and Fossils

(continued from A Self-Concealing God - part 4 .....)

Every atom reflects the glory of God. A cliche? Yes and no.......

The biggest machine on Earth, the LHC, has smashed the atom with a trillion volts, and our best and brightest have tried to put that atom back together, using every mathematical trick in the book. All the King's men, all the King's horses.....

And, yes, we have accomplished much. We do have the Standard Model and even the Higgs Boson, the so-called God Particle.

But where does that leave us, if not staring at Susskind's Landscape and the Anthropic problem, not to mention the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Is it turtles all the way down? Or do we begin to see the back of our own heads?

9/8/14

-

Yes, there is no doubt that individual atoms are ontologically suspect. And, as I have pointed out, even our individual selves, pace Descartes, are individually suspect. Instead of the Cartesian Cogito, we have the..... I am that I am. This is the singular cosmic Monad, of which we, sapients, are reflections. And, yes, in this regard, I would take a look at Chris Langan's CTMU, for some recent speculation along these lines. He refers to the SCSPL, the self-configuring, self-processing language. Others might just call it the (recursively bootstrapped) Logos.

And what about the starry sky, and the myriad fossils.....?

Here, I can revert to a simple-minded state, which, actually, is my prefered, default state. It is not easy to find me outsmarting myself, and folks don't go around saying that I'm too smart by half, now, do they?

If we didn't have stars in the sky, what would have? Abstract art, perhaps. We could have a perpetual slide show. Hey, we could even have a holographic planetarium. Better than just a terrarium. Yes?

But, then, what about the photons? I love it when the fundamentalists try to explain the photons coming from the stars. Well, God just created them in mid-flight. That's kinda like she created the birds..... in mid-flight. But, no, here is my very favorite creation question.....

Omphalos Hypothesis ........ Well, you'll just have to look for yourselves. It is too good to summarize.

But, hey, am I in any position to laugh? I wish I could say that I'm god's clown, but I'm just a wannabe. And don't ask me about 4M/K/SoT/X2.

I guess I'm lucky, that, as with atoms, I take my photons with an ontological grain of salt. But, there is a problem, when we come to Heliotropism. There is a reference on this page at the BPW site. But Heliotropism is not much harder to explain than the Lunar-tropism of the tides. All of these problems are like the chicken and egg problem, which is a problem even for real scientists. If you think not, just take a look at the history of sex. The more you know about sex, the more you realize what you don't know. And, I submit that this is true of any subject or object. As Bill Clinton famously said, it all depends on what we mean by 'is'.

9/9/14