Expert: Marilyn - 6/12/2008

Question
STRING THEORY IS STILL YOUNG
As I continue reading Berlinski "The Devil's Delusion", I do see the so-called problems posed by the "multiple universes" that the higher dimensional string theories can generate.  Personally, I would rather, they and Berlinski, define multiple universes, as multiple sub-universes, because the *one* string theory that proves itself as describing reality with the least number of additional elements, and unifies in one constant math with no magic numbers in what today are multiple separate magic numbered physics (quantum, gravity, electroweak, etc.), would be true every-where and every-when, even if it is beyond the grasp of most people.  Right now, they are simply sorting through the mathematics in what can be difficult for even a physicist-mathematician to fully filter properly, in rightly dividing their "words", to find what explains the universe one to one with all that we see.

And string theory tries to explain the origin of the *perceptible* universe, as not something arising from nothing, but something forming from something else, that has always existed, but is unseen, which means that it is coming closer to merging understaning between physics with God, which too is eternal, and can be what He wants to be, the great I AM.  So I would still not be quick to dismiss string theory in its infancy.

STRING THEORY IS NOT A COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE MULTI UNIVERSE MISCHIEF BY PHYSICISTS
I can draw an analogy against Berlinski, directly from the elegant equations of Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, which are actually somewhat complicated accounting for dilations in time-space in a higher dimension of math greater than the 4 space dimensions we sometimes thing of as absolute.  His equations describe one known version of a misnomered "multiple universe", which isn't a something from nothing string theory, but is merely a continuous description of an eternal continuous universe.  Einstein's equations describe, to his initial shock, singularities where matter in dense enough concentrations are overwhelmed by runaway gravity, forming to the outside universe, a black hole where time comes to a stop from our point of view of the event horizon, and all matter condenses into a nearly infinitely small point.  String theory would still describe this new "universe", or sub-universe hidden inside the black hole.  From the point of view of the matter inside the black hole, time would still go on, but in a form we are still barely able to describe.  From the singularity's point of view, billions of years of singularity time can pass, but the universe outside of the black hole, visible in all directions, would appear pitch black as time flow of the outside (our) universe almost comes to a complete stop.  Most black holes form from rotating collapsing masses, so the singularity is actually an infinitely thin ring of with actual diameter.  One can imagine in this frame of reference that string theory describes a new state of universe, and yet is not describing something from nothing, but something from something, ad infinitum in a God given universe that was, is, and always shall be, but that is, "I AM WHAT I AM", depending on how dimensions are arranged.  And if there is any form of coalescing organization in a singularity ring or point that allows "molecules" perticular to that space to form, then "life" in that dimension can form, and will think that what they see is everything, "the universe", when it is only a small piece of a greater universe, that is only a small piece of what is God Himself.  The life inside the singularity ring packed with particles, would say, we appear to have come from nothing, for in the beginning of "our universe" was a great explosive chaos forming our space that cooled and ordered itself.  The singularity "people" may even devise string theory, saying there are many outer sub-universes, and nested universes, beyond their one "cosmic egg" of perception.And they are literally unseeable and unknowable to them, as the black hole nearly perfectly isolates *their* frame of reference from *our* all to real outer universe of our own familiarity.  So De Sitter universes and multiple universes, I say sub-universes, are all too real, even if the majority of them are unknowable and unseeable to us, much like God Himself.

And, though one could use a simpler elegant mathematics to describe matter outisde of a singularity, and a different physics to describe matter inside a singularity ring, if both are subsumed in a more complicated, but not overly more comlicated string theory that covers both, why not call that the fundamental theory of everything.  Berlinsky says because string theory describes different arrangemnts of physics that one can never see, how can it *really* be fundamental.  It is fundamental (when they find the right one), because it does describe everything, even if some of it is foreign, just like the elegance of Einsteins general theory of relativity, described black holes where his math breaks down ... and how can that *really* be fundamental with areas of break down, Berlinski cautiously doesn't address, even if string theory does have the capability to address it.  And ti can be added, that science, as it grows, naturally complicates equations in their scope of observational coverage of increasingly more things.  In 1000 AD, one might say of gravity, that it is a force that is uniform and everywhere on the earth by one's senses. A very simple equation that works everywhere on the earth at the precision of the observation.  In 1600 AD, one might observe gravity being 0.1% smaller on the equator than the poles, and say, instead of faith and breakdown of the rules, that gravity is uniform and centrifugal forces alter acceleration.  A slightly bigger equation set that works everywhere on the earth to the precision of observation.  In 1750 AD, one may observe the planets orbiting slower around a common center, and the moon's orbit, and lab weights swinging indicating a very small gravitational force, and say that gravity is inverse square to the distance, and only appear uniform in the thin slice of earth's surface.  A more complicated equation accounting for masses, integral calculus distributions, and inverse power polynomials, that works everywhere in the universe, except in areas with high gravity.  In 1930, noticing the universal velocity of light, and the precession of mercury's orbit near the sun's gravity, one could say gravity space and time are constant in a higher dimension of frame of reference dilation.  Now it is an equation set accounting for complex tensor mathematics, accounting for time dilation in frames of reference, and a looseing of absolute time and space by matter distributions, that works everywhere in the universe, except inside of black holes.  In 2000, noticing the breakdown of general relativity, one can say string theory unifies all things, even in black holes and other universes.  A miltidimensional equation set theory now, but still simple in that physical constants arise naturally from the equations (once the proper one is found), that hopes to describe the universe EVERYWHERE, even in places unseen on faith, like the inside of a black hole.  With each new observation, and increasingly more encompassing law sets, where the equations are as simple as they have to be, but invariably increase in their complexity because they explain more interacting systems in one thing.  If humans stopped where doubt lies anywhere on this chain, Berlinsky would have us believing gravity is only a uniform force everywhere on earth, in 1000 AD.

Finally, to reiterate at the risk of being pretensiously dogmatic, I would say string theory is just trying to describe the fabric of everything, which still doesn't deny God in my mind, anymore than physics can deny the sensation of color or feelings, even as much as it can't describe what is *almost* scientifically observable, psychologically.  It is, to me, just as the Michaelson Morley experiment in 1877, that hypothesized the universe contained an ether that dialates time, and then disproved it with their own experiment, until special and general relativity came along in 1905 and 1916, respectively, explaining all light and gravity, outside of singularities and on quantum scales.  I believe that most of the string theories will fall by the wayside, today, until the one right one can be discerned by its complicated elegance, and simplicity in describing everything with one thing ... but it will take time for this new young science.  Even if string theory tells of how a spiritual realm may operate in higher dimensions, and describe spiritual matter physics, it will never tell us what God is up to, His mind, or His body, if God doesn't wish to reveal Himself.  That is, what you cannot observe, you cannot know.

HIGHER DIMENSIONS NEED NOT BE FOREIGN TO RELIGION
Higher dimensions that are invisible should not be a foreign concept to Christians or other religions, even though Berlinski goes to great lengths to shame the faith physicists have and yet Paul Tillich the Lutheran Existential theologian says, "Faith is creative precisely because we act even though we cannot be entirely sure of the outcome. This is the Faith that creates science and art, and produces miracles in everyday life. When that Faith is attached to life's ultimate concern, it becomes sacred and holy.".

Around the turn of the 20th century, "higher dimensions" was a concept not unfamiliar to many of our grandparent and great grandparent theologians, with the transcendental and spiritualist movements popular then.  In a book by Edwin Abbot published in 1884, "Adventures in Flatland", he describes a physics where life and the apparent universe is all two dimensional, but it is actally part of a three dimensional world, where higher dimensional beings can see what is in the two dimensional universe, and even poke their fingers into their plane of existence, where a two dimensional person would suddenly see a skin covered sphere suddenly appear and grow, with a fingernail suddenly appear on one side growing and shrinking again, as the finger plunges through their plane, and additional skin spheres with nails appear beside it, as the higher dimensional fingers cross their plane of perception.  But the two dimensional beings can only have faith in a higher dimension seeing such things that they can see but cannot see, and both in the same plane.  Likewise, string theory simply puts forth these spaces as real entities, that are either outisde of our spacious space, or curled up in ultra-micro dimensions on the Plank scale, like in a black hole singularity.  Who can say God doesn't reside in these dimensions, when God Himself is unseen, but can manifest in our plane of perception?

And, regarding higher dimensions, that can be both seen and unseen, in Christianity, one can read in John 20:19, "19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when *the doors were shut* where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, [suddenly] came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.", and then in Luke 24:36-39 "36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 *But they were terrified* and *affrighted*, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.".  Jesus walked through walls, many theologians have surmised, using a higher dimension of manifestation open to God's ultimate power.

And in Mark 16:2-8 we read, "2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.".  Once again, a reference to a higher dimension, in than matter can disappear from a sealed tomb, but not sealed to God, opening doors no man can shut, and shutting doors no man can open.

We see another example in 1 Corinthians 15:50-57, suggests a higher dimensional incorruptible body that can be swapped with our perishable body in an instant, "50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.".

And finally, an old testament reference to higher dimensions can be seen in, Daniel 5:5-7, "5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6 Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. 7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.".  An object, perhaps the hand of God or an angel, appearing out of nowhere, and disappearing back to nowhere.

SPIRIT AS MATTER IN A HIGHER DIMENSION
Of spirit, theologians often say, that it is not something, but nothing.  I prefer to say it is something, but in a different dimension.  For if it is not something with systematic rules that it obeys, even if more powerful than we can describe, which is still found in a coherence and with known processes;; if not that, then it is chaos, no?  And if spirit and God are chaos, is that something to believe in?  I would say, if you poke at spirit, it reacts.  If a spirit can hold sentience and thought and emotions, then it has a coherent process and function in its systems.  If spirit cannot generally be seen, except for manifestations, then it simply must generally reside in a plane, that one cannot normally perceive;; for one cannot see the face of God and live, the Bible states.

So to also say God made matter from nothing, may be a misnomer, in that He created a configuration of space and time and matter-energy called our [sub] universe that did not exist before, which is an act of creation, but not of something from nothing, for nothing is lost with God ... except for the configurations or images, that can be destroyed.  God could have transformed material from His own essence or spirit to make the physical universe that is all we can mostly see, that we are made from His own matter.  To breath Holy Spirit into flesh to make humans, is to transfer *something*, not nothing.  It is something with order and process, and not chaos and pure randomness.

Though making this conclusion says that God didn't really "create" anything from nothing, but likewise, it doesn't prevent us from saying that He did not *form* the space that we live in, that had never existed before, of which the hebrew baw-rah' can also be interpreted to new-formation.  But this also puts humans on the plane where we do create things, coloquially speaking, by arranging things in this universe that never existed before, or that life could arise ("create"-itself) spontaneously from purely inorganic combinatorial chemistry feeding back on itself in combinations that didn't exist before, or be "created"/formed in a laboratory, or even be formed by God.

RESPONSE(S)
So do you think my views are merely weak sophistries, trying to psychologically cover for the inadequacies of scientific explanation power, as Berlinski says?  Or do you find some agreement with some/all of the points and analogies, and "truths", of physics, God, matter, and the eternal and universal orders of all things.  Which neither denies God, but can shed doubt on what human traditions say God *is* involved with.  I realize I may be "teaching" in my own limited understanding, as much as asking, of your views.  I am conveying the background thoughts, that I am familiar with, in religion and science, to create more common grounds, for dialog with your views.

Regards,
Shawn


Answer
Hello Shawn!

Great to hear from you again.  

I do not think your views are either weak or sophistries.  Most of your analogies are quite good.  I do not have any problem with your explanation of string theory.  I certainly agree that string theory appears to be useful in providing a mathematical and theoretical way to understand singularities.  I also appreciate your explanation of how string theory might be used to explain how God does things.  (Explaining how God does things was, after all, the original purpose of modern science.)  I view what you are doing as putting your understanding of God in terms that you are familiar with.  That can be a valuable aid to your own understanding and to others.

My objection is actually when scientists leave science and try to pretend that their mathematical formulas have anything to do with the existence of God.  I do not believe that science can ever prove or disprove the existence of God.  I do believe that when a scientist allows disproving the existence of God to become an objective, he usually twists and debases his own research, often rendering it fruitless.

Keep up your good work, both in your scientific endeavors and in your religious walk!

Sincerely,

Marilyn