Last night I dreamt that I was engaged in a discussion with my brother over the old arguments between science and religion on the subject of Divine Creation.
In the dream I assumed the position of Einstein, claiming that God does not play dice with the universe. My brother took Bohr’s part, interjecting the problems of randomness. I had an epiphany and came up with a succinct theorem that seemed to rationally validate Einstein’s instinctive feelings on the matter.
The clarity of the theorem allowed for a precise method to put forward the counter argument – which in the end only served to further validate the theorem.
I awoke from the dream feeling certain that I was onto something. It was 2.am. I searched for paper and pencil and tried to recapture the wording of the theorem before it faded from my mind. But by the time I had gathered my thoughts, the magic of the original wording was no longer in consciousness. The closest I could come to gist of the theorem that revealed itself in the dream is as follows:
Any creative action has to be the result of a logical sequence of predetermined conditions, going all the way back to the first movement.
The validation that came from the random argument went more or less as follows:
The quixotic nature of random elements cannot significantly interrupt the logical flow of a truly creative event as it evolves from its source. At worst, randomness can only influence side issues and produce a series of distorted abortions.
It is my hope that any further thoughts on this by others may trigger some elements of the original dream memory.
Sounds like the basis for Asimov’s psychohistory. Or some fusion of that and the ending of Clarke’s Rama series.
In your system, where does randomness come from? That is more the troublesome element than what its effects are, since those can be retroconned into the Great Universal Plan of the Universe.
Since I have not had the pleasure of reading either work, what in your opinion is it; great minds dream alike? Or is that fools seldom differ?
I do not find it troublesome. I can only imagine that randomness is an essential element of the Divine Nature. Without it creation would be left without suprise. At best it allows for a new burst of ideation. Absolute certainty would lead to early boredom.
Very little is chaotic in fact. Look at any good architechtural plan. Its function (randomness) is to present a possible dynamic that keeps the Creator on His/Her toes and to have contingency plans should chaos break its bounds.
Example: I believe our next evolutionary step is to trancend all our current immature political.religious and economic ideologies and adopt an universdal ethic of global stewardship - with a world working peacefully together as a single family involved in the large scale challenges of responsible planet management.
However, should we continue with the status quo and keep edging toward the chaos of thermo-nuclear war, I have my family in a safe place and am working towards surviving the fall-out.
I dont disregard it. It is ever-present on my mind. I re-edited my previous post before you replied. Check it out and see if that answers your concern.
“Random” can be seen as a word that describes a lack of ability to explain the event with a logical flow.
Creation requires a resource (from the preceding event)–a computer program, for example-- power–the electricity–and code that tells the program how to act.
The human perception of randomness is an inability to imagine the language of a foreign code. There also may be resources that don’t exist in one person’s own language/code, and one’s program (our body) may be limited in its abilities, making it difficult to imagine and think in terms of changes on much smaller/larger scales than they actually perceive taking place in their environment from moment ot moment.
Interestingly, our introspection enables an action take place in one’s imagination, their subjective I, which doesn’t usually have any visable cause and react action on one’s immediate environment, which occurs in other animals, who physically react to each stimulus. Introspection enables a human mind to hold off one their physical reaction, the physical future Universe he will affect with his decision, actively creating a certain kind of reality. But every human idea is predetermined; free-will is an illusion. But the experience of free-will, the abilities that come with the illusion that one is actually making a decision, is what causes one to spot conflict in ideas of the world. To spot errors that cause problems. To predict and control.
I think the idea of randomness is the result of a mind plagues by scientism (if they can’t see it, it doesn’t exist).
Any creative action has to be the result of a logical sequence of predetermined conditions, going all the way back to the first movement.
Is this theorem to become an established law or not?
Have the objections by the Lodge of Science as to the exiistence of a Creator God been met?
If not a credible challenge needs to be mounted.
