The Retroactive Universe:

Quantum Kabbalistic Cosmology &

the Meaning and Purpose of Life

Mind, Free Will & the Garden of Eden

………

Avi Rabinowitz

copyright 1993

.............

This webpage contains the first half of the book, the rest is in the file attached to the page, see bottom

.........

MATERIAL FOR BOOK JACKET ETC:

Although the book is meant to be read in its entirety as various parts reflect upon each other, many parts can stand alone; those interested in particular topics can use the guide provided at the end of the introduction to choose the sections of particular interest to them.

Overview

The known laws of nature are insufficient(ly 'rich' or 'deep') to provide for the existence of true free will^[1]. However, a certain type of meta-causality that we term acausality could, if it underlies the physical nature of the interactions within a brain, enable true free-willed descisions to be taken. The existence of such a phenomenon has ramifications for physics, cosmology, mathematics and philosophy.

We will see that we must go beyond present science in our explorations of the mental realm of the human mind and of the concepts/phenomena which arise therein: especially free will, meaning and purpose. The reality we will find is however not contradictory to that revealed by the scientific endeavor. Rather, what we find is supplementary to known science, indicative of a deeper richness to the fabric of reality as indicated by the human mind than has as yet been discovered by science in its investigations of the inanimate universe.

We will explore the parallel between the nature, emergence, and significance of free-willed consciousness, and the nature, emergence, and significance of the universe and life. On the way we will relate the underlying themes of the creation and Eden accounts, and of free willed-consciousness, not only to fundamental moral and philosophical questions but also to the concept of human creativity in general, as well as to some of the central ideas of many disciplines: philosophy, quantum physics, metaphysics, cosmology, kabbalah, and mathematics.

Summary of Book: better for a book review etc than for the book itself.

One of the most mysterious elements of modern physics concerns the nature of reality at the microscopic level and of the universe as a whole, particularly the rather metaphysical 'measurement problem' of quantum physics. We will find that our investigations of the nature of morally-relevant free will, and specifically the postulation of an acausal type of basis for free willed consciousness allow us to make some possible contributions to this issue, and to relate the type of free will which is capable of being morally relevant to processes of quantum physics and through it to cosmology.

We will find other points where the nature of free will as we define it has relevance to questions of the nature of existence, to the possible relationship of kabbalistic and cosmological concepts, to the anthropic principle, to the relationship between entropy, human creativity, the prevention of the possible eventual 'heat death' of the universe, and to other matters of cosmological significance.

In exploring various paths in these fields, we will always find ourselves led back to the issue of free-willed moral consciousness, and to the creation and Eden accounts.

Our understanding of the nature of free will also helps shed light on one of the central issues in philosophy: the 'mind body' problem. We will find that the acausal nature of free will which grants it the possibility of being relevant to moral responsibility also endows it with the role of the 'ghost in the machine' of philosophy, sparking across the gap between the mental realm of thought and emotion, and the realm of the brain and the rest of the physical universe.

We shall find this issue to be of relevance in discussions of the nature of consciousness, the evolution of consciousness, the question of the mental or material nature of the universe, human transcendence, and even to the nature of mathematical truth.

Among the philosophical issues explored are the source of moral obligation, objective vs. subjective morality, and the problem of evil. Kabbalistic topics concepts such as tzimtzum, shvirat hakelim, and the connection between the spiritual and physical realms are related to concepts of physics - the ideas of symmetry, the unity of the laws of nature, and the nature of physical reality - and to those of cosmology: the design of the big bang, and the origin, age, and heat death of the universe. In mathematics, logic and artificial intelligence we dip briefly into Godel's incompleteness theorem, the concept of mathematical truth, randomness, and the nature of creativity; in metaphysics we consider the design of the universe, purpose and meaning, and the emergence of existence from non-existence.

In addition, we shall develop an understanding of the creation and Eden accounts focusing on their being centrally concerned with the themes of existence, free will and MRMP (moral responsibility, meaning and purpose). This, together with our understanding of the nature of free will in turn enable us to see the two accounts as closely connected thematically rather than as obscure and perplexingly contradictory cosmogonies^[2].

Biblical context: We also explore other questions which are central to the creation and Eden accounts such as: why the emergence of humanity is the culmination of creation; why each act of creation is seen by God as "good" (and the creation as a whole is seen by God as "very good"); why Adam is said to have been created 'in the image of God'; why he ate of the tree; whether or not prior to eating he had free will to choose whether or not to eat of the tree; why he is called 'Adam'; why Eve was created separately and how her role fulfilled her design as a 'helpmeet' for Adam; why the Eden account is juxtaposed to the creation account; why the accounts have the literary form they do; and the relationship of the two accounts to the rest of the Bible.

Several issues which arise in connection with contemporary science and its implications for the creation and Eden accounts are also discussed, such as: the question of the existence of God; the big bang and evolution theories; the origin of the universe and its age; the origin of humanity and the amount of time humans have been in existence; all this with the common thread being that of free-willed consciousness and moral activity forming a tapestry of physics and metaphysics against the background of the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis.

In the final sections of the book we will find that after clarifying the acausal nature of free will we are also in a better position to confront some of the major issues of general and Jewish religious philosophy

.....................

Note: Beings with free will in literature and popular mythology: with Consciousess?: Spock, R2D2, the Tin Man & Pinocchio, Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde, Frankenstein('s monster), the Golem, BladeRunnerReplicant, Matrix-individual

.....

Table of Contents

Preface.

Part I: The Significance and Nature of Free Will

Exploring the nature of the type of free will which makes human moral responsibility outsider-relevant, and which allows human life to have meaning and purpose from the outsider perspective. The creation and Edenaccounts from this perspective.

Chapter 2: The Outsider Perspective

Chapter 3: Meaning, Purpose, and Moral Responsibility:

The centrality of free will to the concepts of moral responsibility meaning and purpose.

Chapter 4 Quantum Puppets and Autonomous Brains: Are we all puppets of the laws of nature, and of randomness - can the type of free will which allows meaning, purpose and moral responsibility exist? What does quantum theory say, and what about Chaos?

Chapter 5: Designer Universes, and Purposive Creation: What type of universe can be considered purposive and what nature of being can be considered to be living a life which is meaningful? Does our universe qualify? Do we? Would a transcendent being with an 'outsider's' perspective agree with our assessment? Under what conditions would we be held responsible for our actions from the 'outsider' perspective of a being who created our universe and its laws of nature? Analysis of the creation and Eden account from this perspective.

Appendix Quantum Cosmology and Designer Universes: Modern cosmology is investigating the physics of the emergence of a physical universe, and even the possibility of human creation of physical universes 'in the laboratory'. What would such a universe look like to us from our 'outsider's' perspective?

Part II: Context

Chapter 6: An examination of the cultural context of biblical text and the type of meaning we attribute to the creation and Eden accounts in our discussions.

Part III: Chapter 7: The Ineffability of Free Will: Free Will and Self-Causation

Chapter 7b: Additional Material Not Yet Inserted

Part IV: The Cosmological Effect of Free Will

Entering the realm of cosmology (the study of the entire universe as a system), we discover that the nature of free will is such as to grant it unique abilities and roles in the cosmological context. We also find some interesting parallels from cosmology to the creation and Eden accounts, the kaballah, and other realms, via the connecting link of free-willed consciousness.

Chapter 8: The Retroactive Universe: Quantum Reality and the Emergence of Consciousness

Chapter 9: Quantum Reality and Moral Beings

Appendix to Chapter 8: Quantum Reality and the Emergence of Consciousness:

Appendix to Chapter 9: Quantum Reality and Free Will:

Chapter 10: Existence, Free Will, and Self Causation:

Chapter 11: Cosmology and Kabbalah: Symmetry Breaking and Shvirat Hakelim. .

Chapter 12: The Anthropic Principle:

Chapter 13: Complexity and Entropy: Human Creativity vs. The Heat Death of the Universe.

Chapter 14: Free Will and Infinitude:

Chapter 15: Computability and Free Will:

Part V: The Philosophical Implications of the Existence of Free Will:

The Mind-Body Problem, and the Universe as a Thought of God

There are two types of phenomena known to science - the physical and the mental. What is their relationship, and which is more fundamental? What is the fundamental nature of the universe? We explore the role of free will in this matter, and the relevance to the interpretation of the creation and Eden accounts.

Chapter 16: The Nature of Consciousness:

Chapter 17: Godel, Human Transcendance and Free Will :

(Chapter 8: Godel and Undecidability: Human Transcendence and Free Will)

Chapter 18: Godel and the Sephirot: Transcendent Truths and Transcendent Realms:

Chapter 19: The Evolution of Free-Willed Consciousness:

Chapter 20: Idealism and Free Will:

Part VIa: The Universe as a Thought in the Mind of God

Does science state unequivocally that there exists a physical universe 'outside' our minds? Can science make definite statements about the past states of this 'physical universe'? What parts of our general scientific belief system is actually metaphysics as opposed to science?

Chapter 21: Solipsism, Existence and Occam's Razor:

Chapter 22: Dreams of Existence: The Universe as Thought:

Part VI: Metaphysical and Religious Implications of the Existence of Free Will for the Creation and Eden accounts: the Emergence and Significance of the Universe and of Humanity

As a result of scientific findings, when understood as a cosmogony (a history of the origin and development of the cosmos) the creation and Eden accounts give rise to questions related to the age of the universe, the emergence of life and the evolution of humanity, as well as to speculations regarding the significance of humanity, and its role in the general scheme of things. We will find that free-willed consciousness is an important key to these issues.

Chapter 23: Quantum Randomness and Teleology:

Chapter 24: Human Significance:

Chapter 25: The First Moral Beings on Earth:

Chapter 26: The Evolution of Adam:

Chapter 27: Adam as a Race of Beings:

Chapter 28: The Age of the Universe:

Chapter 29: God As Quantum Observer:

Chapter 30: The Anthropic Principle and the Maximization of Existence: .

Chapter 30b: The Emergence of the Universe from the Big Bang to Eden:

Chapter 30c: The Evolution of Life from Amoeba to Adam

Part VII: Ramifications of the Existence of Free Will for Jewish

Philosophy: Traditional Themes

Free-willed moral consciousness and the Biblical perspective on the purpose behind the creation of the universe^[3], the method of its creation, the meaning of life and the role of humans in the development of Biblical law.

Chapter 31: Divine Creation: A Perplexing Contradiction in Maimonides:

Chapter 32: Kohelet, Cosmic Pessimism and Free Will:

Chapter 33: Time Travel, Free Will and the Development of Jewish Law:

Part VIII: Conclusions

Chapter 34: A Philosopher in Eden

Chapter 35: Epilogue

Bibliography

Preface

This book was completed in 1991, and has circulated in manuscript form since then, with some of the ideas being presented in lectures and other forums. It evolved from a manuscript entitled “The Instant Universe”written by the author early in his graduate studies. "The Instant Universe" manuscript circulated widely since then and will soon be available in book form^[4]. That work is referred to in several of the author’s publications from that period which discuss ideas similar to those discussed in this book [“Geocentrism” in B’Or Ha’Torah 5E (1986), “Free Will” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6E (1987) and “The Role of the Observer in Halakhah and Quantum Physics” in Science in the Light of the Torah (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994.]

To comment on this article or others written by the author, and to order this or others of his books, write to avirab@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

……….

See: Quantum Kabbalah and the Instant Universe

"And God Said, 'Let there have been a Big Bang' ”

Part I: The Significance and Nature of Free Will

Capter I: Introduction

Chapter 2: Free Will: The Outsider Perspective

Chapter 3: Meaning, Purpose, and Moral Responsibility:

Chapter 4 : Quantum Puppets and Autonomous Brains:

Appendix: Free Will and Quantum Field Theory

Chapter 5: Designer Universes, and Purposive Creation:

Appendix :Quantum Cosmology and Designer Universes:

..............

Chapter 1: Einstein, Purposive Creation and Morality:

Are murderers responsible for their actions?

Einstein, moral responsibility, and Genesis: Einstein wrote: "…the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficient personal God....[has] decisive weaknesses... …if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishments and rewards he would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

Human vs divine perspective: Of course humans can’t be held responsible for misjudging anyone, for example for holding murderers responsible for their actions when in fact they had no true choice. But can a beneficient God judge a murderer when God designed them to be so?

Nature and nurture: As Einstein stated, created beings cannot be held meaningfully responsible for their actions by the creator of the universe and the laws of nature if their actions follow fully from the operation of these laws. In his conception, human, animal, vegetable and mineral follow identical physical law, and human mental activity is no exception - just as a stone rolling down-hill does not choose to do so, neither can a person choose their thoughts and decisions – we can only 'feel' that we so choose.

According to the view, a person’s actions are the result of ‘nature and nurture’, or ‘genes and environment’. Since the genes are from nature, if God created nature then they are from God. Similarly, nurture is the environment created by other people, but the actions of these other people are the result of their own nature and nurture, and so on backwards to the first people. In this sense ‘nurture’ is also indirectly ‘nature’.

The fact that people are not simple mechanisms does not mean that they are not mechanisms, just that they are very complex mechanisms. Einstein felt that although much is not yet known about our brains, nevertheless if there is a God, our actions are the inevitable result of God’s laws of nature^[1][1], just as is the case for much simpler mechanisms.

Einstein, atheism, materialism and free will: Einstein makes a statement about his psychological reaction to the success of science: "We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough to nevertheless sense at least the rule of fixed necessity....... The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.^[2][2].... the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary as the past…. ^[3][3]......a God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable......for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external or internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes."

Although Einstein was not an atheist, this is the type of statement that atheism is often founded on – the idea that not only does science provide naturalistic explanations, but that there are no non-naturalistic events at all, for example no 'miracles' or other divine intervention. Speaking in the context of the workings of the human mind, he makes another reflection of his psychology: he is a "man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation". Though he was not a materialist, this is an assumption which underlies materialism, the idea that even human thought is governed totally by cause and effect, and thus there is no true free will.

Biblical conceptions: Traditionalists can agree with Einstein that in the biblical conception, meaningfully moraly reponsible beings cannot be ruled by determined or random processes. Whether or not one accepts the truth of the biblical accounts, clearly the implication that human actions are of interest to God, and humans bear responsibility for their actions in God's eyes make sense only from within the perspective that humans posses a 'true free will'. ^[4]

Physics, Free Will and Intuition: True free will is necessarily built upon an interaction "transcending" both the determinism of classical physics and the probabilistically-determined randomness (PDR) of quantum physics. Unless there would be some experimental proof that true free will exists, physics would rightly exclude it^[5][5]. Our deepest intuitions however point to its existence. And of course most religious beliefs assume it does exist, and base the concept of moral responsibility on the assumption that our free will is real^[5].

Free will in the biblical conception: What type of free will is inherent in the Bible? We can perhaps deduce what Einstein thought about this. He did not believe in the existence of free will, and felt that if there is a God, this God could not be so capricious as to hold people responsible for actions that they could not prevent, and therefore he could not believe in the Biblical God (and the Biblical stories). Clearly Einstein felt that the God of the Bible was omnipotent and also held humans accountable for their actions. Indeed the creation and Eden accounts present the type of free will and moral responsibility which would be meaningful to a transcendent being.

Overview of the book: Are we in control of our own personal destiny or is all fate? Does our existence have “meaning”, a purpose? [Is there more to us than just our bodies - and if so does some aspect of our selves survive death?] à

Clearly without free will we would be mere puppets, and so would not bear moral responsibility for the actions our bodies execute. However there is difficulty in defining the concept of free will in accordance with known scientific and philosophical principles. As a result philosophers reject the conception of human freedom, moral responsibility, meaning and purpose; consequently the meaning assigned to these fundamental metaphysical concepts by philosophers is not quite the same as our intuitive understanding of them. Their definitions are tailored by scientists and philosophers to fit the laws of nature and the rigor of ordinary logic, and in the process lose what to our intuitive understanding may be their very essence.

In this book we travel the reverse road. Rather than trying to fit these concepts into the frame of the accepted laws of nature and logic, we first define the type of free will, moral responsibility, meaning and purpose which we feel is reflective of our deepest intuitions. We then determine what must be true about the nature of reality in order for these concepts to be valid as we intuit them, and attempt to extrapolate to discover what are the ramifications of this reality to physics, cosmology and philosophy.

^[6]Generations of thinkers have struggled with such questions and have devoted lifetimes to investigating enigmas such as the origin of the universe, the origins and nature of humanity, the basis of moral obligation, the meaning of life and the purpose of existence. Various cultures and individuals have over the millennia explored different approaches to these issues, and often the paths taken seem mutually incompatible.

Our own cultural heritage on these issues and concepts includes perspectives as diverse as those of science and of metaphysics, of the Bible and of philosophy, of mysticism and of mathematics. However these disciplines deal so differently with these issues that accepting their relevance, and certainly integrating them into a coherent world-view, is often difficult or even declared to be impossible.

In this work we shall endeavor to fashion a partial integration of some of these approaches. We will especially explore the idea of free willed consciousness and its ramifications, finding it to be a pivotal factor for many key concepts and a unifying theme underlying the various perspectives on these issues.

The earliest surviving treatment of these themes is perhaps found in the Bible. The creation and Eden accounts - the opening chapters of Genesis (the first book of the Bible) - deal with the origin of the universe, humanity, free will and moral obligation. These accounts have contributed greatly to our cultural conceptions and beliefs on these matters and shall play a prominent role in our discussions.

Although these issues are treated rather differently by science and by Genesis, we shall attempt the development of a perspective from which the scientific origin theory and the creation account are complementary rather than contradictory. ^[7]

Understanding the creation and Eden accounts in the context of our discussions on free will and universal purpose can aid us in appreciating the meaning of these accounts, and in discerning a logic behind the juxtaposition of two such very different accounts. These connections will also help motivate the otherwise perplexing implications in Genesis that the universe was created not so long ago and that the first human being lived only thousands rather than hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of years ago.

Besides the various insights and speculations on philosophy metaphysics and Genesis, a number of original ideas are presented regarding the nature of free will and its relevance to various fundamental issues in physics, philosophy and metaphysics.

Note: There are several interrelated themes in the book; the reader with particular interests can focus on specific sections and leave others out.

Parts I, III, IV, V: the heart of the book: Free-willed consciousness: Discussions involving physics, cosmology, quantum metaphysics, philosophy.

Part II (only one chapter) is about the context of Biblical narratives.

The rest of the book applies the concept developed in Parts I-V to an understanding of:

· Part VI: Genesis in the context of the big bang and evolutionary theories. (Insert ref to Inst Un and Edens books).

· Part VII religious/Jewish theology:

· Part VIII moral and religious philosophy

Chapter 2: The Outsider Perspective

"What is the meaning of human life, or for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious. You ask: Does it make sense then to pose this question. I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life."

Albert Einstein^[8].

Introduction

For many of us, running very deep at the core of our beings is the feeling that we are morally responsible for our actions, that there is meaning in our lives, that there is a purpose to existence (MRMP). Occasionally the conviction is shaken or even disappears; usually however the conviction returns anew.

Yet although this feeling (of MRMP) is almost universal, there are great differences between the various conceptions we may hold of what is meaningful, what is the purpose of existence, what is moral. There are also philosophical and scientific differences of opinion as to whether humans are really free agents, truly responsible for their actions, whether there can be any meaning to existence other than the meaning we ourselves create, whether the mental realm in which concepts such as meaning and purpose reside can grant them any measure of reality .

Our most fundamental intuitions are that we exist and are conscious, the universe exists, and we are autonomous beings, capable of free willed choice. However from the scientific perspective, the nature of consciousness is enigmatic, while the phenomenon of free will is scientifically not merely elusive but actually quite paradoxical.

Consciousness seems to be an element of a different realm than that of the material universe, so much so in fact that it seems impossible that it interact with the physical realm. Nevertheless consciousness is an undeniable fact of existence, since the very belief that we are conscious is a state of consciousness. As a result the existence of consciousness presents a challenge to all fundamental theories of reality which do not encompass its existence. Indeed, it has been proposed by some physicists that consciousness plays a role in the very fashioning of physical reality, and in the origin of existence^[9].

On the other hand, the existence of free will is not undeniable. In contradistinction to the case with consciousness, the belief that we have a free will does not in itself indicate that we do indeed have it. Indeed as we discuss in a later chapter ("The Mind Body Problem") not only is there no direct scientific evidence that free will exists, but moreso free willed action is not encompassable within the known laws of nature: by definition it postulates an interaction between the mental realm and the physical realm. Consequently, the existence of free will is disputed by many.

Free will is not a provable fact of existence, and indeed runs counter to some scientific theories. Nevertheless, it has always been the basis for various moral and religious philosophies. The nature of free will has a direct bearing on the definition of right and wrong and of religious and moral obligation, and therefore on the meaning various philosophies attribute to existence.

The 'Outsider' Perspective ^[10]

The simplest way to portray the concepts of moral responsibility, meaning and purpose as intuitively felt by most people is to assume the existence of an 'outsider' to the universe - such as for example a creator - and then determine the scenarios in which these concepts would have meaning from the 'outsider perspective'.

^[11] We shall often turn to this 'outsider perspective' in our discussions, however it will be as a 'pedagogical device', without the intent of implying the actual existence of an outsider. It remains a question though whether the very need of the device of an 'outsider' to construct this implies that the concepts are actually not definable^[12].

It is interesting that 'outsider-relevant' moral responsibility, meaning and purpose is possible only if there exists in the universe a certain type of free will; by a "true free will" in this book we mean one which makes for moral responsibility and purpose possible from the outsider/divine perspective.

[Not only do we define true free will as that which allows for the existence of moral responsibility and purpose, but the reverse is also true: understanding free will can aid us in defining the concepts of moral responsibility, meaning and purpose as we intuit them.]

Of course Genesis presents itself as being written from an outsider perspective, that of the creator. The free will spoken of in the Eden account is of the type which is capable of having meaning to this creator, and it is therefore of the outsider-relevant type we explored. Our understanding of this concept of an outsider-relevant free will can therefore help shed some light on the creation and Eden accounts, and on some of the major issues in religious and Jewish philosophy related to these accounts.

Defining such a free will is however difficult. ^[13]

Many have written of the connection between the existence of free will and the ideas of quantum physics, or of chaos theory, however, as we shall indicate, the type of free will they discuss is perhaps too shallow for the actions generated by such a free will to be outsider-relevant. We shall indicate why we feel that the type of moral responsibility, meaning and free will they ascribe to human existence is not representative of these concepts as most people intuit them.

We are therefore interested in the following double-edged question: If the universe is only as rich in its theoretical substrate (its underlying basis) as present scientific theory allows, can it support the type of free will which makes human moral choice outsider-relevant, which gives human life and the existence of the universe meaning and purpose from the outsider perspective? Conversely, let us for a moment assume that the universe does indeed posses such a free will, so that it is indeed meaningful and purposive from the outsider perspective, and human activity indeed posseses a dimension of moral responsibility from the

External vantage point. What implications are there for physics, for cosmology, for mathematics and philosophy - is the universe as a result necessarily richer, deeper, than as implied by present day scientific models?

We will see that free will must be have a meta-causal or "acauasal" nature - in order for it to be of the outsider-relevant type, and that it is as a result of this that our type of free will is not describable within the ordinary confines of science and logic.

Furthermore, we will see that if such an acausal phenomenon as is the basis of this type of free will exists in the universe, in particular in the workings of the human consciousness, there can be significant ramifications to other areas of scientific interest - particularly to physics and cosmology - and to philosophy as well.

……………….

Chapter 3: Meaning, Purpose and Moral Responsibility

Murderers are not responsible for their actions.

There is no basis for the assumption that humans are more significant than bacteria. Humans are purely physical beings. Human consciousness is irrelevant to the universe- the universe arose by chance and is uncaring. There is no meaning to life and no purpose to the existence of the universe. There is no true creativity, and all will eventually be doable by computers. Humans are simply a member of the animal kingdom rather than being unique.

As the universe arose by chance, humans evolved by chance. The universe began in a big bang and will end in a big crunch, or will dissipate in a heat death.

So sayeth science, and science knoweth all.

The above litany can almost be considered the creed of an atheistic religion. The statements themselves are not necessarily wrong, what is however wrong is that they are opinions or beliefs masquerading as facts. And, perhaps the one statement which is actually false is the last one: "So sayeth science, and science knoweth all." Actually, science says no such thing, as we shall see, and science itself is too careful and aware of its limitations to make the claim that it knows all. We shall see why these are statements of a form of atheistic belief rather than statements of science.

We shall find that at the root of many of these issues is the question of whether human beings possess a 'true free will' - a term we shall define better in later chapters.

Various Universes, Various Perspectives

Are we deluded when we consider our life to have meaning, the universe to have a purpose? Or perhaps the sensation of 'meaning' is a type of human emotion and if we feel that our lives are meaningful then it is true by definition.

On the one hand many of us possess a strong intuitive feeling that there is meaning and purpose, and an intuitive understanding of these concepts. However on the other hand it is often difficult to really pin these concepts down - in particular, to explain them in such a fashion that it is clear to someone who doesn't believe in meaning and purpose.

We will clarify these concepts as we feel they are intuitively understood by trying to isolate the elements which are crucial to the existence of meaning and purpose.

Moral Responsibility and Free Will

[AR: Editing: this quote appeared earlier: where should it be?]

"The man … causation ...a God … punishes … inconceivable … man's actions ..determined ..in God's eyes …cannot be responsible …. inanimate …." A Einstein^[14].

Are we responsible for our actions or can we blame our genes and environment for all our misdeeds? Perhaps we are simply conscious robots falsely believing ourselves to have moral responsibility for our actions and thoughts? In what type of universe could one conclude that we are free, that we are indeed responsible for our actions?

The most sophisticated machine cannot be blamed for its actions even if these bring about the harm of a person, since these action were built into its design - if there is blame, it can only be placed on those who brought about its existence.

Even an animal is not generally held to be blameworthy for its actions. Instead, it is trained to refrain from certain actions, not to teach it morality, but to condition its behaviour. Objects and animals are not considered to be morally aware, and are not considered to be morally responsible for their actions.

This is not solely a question of consciousness and deliberate action. A baby is conscious but is not responsible for its actions, a mentally retarded or severely deranged person may consciously plan an action designed to hurt someone and yet not be morally responsible since their brain is not wired to comprehend moral responsibility, or abstractions such as the pain of another. If one could imagine a machine imbued with a consciousness, a machine which is programmed and built to perform a very specific task, and to be conscious of its actions, no one would imagine to hold this conscious machine responsible for it actions since it was designed to commit those actions.

The crucial element in moral responsibility is therefore not only the consciousness of one's actions, but in addition two other elements: the understanding of moral right and wrong - that is, the possession of a moral intuition - and the ability to choose one's actions - that is, the possession of free will.

For example, if a machine is built to rotate a blade and move about, it will probably kill people. No one would think to blame or punish a clock for having its specially-designed razor-tipped hands rotate about, even if it killed someone. The clock had no choice, rotate its hands is what it must do - not because of an 'obligation' to do so, but rather because the laws of nature allow nothing else - someone used knowledge of the laws of nature to design the clock in such a way that this is what it will inevitably do. Certainly those who brought about its existence etc. are responsible for the deaths, not the machine itself.

Even if the machine is conscious of every action it commits, if it is powerless to change the actions it has been built to do, it would not be considered to have done a moral wrong. If the conscious machine were to believe that it can control matters, it might feel guilty for every transgression. The builders on the other hand would discount the guilt feelings of the machine, since they would be aware that the machine could not choose to do other than what it did.

However, even if the machine was capable of freely choosing its actions, if it had not been programmed to understand the difference between good and evil, although itis indeed responsible for its actions, it is notmorally responsible for them. It is perhaps dangerous, and deliberately so, and one can argue that it is morally defensible to terminate it if necessary to save lives, but it is not evil. This case would be similar to that of a baby who doesn't comprehend that hitting its parent is bad, or to the case of different cultural norms clashing - only if there is both a moral intuition and free will can there be moral responsibility.

Now let us apply what we have discussed to the issue of human moral responsibility.

Humans are conscious, and understand moral wrong and right. However, could it be that humans are conscious robots, no more capable of determining their own behavior than does a clock. Were they perhaps designed by a creator or by evolutionary forces to act in certain ways, and furthermore, designed to be conscious of their actions and thoughts? Were they perhaps even designed to feel that they are responsible for their actions, despite the fact that they are not at all responsible for them? If so, then the feeling that we humans are in control of our decisions and are morally responsible for our actions is a delusion, a delusion programmed into us by the forces which caused us to exist.

The crux of the matter is the question of the existence of free will - whether our brains are machines programmed in a certain predetermined way, or are they capable of true free-willed choice - and this is an issue we shall discuss at length in the next chapter.

Meaning and purpose: We shall now leave the topic of moral responsibility and its dependence on free will to investigate the concepts of meaning and purpose, and we shall find that the issue of free will is central to these concepts as well.

Introduction: The meaning of life, the purpose of existence, the meaning and purpose of the universe as a whole are issues which are outside the purview of science. Science deals with events, and patterns of events - particularly repeatable events; science does not deal with interpretations of the events, nor with interpretations of the patterns of their occurrence.

All scientific observers can agree on the fact that some people feel that life is meaningful. Science can therefore discuss measurable and objective issues such as the neural patterns that form when people think the thought "life has meaning", science can deal with the question of why such thoughts arise in human minds - the causes for this objective phenomena - and why they arise in these people's brains and not in others' brains. However it is not within the purview of science to make declarations as to whether or not there is indeed meaning to life. Generally, dealing with these issues plunges one into the realm of metaphysics and religion rather than of science.

Biblical conceptions: The Bible is written against a background of the deliberate creation of a universe, a universe with purpose, within which life has meaning, and so we can better understand the Biblical account after we have clarified the issue of the meaning of life and the purpose of existence as seen from the perspective of the Bible.

Does the Universe Have a Purpose?

The universe is a collection of objects, not an object in itself - and therefore according to some conceptions of the philosophy of science the concept 'the universe as a whole' is undefined. As a result, in these conceptions it is not appropriate to consider whether the universe as a whole has a purpose for conscious beings.

However, if there exists a perspective from 'outside' the universe, then the question can be discussed whether or not from this outsider's perspective the universe considered as an entity in itself has a purpose. (Entities or events within the universe can be meaningful etc to beings within it, however as a whole, as an entity in itself, the universe can have meaning or purpose only as considered from the perspective of an 'outsider'.)

Does Human Life Have Meaning?

Some philosophically-inclined writers have perhaps poetically stated that the universe is uncaring. Is the universe indeed uncaring? Or perhaps caring? Simply put, since both 'caring' and 'uncaring' are states of mind, the universe - unless it has a mind - can be neither 'uncaring' nor 'caring'^[15]. Of course some people feel deeply that the universe is uncaring, but this is not a contradiction. It's certainly a fact that when confronting life, a feeling is induced in the minds of some people that they express through the words "the universe is uncaring". What is referred to by this is an emotion in a human mind, not an actual state of 'uncaring' by the inanimate universe.

Similalrly: A conscious being can feel meaning or purpose. Objects cannot in themselves 'have meaning', or 'a purpose' - rather, an object can have meaning for a conscious being, and a conscious being can have a purpose for an object^[16]. If we consider the universe as an entity which is not in itself conscious, then it cannot be meaningful or have a purpose in itself, only in respect to some conscious being.

In the same way, it is meaningless to take literally the plaint "life is meaningless", since 'life' is a concept and not a conscious being. Instead one could say that some people have an emotion - similar to despair perhaps - which they express using the image-laden expression "life is meaningless".

However, just as life cannot be meaningless, life cannot be meaningful. The question can only properly be asked in reference to a conscious being - whether the life of some individual or of some species has meaning to that same or other conscious being.

Is there moral repsonsilility?

Some people certainly feel that they or others bear moral responsibility for their actions. It is certainly a statmeent of fact that such emotions or convictions exist in human minds. However what would it mean to say that the moral responsibility exists independently of the conviction in these minds?

Perhaps indeed if a being deeply and honestly believes it has no free will, or no moral responsibility for it’s actions, perhaps any truly compassionate person or God would indeed not hold them responsible. But if a being believes it has moral responsibility for it’s actions, but indeed there is no God, and no Mind outside humanity, and the universe indeed arose randomly without any creator, would we say that the conviction of moral repsonsibility is a delusion? Or does its very existence in that human mind make it true by definition?

Requirements for meaning and responsibility: What has to be true in order for there to be meaning to life? for there to be moral responsibility? Certainly humans are conscious and many feel that their lives are meaningful. Does the fact that a being feels its life to have meaning imply by definition that its life is meaningful. Similarly, is the feeling or conviction of moral responsibility for one's actions all that is necessary in order to consider that one is indeed morally responsible for them^[17].

Conscious Robots

A tape recorder can be prepared to say "I am a tape recorder but one with a consciousness, I experience a meaning to my life, ...etc". Were we to see the operation of such a machine which was designed to repeat the words "I have a purpose in life, my life has meaning", we would not be convinced that it did indeed have a purpose or experience meaning just from the fact that it said it did.

Imagine now that the tape recorder were in fact conscious and could communicate with us, and it would say that it is playing the tape we had inserted into it because it chose to do so, and that it did so chose because it felt it was morally obligated to follow our desires since we were its builders.

However, of course it is a machine and all its actions were designed into it and it operates only according to our instructions, and was actually playing the tape because we had pressed the appropriate button - it had no choice in the matter. We would not hesitate to state that although we recognized the reality of its feeling of choice and of moral responsibility, it was nevertheless clearly deluded in thinking that it had chosen to play the tape, and we would state that moral responsibility is an inappropriate concept in this connection.

If it now claimed that it experienced the feeling of having purpose, of its existence having meaning, we might feel that this was delusionary as well, since it had no control over its actions. We might well feel that it could have a purpose only to us - to play our tapes - but relative to itself it was inappropriate to use the terms 'meaning' and 'purpose', that it was deluded in imagining that its existence had a true purpose in itself, had meaning in itself.

Imagine now that the tape player was designed by us not only to have a consciousness but also to feel a moral obligation to play a tape when we pressed the 'play' button. Further, it was designed to feel that it hadchosen to play the tape because of its sense of moral obligation, and was designed to experience feelings of meaning and purpose when we pressed its buttons. It is also designed to voice these feelings of moral obligation, choice, and meaning and purpose whenever it played a tape. Then, when we would press the button to play a tape we would hear the tape-machine state that it itself was choosing to play the tape. And it was so choosing because it felt morally obligated to do so. And it would say that it felt its existence had meaning and purpose because of its successful grappling with moral dilemmas and choices – for example, its decisions to play the tape in conformance with our command to do so despite its option of deciding not to comply with our command.

We would of course know that it was merely following the program we had designed for it, but we would not deny that it did really feel the feelings it was claiming to feel. Nevertheless we could only conclude that the feelings of moral obligation and choice were delusions. Also, we would feel that the machine's sentiments of meaning and purpose as a result of the playing of the tape - however real they were to the tape-machine itself - were inappropriate at our level of understanding.

That is, an entity's experience of free will and moral responsibility may be dismissed as delusion when there exists a perspective other than that of the entity itself, or where there exists a 'higher level', at which the entity is seen to operate according to a pre-set program without its own volition coming into play.

This is particularly the case where the actions of that entity were determined by the design of the higher-level 'outsider'- in such a case not only are the feeling of choice delusion, and of moral responsibility misguided, but also the feelings of meaning and purpose may be considered inappropriate.

Free Will and Science

Imagine now the following scenario: In a universe without free will, a friend tells us "I have no free will, but my life has meaning" or "this art object (or event) has meaning to me". We know that this friend has no free will, and therefore we know that he was programmed to say this, to feel this. We may acknowledge that to him his life has meaning in the deepest sense, but nevertheless to us his feeling of meaning may not be very meaningful, since we know that his statement is actually the preprogrammed exclamation of a conscious mechanical device^[18].

Similarly, relative to the perspective of a being which had designed us to be conscious, and designed us to experience feelings of moral obligation, choice, meaning and purpose, we are perhaps conscious machines, deluding ourselves no less than the tape-machines in the previous example.

Although human beings claim that they have moral obligations, that their lives have meaning, that their actions are the catalysts of some purpose, one cannot simply assume that humans possess the type of will which validates all this - one which is free from an outsider perspective.

Segue to the next chapter:

There are scientific considerations which militate against the existence of this type of free will; we will discuss this at length in the next chapter.

As was the case with moral obligation, so too here with respect to the concepts of meaning and purpose: the central issue of interest to us is whether humans have a true free will. We shall now turn to physics to see what it has to say about this question.

Chapter 4: Quantum Puppets

and Autonomous Brains:

Determinism, Randomness, Chaos and Free Will

The great mathematician-physicist Laplace, based partly on work done by Newton, presented to the King of France what was then considered to be a complete account of a mechanical universe, operating completely according to fixed 'Laws of Nature'. He was also not without a sense of the theatrical. When asked by the King where God fit into his purely-mechanical model of the cosmos Laplace's immortal reply was "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis".

Introduction

Scientists from the time of Newton and on may well have felt that we may not be in control of our actions and thoughts, that we are indeed deluded conscious machines, puppets of fate, not morally responsible for our actions.

However, quantum physics introduced about seventy years ago, chaos theory and the mathematical notion of incomputability developed more recently, have significantly revised the Newtonian view of nature, and some have proposed that they open the way to the existence of free will.

We intend however to burst that bubble.

Free will can be defined as existing whenever it is felt to exists, but this is not the type of free will we are interested in this book. So too we will show that the type of free will allowed by quantum physics, chaos and incomputability are not the type of free will which interests us here. We are interested only in a free will which would allow an 'outsider' viewing our universe to ascribe purpose and meaning to our existence, and quantum physics and all the rest do not suffice to provide this. Therefore, rather than being based on these, free will of the type we are interested in will have to be based on more radical phenomena.

In some sense, the much-touted shining knight of quantum physics and all the other developments turn out not to be a rescuer but rather a croaking frog; we are left with the fear that when we feel that there is moral responsibility and our actions and lives have meaning, these may be just the delusions of a conscious machine.

Determinism

The workings of the human brain were considered to be machine-like according to the old Newtonian model of nature. According to the world-view prevailing at the time, the state of any physical system at any given moment totally determines the next state of the system - given what the situation is, the entire exhaustive description of all the relevant details, things can happen in only one way. In the same way, at the largest scale, where the entire universe is the system under scrutiny, the state of the universe at any given moment totally determines the next state of the universe.

Following this logic, one can conclude that since each state of the universe is determined totally by the state of the universe at the preceding instant, a chain of cause and effect can be constructed back to the initial instant. If so, the state of the universe at any time is actually totally determined by the initial state of the universe. In this sense, everything that occurs anywhere was inherent in the big bang.

This means that all right and wrong actions committed by people and perhaps all thoughts as well, are actually inherent in the big bang, that humanity cannot control its thoughts or actions - they are all written in to the big bang.

Since there is no unequivocal scientifically accepted evidence that human brains operate outside the realm of physical laws^[19] (i.e. under laws different than those governing the rest of the universe) indeed all human actions and thoughts are the result of natural law rather than human choice.

Einstein: From the quotes above we saw that despite his great sensitivity to ethics, Einstein strongly believed in determinism. Also:

fixed necessity...." "^[20].... the scientist is possessed ….

...........................

Determinism and the Human Brain

[To avoid this slightly technical section, skip to page....]

To understand how human brain states can be considered as determined, let us consider an analogy with a billiard table operating in a deterministic (non-quantum) universe. Imagine striking a ball, and watching it careen about striking others which then collide with yet others, forming a pattern of chain reaction collisions. The entire activity is totally described by the laws of nature - once the first ball is hit, the speed and direction imparted to it totally determine which balls will be hit, to what degree, where they will end up, what chain reaction will be caused. Different initial speeds and directions will result in different overall patterns of chain reaction.

Imagine now that the balls are electrified and glow, with a constantly increasing brightness. Photos are taken of the activity, with not quite fast enough exposure, and then the frames are laid down side by side. Each photo shows a pattern of billiard balls, each ball somewhat fuzzy because the exposure was not quite fast enough. From the photo we can tell where each ball is and from the fuzziness and the fact that the fuzziness is brighter at one end than at the other (the light in the ball was getting brighter all the time), we can tell in what direction the ball is traveling. Each photo therefore captures a particular state of the billiard balls, and the collection of photos captures the development of the states from one to another. The laws of nature totally determine which state shall follow from a given state - the balls have no choice in how to act. Each pattern of balls determines the following pattern unequivocally.

Picture these balls now as parts of the electronic components in a computer, and that each pattern of balls corresponds to a particular pattern of electric activity in the components. Each pattern of electric activity then determines the next pattern unequivocally, forming a chain of patterns. Given any pattern, the next pattern following that in the computer is totally determined. It is not the computer which decides what to do, but rather the components of the computer are forced by the laws of nature and the structure of the computer along a certain pattern. The computer is designed in such a way that the laws of nature will move it along patterns which correspond to logical activity, so that the output is for example a mathematical calculation. Given a particular program and data, and a particular structure for the computer's electronics, every input will have a specific output. Every state of the electronics in the computer can have only one next-pattern, and so on down the chain, so that given the input, there is a unique first-state that leads eventually to a unique last-state, which is the unique result.

Determinism of Human Brain States

We now associate to each pattern of balls a particular thought, so that the changing pattern of the balls corresponds to a chain of thought. If the billiard balls together collectively have a mind, the thought in that mind at any given moment will be that one corresponding to the physical pattern of the balls. The mind of the billiard balls would then be thinking a chain of thoughts, without knowing that the chain of thoughts was determined by the laws of mechanics governing the interactions of billiard balls.

What about the human brain?

The thoughts in a person's mind are affected by the events in the world about them, by memories they have, by other thoughts they have had. According to materialist approaches to the human brain, all these thoughts correspond directly to patterns of electrically active neurons in the brain. The universe including the brain is like the billiard table - imagine that these balls are neurons in the brain, and that each pattern of balls corresponds to a particular pattern of electrically-active neurons. Given a pattern of events in the physical universe including the pattern of electrical activity in the brain, there is only one next-pattern for the brain, just as there is only one next-pattern for the billiard balls. Each pattern of neurons determines the next pattern unequivocally, forming a chain of patterns of neurons.

Therefore if brains operate according to the known laws of nature thoughts are something like patterns of electrically active neurons, and therefore given any thought, the next thought following that in the brain is totally determined. It is not 'the mind' which decides what to think, but rather the brain is forced by the laws of nature along a certain pattern of neurons, and the mind then thinks the corresponding thoughts. One of the thoughts it is made to think is the familiar one that goes something like "I am deciding this of my own free will".....

Every thought in the brain is determined by the prior state of the universe (including the prior state of the brain), and each state of the universe is determined by the prior state of the universe. Therefore the first state of the universe - the big bang - determines all the next states of the universe, and therefore it determines also all the eventual brain states of all the beings who arise in the universe.

Some have maintained that ours is indeed such a universe, but that nevertheless humans have a free will and moral responsibility for their actions:

insert quotes

However, we do not here mean by free will what these writers mean. The type of free will they speak of is not such that an outsider would consider it free, and is not sufficient to support moral responsibility, meaning and purpose from the outsider viewpoint.

In a universe in which brains operate according deterministic laws of nature, all the human actions ever perpetrated, good or bad, all the decisions as to how to act, were not the result of a choice by the perpetrator, but rather they are merely elements in the path of history inherent in the initial state of the universe.

People may of course have an illusion that they possess a free will, and that somehow they have acted in a manner which was not solely the result of natural law. In fact, the complexity of interactions in the brain involved in producing a thought may well preclude any possible method of even computer-aided prediction of a future thought or act^[21], so that this illusion might never be disproven. In such a universe in which thoughts cannot be predicted, we can say that humans have a 'calculationally-free' will; further, if people feel they possesses a free will, we can say that they have a 'psychologically free' will. However in such a universe, there is no 'inherently-free' will: regardless of whether or not thoughts are predictable, or whether or not humans 'feel' free, in actuality humans have no say over what they will think or do - they only think they do.

Quantum Physics and Human Brains

Introduction: The branch of physics which deals with the most fundamental particles and fields known in the universe is quantum physics, and the basic postulates of quantum physics have ramifications to the issue at hand.

Quantum physics, introduced near the beginning of the 20th century, brought with it a drastic change in this deterministic viewpoint (that every event in the universe occurred as an inevitable and necessary result of previous events). Each event was now understood to be able to occur in a number of ways, with the actual way that it does occur left to 'chance'. Despite the fact that chance ruled each individual event, however, when numerous similar events occur, the pattern which emerges resembles the results one would expect from pre-quantum physics.

What of events in the brain, the events which underlie our thoughts and decisions? Of course a full theory of the human brain and of the processes in it is only a distant goal, and neither physics nor physiology can state categorically that free willed processes in the brain are physically possible or impossible. However (many) physicists dealing with quantum physics (have in the past often) assumed that eventually this theory will be able to describe even the human brain, leading them to assume that eventually science may be able to prove that free will does not exist.^[22] The fact that humans believe that they have free will, that they feel that they are exercising a free will in their decisions is generally not considered sufficient indication to postulate that there are processes which are not random in the quantum mechanical sense.

Probabilistic Determinism

In order to understand the basic concepts of quantum physics required here, we shall explore as an example the quantum theory of light. ^[23]

It is a fact of nature that when a beam of light is shone through a slit, it spreads out on the other side of the slit, making a well-defined pattern on a screen placed behind the slit.

It is also a fact of nature that if the light is turned lower and lower (less and less light) there is not a continuous decrease of light, but a decrease in jumps - which means that the light is discrete 'pieces of light'. One can even reduce the beam so low that only one 'piece' of light comes through.

It is also a fact that various pieces of light aimed at the center of the slit, after passing the slit, often lands at different angles away from the center, rather than all hitting the center of the screen, and rather than all hitting at the same angle. There is no way to predict where an individual piece of light will impact. Nevertheless, when sufficient pieces are sent through, the expected pattern begins to assert itself.

Each individual event, though occurring 'at random', nevertheless contributes somehow to a pattern, in the aggregate, which can be exactly determined beforehand^[24]. This combination of random and determined behavior is termed here "probabilistically determined randomness" (PDR) or "probabilistic determinism". However, (Physicists were troubled since)this 'random' aspect seemed at first to be contrary to the 'spirit of physics'. Much inquiry was directed to the question of whether or not the chance aspect was only apparent - ie due our lack of sufficient scientific knowledge and adequate instrumentation - or whether it was an actual physical requirement. (With the accumulation of more experimental evidence)It was shown that indeed the nature of the physical universe is such that intrinsically, at the most fundamental level, events are probabilistic and not deterministic.

…..

MESH: PROBABILISTIC DETERMINISM

Prior to the advent of quantum physics, science believed that every event in the universe occurred as an inevitable and necessary result of previous events. The state of the universe at any one instant was believed to be totally determined by the states of the universe in the past, and in turn the present state totally determined what all future states of the universe would be.

Quantum physics, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, brought with it a drastic change in this viewpoint. Each event was now understood to be able to occur in a number of ways, with the actual way that it does occur left to “chance.” Despite the fact that chance “ruled” each individual event, however, when numerous similar events occurred, the pattern that emerged resembled the results one would have expected using pre-quantum physics.

………………………………….

How do the individual pieces conspire to make the pattern? According to the understanding of science, the path of an individual piece of light, or any other fundamental particle, is not describable in ordinary concepts - only the aggregate is describable. Each microscopic particle travels along a randomly chosen path, and science can predict only the pattern made by many particles, not the path of an individual particle. When there are sufficient paths involved for a statistical statement to be relevant, science can make exact predictions regarding the patterns which will develop. ^[25]

In the same way that in the case discussed above the individual event is random but the overall pattern is determined, quantum physics teaches that all sub-microscopic events occur as a combination of determined and random effects (PDR) - and that any such event can occur in a number of possible ways. According to the theory of quantum physics, there is no way to determine the exact outcome of quantum events; what can be determined is only the overall pattern, ^[26]the relative probabilities of the various possible outcomes.

.........................................

Free Will, Quantum Physics, and Causality

Some writers have claimed that in the same way that determinism seemed to put to rest the idea of free will, quantum physics resurrects it.

Insert quotes

However, although quantum physics posits a new type of causal relationship of events, it is not sufficiently radical an innovation in causality to allow for the operation of free will of the type we are interested in.

According to quantum physics, events occur in a probabilistically determined random manner. If underlying every physical process there are random events, then the result of these events can also be judged to be inherently random.

In terms of the relevance to free will, although it is true that quantum physics reduces the determinism of the earlier physics, what it introduces is randomness instead, and not a freedom of the type suitable as a basis for free willed choice.

If all events at the most basic level of interaction are random in nature there is no room for freedom even in brain events (^[27] AR: Duplication?: If indeed all of nature obeys this type of quantum physics at its most fundamental levels, then free will would be impossible). Therefore if free will does exist, this type of quantum physics cannot be valid as a prescriptive formalism at the most fundamental levels of natural processes.

In order for a true free will to exist, there must not only be more than one alternative available at each free-willed decision point, there must also be a choice of alternative which is made "freely"^[28]. Although according to quantum physics the first condition is possible, the second condition is not - rather than being made by choice, the choice of alternative is not freely willed but rather is random at its most fundamental level. Since a random choice is not a "free" choice, quantum physics of this type is not compatible with free will. That is, if everything including thought is actually governed by quantum physics, by PDR, then true free will is impossible.

MESH

^[29],[30]. To encompass free will there must therefore exist some interaction which has a level of acausality yet more radical than that of quantum physics.

The very concept of free will seems to be undefineable. Also, in order for free will to be conceptualized in a non-self-contradictory manner, in addition to modifying quantum theory to account for free will, one would possibly have to modify the concept of a chain of cause and effect - causality itself - the idea underlying all of science that one event causes another according to some law.

………….

Inherent Randomness and Free Will: Uncertainty as a Limit on Physical Theories

It may however be that quantum physics does not actually conflict with free will as it does not truly require that events are PDR. Quantum theory is perhaps more an expression of limits on what can be known rather than a description of what occurs. This theory states that overall the pattern emerging from large amounts of microscopic events will be identical to that of a random distribution, and that we cannot determine the result of individual events, but it does not describe the individual events themselves. One can claim that according to quantum physics individual microscopic events need not occur in any specific manner - for example 'randomly' - as long as they add up in the end, in the aggregate (the totality), to a random distribution^[31].

In this interpretation, scientific theories can deal only with large numbers of events rather than with individual events. About an individual microscopic event nothing at all can be said, not even that it occurs at random. Rather, one can only say that however it is that these events occur, large amounts of events will in the aggregate form according to a probabilistic distribution.

This would mean that it is not impossible that the individual events can occur in accordance with a free willed decision - there is simply no way science can tell us anything about the individual event and so the speculation or belief that the event occurs in accordance with the choice of a free will can be neither scientifically supported nor refuted^[32].

Although quantum physics can really only make statements about ensembles, if one could extrapolate these to the individual occurrences also, then this 'strong quantum physics' would postulate that all individual events are random, rather than just the aggregate being PDR. If all of nature obeys the strong form of quantum physics at its most fundamental levels, then free will would be impossible. However this version of quantum physics is not currently believed to be valid, and so the question remains open as to the nature of individual events, especially of allegedly-free mental decisions.

We are left nevertheless with an uncomfortable feeling: even though individual events can occur even in a free willed manner quantum physics can still somehow describes statistical distributions of such free willed choices. Although individual decisions are free willed, nevertheless the statistical distribution of results - the number of positive and negative choices etc - is totally predetermined. If all choices are free, how can they possibly conspire together to fit the predetermined pattern?

Insurance Statistics and Free Will

Human activity does seem to follow statistical patterns, with crime and accident statistics being roughly constant. Insurance companies know how many people will die of each disease each year, how many people will be killed in accidents, how many fires there will be; if these events are random, it is interesting that they fall into such clear statistical patterns, but that is the same as quantum physics - random at he individual level, predictable in the aggregate. However, police also know approximately how many murders to expect in a given year. If each of these the events occur in accordance with a free willed choice, it would be rather strange that a large amount of such free choices lead in the aggregate to a determined probabilistic distribution. After all, if the choices are free, what is there to cause them always to form these determined patterns in the aggregate?

Marriages, the taking of vacations, committing murder or other crimes would all seem to be freely willed. In fact if crime is not freely willed, there can be no true responsibility for the crime. On the other hand, it has been observed that the number of murders committed in any one city remains roughly constant, or changes at a certain well defined rate. And the same for marriages, vacationers and so on. If these events are not the result of free willed choice, then nothing probably is, and free will does not exist. On the other hand if they are the result of free willed choice, how is it that in the aggregate free willed choices are so predictable?

This situation is quite mystifying to the proponent of free will, but there are possible answers, such as that the types of people and their situations are distributed in a probabilistic manner, and this is reflected in the results. However, this merely takes the question one step further.

[It may also be that not all actions that we presume are free-willed, but only some of these are: some choices are truly free, and the rest arrange themselves to complete the requisite pattern imposed by quantum statistics. Or that for some reason the statistics of quantum physics are not an accurate reflection of free willed moral decisions, are not valid for free willed events.]

In any event, if one can accept that statistics tell us about the aggregate of criminal decisions and yet these individual criminals are responsible for their individual decisions, ie these were freely taken, then the existence of an overall determinism is not felt by us to be a refutation of the freedom at the individual level - if so, then quantum physics provides an exact analogy to this, describing the overall pattern without dealing with the nature of the individual event.

However strange this combination of freedom and determinism is, we can see that quantum uncertainty and PDR mirror exactly the expected results of free willed behavior as observed in the actual world. Nevertheless as a theory only of the limits of what we can know, and of the overall patterns in the aggregate, quantum physics in this interpretation tells us nothing about individual events and therefore nothing about free will itself other than its overall aggregate behavior.

Quantum physics does not deny the possibility of free will however it in no way provides a theory of how individual decisions are made in a free-willed manner.

The Interaction Underlying Free-Willed Phenomena

What is the mechanism whereby individual free decisions are in fact made? Since quantum theory cannot answer this in this respect it is insufficient as a complete description of nature^[33].

Even if there is true free will even of a statistically limited type so that somehow quantum statistics are not violated, so that quantum physics correctly describes the limit of possible scientific knowledge about the free-willed system, quantum physics is not describing at all the operation of free will, the means whereby free willed choices are made: the very existence of some truly free willed choices requires the existence of interactions far more subtle and basic^[34] than those postulated and dealt with by quantum physics.

If this is the case, then ordinary quantum physics could be considered as having validity limited to non-mental events, or to events in arenas of lesser complexity than the human brain, or as being an approximation to a more fundamental theory just as classical physics is an approximation of quantum physics, or as a theory which tells of the limits beyond which physics cannot enter - limits beyond which lie mental phenomena.

In the early-mid 20th century Bohr proposed that the mental events involved in producing a thought are quantum-level events and so it would be impossible to physically trace mental events with any instrument without interfering with the mental events being traced. If such were the case physics could not hope to describe mental events, and this quantum nature of interactions in the brain would preclude any possible method of prediction of a future thought or act. Consequently an illusion of free will might never be disproved and thus physics could not rule out the existence of free will.

Indeed, it has been proposed that somehow the existence of the illusion may be due to the very phenomenon which ensures that the events in the brain are unpredictable.

However, many disagree because they feel that the processes underlying a thought are too complex to depend on single quantum events and a thought itself is too ordered to depend on a single quantum event, and therefore these processes would be sufficiently macroscopic to resist the disturbance created by a minimally-disturbing measurement. Thus they conclude that physics could eventually describe human thought processes^[35]. Indeed scientists are now perhaps succeeding in tracing individual brain events.

However the interaction underlying free-willed choice may be so subtle that perhaps it is not scientifically describable. Indeed, a scientifically describable free will would probably mean a scientifically predictable free will, which would likely mean that it is not free at all. True free will may by definition be beyond scientific analysis, or 'non-modelable'.

It would therefore seem that if true free will exists, it is necessarily based on interactions fundamentally other than those underlying anything else known to science today, including quantum physics^[36].

Quantum Determinism and the 'Universal History Video Library'

Introduction

According to present scientific understanding, based on the ideas of quantum physics, the state of the universe at any given time determines^[37] not the actual state of the universe at the next instant, but rather determines what the possible next states might be, and also determines the relative probability of each such possible outcome. The actual next-state of the universe is 'chosen' randomly by nature from among the possible next-states^[38]. Therefore, the first state of the universe - namely the conditions obtaining at the initial singularity or the big bang - determines the entire range of quantumly possible future states of the universe.

Would it be possible to predict the future? If all the laws of nature were known, then it might be possible to predict the future development of any physical system^[39] to some degree. For example, given the conditions at the big bang, all the possible future states of the universe could be known. However, due to the randomness inherent in physical processess, as described by quantum physics, the actual future state is chosen at random from the possible future ones, and it cannot be known in advance which one will be chosen.

One could therefore say that if a sufficiently powerful computer is given the design for the big bang, all the minute details of all its possible future histories can be known - however the one actual history which would result from among all the possible ones would be unknown.

[There is the possibility however that the computations would prove to be so complex that for a computer to be powerful enough to perform the calculations it would have to be larger than the whole universe. In such a case, one could say that prediction is quantitatively impossible, and such a quantitative limitation could also be interpreted as a qualitative limitation. If instead of prediction before the fact one demands only knowability, so that a computation which takes longer than the real time development qualifies, .....So it may be that only an outsider computation can be qualified even to retrodict. However there is no way of knowing if the concept of an outsider is meaningful at all.]

Actualization of A Particular Universe-History

Let us assume that for a particular big bang there are for example 100¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰ possible future histories differing significantly from each other^[40], and that all the details of all these histories are recorded in the computer and labeled from one to 100¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰.

If such a big bang were to be created, its future history would be identical to one of the recorded and labeled histories, however it would not be known which one of these it will act out. Since the big bang would develop according to the laws of quantum randomness, the choice of which history would appear would be decided randomly, as though by the toss of a die. Indeed, one toss of a die with 100¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰ sides, or choosing one number from 1 to 100¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰, is the same as the combination of random choices produced by the quantum randomness of the developing universe. The development of the universe from a big bang to its final conclusion is essentially the same as if the big bang had tossed a die and chosen its entire future history^[41].

The import of this is different when it is realized that there are ramifications to the question of whether humans are the playthings of fate, or are masters of their own fate. If brains operate under laws no different than those governing the rest of the universe, then every decision in any brain, every thought, is simply a pattern of electrically-active neurons - or more fundamentally, a particular combination of elementary particles. According to quantum physics, each thought - each pattern of electrically active neurons - has various possible next-states rather than only one, however these states are those decided by the laws of nature rather than by the mind of the person whose brain is being considered, and the decision as to which of these states is activated is left to chance. Thus, for each thought or sensory input in the brain, there are various possible next-thoughts, and one of these is actualized, 'chosen at random by nature'. In other words, every time that a person decides to carry out a certain action, the decision to do so is simply one of the possible such decisions that nature chose at random from among all the possible decisions^[42]. The mind has control neither over the range of possible decisions, nor over the choice as to which decision is chosen

We could then say that whichever future is realized from among the quantumly-possible ones inherent in the initial universe state, all the human actions, thoughts and decisions contained in that history are the result of natural law rather than human choice, They are all simply elements in the path of history that nature chose at random from among all the possible history paths that were inherent in the initial state of the universe.

The illusion of possessing a free will which transcends natural law and quantum randomness in some measure might never be disproved, especially since only probabilities can be predicted.

In a universe governed by the laws of physics as we know them, as soon as the big bang exists, all future quantumly-possible histories are written therein - any conscious being in such a universe is but a puppet acting out the particular history randomly chosen by nature from among all the possibilities. All events which occur in such a universe, all actions seemingly initiated by the conscious beings, are in actuality attributable to the initial state of the universe, the laws of nature, and randomness.

If humanity exists in a universe without free will, then even if humans are convinced that they bear moral responsibility for their actions, they are puppets who falsely believes they pull their own strings - people can no more decide whether to be 'good' or 'evil' than they can decide whether or not to be born. All their actions are written into the fabric of the universe and its laws, and they are not responsible for their actions or thoughts.

Of course people could always define themselves as 'free' if they feel free. Whether this is only a subjective perspective, or can be considered objective is discussed in the next chapter.

Chaos, Unpedictability and Freedom

Many writers have intimated that the results of chaos theory are relevant to the question of free will, just as others before them had claimed that quantum physics is significant in that respect.

Insert quotes

In this chapter we will analyze those aspects of chaos theory of relevance to this question, and show that it is actually of no relevance to free will as defined by us.

Chaos and Instability

In some situations, a large effect can result from a small cause - for example if a train is balanced on the edge of a precipice, a relatively small push might tumble it down. In this way, due to an inherent instability in the situation, the effect of the small cause can be 'multiplied' far beyond what it would achieve otherwise.

Weather conditions are very sensitive to small causes. A sneeze creates a tiny breeze which can divert a section of air which then causes.....etc etc until a thousand miles away the resulting chain of events is sufficient to nudge a wind pattern into a cyclone formation, which then destroys a town.

The situation is chaotic in the sense that every instant new small causes join the fray, multiplying up and constantly changing the pattern. On the other hand, when a small nudge gives the final twist to a strong wind changing it into a cyclone, the small cause has given rise to a very ordered effect - changing an unordered wind into a circular pattern with a life of its own.

Prediction and Free Will

As long as it is impossible to predict who will sneeze when, and all other such small causes, it is impossible to completely predict the weather. The weather is 'unstable' in the sense that it is very sensitive to small causes. Similarly, many physical systems are sensitive to small causes, and due to the 'multiplication' of small causes in these systems, and the many possible small causes which can affect them, it is almost impossible to predict what will happen to these systems. Chaos theory studies systems in which there is a multiplication of small causes, and also the emergence of ordered patterns from unordered ones via small causes.

In some systems, even if it is known exactly which small causes are present, and how they affect the system, it is still practically impossible to predict the result since the calculations are so difficult. A supercomputer would be required for the computation, and even then, the computation would likely take so long that the result would arrive after the event occured, giving a 'prediction' only after the fact.

In some instances, it may be that even if in order to study a certain event the rest of the universe were utilized to construct a universal computer, the 'prediction' could not be made faster than the occurrence of the event being studied. In such a case the event is quantitatively unpredictable. Perhaps one could even consider it to be unpredictable in principle, a more qualitative statement.

Would we say that such a system exhibits 'free will' because it is unpredictable? Certainly in the sense that we will define free will, this will not qualify, since the fact that the 'prediction' can be made at all means that the system developed according to well-defined patterns and laws rather than being free. The fact that no prediction could be made, even if this is so in principle, does not affect this judgment.

Quantum Chaos

We now add in quantum physics to the picture. As we saw, according to quantum physics microscopic events occur at random in inherently unpredictable ways. In unstable systems, these random microscopic events are multiplied up into large scale events, so that there is an added element of unpredictability in such situations. On the one hand it is in principle impossible to predict the small causes if they are quantum random, and on the other hand - due to chaotic instability - it may be in principle impossible to predict the multiplied effect of these small causes.

Are such events 'free-willed'?

In our definition they are not, since they are fundamentally no different than other random quantum events - except that these random microscopic effects are multiplied into large scale random events. They are not free, they are merely unpredictable - their unpredictability derives from a combination of randomness and calculational complexity rather than from an inherent 'freedom'.

If producing a thought involves (quantum) chaos, so that no prediction of a thought or act will be possible, the illusion of a transcendent free will might never be disproved; we could say that humans have a 'calculationally-free' and a 'psychologically free' will without this implying the existence of an 'inherently-free' will.

Thus chaos whether of the deterministic or quantum variety does not give rise to freedom, only to unpredictability and the illusion of free will, which is irrelevant to moral responsibility will, and therefore it has no fundamental relevance to our discussion in this book.

Incomputability

In mathematical theory, there is a concept called 'incomputability' which has some relevance to the issue of free will. It has been found that.......

INSERT DESCRIPTION OF INCOMPUTABILITY

There have been speculations that incomputability may not be merely a mathematical curiosity, but that incomputable physical processes might exist as well. (See Komar, Pour-El etc.) Recently, Roger Penrose has written books with the speculation that quantum gravity may turn out to be such an incomputable physical process, and he has further speculated that this will provide a basis for free will. However, we can see that for the type of free will which is of interest to us here, incomputability in not sufficient.

Incomputability by itself is not sufficiently radical to support an inherent free will. Instead, one can see that free will must of course be based on an incomputable process, however incomputability alone guarantees only non-predictability, but is not sufficient to provide the freedom of a true inherently-free will. It is interesting nevertheless to see how novel ideas in mathematics stretch out conceptions of what is possible in the physical universe, and even if they are not sufficient to found on them a theory of free will, they do pave some of the stones along the path.

Inherently Free Will, Morality, Purpose and Meaning

If all brain processes are PDR human actions would be determined/random at the same level as the irruption of a volcano or the sting of a bee, and as the rising and setting of the sun. Because volcanoes do not have a choice as to how to act, we do not consider the volcano to have moral responsibility to prevent danger from its lave flows, nor do we describe it as evil if it causes death and destruction. We do not feel that the sun is good or bad, rather that its effects on us are sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful.

If human brain processes are PDR, humans have no choice in the decision as to which actions their brains will have the illusion that it is 'choosing' to do, and so neither the worst and most murderous dictators nor the best and most generous and religious saints are responsible for their actions, and therefore they cannot truly be described as 'evil' or 'holy'. In such circumstances, most people would feel that the concept 'moral responsibility' would lose most of its meaning. If humans are puppets of PDR, most people would agree that there is no true meaning to their lives, and if all follows from the big bang and the laws of nature, and from randomness, most would feel that there is no deep purpose to the existence of the universe.

However, even for a PDR universe a being can argue that if it feels it is morally responsible for its actions then it is so by definition. Whether this can be considered an objective definition or not is discussed in the next chapter. In any case, the type of moral responsibility, meaning and purpose which can be defined in a PDR universe is not the type which most people intuitively mean in our universe.

All this changes if there is true free will. Free will is radically other than all other interactions, and if humans possess free will, then a radical difference exists between the actions of man and that of the rest of the universe. If humans possess an 'inherently free' will they can decide on their activity and thoughts in a partially autonomous manner; using free will^[43] a human can free themselves from the deterministic/random universe and initiate activity (partially) independently of the prior state of the universe.

Even if all else operates in accordance with the ordinary laws of physics, free-willed decisions by definition do not. The brain processes involved in making decisions between moral alternatives of right and wrong are in this view unique and significant in that they are autonomous, and are perhaps the only non random/deterministic processes in the universe. In a universe with free will, human actions can be attributed to the perpetrator of the action, and not to the universe, nor to a creator. Therefore, in such a universe, it is not meaningless to claim that man may have a moral responsibility to choose the good over the evil. In a universe with free will, there is the potential for meaning and purpose.

The Creation and Eden Account

It is the creation of this type of universe and with this type of free will which is presented in Genesis.

To understand the creation and Eden accounts, one must understand the perspective from which they are presented - that of the creator of the universe. Thus, we must understand what relevance human free will would have to the issues of moral responsibility, meaning and purpose as considered from the perspective of the creator of a universe. We shall consider this idea in the next chapter.

Conclusion

If as postulated by science all physical systems including the brain operate according to the known laws of nature - quantum chaos, entropy increase and so on - then we are indeed conscious robots, with no control over our actions and thoughts, only the illusion of control. We may be satisfied with this illusion, and with the sense of moral responsibility, and of meaning and purpose, afforded us by this illusion, some may find it satisfying even if they realize that it is an illusion, and define free will as existing as long as they feel they are free.

There is after all no contradiction to natural law involved in a creature finding satisfaction in a known illusion - indeed if most people are in this category then one can see in this mass satisfaction with illusion the operation of a law of human psychology.

In the next chapter we shall investigate what subjective or objective criteria can be put forward in various scenarios for judging whether beings can have moral responsibility, whether their life can have meaning, whether a universe can have a purpose - and what type of free will would be necessary for such definitions to be valid.

………………..

Appendix 1: Quantum Field Theory and the Human Brain

Ten subjects answered an ad of a pschologist - the typical student-lure of "earn $20 by participating in a one hour experiment". They are milling about in the room while the psychologist peers at them through a one-way mirror. The experiment is meant to analyze 20 emotion-categories of interest. If each person will display only one emotion during that hour, then only 10 emotions maximum will be observed. In fat, it may be that some of the participants will have the same emotion and so only 8 or fewer of the 20 emotions will be on display. Scratch that experiment.

Clearly to study an ensemble (an aggregate) one needs at the very least as many participants as there are states. And since some may be duplicates, likely are, one needs perhaps twice the amount of participants as there are states. And if one wishes to study several examples of the same state in order to find patterns, then one need have many times the amount of participants as there are states.

Similarly in physics. Quantum physics can make statements only about aggregates of particles rather than individual particles, and the same for complicated systems of interacting particles; quantum physics can deal only with aggregates of systems of interacting particles rather than an individual system of interacting particles. Since quantum field theories can only consider large amounts of similar systems rather than individual systems, for there to be a quantum field theory of a specific type of system, there must exist large amount of such systems (an 'ensemble' of such systems).

What does 'large amounts' mean in this context? Imagine a system with ten million possible different states. Having two systems or one hundred such systems is not sufficient. For the ensemble to give an adequate representation, and be useful for the purposes of quantum field theory, there must be many more than ten million such systems. There must be enough systems in the ensemble so that one can assume that each possible state is represented a few times. That is, there must be many more systems in the aggregate of systems than there are states in each individual system.

A bunch of non-interacting entities, no matter how many, can be considered individually, and the theory of the bunch of them can be obtained as a simple result of the theory of an individual one. For example, a theory of a gas of particles can often deal with the component particles as non-interacting, and the result is that the system is very simply described, even if it has trillions upon trillions of component particles.

The brain is highly complex, however this is not because it has many neurons, but rather due to the fact that - as distinct from the case of an aggregate composed of non-interacting parts as in the case of the gas described above - the brain has very many interconnections between its component neurons.

It may be that a thought involves billions of interconnecting neurons, and that to form a scientific theory of thought, one has to study systems of billions of interconnected neurons. These interconnections can form in many different ways, giving rise to different brain states, each brain state corresponding to one particular configuration of interaction between the billions of interconnected neurons.

Some of the brain states will be essentially similar, but many of them will be significantly different from each other. There are possibly many trillions of different possible brain states or thoughts - or at least thoughts differing from each other in significant ways. Thus, one needs to study systems (of billions of interconnected neurons) which can have many trillions of different states. However, to study a system which has trillions of different states, one needs an ensemble of many trillions of systems.

According to physicist D. Christodoulou^[44], since there are more brain states in one brain than there are brains in the world, no ensemble of brains can be used to construct a field theory of brain interactions. As a result, standard physical theory may prove inadequate to the task of ever formulating a scientific theory of brains and therefore of thoughts. Therefore, standard physical theories will never be proven to apply to the brain, and there will remain the logical possibility that there may exist phenomenon in the brain - such as free willed interactions - which exist nowhere else^[45].

deleted from previous ch bec of ref to outsider. Should these be reimserted somewhere?

We do so by constructing different cosmic scenarios - universes with or without free will, with or without a creator - and seeing if our intuition can point up which types of universes would or would not have meaning and purpose to an 'insider' and to an 'outsider'.

there can be meaning to human life from an outsider's perspective, for example the perspective of the creator of the universe, especially one who has brought about the existence of the universe for some purpose.

We shall first analyze scenarios where humans play the part of 'outsider', and then adapt the discussions to the case where the humans are the subjects and the perspective is that of an 'outsider' to the physical universe, in particular the perspective of the creator of the universe.

What however would be the perspective of the creator on this charade? Would a PDR universe seem purposive to its creator, would human activity have meaning, would the creator consider humans to be morally responsible for their actions and thoughts?

What if humans in fact possess a free will in an otherwise PDR universe, how would this change matters?

Chapter 5:

Designer Universes, and Purposeful Existence

Albert Einstein^[46]: [AR: Editing: These quotes were presented earlier: should they be here or there or both?]

"[… existence of …. omnibeneficient …. weaknesses...

[I]f this being is omnipotent…. men responsible …. goodness …."

Introduction: We have seen that without free will, there can be no intuitively unambiguous moral responsibility, meaning and purpose. We then saw that science seems to negate the possibility of the existence of a truly independent free will. Instead there is raised the possibility that we only feel that we have free will. Indeed, as a result of science's seeming 'nay', some - including perhaps Einstein - have defined free will in this way.

In spite of this, we will try to define a free will which is in consonance with our intuitive understanding of what a free will is.

It turns out that the particular type of free will, moral responsibility, meaning and purpose which we intend here is most easily illustrated by appeal to a particular model: assuming the existence of an entity 'outside' our universe and then finding what conditions have to be filled in order that humans have moral responsibility, and the universe have a purpose, from the perspective of this 'outsider'.

We will then claim that whether or not such an outsider exists, only the existence of these conditions give true meaning to these concepts, the meaning we intuit for them.

Biblical application: A second motivation for considering an outsider perspective is that we are concerned with the creation and Eden accounts, and of course the Bible in its traditional understanding presents itself as having been transmitted from a being "outside" the physical universe, and refers to the transmitting entity as the creator of the universe itself. Therefore when analyzing the issues of moral responsibility, the meaning of existence and the purpose of the universe as seen from the Biblical perspective, we must consider this "outsider's" perspective.

The Outsider's Perspective

What would an 'outsider' mean in our scenario? If by definition the word 'universe' includes all that physically exists, it is meaningless to speak of the existence of more than one universe, and therefore one could not meaningfully refer to a being inhabiting 'another' universe. Similarly, if 'universe' includes all, it would be meaningless to posit the existence of a being inhabiting a realm physically 'outside' of the universe. In addition even if 'universe' only includes our physical existence and there is a being who is 'outside' this universe, if it is truly an 'outsider' it could not interact with the universe and therefore could not perceive events within it, so that the term 'outsider's perspective' is self-contradictory.

One could of course speak intuitively of such an 'outsider perspective', but because of the inherent self-contradiction, there is no guarantee that the conclusions reached are not nonsense. Attempts can be made to define the 'outside' in mental or spiritual terms, however any being existing in a non-physical realm would perhaps be unable^[47] to interact with the beings in a physical realm.

The Biblical Perspective

From the Biblical perspective the creator does not exist in physical space, inside or 'outside' the universe, and so is an outsider with respect to the physical space-time of the universe, but is at the same time aware of all that occurs within the universe (and indeed intervenes in the occurrence of events within it^[48]).

Whatever the problems with defining 'an outsider's perspective'^[49], the Bible represents itself as being presented from such a perspective, and therefore to understand it as it was meant, it is best considered from within such a perspective. Whether or not such a perspective can be rigorously defined is not important in this context - what is relevant is to consider what might be the intent of the Biblical accounts. In our interpretation, the Bible is saying in effect "use your intuition to imagine the perspective of an outsider, and then look at the Bible as presented from such a perspective."

Designer Big Bangs

Perhaps we can develop some intuition regarding what would be the outsider perspective of a creator of our universe, by analyzing the outsider perspective of humans in a similar relational situation - that of a creator of a universe.

Some of the recent articles in professional physics journals have titles like 'can a universe be created in the lab?': future technologies are already being discussed which will produce sufficient energy concentrations to cause space-time to develop bumps which could break off to form other universe.

Humanity might yet one day find itself in the role of creator, designing big bangs, and might then find itself as the 'outsider' relative to this new universe. We can attempt to develop some intuition regarding the outsider perspective of the creator of our universe by speculating as to what would be the outsider perspective of humans relative to a universe they had created.

A Quantum-Determined Universe: The Human Outsider Perspective

To illustrate our conception of the concepts of free will meaning and purpose we will assume here a scenario in which humans with a super computer can arrange for the production of conditions such that a big bang emerges^[50].

Given the design for the laboratory-induced big bang, all its possible future histories can be computed on the super-computer; however, choosing the history to appear would need to be decided randomly.

Essentially then, from the perspective of the humans forming the big bang once the design of the big bang is known all the possible future histories can be computed. The only unknown is which one of the possibilities will emerge. Instead of actually creating the big bang and allowing it to develop for billions of years, the same informational effect can be obtained by simply throwing a suitable die, saving all the bother of actually creating the big bang, and waiting about to see how it would develop to the end^[51]. Indeed one can consider the entire unfolding of the universe's history from a big bang to its final conclusion as completely equivalent to one individual throw of a die - as if 'Nature' had tossed a die and chosen its entire future history.

Effectively, once it is decided on what should be the design of the big bang, all is known except the outcome of the one die-toss. If humanity ever gets to this stage, where not only can universes be created, but all their potential outcomes be completely specified, then creating universes and watching their development would be no more interesting than rolling dice. It would be far more reasonable to roll dice for this purpose than to create a big bang and wait about for its inevitable though random development.

Free Will, Meaning and Purpose: A Creator's Perspective

One can imagine that quantumly determined universe can be designed to eventually produce conscious beings, all according to the natural law operating in that universe.

If such a universe were to be created, then from the creator's perspective there would be no greater meaning to the actions of conscious beings in that universe than to the motion of a stone or an atom, since all of these would simply be results of the same natural law.

We will consider here a scenario which is fundamentally different than that of the outsider scenario considered previously. Here we consider a creator who is not merely an outsider, and is not only the fashioner of the universe from preexistent laws of nature, but rather is the very source of the natural law and the initial conditions of the universe. In this scenario creation is a result of the creator's free willed decision to create, and the laws and initial conditions are chosen.

In such a case all actions of the created conscious beings and all other events in the universe follow from these created laws of nature and initial conditions, and are directly attributable to the creator rather than to the created entities. If there is a being which bears moral responsibility for the events in the universe, for the actions perpetrated by one being on another, it would be the creator, and not the beings themselves.

If the beings which inhabit a universe do not possess an 'inherently free' will, then all acts and thoughts in that universe derive solely from the creator's own initial act of creation of the universe and its laws of nature, and from the randomness of quantum events. Their unfolding may be predictable, or just random, and therefore of little interest to the creator.

That is, in a universe without free will, the actions of conscious beings are no more meaningful to the creator of the universe than the motions of a mote of dust and there is no inherent moral activity. For an omniscient creator who can predict all possible paths of universe development, watching the actual history unfold is informationally equivalent to rolling dice.

Free Will, Meaning and Purpose in a Quantumly Determined Universe:

The "Insider's Perspective"

Scenario: A being feels that its life is meaningful, but from the outsider perspective it is not in control of its destiny, and events proceed as they do according to the dictates of natural law and randomness, rather than as a result of free willed decisions. Despite living in a PDR universe as a conscious robot created by a deity the being has the illusion that it possesses a free will, and feels that its actions are meaningful^[52], that it is morally responsible for its actions.

Ironically, although the deity has no particular purpose in creating this universe and for the existence and actions of this being, nevertheless the being believes deeply that its actions are contributing to the achievement of some purpose related to the moral choices of humanity or to a course of history affected by human freely willed choices. Is it true by definition that its life is in fact meaningful since it feels it to be so - or is it necessary that there be something else besides the feeling of meaning?

We might regard with pathos the feeling this being has of moral responsibility and meaningful existence, of a great purpose behind the pattern of event; from our outsider perspective in considering such a universe, we might feel that it was somehow deluded.

We would agree that although the events in that universe were automatic, they can seem meaningful to the beings within the universe, the "insiders". However since to hypothetical 'outside observers' their universe is not meaningful, perhaps the meaning of their universe is in some sense subjective rather than objective^[53].

A Created Universe With Free Will : The Outsider's Perspective

Since a morally-relevant free will operates neither according to randomness nor according to deterministic law, it is not the same as the operation of a machine, nor equivalent to the toss of a die. ^[54] Thus moral activity resulting from free willed choices cannot be predicted, and cannot be simulated, and therefore it has the potential to be inherently interesting^[55].

That is, a universe which evolves beings possessing brains of a complexity such that they can support a phenomenon as unique as free-willed consciousness can have a history which is of interest even to the designer of the big bang from which the universe evolved, since the moral activity is autonomous, deriving from the moral beings themselves, rather than from the design of the big bang^[56].

Only while the universe is a 'moral universe' with freedom of development - as opposed to a random/determined universe - is it likely to be of interest to a purposive creator. Therefore the development of the big bang from its initial state until the emergence of moral beings would be no more interesting than that of the big bangs which would not produce moral beings. The interesting action of a universe would begin with the first free-willed intelligent choice in it, and true history would begin then. Indeed, in a universe designed to produce moral beings, the prior events involving determined and random interactions of physical and biological systems would be irrelevant.

Moral Beings and Purposive Activity

Moral activity could begin only upon the emergence of the first true 'moral being' - a being possessing sufficient intelligence and foresight to understand the consequences of its actions, equipped with a moral sense to know the difference between good and evil actions, and endowed with the free will to choose between the two. Clearly also there can be no moral choice in a being lacking consciousness and self-consciousness.

With regards to our universe, inasmuch as is known to us, life exists here on earth^[57], where as the eminent evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky writes, self awareness is quite possibly unique to human beings:

"Self-awareness is, then, one of the fundamental, possibly the most fundamental characteristic of the human species. This characteristic is an evolutionary novelty: the biological species from which humanity has descended had only rudiments of self-awareness, or perhaps lacked it altogether."

Self-awareness has seemingly arisen only in humans, and although not everyone might agree on definitions of intelligence, consciousness, morality, and so on, and on how much these may be present in a rudimentary form in 'the species from which humanity has descended', certainly no-one would consider any animal - even the highest ape - as morally responsible for its actions ^[58]. No species other than man seems to posses the requisite combination of free will, intelligence, and analytic ability which can allow us to consider their actions as freely chosen, and thus the feeling that moral consciousness seems to have arisen only in the human species.

According to Darwin^[59] - in agreement with earlier writers:

"of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important."

The emergence of moral consciousness was a turning point in the evolutionary process itself and biologically speaking, due to it humans can be classified as a completely new phenomenon qualitatively different than any evolutionary forebears.

Free Will, Moral Responsibility, Meaning and Purpose

From our discussions it emerges that the type of free will, moral responsibility, meaning and purpose which is intuited by most people is of the type which would exist in a created universe with true free will. In this type of universe, these concepts have meaning not only from the insider perspective but from the outsider perspective as well. When we will refer throughout this book to free will, we will mean it to be of this type - irrespective of whether there does or does not actually exist any 'outsiders' to our universe.

Biblical perspective: The Creation and Eden Accounts

The type of moral responsibility meaning and purpose which is closest to the author's intuition - and perhaps closest to that intuited by most people - is exactly that which would exist if there was a creator, with these concepts defined according to this creator's outsider perspective. Thus the metaphysical scenario which is implied by what are for many of us the most basic human intuitive concepts actually conforms to the scenario presented in the Bible - namely the existence of a creator who designed the universe to fulfill some purpose.

We are therefore interested in the Biblical perspective on these concepts, and on how the form and content of the accounts reflect this perspective.

The Bible presents itself as having been communicated by a being 'outside' - in this case that of the creator of our universe - and for the creation and Eden accounts to be comprehended as they are presented in the context of the rest of the Bible, it is necessary to view them from this perspective.

We have seen that until the emergence of humans there was no moral activity on earth, no free willed choice. Therefore from the Biblical perspective of the creator of a purposive universe, until the emergence of free-willed conscious beings capable of moral choice there was no true purpose to the existence of the universe^[60]. Creation of a universe would not take place if moral beings would not be part of it, indeed creation is designed so as to produce moral beings. Therefore, from the Biblical perspective, the creation of the universe is directly related to the emergence within it of a moral being

This relationship between creation and the emergence of moral beings is reflected in the literary structure of the opening accounts in Genesis. The creation account describes the creation of the universe and the Edenaccount relates of the emergence of moral humanity: while from most perspectives these are two very different and not directly-related subjects, from the Biblical perspective as understood here these two accounts in the Bible are intimately related, and this interdependence can explain why the two accounts are juxtaposed.

In the Biblical perspective, the universe was designed specifically to produce moral beings, and this explains the preoccupation of Genesis with the moral activity of humans^[61] after the Eden account - for example with the stories of Noah, Abraham, Joseph and so on. The universe was created for a purpose, and events within it can have objective meaning because a non-random, non-deterministic element involving intelligent activity - free will - was injected into the universe.

The universal history of interest to the creator commences with the emergence of the first moral beings - the events referred to in the Eden account - and thus the beginning of Genesis serves as an introduction to the history of humanity, rather than as a history of the formation of the sun, or of the dinosaurs, or even of pre- moral humanity.

As to the creation account, the formation of galaxies or of atoms or mountains and of other beings, whether dinosaurs or apes or Neanderthalers, are not of relevance to the moral perspective. Only moral beings are relevant and therefore only they are of direct interest to the Biblical perspective, and therefore only they are of necessary inclusion in the Biblical creation and Eden accounts. These accounts describe in general the overall aspects of creation, the emergence of various species of fish, land animals, birds, the formation of the sun, moon and stars, as background to the most important event from the perspective of the creation account, the emergence of moral beings.

We are not chauvinists, and do not insist that we are the most significant entities in the cosmos (see discussion later in the book re alien civilizations, and Rambam's views on the significance of other intelligences), however from the perspective of the creation account directed towards humanity it is humanity which takes central stage. We are dust, star dust, but our potential for conscious moral activity makes us more significant - even from the outsider perspective - than all the stars in the universe.

Appendix I: Quantum Cosmology and The "Outsider's Perspective".

We are interested in the question of how a physical being who is in some sense 'outside' the physical universe we inhabit might consider the question of the purpose of our existence and of the universe as a whole. We will explore the limits of science and logic in this respect to obtain a feeling for what might be the perspective of a partial outsider, and when these reach their limits we will use intuition to develop this idea further to obtain an intuitive picture of a 'full outsider's' perspective.

To obtain the closest thing to an 'outsider's' perspective in science we turn to modern cosmology. This area of physics explores - among other topics - scenarios of non-interacting universes and superspaces of many universes, constructs which arise from some of the implications of quantum physics as applied to the laws of general relativity. It is not clear what it means that there is another universe outside our own. However, if indeed there is meaning to statements about 'other universes', then there may be meaning to statements regarding the meaning or purpose of our universe as seen from the perspective of a being 'outside' our universe.

We will here explore the concepts of meaning and purpose as seen by beings inside and outside some universe, and apply these insights to a consideration of the creation and Eden accounts as related from such an outsider perspective.

General Relativity and Space-Time Curvature: The theory of special relativity teaches that space and time are intermingled, as are matter and energy. Furthermore, the general theory of relativity shows that matter-energy causes space-time to 'bend'. Indeed, all that we observe as the operation of 'the law of gravity' is actually a manifestation of the curvature of space-time in the presence of matter-energy. For example, when we let go of an object it falls to the ground, and we say that this is due to the force of gravity. In actuality though, the motion is due to the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of the Earth, by its matter-energy.

Indeed, in considering the physical universe as a whole, all its matter-energy and all its space-time, there is a relationship between the overall curvature of space-time and the total universal content of matter-energy. If there is more than a certain density of matter-energy, the entire space-time of the universe can be so affected that it curves in on itself so tightly that it forms a ball - closing in on itself. In such a case, travelling in any direction eventually leads back to the starting point, and the universe becomes a finite entity even though it has no boundaries or ends.

This is vastly different than the similar-sounding statement that travelling on the earth in any direction brings one eventually back to one's starting point - the earth is curved, and it is evident to anyone who sees the horizon and understands its implication, or who is watching from space, that this is what would happen. However, there is no vantage point from which space-time could be seen to be a ball - we are all part of the universe, and could never go 'outside' of it to see that it is curved^[62].

Cosmology; Cosmology is the study of the entire universe as a system, and of how this system developped over time, and perhaps of its origin as well.

If one considers the entire matter-energy-space-time of the universe as a unit, the equations of general relativity show that the space-time is dynamic - that is, the size and curvature of space as a whole changes. From observation - together with extrapolations based on certain assumptions - it seems that the universe is expanding, and indeed the theory of general relativity predicts that this should be the case. If so, then long ago it was far smaller than it is now, and at some point the entire univere was the size of an electron, and even smaller.

Quantum Cosmology: According to the laws of quantum physics, at the smallest scale of existence - for example that of the electrons and protons of which all atoms are composed - the ordinary concept of defining a location or a state of motion is meaningless. It is simply incorrect to say that a particular electron has a particular location and particular state of motion - or state of rest - at a particular time. Predictions based on calculations which assume that they do, will always turn out to be incorrect when compared to experimental results. Instead one must apply the quantum theory, which then provides exactly correct predictions.

An interesting application of quantum physics results when one considers the initial state of the universe, at the time of the big bang, when the universe was very small. At such a scale, the ordinary concepts of location and state of motion are inapplicable as quantum physics teaches, but also due to the fact that the system contains so much matter-energy - indeed it is the system containing all existent matter-energy - the considerations of general relativity theory are indispensable as well. Theories which apply quantum physics to the universe as a whole are called quantum cosmologies.

Although there is as yet no successful theory of quantum cosmology, many very interesting partial results have been obtained. For example, it is clear that the very concept of space-time must be revised when dealing with the universe in its initial stages, and space-time could have developed all sorts of strange bumps an holes in those stages. One of the possible implications of this is that the initially existent space-time split into various pieces - creating 'baby universes' - and perhaps these did the same. Thus, there may be some sense in which there are different separate universes, which are inaccessible to each other now, but which derive from a common source.

Possibly, these universes can be accessible to each other at some level beyond that of ordinary space-time, for example via the mental realm of thought or intuition, the level on which reside such mental concepts as meaning and purpose.

Appendix II: An Outsider's Perspective

It is not clear whether universes which separated from each other can ever interact, whether a being existent in one such universe can communicate with another in a different universe, or can even obtain information about the existence of any othr universe. If not, then the concept of 'other universe' is meaningless. However if physics implies that these are existent, then by definition there is information about these other universes, and the possibility arises that perhaps more information can also be available^[63].

Perhaps there is a realm beyond that of space-time in which there can be communication, or knowledge of one another. In such a case one can speak of beings 'outside' a particular universe, and of their knowledge of 'other' universes. Indeed, cosmology today speaks of the possibility that there are other universes, and that some of these may have laws of physics which are different than those of our own universe.

For example, it may therefore be that although in our universe free willed phenomena are possible, they not be possible in other universes, and vice versa.

Objective and Subjective Perspectives; In considering such a universe, even though we are aware that from the perspective of the inhabitants of this universe there is indeed meaning and purpose to their existence, we might nevertheless feel that it would be rather empty of meaning and purpose.

On the other hand, the subjective can be objective in a sense: If one defines 'universe' as 'all that exists', then there can be no perspective from 'outside' the universe, since there is nothing other than the universe. As a result, it may be that the feeling of meaning and purpose of a being in a universe is actually an objective statement in the sense that no other perspective exists^[64].

Nevertheless, there is some possibility of defining space-times which although they do interact, are so different that they are justifiably termed different universes. In such an instance it may be that one can define 'the perspective from outside the universe'. Furthermore, possibly statements from this 'outsider' perspective about the other universe can perhaps legitimately be considered as 'objective' when compared to statements made about a universe made from 'within' that universe.

This is especially the case when referring to the mental realm of thought and concept - the realm in which meaning and purpose arise - for this realm is beyond that of space-time-matter-energy, and therefore possibly provides for interconnections between universes which are distinct at the purely physical level.

Rigorous definitions do not concern us here: this is a discussion of our intuitive understanding of free will, moral responsibility, meaning and purpose in this context, and in compare this to the outsider's perspective.

Biblical context: We are also interested in investigating what might be the intent of the Biblical accounts in this context.

Part II: Context

Chapter 6: The Creation and Eden Accounts: the Context of Biblical Text

Teleology, Metaphysics, and Moral History

The book you are now reading was written by God.

A startling claim like that made above will not be taken at face value by most readers. The mere fact that a book makes the claim to be a record of God's word to man is certainly not sufficient reason to accept it as such. Claims made by a book about itself - its contents, origin, authorship, history and so on - will not, if unsubstantiated, convince most readers.

Of course, a text itself may contain what is to some people convincing evidence of the truth of its claims it makes. For example, upon reading a particular book which claims divine origin some people may feel convinced by its insight that it is indeed of divine origin. Generally though instead of simply accepting or rejecting the claim of a book regarding its authorship, we might ask others if they know where the text originated, when it was written, by whom. We look for the cultural context of the book^[65].

Modern approaches of deconstruction and the post-modernist attitude to interpretation of history and of texts provide important insights. However in this work we are more concerned with free will of the type implied by the traditional understanding of the Bible; it is that which has informed our cultural conception of free will and moral responsibility. We are not concerned here with historical, critical or deconstructionist readings of the Biblical text.

For our purposes here the relevant cultural context of the Bible is provided by the Tradition claiming to stretch back to the time the Bible was written. Consequently in our discussions we consider the written text of the Bible to be simply an element of the oral tradition (see appendix below for more discussion of this point), and our interpretation of the creation and Eden accounts will follow the interpretations provided by this tradition.

The Creation and Eden Accounts

The first chapters of Genesis present two separate stories relating to the central mysteries of human existence. The first - that of the six days of creation - relates to the fundamental questions of why the universe exists at all, how it came to exist, how life came into being, and the origin of the human race. In the second account - that of the Garden of Eden - the central event is the onset of free-willed consciousness and of moral choice, represented in the Bible by the incident of the Tree of Knowledge.

To understand the creation accounts, one must also understand the literary background of the people to whom the Bible was initially given. Analyzing the creation accounts that were current at the time provides us with insight into the meaning of the creation account for those who first received it. Indeed, comparisons with the creation accounts of the Babylonians and other ancient nations show up distinctive and significant differences between them, which allows us to see what special meaning the creation and Eden accounts had for those who first heard them, and were perhaps familiar with the current Babylonian and other creation stories^[66].

The central message conveyed by the contrast between the creation account in Genesis and the other creation accounts is that from the Biblical perspective the universe is Purposive, having been created by an Omnipotent God rather than having been eternally existent and governed by various competing gods. God consciously chose to create, freely deciding on each step of the design of the universe, proceeding only when and because the prior stage met divine approval. There is a moral order in the universe, God is not capricious, and man was created 'in the image of God' - a conscious being endowed with free will and the moral responsibility to choose the good.

Creation is itself an act of will, and the creation account is accordingly about an act of divine will. Indeed, the method of creation in Genesis exhibits choice and thought rather than caprice or predestination, and the culmination of the process is both an expression of will and its attendant creation of will - according to some traditional Biblical commentators, [God is the quintessential Will and therefore] the creation of a being who is made 'in the image of the creator' means the creation of a free willed being.

While the creation account leads up to the creation of humanity, this in turn leads up to the eating of the tree of knowledge in the Eden account. Thus, there is a progression from the initial creation of existence to the emergence of free-will and of moral choice - with the being which was created in the free-willed image of its creator acting in defiance of the will of its creator.

This second account, that of the Garden of Eden, relates to the fundamentals of the human condition; human mortality, existential loneliness, and the burden of moral choice. It also involves the central philosophical paradoxes of human existence such as the emergence of free-will, the mind-body problem (discussed in later chapters), and the soul/body and God/man dichotomy.

The significance of the creation and Eden accounts derive from their interpretations on various thematic levels, and in this work we explore these accounts from the perspective of the metaphysical, philosophical, religious and scientific centrality of free willed consciousness. We will explore the connection between the two accounts , as well as the connection between the themes of existence, purposive creation, free-willed consciousness, and moral choice.

The knowledge gained from scientific origin theories makes the creation and Eden accounts particularly enigmatic when interpreted as a cosmogony. However, the understanding of these accounts as being an ordinary cosmogony is actually somewhat limiting, and possibly inappropriate to its intent, as we shall discuss later. At various junctures throughout the book (eg in the appendix to this chapter), we will discuss the relationship of these accounts to the teachings of modern cosmology.

As we stated in the preface, understanding the connections between the two accounts will aid us in appreciating their meaning and their juxtaposition, and can also help motivate the implications in Genesis of a 'recent' creation.

The Creation and Eden Accounts, and their Connection to the Rest of the Bible

The underlying theme reappearing at various junctures in the present book is that of free-willed moral consciousness, and this theme also underlies most of the Bible.

The Bible is concerned with moral instruction and regulation, with rights and duties, and its stories are concerned always with the moral actions of humanity. All the Biblical commandments and prohibitions, all the praise and censure, all talk of reward and punishment, are predicated on the fact that humans are moral beings - that they have a free will, the intelligence to understand the consequences of their actions, and an understanding of the distinction between right and wrong. The Bible is about the actions of moral beings, and is addressed to moral beings.

The other half of the equation is that of the source of all the above - of the moral beings themselves, and of the book- the Bible - that is addressed to them. According to the tradition which presents the Bible, the universe as a whole is the product of design, the moral beings are part of this design, and the book derives from the author of the design. The universe is the product of free-willed conscious design, and it contains within it a free-willed conscious being, a being which when sufficiently developed can even employ its moral consciousness to challenge that of its creator, as the book tells us Abraham did.

Thus the Bible is prefaced with the two central ideas underlying its entire content. First, a description of a deliberate, willed, planned creation; creation of a universe via the design of a free-willed consciousness, concluding with the creation of free-willed humanity^[67]. Then an account of the emergence within this universe of an independent free-willed moral consciousness, derived of a mixture of dust and divine spirit.

The rest of the Bible is then a dialogue between the creating free-willed consciousness and this creature of dust and divine spirit, whose autonomy extends to the use of its free-will to defy the will of its creator who has granted it this very autonomy.

As advertised, we will find that an understanding of the Bible as based on the concept of free-willed conscious moral activity will allow us to better understand some of the perplexing issues relating to the creation and Garden of Eden accounts. Furthermore, with insights provided by modern physics and cosmology especially as relating to the idea of free-willed consciousness, we will find a better appreciation of the relationship between the ideas presented in Genesis and those of science and cosmology itself.

Genesis as Teleology rather than Chronology

The creation account should not be expected to contain a chronological description of the development of the universe, but rather it is a reference to the underlying purpose for which the universe was created. And, as in the Biblical perspective this purpose involves the fulfillment of the Bible's moral ethical and religious commands, and it is man's free-willed consciousness which qualifies him for this challenge, the creation and Eden account are less concerned with the development of the physical universe and the animal kingdom, and more with the emergence of man and of free-willed consciousness.

The Bible is not primarily a history book, and the text itself makes no overt claim to be one. Nor does it claim to be a science text. Tradition does view the text in this way to some degree however this is not necessarily its essential fous. Rather, it is to be seen as a record of divine revelation regarding moral history, and moral ethical and legal imperatives, with the creation and Eden accounts as introductory chapters.

Rather than stressing the physics of planetary formation, Genesis stresses that the universe was carefully designed to produce life; rather than dealing with biology, it speaks of a purposive universe in which a creature formed from the dust of the earth is infused with the divine spirit and charged with the challenge and obligation of moral action.

The entire course of Biblical narrative points to the fact that from the Biblical perspective the universe is a stage for the drama of moral activity, that its purpose is the fulfillment of the imperatives outlined in the Bible, that the meaning of life and of existence of the universe itself is tied to the action of free-willed conscious choice^[68].

In the Biblical perspective, it is not the actions of non-sentient animals which are of interest, it is not the evolution of stellar systems which are relevant, but rather only the moral activity of free-willed beings are significant. In this world-view, history - as a record of events of significance - begins not with the big bang or with the dinosaurs or even with early hominids, but rather with the emergence of the first free-willed conscious being, the drama of the first moral choices.

This understanding of the meaning of history for the Bible, and of its preoccupation with events of moral significance, allows an appreciation of the historical-chronological structure of the first few chapters of Genesis.

Traditional Genesis presents a description of the careful and purposeful creation of the universe culminating in the formation of the first humans, followed by an account of the emergence of free-willed consciousness and of moral activity.

It declares that contrary to those who may claim that the universe is the product of random chance, or exists in of itself from eternity, the universe is actually the creation of a Mind, and is the product of careful design. In contrast to those who may insist on the cosmic insignificance of humanity in comparison to the vast physical universe and the myriad species of life on earth, the creation account stresses the crucial role of humanity in the universe as derived from the potential for moral choice which distinguishes humanity from the inanimate no matter how vast, and from the non-sentient, no matter how numerous.

When understood in this context, and with this understanding of their role, the opening chapters of Genesis resonate not only with the rest of the Bible, but also with many of the speculative ideas which have arisen in the wake of modern physics and cosmology; in turn these ideas shed light on the structure and content of the opening sections of Genesis.

Part III: Chapter 6: The Ineffability of Free Will: Why it may be that a scientific theory of true free will is impossible. The appropriateness of the Eden account's style and format given the nature of free will.

Chapter 7: Additional Material Not Yet Inserted

Chapter 6:

The Ineffability of Free Will

Introduction

In Part I we saw that without free will there could be no moral responsibility, meaning and purpose. We also saw that if we limit free will only to processes known to science, then there is no inherently free will and all our seeming free willed decisions are actually PDR.

As discussed there, one could still claim that by definition that if one felt free, one was free, and if one felt that one had moral responsibility for one's action then one did and if one intuited that life had meaning, it did. However, we concluded there that the type of moral responsibility we (the author, and many other people) intuit is not compatible with this, nor is the sense of meaning or freedom we intuit.

We found that the type of meaning we felt was that which would exist if there was an outsider perspective from which life indeed had meaning, that the type of moral responsibility and freedom we intuit is that which would exist if we were responsible and free from this outsider perspective - indeed even from the perspective of a creator who had instituted the laws of nature themselves.

From the outsider perspective that we intuit the existence of a moral being - a being with intelligence, a moral intuition and an inherently free will - is crucial to the existence of the universe: without free will there would be no moral reponsibility from the outsider perspective, no meaning to human activity, and no purpose to the creation and continued existence of that universe.

If the assumption is made that indeed there is a true inherently free will, then this is a statement of great relevance to physics, not only to moral philosophy. That is, the implication is that there are interactions in the universe that are not PDR even though according to known science all physical interactions are PDR at their most fundamental level.

Thus the existence of free will has ramifications not only for questions of meaning and purpose, but for scientific issues as well - in particular as we shall see it has important implications for quantum physics and cosmology (Part IV).

In this section (Part III) we will demonstrate some of the dfficlties involved in defining an inherently free will. After doing so we will determine the general category of the interaction underlying the operation of an inherently free will, and will find it to be a form of acausality.

Biblical context: We will also see that various aspects of the creation and Eden accounts, and of Biblical philosophy, mesh well with this elucidation of the basic nature of free willed interaction, and also with the above-mentioned implications for science.

We will then investigate in the next section what implications the existence of such an acausal interaction holds for physics and for the universe as a whole.

Undefineable Concepts in Science

One of the difficulties with free will involves the difficulty involved in a definition of what it actually involves. However, some of the most familiar of concepts are similarly difficult or impossible to define, but are nevertheless intuitively understood, and therefore we will not be deterred by these difficulties of definition when approaching the concept of free will.

An example of a famliar yet unprovable concept is provided in the following.

The Origin of the Universe and Unprovability

Not even all "physical events" can be dealt with by science. Since the scientific method requires an analysis of regularities, and an extrapolation from large amounts of similar events, science cannot deal with one-time unique phenomena - as for example the origin of the universe.

Indeed, even the concept 'the universe' is itself undefined. All entities which exist can be said to exist by virtue of the fact that there are other entities which are not it. One can in theory point to an entity, or set up an experiment which will detect that entity. However, the universe as a whole includes all measurement apparatus, and all observers as well. Therefore there is no way to point to the universe (from outside it), or to detect it using some measuring device, since all are part of it.

For example, if one speaks of the development of the universe as a whole over time, then since time is part of the universe, this is somewhat paradoxical. Furthermore, even if there were discovered a law that governs the development of the universe as a whole, it is not clear what it is that would regulates which laws operate, and whether or not they shold change or remain the same - the laws of nature are part of the universe, and cannot govern themselves.

Therefore, in a basic sense, 'the universe' is not defined scientifically, and therefore one cannot have a truly scientific theory of 'the universe'. Nevertheless, speculations regarding the universe a s a whole have given rise to theories which gave correct predictions, verified by measurement. Even where the roed is tricky regarding definitions, sometimes progress can be achieved nevertheless. We shall see that the same is true regarding the concept of free will.

The Complexity of the Concept of Free Will

There are some basic arguments which can be presented to the effect that free will is perhaps impossible to define, and which highlight the inherent difficult of the very concept of free will.

The Unprovability of Free Will: The Operational Argument

Neither determinism, nor randomness, nor free will can be proven.

If one can consistently predict the result of a process using a certain formula, we feel the event proceded in accordance with the formula - though even then one cannot prove that it will always be so, or that the event is 'forced' to do so even when it does follow the formula. For example, one cannot disprove the contention that the event decided freely to occur as it did, and for whatever reason it always decides the same way, so that it occurs always in accordance with a set formula (perhaps it chooses to follow that formula).

Just as one cannot prove that a process is determined, one can similarly not prove that an event is free or random.

Whatever event occurs in the universe, no matter how carefully it is monitered by the most delicate instruments, after the event occurs there is no way in which one could conceivably prove that the event could have happened differently than it actually did.

As P. W. Bridgman, the proponent of the philosophy of operationalism, wrote^[69]:

"I defy you to set up a single objective criterion by which you can prove after you have made the [choice]...that you might have made [a different choice]."

Since there is no way that one can prove that one could have chosen differently than one actually did, no indisputable proof of free will could ever be offered, and so according to the philosophical approach of operationalism there is no scientific meaning to the statement that humans possess a free will.

Even if one makes many measurements of the same type of event and finds that each time it occurs differently, nevertheless there is no way to prove about an individual event that it 'could have' happened otherwise than it actually did.

If no predictions are correct, or if it is shown that the results form a random pattern, then one still cannot say that any individual event 'could have occured ' differently than it did. Each event may well have only one way of occuring, the next time it occurs there is also only one way it could occur, and so on, and altogether the pattern is random. That is, all the events are determined, and they are correlated in such a way as to guarantee a random distribution.

The same for an allegedly freely willed decision. Even if the brain making the decision is carefully monitored, and it is found that there is no scientific explanation for the process, one cannot prove that it is free will - instead it may well be some as-yet-unknown phenomenon other than free will, which determines the result. And, there is no way in which one could conceivably prove after the fact that the decision could have been made differently than it was actually made.

The assumption of free will is therefore unprovable, and indeed is 'less provable' than that of determinism or randomness. A prediction of events which is always correct, whether it is about individual events or about the patterns that form in the aggregate, is quite convincing to us, and we can accept it as true even though not truly proven that events happen that way and could not have been otherwise, so that although unprovable, determinism can be intuitively convincing.

However, the case for free will is less convincing. Even if it is shown that no predictive statement can be made at all beforehand, then rather than concluding that free will is involved, one is only convinced that one does not know the mechanism involved - this lack of predictive ability need be nothing more than a proof of the unpredictability of the phenomenon, it need not be a proof that it is a free will process.

Although it may be intuitively true to us that we have a free will while other events are determined or random, none of this can be proven, and when we attempt to construct a picture of reality in which these are accepted as fact, we arrive at paradox. Our intuition that we possess a free will can be accepted as true, yet we cannot expect that reality should be such that this unprovably true statement should be consistent with all the provably true statements about reality.

This 'inherent unprovability' of free will illustrates one of the inherent difficiulties in rigorously defining 'true (inherent) free will'.

The Metaphysical Many-Universes Argument

When we say that we have true inherent free will, we mean that if we are faced with a moral dilemma, and must make a choice, there is nothing which determines our choice.

The question can be asked: If faced with the exact same dilemma under the same conditions exactly, would one again make the same choice? If time were rolled back, and we had no memory of the rolled-back time, would we again choose exactly as we did in the past?

Answering that we would always choose the same under the same circumstances seems to carry the implication that it is the circumstance which determines our response, rather than the operation of our free will. One would imagine that if we were placed in the same situation other times, we might choose differently.

To make more clear the problem this raises for free will, imagine that a creator creates an infinite amount of identical universes, so that every moral dilemma we have ever faced has been faced by an infinite amount of duplicates of us in these infinite universes.

If we do not have free will, and the process of choice-making in the brain is a determined one, then it would be expected that all our duplicates will act and choose exactly as we do.

If we do not have free will, but instead the choices we make are based on PDR interactions, then one would expect that in the otherwise identical universes, as an expression of the inherent randomness of the process underlying the choices, all possible choices will be represented. If these universes are only imagined in God's Mind, and then one is chosen at random and created from its mental picture, this universe will seem like one in which free will operates, but in actuality the choices are based on randomness.

Now consider an alternate scenario: all the duplicates in all the universes have a true inherent free will. In this scenario as well, one would expect that the choices in the various universes will not be identical. Indeed, if the individuals are truly free to make any decision, one could expect here as well that in an infinite range of universes, all possible choices will be represented.

Now choose one universe at random, and look at the choice made there. To the duplicate individual, the choice was truly freely willed. However to an outside observer who can see all the infinite number of universes, this scenario seems identical to the one with an infinite number of random-choice universes. To this observer, the free willed choice of the inhabitant of of one of the duplicate universes chosen at random, is simply one of the possible choices, chosen at random from among all the possible choices. Although free willed choice carries significance due to its unqueness, its non-determined or random charachter, when it is allowed to express itself to the fullest in an infinite collection of universes, the choices seem to lose their uniquness and therefore their significance.

Is there any significance to free willed action in any one universe, or in the whole, if all free willed choices are made in the totality of universes?

One could also imagine now that all the universes are destroyed except for one, chosen at random. Are the choices made in that universe free? Are the choices significant to the creator - after all, if the universe is chosen at random from among the infinite group of universes, then the choices are essentially chosen at random from among all the possible choices? From the creator's perspective, can there be meaning and purpose to such a universe?

We stated previously that if God creates a free willed universe, it is capable of possessing meaning and purpose. Imagine that after the universe comes to its end, another is created, and then over and over an infinite amont of times. Eventually every possible universe will have existed, and every possible individual will have existed and will have made every possible free willed decision. In what way is this collection of universes meaningful? And if only one is created, what makes it meaningful?

This argument illustrates the dependence of the value of free will on other issues, and is an exmple of the diffculties faced when attempting to get a handle on the nture of free will.

The Argument from Intuition

It is difficult if not impossible to understand how an event can be neither determined nor random. Especially a choice which is to be a rational and moral one would seem to necessarily involve careful reasoning, and therefore a determined chain of brain events.

If a free willed choice is caused by anything, then it is not free, whereas if it is not caused by prior thoughts and events then it is random and not reasoned. This is the crux of the problem - freedom of the will is actually counterintuitive.

Certainly, as a non-causal phenomenon, one could not necessarily expect that it would be modelable, mathematically describable. Therefore, no physical theory can ever be expected to encompass or describe free will. Indeed there may even be phenomena less radically nonmodelable than free will which will also never be modelable - such as a non-computable physical process - let alone free will which is inherently acausal.

As a result, there will possibly always exist some non-meshing of scientific concepts - concepts encompassable by scientific description - and that of free will, which science itself may eventually recognize yet consider out of its purview.

The Mind Body Problem

By definition, that which can be affected by the physical is itself physical. If the mind knows what the brain senses, what it feels, then it is necessarily physical itself. However, mind is by definition not physical. This paradox forms the crux of the mind-body problem^[70].

The existence of non-physical phenomena in themselves present no paradox. One can imagine a universe which contains consciousness and physicality, and where there exists a paralellism between the two so that although there is no connection between the two, they are nevertheless correlated. This indeed was Leibnitz's solution.

However, if it is assumed that there is some interaction between the two realms, then the paradox arises. This interaction comes in two basic forms.

One form is the interaction of consciousness with the physical universe via the mechanism of free will. As the active ingredient of consciousness, it is free will which crosses the barrier between physical and non-physical, allowing the non-physical consciousness to affect the physical universe in a manner causing it to develop along a path which it would not have followed had it been affected only by the causes present in the physical universe by itself^[71].

The other form of interaction is the emergence of consciousness where none was before, as a result of physical conditions - for example the evolution of a conscious being where none existed previously, or the development of a conscious being from non-conscious material, specifically a sperm and an egg.

Evolution and Consciousness

If all entities including atoms are conscious, then the consciousness associated with human brains is simply the combined effect of all the component consciousneses. In such a case, the consciousness in human brains is merely of greater degree than that in rocks or animal brains, and this is due to the greater complexity of the human brain. Similarly so if consciousness is inherent in the universe and was infused into the human when the human brain achieved the requisite level of complexity.

Conscious people originate in non-conscious sperm and eggs - the question arises as to at which point in the development of humans their consciousness emerges, and as to what physical cause this might have had.

The eminent Nobel prize-winning physiologist Sir John Eccles states that no purely materialist theory will be able to account for consciousness. In his words the theory of evolution is 'defective' in that it ignores the phenomenon of consciousness. "It is of the greatest importance to science that there be from time to time a critical examination of established theories, particularly when they tend to harden into dogmas. The amazing success of the theory of evolution has protected it from significant critical evaluation in recent times. However it fails in a most important respect. It cannot account for each one of us as unique self-conscious beings."

If conscious beings behave in a way that is different than non-conscious beings, this means that consciousness is not simply the passive registering of impressions, but that intentions which would not arise in a non-conscious brain can originate in a conscious brain and can be acted upon.

This however would mean that given the same physical conditions and information the physical output - such as action and behavior - is different for a conscious and a non-conscious brain.

If consciousness is not a physical entity, then a conscious and non-conscious brain can be physically identical^[72]. If this is the case, then all the external and internal physical elements leading up to and involved in a decision by a conscious and non-conscious brain are identical, yet nevertheless the resulting decision of the brain and action of the body is different. This is however not in line with physical theory regarding causality, according to which identical causes give rise to identical effects.

Indeed, as soon as one postulates that a non-physical entity can interact with physical entities, one arrives at conclusions at variance with physical theory^[73], and with ordinary intuition.

AR: MESH with the above

Evolution and Consciousness: The Physical Efficacy of Consciousness: If it is assumed that consciousness is a property of complex systems such as the human brain, and that such complex entities evolved much after the initial state of the universe, then consciousness was not present in the universe at its origin, or even near its origin. Therefore it follows that consciousness evolved from what was not conscious.

However, even if consciousness is a physical property which could perhaps have emerged as the result of a random mutation in an evolved being, it would only become a property of an entire race if it gave its possessor a selective evolutionary advantage. To do so however, it must be able to affect physical events. Therefore, if it is assumed that all humans are conscious, the very existence of consciousness in humans indicates that it must be able to affect the brain, to be a factor in the decision-making processes of the brain. This however is highly problematical, and is part of what is called in philosophy 'the mind-body problem' (or 'the psycho-physical problem' etc.).

if consciousness does interact with the physical universe in a way that provides conscious beings with an evolutionary advantage, ; somehow a conscious brain, using the same information, memory and so on that is available to a physically equivalent non-conscious brain, can arrive at a more survivally-correct decision, and act on it. This however would mean that given the same physical conditions, information and so on, the physical output - action, behavior and so on - is different for a conscious and a non-conscious brain.

….

However, if consciousness emerged into existence when brains reached a certain level of complexity, then consciousness must have evolved. But if consciousness is a qualitative phenomenon it cannot evolve unless it can interact with the physical universe^[74].

Furthermore, the problem reperesented by the supposition that consciousness evolved is present as well in the supposition that conscious people originate in sperm and eggs which are non-conscious.

The Significance of Free Will

We have seen various aspects of the complexity of the issue of defining an inherently free will, and doing so within the parameters of science mathematics and logic. Of course the intuition we have of free will can attributed to illusion, and such has been done by some speculations of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. Nevertheless our intuition that we are free willed is in many of us stronger than the belief that all must must be in consonance with present day scientific understanding, and therefore for most people the intuition that free will exists is too strong to ignore or to accept theories which explain it away. We simply believe more strongly in our free will than we do in evolutionary psychology, even if the latter can venture explanations for this too.

Free Will as the Active Ingredient of Consciousness

The significance of an inherently free will goes beyond the issue of moral responsibility. Without an inherently free will, humans are essentially conscious robots.

Can a consciousness interact with the physical universe via a brain-decision in a way which different than the interaction by a non-conscious brain? Would there be any physically measurable difference between a universe of conscious robots having an illusion of free will and a universe of conscious robots with true inherently free will?

If there is a measurable difference between the two, it must be that the difference is due to an interaction which violates causality, and only such an interaction can underlie what we usually mean by a 'free willed' decision: the decision is 'free' only if it does not depend on the input and physical situation as would a process governed by causality, but instead is 'free' of the constraints of causality.

Free will is the way in which consciousness affects the physical universe, acting in an intelligent manner which is independent of causality even though it is non-random.

Without some form of free-will type interaction, when there is nothing in the mind-state which is not a correlate of the brain state, or even if there is but there is no way for it to affect the brain, or the rest of the physical universe, then the mind is irrelevant to physics, to the physical universe. If there can be a mind-state which is not a correlate of the brain state, then this mind state is acausal, and therefore it is what we term 'free-willed type'. Further, if there is a way for this mental state to affect the brain, or the rest of the physical universe, then the mind causes an event in the brain which has no causal roots in the physical universe - it is self-caused from the perspective of the physical universe, a 'free-willed type interaction', and is very relevant to physics, and to the physical universe.

Without free-willed type interactions, no matter what complex and deep thoughts and emotions may arise in consciousness, the only effects of a person on the universe are due to the body, including the brain state - the mind state is essentially irrelevant to the course of events, and there is no effect of consciousness on the physical universe^[75].

We saw previously that to ascribe the type of moral responsibility to human activity which most of us intuit, there must be an inherently free will, which we can see now must be based on non-causal processes. Similarly for the existence of meaning and purpose in the sense we defined them.

We can also now see that furthermore any philosophy which considers humans as more than material, as more than conscious robots, and which considers humans as entities which can affect the physical universe with the non-material aspect must incorporate non-causality in its world view.

The Nature of Free Will

Free Will and Self-Causation

When one makes a free-willed decision, there are many elements of reasoning backing up this decision - one would always be able to provide reasons why one chose that particular choice, so that it would seem that any 'free' choice, in order to be goal-oriented and meaningful, must be derived from a chain of reasoning. However, if this were the case, 'free' decisions are derived from a deterministic chain of cause-effect ( and are not actually free^[76]).^[77].

Free will can exist only if it is founded on processes which are neither random nor determined. If the processes underlying an allegedly free willed decision are actually random, then the result of these processes, the randomly-arrived-at decision, cannot be said to be the expression of a will, since it is random; if the underlying processes are instead determined ones, then the resulting decision is determined, and therefore by definition is not a free one.

We also saw that incomputability is a necessary but insufficient condition for free will. That is, all free willed processes are incomputable, but not all incomputable processes are free willed. Even if the free willed decisions are inherently unpredictable, for example based on non-computable processes, if these processes are at their fundamental level deterministic/random then the decisions they give rise to may be non-predictable but neither are they free^[78]. Therefore, one must look elsewhere for the underlying physical nature of free will, and we will leave aside discussion of incomputability as not directly relevant.

If the brain state corresponding to a decision follows from prior brain states (and universe-states) in a chain of cause and effect following the same natural law governing other events, then even if the decision is inherently non-predictable by science or mathematics, it is no more free willed than is any other predictable or non-predictable event such as the falling of a drop of rain, the growth of a plant, or the orbit of an electron in its path.

Defining free will is very difficult, since our physical intuition is built up from experience with phenomena which are either determined or random, and it is not possible for us to mesh the physical theories we have of the physical universe - which are all based on determinism and randomness - with the operation of an inherently free will.

Even in mental terms the same problem arises. Free willed action needs to be based on logical considerations in order to be will rather than caprice, however if it is so based, then the decision is not free, but is rather dictated by logic. And, to whatever extent it is not logical, it is not will that is deciding, but rather some other factor. The question of the origin of a free-willed choice therefore presents a paradox, since if it is caused, it is not free, yet if it is random, it is not willed.

Even if one posits an extra-physical realm which interacts with the physical in order to produce free-willed phenomena, we are again involved in the mind body problem, the paradox of the physical and non-physical being able to interact. And in any case, the acausality of free will is inherent to the nature of the decision - that it is free - and an extra-physical realm may not provide a solution to this.

When a free-willed choice comes into existence therefore, if it is in fact truly free willed, it is not caused by something outside of itself, and as a result it is either acausal or self-causative.

Free Will and the Ramifications for Science

Consciousness is a phenomenon which by its very nature is inherently "other" than any other in the universe. The "otherness" of consciousness expresses itself in the fact that we can know of the universe at all only through our consciousness, and thus consciousness in a way "contains" the universe, and in a way is "outside" the universe.

Similarly the phenomenon of our consciousness which we call "free will" operates outside the normal laws of nature: in order for free-willed acts to be "free" they must violate the causal laws of the rest of the universe since they are caused by our will rather than by the previous state of the universe (which itself includes the previous state of our mind). Free will without this causality-transcendence is not free will as we mean it - true free will is therefore "self-causative".

It can be postulated that all phenomena in the universe except for free will are subservient to quantum probabilistic causality.

One can see a form of hierarchical structure: free will contains the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics as a special case where the decision of how to occur is taken at random instead of freely willed , while ordinary determinism is a special case of PDR where one particular way has 100% probability of occurring.

Free Will and Self Causation

The crucial point is that free willed decisions are in some sense 'self-caused' as they are neither random nor totally caused by prior events, and this underlays the moral responsibility to choose good over evil.

Summary

Free will is in essence self-causation, and is therefore not encompassable within ordinary logic and physical theory - it is not modelable, nor is it provable or disprovable. Free will is independent of the causal chain of events, and the existence in the mind of an interaction with this self-causative nature and independence endows it with many intriguing properties and has important ramifications for quantum physics cosmology and philosophy as we shall see in the following chapters (Part IV).

The Creation and Eden Accounts

It is the creation of a universe capable of moral responsibility and with this type of non-causal non-scientifically encompassable free will which is presented in Genesis. This inherently non-scientific nature of the free will discussed there is reflected in the form of the account itself.

As we have seen, science cannot truly deal with the universe as a whole, or with one-time unique phenomena as for example the origin of the universe, or 'the actual emergence of the universe into existence', or possibly the origin of consciousness, nor does science yet encompass mental phenomena such as consciousness and free will. All of the above are however of course the subjects of the creation and Eden accounts.

We have seen that free will is seemingly beyond the rational: it is counterfactual and therefore non-disprovable; it is not causal, and therefore is unmodelable (no scientific theory of it can exist).

As unique events, concepts, and phenomena outside the realm of ordinary scientific inquiry, the issues of existence, the existence of the physical universe, the onset of purpose, consciousness, and free will cannot be encompassed entirely via the rational. It is appropriate therefore that the Eden account which deals with the emergence of free will has an imagery-oriented style rather than a rational historical one, and that these issues are dealt with in Genesis through the medium of allegory and allusion in the creation and Eden accounts.

........................

The Creation and Garden of Eden Accounts

Various of the ancient works which are part of our cultural heritage deal with descriptions of the origin and construction of the universe (cosmogonies) of one form or other.

We shall see that just as traditional sources like the Midrash and Zohar differ greatly in their explication of the Bible, but are explanations of the Torah rather than contradictions to it, so too

Sensations arrive in the brain in discrete units. Our consciousness takes the fragments of spatial information, of individual moments, fed into the brain by the senses, and combines them into a composite which gives a unified and coherent picture of reality in our minds. Consciousness is necessarily transcendent of space-time in this sense (see Sasoon, and recent research, science times Tuesday March 22? '95).

Why only "moral choice" should be considered "free"-willed

As we have said, free will is such a radical departure from the laws of physics that we wish to deny its existence wherever we can, without being inconsistent in our belief that we possess a free will. What then should our criteria be for deciding who/what possesses a free will?

There are three types of occurrences: deterministic, probabilistic-deterministic, and free-willed. There do not seem to be any true deterministic processes: at the fundamental level all processes are quantum ones.

In essence, the idea of free will may be contrary to the entire scientific enterprise since it involves the concept of an acausal non-random process. That is, for a will to be considered 'free', there must be some effective part of the activity which is determined solely by itself without regard to the past, so that no physical law effectively determines the choice of the will. The basic ideas of science however, generally assume that any present state must lead to a future state either deterministically or randomly, but not 'freely': future mind states are thus determined by present mind-states - even mind states which are highly improbable may occur, but only via random processes, not through actual deliberate choice. Of course the feeling of free will is known to exist but, according to this view, the feeling of being free willed is illusory.

In contrast, belief in free will implies the belief that free will is an acausal - or 'self-causing' - phenomenon. Free will seems to have no backing from physics - indeed it seems to be undefined from the viewpoint of physics. Nevertheless, few consider man as totally lacking a free will: in many opinions, dismissing the possibility of free will in man would be imply the absolution of all people from true moral responsibility for their actions; and to imagine their actions as not deriving from their will, would consign all human activity to the realm of puppet-motion, where the strings are pulled by the universe at large ^[79].

The alternative is to accept the reality of free will despite the evidence of physics. Indeed there are precedents for such a step: one accepts that one exists, that one is conscious, and that one feels emotions without looking to physics for confirmation. Nevertheless, there is an essential difference: free will is not only not supported by science, but it actually seems to be counter to all other processes known to physics.

As we can know of free will only via introspection, we find it more difficult to ascribe free will in surety to beings very unlike ourselves in mental ability - for example the animals. In any case, the animals certainly are not sufficiently intelligent to realize the ramifications of their actions, and to choose morally between the available alternatives.

We will therefore deal here with an approach which considers free will to be present in human mental activity only^[80]. ^[81]

Thus, we can say that true free will exists only in the presence of a moral sense - that is, only a moral being can be free-willed.

…………….

DELETE

APPENDIX : Morality and Free Will

Assume there exists an absolute objective morality, but that no free will exists. If free will is an illusion, then all actions are automatic (probabilistically determined), and not 'chosen', and thus no one could be objectively considered 'evil' or 'good' based on their actions. This conclusion is unacceptable to the vast majority of people, who feel very strongly that there is a 'should' and a 'should not' and that people do have the capability of 'choosing' (to some extent).

We see thus that we deny that free will is merely illusion in order that morality (as an "absolute" 'should'/'should not' system) not be sacrificed. However, were we to be told that activity not involving moral choices is automatic, we might be able to accept it. That is, for example, if we pick up a pen, and give ourselves the option to drop it within one second, or to put it down, choosing which option to carry out does not involve any moral aspect and so it can be accepted to be purely determined by the ordinary laws of nature.

It is probably acceptable to most of us to allow such activity to be considered automatic. That is, were we to be shown that our choice depended totally on our previous mind state, or was partially a result of a random process, we would not be horrified. However, if the choice were between stabbing someone with the pen or putting it down, we would adamantly insist that we chose not to stab, not that we merely 'feel' the illusory feeling of choice.

Indeed, the idea that there exists a 'should' and 'should not' which is not merely a reflection of our own desires, but is an objectively valid prescription for action, is in itself quite problematical. Thus, the problematic reluctance to consign free will to illusion results from the problematic conception that some actions are good and some are evil.

If we were to accept that no absolute good or evil exists, then there would be no violent objection to considering a perfectly sane murderer for profit to be simply 'dangerous' and not 'evil'. We would put him in jail not because he (deserved it, because he) deliberately chose evil, but simply because he is dangerous. We would not say that he chose to murder, but instead that his genes and environment plus random processes caused the murder to occur, without any 'will' on his part being involved - i.e. that his will to kill was a psychological state caused exclusively by hereditary and environmental elements The majority of people who would consider him 'evil', do so only because they assume that all of us have a free will and can choose our actions, at least to a certain extent.

We can therefore limit the violence done to scientific principle by allowing free will to operate only where it must do so in order to be meaningful, and to conform to our deepest intuition. Specifically, we can assume that free will operates to discriminate between possibilities of moral choice, but not between morally neutral choices. These latter will be accepted to be purely determined by the ordinary laws of nature (q.m., etc.).

Indeed, the distinction is operationally justified by the difficulty in conceiving of a free choice which has no criterion for choosing. In the case of a moral choice, the desire to do good or to do evil provides the criterion, but in a morally neutral choice, if the choice is relevant then the optimal choice will always be taken (unless a quirk which arose deterministically from a previous mental state decides otherwise) and if it is irrelevant, such as in the case with the pen previously, either a random event will trigger the 'choice', or it will be a quirk, etc.

………………..

Consciousness and Free Will

Free will and consciousness are of course not synonymous.

Clearly, a "free" decision can be taken only by conscious decision, so that a free will without consciousness is not possible. Thus, when we refer to free will, it is understood that it is in the context of a consciousness. However, in theory, we can conceive of consciousness as existing without a free will.

A molecule of air, a leaf, a boulder rolling down a mountainside, all have motion, all interact with the universe, but are assumed to be conscious neither of themselves nor of anything else. Nevertheless, it is impossible to prove that they are not conscious, and it would be difficult even to prove that they have no free will. Our assumption however is that they are neither free willed nor conscious. Indeed as far as we can determine, all that occurs to them is the result of external and internal forces - the internal forces being natural ones rather than the product of a will.

Of course it is entirely possible that these entities are conscious and believe that they do possess a free will, and like humans, believe that it is they and not natural law which determines their activity.

However, since we see that their actions are exactly in accordance with what natural law predicts, we are convinced that these actions are the result of the action of physical law, and not of any "free will".

Nevertheless there is of course no way to refute that they do have consciousness, are aware of themselves and the rest of the universe. Since free will is the 'active ingredient' of consciousness, carring out the wishes of consciousness, wishes originating in conscious thought rather than in the workings of physical law, a conscious being without a free will is a prisoner in a body over which it has no control. A conscious rock, unless it is deluded (as some claim humans are) into believing it has a free will, is a prisoner.

Generally this ‘prisoner’ scenario is distasteful, and where the distasteful can be ignored, we do so - where we do not see evidence of the action of a will, independent of natural forces, we tend not to consider the possibility of consciousness. We will assume here for our purposes that 'consciousness' is synonymous with 'free-willed consciousness'.

One can say that since the presence of free will implies the existence of consciousness, and since the active ingredient of consciousness is free will, essentially the concept of consciousness is subsumed in the concept of free will and we can consider the concept of free will as including all that the concept "consciousness" does, and more besides.

Consciousness, Free Will, and Morality

A free willed being need not necessarily possesses a moral sense. However, although it is possible that free will can exist without a moral sense, it is not entirely clear what can be the alternatives which present themselves to a free will other than moral alternatives.

There is a difficulty in conceiving of a free choice which has no criterion at all available to present its options for choice. In the case of a moral choice, the desire to do good or to do evil provides the criterion. In contrast, in a morally neutral choice, such as choosing a number from one to ten, we choose randomly; in choosing the gift in box one or box two the choice is either random, or according to the size of the box etc; if the choice is relevant then the optimal choice will always be taken^[82].

We therefore assume that free will operates to allow a consciousness to discriminate between possibilities of moral choice, but not between morally neutral choices .

Even if a being has consciousness, and perhaps some level of free will, if it lacks a moral sense the free will is virtually irrelevant.

Certainly no-one would hold any animal - even a chimpanzee or dolphin which some allege to be conscious to some degree - morally responsible for its actions since we do not believe that it understands moral distinctions of good and evil. Although some might wish to posit that it may be conscious^[83] or even have a free will, it is not generally assumed that they have a moral sense, and therefore their possession of free will is irrelevant and their actions are not considered to be within the realm of moral activity.

For our purposes, we will attribute free-willed consciousness only to moral beings, and therefore will often use the terms free-willed conscious being and moral being interchangeably.

……………..

Contents of FILE "FREE WILL AND PURPOSE" which was erased

Purpose and Free Will

In a universe in which all events occur in a random/determined way from prior events, all that occurs would follow in a random/determined manner from the initial universe state. If the universe is a created universe, then its entire future - including all human activity and thought - follows as a probabilistically determined random result of its initial created state. Since this state is created as a result of God's will, every detail of its initial state is there because God willed that it be like that. Therefore, all that would ever occur - all human 'good' and 'evil' action - would be a result of God's choice of initial conditions, and of the Divinely designed and instituted laws of nature.

Such a universe could not have any meaning or purpose from the point of view of God^[84]. In this work however, we assume that the universe does possess meaning from the point of view of its creator. Therefore we assume that Man posseses a type of free will which does allow meaningful activity even from the point of God .

That is we assume that since only free-willed decisions can provide an otherwise random/determined universe with meaning and purpose, and God created the universe for a purpose, it must be true that a non-random, non-deterministic element has been injected into the universe^[85].

............................................

The quote “the rest are details” is from “Einstein : the Life and Times” by Ronald W. Clark, World Publishing Company 1971, p19. Clark quotes Esther Salaman and the bibliographic reference he provides is “A Talk With Einstein” in The Listener, Sept 8, 1955.

According to Misner, Thorne, Wheeler “Gravitation” the quote “what really interests … choice …. creation …” was said by Einstein to an assistant, and their bibliographic reference is to a book review by G. Holton of “Einstein : the Life and Times:” by Ronald W. Clark, NYT book Review (p20), Sept 5, 1971 p1-20 (Holton wrote a lot about Einstein and presumably inserted this quote into his book review.)

......................

Lewis Carrol: “On some days I managed to believe as many as 5 impossible things before breakfast”

..............

Part IV: The Cosmological Effect of Free Will

In the cosmological context free will has unique abilities and roles. We wxplore parallels between cosmology and the creation and Eden accounts& kaballah, via the link of free-willed consciousness.

Chapter 8: The Retroactive Universe: Quantum Reality and the Emergence of Consciousness A brief excursion into quantum metaphysics to see the role that it ascribes to consciousness in the establishment of physical reality. What we will find will help us to understand the creation and Eden accounts, as well as their relationship to each other.

Chapter 9: Quantum Reality and Moral Beings: A further excursion into quantum metaphysics to see the role that it ascribes to free-will in the establishment of physical reality. An analysis in this light of the creation and Edenaccounts and their interrelationship.

Chapter 10: Existence, Free Will, and Self Causation: The fundamental similarity between the emergence into existence of the universe and the nature of free willed choice, so that the creation and Edens accounts are related as well: a deeper understanding of one helps provide a deeper understanding of the other.

Chapter 11: Symmetry Breaking and Shvirat Hakelim. .Modern cosmology and the kaballah, the creation and Eden account and the connecting link of free-willed consciousness.

Chapter 12: The Anthropic Principle: New approaches to the issue of whether or not the universe was designed. Free will and the creation and Eden accounts.

Chapter 13: Complexity and Entropy: Human Creativity vs. The Heat Death of the Universe. The 'heat death' of the universe, or 'the big crunch':human creativity and free-will type processes may yet save the day; hints to this effect in Genesis.

Chapter 14: Free Will and Infinitude: Can free will exist in a finite universe? What does predictability mean in an infinite universe? God's Omniscience.

Chapter 15: Computability and Free Will: What can and cannot be computed. The universe as a computer and the laws of nature as its software. What is quantitatively unpredictable, and when does a quantitative feature become qualitative. Free will, creation and Eden.

Chapter 8: The Retroactive Universe:

Quantum Reality and

the Emergence of Consciousness

Section I: Levels of Reality

Introduction

Most people have heard the question asked "if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?".

Conundrums of this type are profound. Or at least they seem to be. After analysis some reveal themselves to be merely about definitions, or even as being trite. But even these sometimes reveal an additional level of depth beneath, and the riddle above is a case in point.

The answer to the riddle depends partially on the distinction between the meaning of 'sound' and of 'sound waves'. "Sound" is a sensation of a consciousness; sound waves are physical vibrations of the molecules of air. When sound waves impinge on the ear, nerve signals are sent to the brain and somewhere in the brain these give rise to the sensation of 'sound'.

Few would claim that the physical effects of the tree's fall would be any different if there are or are not conscious beings present. Therefore, the vibration of the earth when the tree strikes it, and the resulting vibration of the air, the sound waves, would occur in the presence or absence of a being. If a huge tree falls in a forest, generating huge vibrations in the ground as it strikes, this causes large sound waves to be emitted, just that there would be no 'sound', no mental sensation, if there were no conscious being present.

At this level then the conundrum is trite, about definitions, however the deeper level is expressed by approaches in philosophy which consider even physical events as existing only inasmuch as they are recorded in a conscious mind.

Indeed, some eminent physicists in the early part of the twentieth century were led by their researches into physics and cosmology to a similar view.

In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington [b]: "The material universe itself is an interpretation of certain symbols presented to consciousness. When we speak of the existence of the material universe we are presupposing consciousness. It is meaningless to speak of the existence of anything except as forming part of the web of our consciousness".

As McCabe reports [j], when Eddington was pressed to say whether this meant that he rejected the common scientific teaching that a material universe really existed before life and mind appeared on this planet, Eddington said:

"I do not think we understand what we mean by existence."

According to this approach, the physical universe could be said to have begun its true existence only after the emergence within it of consciousness, which presents something of a causal paradox.

It is interesting that the study of fundamental interactions in the last seventy or so years has led to the development of basic theories of nature which have led some physicists today to a similar conclusion^[86].

Quantum Physics and Reality: One of the most surprising conclusions of quantum physics is - and this will be explained later - that physical events exist only in a pseudo-real state until they are actually recorded^[87]. According to one interpretation of this fact, it is only the observation of events by a human consciousness which allows the event to emerge into reality^[88]. An extension of this idea has led to the astonishing conclusion that the entire universe - as a collection of physical events - can emerge into real existence only when it is observed by a consciousness. Indeed, since consciousness only arose billions of years after the big bang, some physicists have claimed that in a sense the emergence of consciousness brought the universe into existence retroactively.

If such is indeed the case, then the emergence of conscious beings is not only an event of cosmic importance, but also it is in a sense the beginning of universal history, and intimately tied into the emergence of the universe itself into existence.

The Garden of Eden story, which deals with the emergence of conscious free-willed beings, has therefore a significance beyond the obvious, a cosmological relevance, and thus it is appropriately juxtaposed to the creation account.

This connection between consciousness and existence will also manifest itself in other ways, and will be a recurrent theme in many of our discussions.

Section II:

(Dealing with quantum physics and the collapse of the wave function; the issue of randomness vs determinism is dealt with in Part I.)

Probabilistic Determinism, Reality, and Measurement

Many physicists prefer an operationalist-type view: i.e., physics does not provide us with a 'model' of subatomic physics. Physics can give equations which provide predictions of laboratory results etc, however physics cannot make statements about 'what is really occurring' - such statements would have no meaning. The processes 'occurring' at the subatomic level are simply not describable using terms familiar to macroscopic beings. Theories such as quantum physics provide insight into the limits of what we can know about the universe and processes within it, rather than providing us with a model of these processes, or of the supposed 'fundamental reality' of the universe.

............

The experiments of Alain Aspect et all and others afterwards have proven the implications of bell’s inequality: quantum physics shows us that we have to reject one of four seemingly true ideas: quantum physics denmands, and experiment backs it up, that these four cannot all be true: contrafactualness, definiteness, reality, locality [see Herbert for a nice and comprehensive discussion]. Most assumptions are that reality is the culprit (Bohr’s “Copenhagen” interpretation), and this and the following chapter follow this path. However, any other of the three can be fallible too (Everett = many worlds interpretation, sacrifices definiteness; see later discussion re contrasfactualness and free will; see Herbert for arguments favoring sacrificing locality and retaining reality); we will make remarks here and ther ein the footnotes regarding this issue.

….

“Realism” (or ‘objectivity’): the doctrine that there is an external reality existing independent of human consciousness: it has properties which are independent of human observation.

Locality: no information or effect can involve ‘action-at-a-distance”.

Aspect/Bell showed that deterministic local hidden-variable theories are incompatible with experiment and with quantum physics.

Bohm formulated a nonlocal deterministic hidden-variable theory: it is controversial…(Phys Rev 1952]

……………………………………..

Furthermore, events develop in time in a way that is affected by all the possibilities - to correctly predict the outcome of an experiment on a quantum particle one must always perform a calculation which involves the implication that the particle is in a combination state composed of all possible states. The physical interpretation of this combination is that of a probability - it tells us what is the relative probability of each of the possible outcomes represented in the combination.

For example, when measured, an electron can have its spin either up or down. In contrast, when computing the result of an experiment, the correct result will be arrived at only via a calculation which attributes to the electron a combination of up and down at every instant . A computation which considers the electron as having been either up or down at any given time gives an incorrect answer. Only the combination equation is correct, but all it can provide us with is the relative likelihood of the electron being in its spin up state and its spin down state.

The mathematical equations describing quantum systems clearly lead to a superposition of many alternatives developing simultaneously and in concert - mathematically described as a 'wave packet'. On the other hand of course when we observe any physical system, it has a very specific and unique state. Mathematically, there is no reason that the superposition should collapse to a unique value, yet nevertheless the physical fact is that it does.

There is something of a paradox involved.

The Before and After

Prior to a measurement, any event can occur in a number of ways, and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say "it is in some particular state, which is however as yet unknown to us". It is not. It is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be! Indeed even after measurement is made and the particle is found to be in a specific well-defined state, it would not be correct to say that the particle was in that state all the time. Rather, it had no definite state until one measured it.

Our measurement does not 'reveal' what was there already; instead our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among the 'superposition' of possibility-states existent prior to the measurement. (The epistemic becomes the ontologic) This is called "the collapse of the wave packet"^[89] in the terminology of quantum physics.

..................

(inserted from my BH qp article)

REALITY AND MEASUREMENT

The mathematical description of a quantum system is that of a wave which corresponds to the system being in all possible states simultaneously—a “superposition of states.” (The physical interpretation of this wave is that of a probability distribution for the result of an individual event in an ensemble of cases or particles.) For example, in the case of the slit, each particle is represented by a wave function that corresponds to its going through both slits at all possible angles. Yet, when we look about us we always see unique states—for example, the unique impact point of the electron on the screen behind the slits.

Even the most subtle measurements on the particle while it is in flight, to determine its exact path have been shown experimentally and theoretically to so disturb the path that the pattern is lost. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment has shown that one can even perform the measurements after passage through the slit, and retroactively affect the outcome. Therefore one cannot attribute a unique “physically real” path to the particle, even in theory—it is in a superposition state.

Thus there is a vast difference between the system prior to measurement—it is in a superposition of all possible states—and after measurement, when it is in a unique state. It can only be the act of measurement itself that causes this drastic change. It is counterintuitive because out observations of the universe about us are measurements, and we therefore always see only unique states, not superpositions.

Prior to its measurement, an event can occur in a number of ways and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say, “It is in some particular state, which is, however, as yet unknown to us.” It is not in some particular state. Instead, it is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be! Indeed, even after measurement is made, and the particle is found to be in a particular state, we cannot then say that the particle was in that state all the time—no! It had no definite state until one measured it. Our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among all the possibility-states it is in prior to the measurement

This surprising, even bewildering, property can be interpreted as saying that the universe can emerge into reality only upon its measurement! In a way this is trite and in a way it’s radical. It is trite in the sense that for a at least two centuries philosophers such as Berkeley and the positivists have explored the idea that reality is only set by our consciousness of it, because we can perceive things through the senses. It is radical, though, in that this result has now been achieved by physics. Therefore, what is true in the realm of words and ideas has been shown by physics to be true of physical reality as well: the actual thing itself is not set until it is measured.

Summary

From the preceding discussion, we can make the following summary: All entities in the universe have a dual nature, one material and localized (particulate) and one nonmaterial and non-localized (wavelike). The universe, or any subsystem of it, is capable of being in two (or more) mutually contradictory states simultaneously. Saying that the universe is uniquely in one state is just as invalid as saying that it is in the other state. Until the measurement is made both views are only partially correct since the state is actually a combination. After the measurement only one becomes correct. However, this does not imply that it was always the correct one; there was no “correct” state until the measurement was made.

..................

Surprisingly, it was also found that [assuming locality] the "choice" of how a quantum event will occur is actually "decided" on only when the result of the choice is measured.

This surprising and bewildering property can be interpreted as implying that events in the physical universe can emerge into reality only as a result of their being measured.

The "Collapse of the Wave Function" for the Universe as a Whole

Indeed, the entire universe, as a system of many events, would be perhaps subject to this same property.

If no measurement is made, the universe cannot be considered to be in a specific unique state, since it can be in any number of different states (depending on which choices were taken for all the possible events which occurred since the previous measurement was made). Only after a measurement does the universe pick out 'retroactively' a series of choices, one for each event/decision-point and thus enter into an unambiguous physical state.

In summary then, we see that the universe or any subsystem of it can be in many mutually contradictory states simultaneously. It is not in any one unambiguous state until a measurement of the system is performed. Nevertheless, there was no 'correct' unique unambiguous physical state until the measurement was made.

The "Measurement Problem" for a Particle

When we measure an electron to see if its spin is in the 'up' or 'down' position, we find that it is either up or down, we certainly do not find experimentally that it is both. On the other hand, the theory requires that the calculation giving the prediction of the result necessarily be done with combinations, and furthermore the mathematical result is also always a combination. This is strange: the result we see in the lab is a specific one, and corresponds to a specific mathematical form rather than a combination yet the math predicts a combination.

Somehow, the mathematical description of what is happening should change from a combination to a specific result, yet quantum theory does not in itself imply that this should be the case. Quantum theory would be satisfied to state that events always are in a combination, but of course we know that events when we measure them - or observe them, which is a form of measurement - are in a unique state rather than in a combination state. Therefore there must be something which occurs between the time before the measurement and after the measurement, something which 'collapses' the combination-form into a unique-form, something which quantum physics does not take into account by itself.

Consciousness as the 'Active Ingredient' of a Measurement

Physical events occur in a ghost-world of conflicting probabilities, and can emerge into reality only via the act of measurement. It would almost seems that since measurement is merely the recording of the effect of an event, one can say that all events are always measured: since nothing in the universe can ever be totally isolated from all interaction, all events necessarily leave their mark on other events. Thus, one would imagine that emergence into reality could take place automatically - simultaneously with each event. Nevertheless, according to the mathematics it does not. Indeed it never does according to the math; the march of combined probabilities continues on and on, and in fact experiment proves this math correct. And yet, of course we see that only one of the probabilities out of the combination is eventually actualized - when we look at a real physical box it is either open or closed, it is not 50% likely to be open and 50% likely to be closed.

We can see that the discrepancy with the combination-form predicted by quantum physics arises only when we see an entity, when we observe that a particular result has been actualized.

How to Resolve the Discrepancy

Once we begin to describe the results observable by us macroscopic beings, we must use the non-quantum equations. Macroscopic events do not 'interfere' with each other, and thus act as though they are in a unique state - one can then make the assumption that they indeed are in actuality in a unique state, even when not being measured. This explanation is unfortunately not convincing since there are macroscopic quantum states that have been observed (eg superconductivity etc), and so.

Others claim that while it is true that a measurement is needed to collapse the wave function, any macroscopic 'irreversible' measurement^[90] can do so. The difficulty with this interpretation is that no truly satisfactory account has been given as to why this should be so, nor as to how the reversible interactions of microscopic physics can give rise to an irreversibility which is qualitatively unique in its ability to collapse the wave packet. In particular, irresversibility is actually a matter of probability, time lapse and temporal direction, and these are properties not so much of the systems themselves as of the consciousness observing the system and ordering its perceptions and understanding of the system and its 'time development'. Thus, consciousness underlies the very definition of 'irreversibility' and attributing the collapse of the wave function to irreversable measurement is effectively to attribute it to a property of consciousness.

Another approach suggests that all the possible quantum paths are followed, with each path existing in a separate universe ['many universes' approach].

Some leading physicists have indeed concluded that the power to bring physical events into reality lies not in the measuring apparatus, but rather in the observation of the measurement results by a consciousness - only a resultrecorded by a conscious being can collapse the many possibilities into one actuality: only such a measurement can bring the combined-probability description of events into the reality we are familiar with..

There is as yet no consensus on this issue^[91] and so we do not insist that this approach is the correct one, we merely wish to explore the ramifications of this approach.

More quotes: [THE ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS: What is the active factor in a measurement which causes this emergence into reality? According to some leading physicists, this factor is consciousness.]

John Von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, was the first to provide a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum theory^[92]; he showed that according to the mathematics there was no way to account for this 'collapse of the wave packet'; he concluded that it was the effect of a human consciousness observing the state of the system^[93]. /he believed that only a human consciousness can collapse the wave function.

When a human consciousness is not observing a system it indeed develops as a superposition of possibilities, but when an observation is made, it collapses to one unique value. In this way there is no contradiction between the fact that the system develops as a superposition, yet is in a definite state every time anyone observes it.

According to this view, the power to bring events into reality is attributed not to the purely mechanical effect of laboratory equipment, but rather to the more magical phenomenon we call consciousness. It is consciousness, a phenomenon totally unexplained as yet by any scientific theory, which alone has the power to transform the potentiality and pseudo-reality of probability into the actual existence of true physical reality.

This however implies that human consciousness has a real and significant effect on the physical universe, that a human consciousness observing the universe is not a passive observer but a critical element in the development of physical states in the universe. The effect that it has according to this approach is that of bringing physical systems from a state of 'superposition of probabilities', or a 'wave-packet' - a very counterintuitive unphysical state in which for example position and speed are undefined - to that of the usual physical state we are accustomed to, that we call physical reality.

Eugene Wigner [a], a leading^[94] theoretical physicist, came out clearly in support of the idea that consciousness is qualitatively other than non-conscious measuring devices:

" ........It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness ..........."

"..........it follows that the being with a consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device ..........." ^[95].

Section III: Why Consciousness is Effective in Collapsing the Wave Function: Speculations

Consciousness: The Unobserved Observer

It would seem reasonable to conclude that the collapse of the wave function is possible only where the observation is qualitatively different than the events or interactions it is observing. That is, the observation is not part of a chain of quantum events, existing as a superposition, but rather is a uniquely distinct phenomenon, deriving from outside the chain of cause-effect. If so, consciousness may be that which uniquely collapses the wave function since it is the medium whereby we perceive everything whether it is the outside universe, our own internal reality, or the consciousness of another: all is necessarily filtered through our own consciousness and it is the final arbiter of what is reality.

Being conscious we say that we 'exist', and being conscious of something else we say that it exists, and so it is perhaps not surprising that consciousness has the ability to collapse the wave function to bring entities from probability-existence to real physical existence. Or that without consciousness there is no meaning to 'existence' and therefore mathematics which does not take consciousness into account will be necessarily lacking that final step. If the equations are attempting to describe what is, they must necessarily describe what it is that we will be aware of as existing, and so they must insert consciousness into the equation, and the way of inserting it is to effectuate the collapse of the wave function.

When the consciousness of a mathematician or theoretical physicist contemplates the universe and creates equations in their consciousness which describe the universe as it is viewed by their consciousness, it is not a valid equation if it ignores consciousness.

Consciousness: The Unobserved Observer : The All-Seeing but Unseen

When consciousness wishes to observe itself, there is always some part of itself which it cannot observe - namely that part which is doing the observing. Hence, consciousness is both necessary and sufficient for observation (for example, observation of itself) and is also the only phenomenon in the universe not given to observation in totality (since consciousness can never totally observe itself).

Consciousness therefore occupies a very unique role in terms of observation of external and internal reality. Perhaps the fact that consciousness alone is what observes, yet it alone cannot itself be observed, is what provides it uniquely with the ability to bring the universe into physical reality via observation.

MESH: All that we perceive of the outside universe - and all internal reality as well - we perceive via our consciousness. Even were we to wish to examine the consciousness of another, we could do so only by using our own consciousness. Thus, everything that we observe - including consciousness itself - is necessarily filtered through our own consciousness. The two basic knowns are that we are conscious and that we exist - and all of existence is known to us only via our consciousness - consciousness and existence are interrelated.

Even when consciousness wishes to observe itself, there is always some part of itself which it cannot observe - namely that part which is doing the observing.

Consciousness, Time and Separateness

The very idea of a the state of a system being actually a superposition-wave developing in time and then collapsing to a definite value involves the concept of a flow of time, a concept not actually inherent in the system itself, nor in the mathematical description of the system. As such, the perception that there has been a change from the system as superposed wave function to specific value is directly a ramification of our status as conscious entities.

Similarly, the very idea that we exist separately from the system, that we are not the system, but rather are outside it and observing it, is also a direct ramification of our being conscious entities.

This separateness and sense of time flow are two fundamental aspects of consciousness, and as they underly the concept of a system developing as a wave function and then collapsing to a specific value, it is appropriate that it be the very act of consciousness observing the system which is the catalyst for the change of state of the wave function.

Why would consciousness appear in quantum physics rather than in classical physics? Certainly the fact that quantum physics speaks of many possibilities but we witness only one, there is need for a mechanism to collapse the many to the one, but why should it be consciousness?

Consciousness might be that which by definition is the unique identity, the 'other' opposed to everything else in the universe, the 'I', and therefore the existence of more than one possibility is antithetical to consciousness. Also, a consciousness aware of all possiblitities is stagnant, time-symmetric and invariant; only the individual possibility can have a unique identity. Therefore that which transforms the all-possibility into the one unique way is by definition consciousness - which selects out a unique identity from the multitude-all.

Even if one wished to argue that consciousness is not fundamental to 'nature' it is certainly fundamental to our theory of nature, since theory is a description by our minds of patterns of our sensory perceptions. And consequently, consciousness enters into physical theory at a fundamental level, albeit in a manner which is maximally unobtrusive - not actually affecting events, but rather selecting out a unique path of events.

If consciousness has no effect on the physical realm, then it would seem to follow that a universe without consciousness would be identical to that universe without its consciousness. Nevertheless, to make such a comparison requires a consciousness - there must be a consciousness which observes both universes and then can conclude that there is no difference. Therefore consciousness can play the minimalistic role of that which allows for the statement “there is no effect of consciousness on the universe”. In this role consciousness cannot change matters but can only giving meaning to statements. Generally, science would not take account of any alleged phenomenon which cannot interact and affect the universe, however consciousness could be the one element in a universe which may be indispensable even though it does not affect (and therefore fully interact with) the rest of the universe.

Section IV

Retroactive Causation

An even more radical extension of this idea - that the emergence of physical events into reality can be attributed to the act of observation performed by a consciousness - was made by John Wheeler, one of the leading theoretical physicists of this generation. Wheeler showed that if our conscious measurement/observation of an event cause the emergence of that physical event into reality, then an observation now can cause retroactively the emergence into reality of an event which occurred in the past.

This he demonstrated by the delayed choice experiment - a variation on the standard 'double-slit' experiment . In Wheeler's words [d] [italics in the original]:

"Let us wait until the quantum has already gone through the screen before we - at our free choice - decide whether it shall have gone "through both slits" or "through one." "

INSERT DIAGRAM

one photon lens plus venetian-blind two

per timed doubly-slit film photon

flash metal screen detectors

In referring to this drawing, Wheeler states the following:

....^[96]We, by a decision in the here and now, have an irretrievable influence on what we will want to say about the past - a strange inversion of the normal order of time....The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

This idea of a retroactive determination of reality has been adapted by Wheeler to a very fundamental problem indeed, as we shall see below.

Section V

The "Strong Anthropic Principle"

Wheeler has tied the idea of the observer in quantum physics to the greatest mystery of science - the question of the origin of the universe. According to Wheeler, the universe arose "by itself", through a random fluctuation, but only because it was a universe which could give rise eventually to conscious beings. These conscious beings would observe the universe and thus bring it into reality!

This sounds impossible and absurd, but the physics of the big bang involves processes governed by quantum gravity, and Wheeler himself has shown how our usual intuitions about causality may be invalid where quantum gravity is concerned - where space-time itself undergoes random quantum fluctuations^[97].

According to him, based on the delayed-choice experiment:

" 'observership' allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time"^[98],

Wheeler has constructed a fascinating diagram to illustrate this concept (see Figure 7-1). Explaining the diagram, he writes: “Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership. Acts of observer-participancy in turn give tangible reality to the universe not only now but back to the beginning.” [g].

……………

MESH : The "Retroactive Universe": The famous physicist John Wheeler has taken this several steps further. According to him the entire universe can emerge into true physical existence only via the observation of a consciousness! [DUP: a consciousness is indispensable to the universe if it is to emerge into reality. Physical reality can be said to exist only as a result of our presence within it or, more precisely, as a result of our perception of it. ] And then he goes the next step: according to Wheeler's “quantum metaphysics,” in some sense the univere emerges 'retroactively'.

………………………

THIS SECTION CAN BE SKIPPED

INNSERT DIAGRAM

In referring to this diagram, Wheeler writes [h]:

"The universe viewed as a self-excited circuit. Starting small (thin U at upper right), it grows (loop of U) and in time gives rise (upper left ) to observer-participancy - which in turn imparts "tangible reality" (cf. the delayed-choice experiment) to even the earliest days of the universe." ^[99]

"If an anthropic principle, why an anthropic principle? Envisage as Carter does 'an ensemble of universes' in only a very small fraction of which life and consciousness are possible?

Or ask as we do now if no universe at all could come into being unless it were guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little length of time in its history-to-be?"

"[Should we say that:]

'The universe, meaningless or not would still come into being and run its course even if the constants and initial conditions forever ruled out the development of life and consciousness. Life is accidental and incidental to the machinery of the universe'. Or, going beyond the anthropic principle, is the directly opposite view closer to the truth, that the universe, through some mysterious coupling of future with past, required the future observer to empower past genesis?

"Nothing is more astonishing about quantum mechanics than its allowing one to consider seriously......the... view that the universe would be nothing without observership as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity.

"Is observership the 'electricity' that powers genesis?"

and [i]:

"Quantum mechanics has led us to take seriously and explore the .....view that the observer is as essential to the creation of the universe as the universe is to the creation of the observer."

...................

[T]he universe would be nothing without observership, as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity….

“[O]bservership” allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time….

Thus, according to “quantum metaphysics,” a consciousness is indispensable to the universe if it is to emerge into reality. Physical reality can be said to exist only due to our presence within it or, more precisely, as a result of our perception of it.

Section VI Consciousness, Eden, and Creation

The above quantum metaphysical picture of our universe grants cosmic importance to the emergence of conscious beings and therefore illuminates the broader cosmological significance of the theme of the Garden of Eden account.

The Eden account is often interpreted as a mythological-type story inserted for theological reasons, but otherwise unconnected to the creation account in Genesis. And, the fact of the protagonist being the Adam of the creation account is considered to be similarly motivated. In distinction to this, the quantum metaphysical connection between the emergence of consciousness and the emergence into physical existence of the universe as a whole shed light not only on the Eden account itself but also on its juxtaposition to the creation account; it is in fact crucial that these accounts be interrelated and that the Adam of the creation account be the protagonist of the Eden account.

Science, metaphysics, and philosophy contribute to the overall picture, to which the creation and Eden are also relevant. The scientific origin theory provides an explanation of the creation mechanism - a universe develops from a singularity and big bang, and evolves until the emergence of consciousness. Quantum metaphysics proposes further that the universe does not emerge into physical reality until the first conscious being emerges, so that the universe is retroactively-existent. The connection made by philosophy between the emergence of consciousness and the onset of meaningful activity adds a dimension to the story, and in the Biblical context of a purposefully created universe, it is clear why the onset of meaning should be made to coincide with the actual creation.

In the context of a created retroactive universe, to paraphrase Genesis:

"And Gd said:

'Let there have been a big bang'.

And it was so."

^[100]

………………

MESH the below text into the above material as necessary/appropriate

......... Quantum Physics and Free Will..........

'True Free Will' is Unique, and Controversial: In order that a true free will exist, these two conditions must be satisfied:

1) more than one option exists at a decision point, as in quantum physics as opposed to determinism;

2) an option can be selected "freely", ie

a) not randomly, as in quantum physics;

b) not deterministically as implied by the rationality of a truly free choice.

The conundrum from the point of view of physics is: On the one hand, requirement #1 has been shown possible by quantum physics, while on the other hand #2 is contradicted by quantum physics which states that options are ‘selected’ at random. Furthermore, choice must be rational to be free, and rational implies deterministic (The idea of a truly free non-random choice implies a choice made after careful deliberation rather than by caprice. To be rational, a choice must be based on reasoning, which is a chain of logic, or at least a determi nistic chain of thought. This deterministic chain leads eventually to one's genetic complement and environment and so forth.) Therefore free choice is self-contradictory.

Our intuition is in favor of the idea of true free will, but our conception of logic makes the same true free will counterintuitive.

The Acausality of Free Will: a Rationale and Ramifications: Beyond our intuition there are other justifications for assuming the possibility of non-causal, or 'acausal' pro cesses, and these perhaps point the way to the physical origin of the type of radically-acausal phenomenon such as free will.

a) The greatest mystery of all is the origin of the universe. A universe which exists is in itself an indication of acausality for it exists without real cause: cause implies temporal order, yet time originated with the uni verse and thus no cause could "precede" the existence of the universe. Thus in some sense, at its most fundamental level, even the scientific conception of existence implies acausality.

It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe whose very existence implies acausal ity to exhibit free will-type acausality. [We will elsewhere argue that if such processes exist, a likely place for them to manifest is where consciousness is involved.]

b) Another question arises as to the origin of consciousness, and then of free will: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that consciousness evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon, matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (PDR), give rise via a physical mechanism such as evolution, to a qualitatively different pheno menon, conciousness. And how could free will have emerged^[6][6]? One answer would be that consciousness was inherent in the universe at its origin and this enabled the human brain to attain consciousness at some point in its evolution (for example, perhaps when the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the consciousness inherent in the universe). Another answer would suppose that consciouness was not present always, but rather it somehow 'emerged', somehow arose without precedent, basically in a non-causal manner, just as the universe itself exists acausally. It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe in which consciousness is present from the beginning to exhibit mind-like properties such as free will, and even more-so for a universe in which consciousness 'emerges' acausally.

The Relationship of Free Will and Consciousness: Free will is possible only as a property of a consciousness - an "I" that wills. (This can be seen upon some reflection.) On the other hand, consciousness is possible without an accompanying free will. However, consciousness alone would be powerless to affect events in the absence of free will – it would be a prisoner of its ‘host body’- and everything occurs as it would without the existence of consciousness.

Thus if by human consciousness we mean a phenomenon which can interact with the universe and affect it, then we must consider consciousness to be free-willed, and so we can for this purpose consider free will and human consciousness as inseparable.

Possibly free will was inherent in the universe and at a certain point in the evolution of the human brain, free will existed where it had "previously" not existed. When the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the free will inherent in the universe. Or, as an acausal phenomenon, free will needed no direct preceding "cause" and could thus arise even as the product of PDR processes.

Furthermore, according to Gödel man can interact with these truths, which^[162]: "…may represent an aspect of objective reality, but, as opposed to the sensations, their presence in us may be due to another kind of relationship between ourselves and reality."

It is possible that humans, via their free willed consciousness, are capable of linking to a transcendent realm of truth, and employing their ability to engage in creative thought to produce truths which lie in the transcendent realm, a realm beyond the reaches of machines and beings bound by the determinism/randomness of the rest of the universe ^{[163] [164]}.

The Evolution of Free-Willed Consciousness

The Evolution or Emergence of Consciousness

The most fundamental premise of science is that all phenomena - even those not understood at present - can be explained 'naturally'. Consciousness is no exception. Those scientists who accept the reality of consciousness will necessarily postulate that it arose naturally. That is, if today the universe contains consciousness, it must have either developed in a natural way from a prior state which lacked consciousness, or else consciousness was always present in the universe.

According to the origin theory, the universe in the distant past contained only inorganic matter, and close to its origin contained only a chaotic highly energetic grouping of fundamental particles. It is generally accepted that consciousness is invariably associated with organic matter, and particularly highly oganized organic matter, which developped only billions of years after the big bang, and thus it would seem unlikely that consciousness could have existed in the first billion years of the universe's existence. his would imply that somehow consciousness emerged in the universe where previously there was no consciousness. How this could happen, given that consciousness is 'other' than the rerst of the universe is perplexing.

On the other hand, it is possible that consciousness is associated with some or all elements of the physical universe, and was present to some degree in the initial state of the universe. Since consciousness is not as yet understood, we cannot a priori assume that there is any particular physical property which is necessary in order for it to exist. For example, we cannot relate consciousness to size or any other physical property, and so one can conceive of tiny elementary particles as being conscious without this presenting a physical impossibility^[165]. [The consciousness of an entity could be postulated to depend on some interaction between its components entities, or some intrinsic non-structural property].

Although it is not evident to us that these elementary particles are conscious, it may be that this is so due to the inability of their consciousness to interact with the rest of the physical universe. Perhaps they are indeed conscious, however they cannot communicate without the whole system available to us - they lack vocal cords, brains which know language and control the mouth, ears etc, a visual system to locate and learn about other beings and so on. Since we cannot communicate directly consciousness to consciousness, there is no way for us to know of their consciousness. Alternatively, it may be that the consciousness associated with individual fundamental particles not interacting with others is of a low degree and is therefore not manifest to us^[166].

Human consciousness seems to be unique, and must be the result of something unique about our physical structure .Since it is generally felt that consciousness is associated with the brain, we would feel that this uniqueness must be related to the brain. However since consciousness is not a physical property like all others we are familiar with, we might on the other hand expect that the uniquenesss should be that of a qualitative type, although associated with our physical brain.

A candidate for the qualitative uniqueness is that of complexity of interaction.

Consciousness, Holism, and Emergence:

Consciousness as a Holistic Phenomenon

Holistic phenomenon are those whose properties cannot be predicted from the properties of its components. It has been suggested that perhaps consciousness is in some way a holistic phenomenon, so that its properties cannot be predicted from the properties of the components of the brain. The accepted view of physics denies the validity of holism, and the assumed 'law of cause and effect' builds the properties of the whole from the properties of the constituents.

However, if consciousness involves the acausality or self-causation of free will, then it need not be derivable via cause-effect from underlying components so that it may not have a more basic structure than it itself as a whole, and its properties as a whole could be very different than the properties of the entities of which it is composed.

Emergent Properties

Emergent properties are by definition properties which are not derivable via natural law from "lower level" phenomena. If such properties exist, they would arise at some stage in the evolution of a system, a stage at which it attains a complexity which precipitates it into a qualitatively different state - a state not derivable from its prior state, and thus not causally related to it. Nevertheless, even if such qualitative leaps do occur, there must be some rule (even if PDR) which defines the conditions under which they occur, dictating when such emergent properties will arise. Thus there is also some element of causation, without there being a true causal chain - the qualitative change is independent of the preceding chain of cause and effect, yet its occurrence is far from random, so that emergent phenomena represent a form of ordered self-causation.

It is expected that if they exist, emergent properties would inhere in complex systems. The initial state of the universe was the most uniform possible state - and thus a state totally devoid of complexity, or at least devoid of the complexity necessary to give rise to emergent phenomena such as consciousness and so on.

If consciousness was present in the universe from its inception, it could also have been independent of any particular physical structure other than the universe as a whole, which is complex

Then when structures such as the human brain emerged, the consciousness inherent in the universe became associates with these brains as well.

The complexity of the present state of the universe is a result of the interactions orchestrated by the laws of nature - in a sense then the complexity is resident in the laws and initial conditions, and was therefore present - albeit in a more rarified form - at the inception of the universe. Therefore it may be that consciousness inheres in the universe as a whole, and then in any sufficiently complex entity which later emerges within the universe.

If a phenomenon which is totally 'other' than the rest of the physical universe, such as consciousness, was not inherent in the initial state of the universe, its emergence at some later time is not causally related to the initial state. Nevertheless, there must be some rule which defines the conditions under which an emergent property would develop along the caual chain leading from the initial conditions, and thus there is a causal structure without there being a true causal chain. This again is a form of self-causation.

This break in the causal structure inherent in the concept of emergent properties is similar to that which occurs in each free-willed choice, and both are of the type of acausality which mediates between non-existence and existence.

In an eternal unchanging universe one perhaps expects only causality. However, in a created universe, a universe emerging from a singularity, or even an eternal universe with constant creation (as in the theory of Hoyle and Bondi), since the very existence of the universe points to the existence of acausal processes, one can more easily accept the possibility of other manifestations of acausality, such as emergent processes and free will. ^[167]

Indeed, in a universe whose very existence is based on acausality, on the breakdown of the causal chain, one can almost expect acausality to manifest itself - especially in the realm of consciousness which is the most complex phenomenon known to man, and especially if it is consciousness which gives reality to the universe itself, and does so in a retroactive causally-transcendent manner.

Complexity and Consciousness

One of the complex activities of conscious beings is the playing of chess. Computers now can play chess essentially at the level of the very best humans, and thus exhibit very complex behaviour -are they then conscious?

The fact that they do not clim to be conscious may be due to the fact that there is no way for them to communicate with us - especially if they do not posses free will and can only experience the correlates of that ewhich they were programmed to de rather than actually initiaiting activity on their own - such as a communication to us informing us of their consciousness.

Furthermore, the complexity of a the game of chess played by the computer is actually resident not in the computer itself but rather in the program. A very simple computer can be constructed of elements which noone would suspect to be conscious - the speed of its operation and the great amount of components would enable it to make very complex moves such as are required in chess. It would be as though one took billions of trained mosquitos and organized them in very complex ways - the complexity is resident not in the insects, and not in their aggregate, so much as in the mind which designed the manner in which they were made to operate. In contrast to the mosquitos individually and in concert, it is the complexity of interaction of the brains' components which seems to give it its ability to perform complex operations.

Indeed, one could say that the complexity is resident not in the computer chess program but in the design of the program, in the mind of the programmer, or perhaps in the laws of nature which gave rise to the emergence of the programmer.

If consciousness necessarily follows from complexity, and if human-type behaviour necessarily implies the existence of a complexity equal to that of humans, then any entity exhibiting human-type behavious - such as a chess playing computer/program - would have to be assumed to be conscious. However if these are not true, the fact of complex operation, even simulation of human activity, need not be taken as evidence of human-level complexity, let alone evidence of the existence of consciousness^[168].

Without understanding of the nature of consciousness it is difficult though to set criteria for concluding that consciousness is or is not present in any given entity. Without knowing how consciousness emerges, without an understanding of the minimum necessary conditions for consciousness to exist, we cannot rule out the emergence of consciousness in less complex entities than ourselves.

The Origin of Free Will; The Macroscopic, the Microscopic, and the Mind

As we have seen, there are various levels of causal relationships: absolutely determined, random, probabilistically determined, and free-willed.

Absolute determinism is an apparent property of the observed macrocosmos, while at the microscopic or 'microcosmic' scale randomness is manifest, and probabilistic determinacy is observable in the patterns of such events. Free will - if it exists at all - seems to exist in significant strength only in human consciousness, in mind.

The question then arises as to the origin of free will - whether it is a quality of the universe, or of man. If it is a quality of man only, how could a universe which is probabilistically determined give rise to a non-determined phenomenon - or 'quality' - such as free will? Is one then forced to say that free will type acausality is built into the universe, and was therefore part of the big bang, just as was quantum probabilistic determinism? If this is so, did free will manifest itself in any way before man emerged? If so, what effect did it have? If not, how did it remain existent yet dormant, and what physical uniqueness does man possess which activated the billions-of-years-latent free-will?

The Emergence of Consciousness

While complexity is qualitative, as we have seen quantitatively the compexity of the human brain is maximal in that it is the most complex entity known to science - moreso even than entire planets or stars. This would provide an explanation for why humans are conscious on such a high level, while elementary particles or other structures such as rocks or planets are not - we are conscious in the way we are because each part of us is conscious, and the whole of us is connected in such a uniquely complex manner

Alternatively, one can assume that fundamental particles are not conscious, but that consciousness is a property of complex (organic) systems such as the human brain. If this is the case, then there are two possibilities: consciousness is a physical property which evolved like any other, so that there was no consciousness in the universe until an intelligent being with a complex brain evolved somewhere; or it is a property of the universe as a whole, but not of its constituent particles, a property inherent in the universe and infused into humans when their brains achieved a certain level of development.

……..

[AR: possible partial dup of section " Free Will as the Active Ingredient of Consciousness"]

Free Will: An interaction by a consciousness with the physical universe via a brain-decision which is other than that which would be arrived at by a non-conscious brain, an interaction which as we have seen violates causality, is essentially what we usually mean by a 'free willed' decision. It is 'free' since the decision is 'free' of the constraints of causality.

The only known type of phenomena which are partially independent of causality are random quantum events. However since a random effect on the brain's decisions and their implementation would not grant survival benefits, an evolved effect such as the conscious influence on the brain/body cannot be random; free will - if it can exist - is more appropriate.

Physics and Consciousness

It is not only from the Biblical perspective that human free-willed moral consciousness is of special interest. Scientifically it is an enigma, to the extent that there are some who would even deny that humans possess a free-will, and some who go so far as to cast doubt on the reality of consciousness itself. On the other hand, on the basis of certain implications of quantum physics, some physicists and cosmologists ascribe to consciousness a key role in the origin and evolution of the universe.

According to the determinists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, prior to the development of quantum physics, humans are but complicated machines, without a free will. The behaviourists set the tone in psychology for many years, and in the words of one of its leading proponents, J. B. Watson^[169],

"Behaviourism claims that 'consciousness' is neither a defineable nor a usable concept".

Fifty years later, B. F. Skinner in his popular book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity"^[170] writes:

"In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therfore be held responsible for what he does, and justly punished if he offends.....A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment."

It is precisely these types of view which the creation and Garden of Eden accounts in Genesis address by stressing the unique position of humanity in the universe by virtue of its having been created "in the image of God", possessing a free-willed moral consciousness. And interestingly enough, developments in quantum physics, mathematical logic, neurophysiology and cosmology, have led many physicists mathematicians biologists and cosmologists to the conclusion that consciousness, and in some cases free will, are not only true phenomenon, but also significant from the scientific perspective.

According to Eccles…

insert quotes from old ch 5, from Eccles and then Sperry.

It is free will which allows consciousness its significance to the physical universe, and therefore the emergence of consciousness in itself is less significant than the emergence of free will. Until the emergence of free will all is governed by the initial conditions and laws of nature - a break occurs when free will develops, allowing the course of history to take paths which are at least partially independent of all that went before it, guided by mental rather than physical forces.

The existence of the universe is mysterious, and so is its emergence into existence; in parallel, the existence of free will is mysterious, as is its emergence into existence.

From the point of view of the physical universe, the significant milestones marking the emergence of factors determining its course of development are the initial emergence into existence itself, and later, the emergence of free will. And of course it is precisely these two milestones which are the opening themes of Genesis - the creation and Eden accounts.

The Creation and Eden accounts

As free will is by definition beyond the causal structure of the universe, and is rather part of the mental realm, it is seemingly incapable of evolving, and therefore its existence points either to the mental nature of our universe, or to the existence of a 'supernatural' realm. It is therefore most appropriate that the creation and Eden account relate relate the emergence of humanity into free-willed consciousness via an infusion of the divine - creating man 'in the image of God', and breathing 'the breath of God' into him. It is also appropriate that the aquisition of a non-naturalistic free-willed moral consciousness be described in a figurative rather than naturalistic manner.

Indeed, if the purpose of creation is moral activity, and the process leading to the aquisition by humanity of free-willed moral consciousness is by definition beyond the physical, it is entirely appropriate for the whole of the creation and Eden accounts to be presented in allegorical and symbolic terms as they are, rather than in the naturalistic manner appropriate to the scientific origin theory. The scientific origin theory on the other hand, as it is naturalistic, necessarily leaves out of its description that which is of most fundamental significance from the perspective analyzed In this book, the moral aspect.

Part VIa : The Universe as a Thought in the Mind of God

Does science state unequivocally that there exists a physical universe 'outside' our minds? Can science make definite statements about the past states of this 'physical universe'? What parts of our general scientific belief system is actually metaphysics as opposed to science?

Chapter 21: Solipsism, Existence and Occam's Razor: It may be that the most scientifically correct description of the universe would be as a mental construct. Within such a perspective, free will becomes a more natural concept, and the accounts in Genesis aquire a new interpretation.

Chapter 22: Dreams of Existence: The Universe as Thought: It is not quite so obvious that the universe is fundamentally physical, in fact many scientists have expressed an opposite opinion, as have many mystics. Two thousand years ago a Jewish philosopher understood the creation account in this spirit.

Solipsism, Existence, and Occam's Razor

Introduction

Although it seems quite mad to deny the existence of the physical universe, or the reality of the existence of minds other than our own, modern physics has shown that we cannot always allow our intuition to guide us when presuming to make statements about the ultimate reality of the universe.

There may be also a difference between accepting something as fact, based on intutition, and the expectation that this 'fact' should somehow be demonstrably true, provable.

As is the case in mathematics and logic, where Godel showed that in any formal system there are intuitively true statements which cannot be proven, so analogously we may state that such is the case for reality as a whole - not all statements about reality which are intuitively true are provably true. Furthermore, the quintessential self-referential statements 'the universe exists', 'I exist' are the basis of all further knowledge, yet are themselves known without proof, as shown by Descartes.

That is, some things are obviously true, and one who denies them might be termed mad, yet nevertheless there is no way to actually prove that they are true, such as for example, that the physical universe exists rather than simply being an element of consciousness.

This does not mean that one need reject the truth of such assumptions, but rather one should be aware that although reality is such that all provably true statements about it are consistent, the introduction of unprovable assumptions may introduce the possibility of paradox. Indeed, as we shall see in this chapter, if one limits oneself only to that which can be proven, many of the intractable problems of philosophy disappear. However, this is achieved at the cost of leaving the concepts of existence, time, free will, and their origins - topics fundamental to the creatrion and Eden accounts - undefined scientifically.

Knowledge and Existence

Not all of what people claim to know is actually known directly, and many basic conflicts in philosophy and science arise due to the acceptance of the validity of certain basic assumptions regarding what is known, or even what is 'obviously true'. These problems disappear if we reject these assumptions and work only with that which is directly known.

Much of what people catgorize as knowledge is actually deduction, intuition, inferral and even assumption. What we seem to know of most surely is that we exist, that we are conscious, and that we are not machines acting out a program, but rather that we have a free will (the three topics also forming the underlying theme of the creation and Eden accounts).

To say that we do not exist or that we are not conscious seems meaningless to us, however we can conceive of our feeling of free will as being an illusion, so that we can perhaps imagine restricting our statement of what we know to simply the word 'I', which implies both 'I exist' and 'I am conscious' (reminiscient of, but different than, the formulation of Descartes: "I think therefore I am") without necessarily "I have a free will".

Operationalism

The operational view considers as meaningless any distinctions which cannot in principle be humanly measured or detected, and limits itself to a consideration only of those phenomena which are objectively existent and given to observation or measurement.

For example if God is by definition not physically detectable, operationalism does not include within it any mention of God. Furthermore, since even physical entities such as electrons are detectable only via measuring instruments (because they are so small), operationalism deals more with these measurements than with the electrons themselves.

By formulating everything in terms of what can be directly observed, operationalists hope to avoid the mistakes of scientists and philosophers of the past who made incorrect assumptions without even realizing that they made assumptions at all.

However, in the final analysis of course, all that we measure or observe is filtered via our brain to our consciousness, so that not only do we not see God or electrons, even that which we do see or measure is not directly experienced, but is rather a sensory impression in our minds. As a result, the existence of the physical universe itself is not a matter of direct observation, but rather is inferred or assumed or intuited as a result of events in one's mind.

Consciousness, Sensory Perceptions, and the Physical Universe

Not everything that we are conscious of is an element of the external physical universe. When we dream, our brain originates within itself electrical signals which are interpreted by our minds as sensory impressions, and thus we can experience events which never really occurred. Similarly, the brains of subjects undergoing brain surgery have been electrically stimulated in a way which gave rise to hallucinations in the subjects' minds. In theory, a disembodied brain kept alive by machines could be stimulated electrically to induce in its mind the hallucination that it inhabits an ordinary body, and lives a normal life.

There is therefore no way that we can prove that we are not actually disembodied brains. Indeed, we cannot even prove that there exists a physical universe at all - we may be purely mental beings who are experiencing a dream/hallucination [ for example the hallucination that we are physical brains in a jar, or that we are physical beings possessing a physical brain]. Nevertheless, we generally make the assumption that indeed we do exist within a physical universe, that there exists a universe ''outside us''. This outside universe is however somehow dependent on us for its reality.

In the words of the great physicist Erwin Schrodinger (1958):

"The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But certainly it does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special goings on in very special parts of this very world, namely, on certain events that happen in a brain."

All that we experience can be classified as either sensory impressions, emotions, beliefs, thoughts, acts of will, or the like. Of these, we assume that the sensory impressions are responses of our body to actual events in the postulated outside universe. The others we agree are purely mental events. They may arise in response to events in the outside universe, but they are not correlates of events there - they could however be correlates of events in our physical brain. However, at the most basic level, all that we know of, is known via our consciousness.

The great astrophysicist and General Relativist Sir Arthur Eddington expressed this almost poetically:

"Not once in the dim past, but continuously by conscious mind is the miracle of the Creation wrought.

"All through the physical world runs that unknown content, which must surely be the stuff of our consciousness. . . . Where science has progressed the farthest, the mind has but regained from nature that which the mind has put into nature.

"We have found a strange foot-print on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the foot-print. And Lo! it is our own."

In sum, that which we know of directly is our consciousness and all that it contains, sensory impressions, thoughts, emotions and so on. We have a feeling that some of this content of consciousness is due to an external universe which we are aware of via various senses, and we call these elements of our consciousness "sensory perceptions". Essentially the physical universe is simply our term for what we feel to be the source of these sensory impressions, but our feeling regarding the existence of such an external physical universe can well be an illusion.

Science as an Ordering of Perceptions in Consciousness

Science can seemingly not deal with the mind itself which is experiencing the ''events" it studies, nor with the mental processes which led to the very construction of science. Further, exact science does not deal with those mental events such as emotions, beliefs, and thoughts which are not correlates of outside physical events.

Science is the study of regularities in the events of the outside universe, and therefore it is actually the study of regularities in that subset of our conscious experience which we term "sensory impressions". Science therefore is a study of relations between certain elements in our consciousness, but as we have seen it does not yet deal with all such elements, and it cannot (yet) deal with consciousness itself.

Further, science is not something that is fed to us by the sensory impressions themselves. Rather science is a construct of our minds based on our intellectual interpretation of the regularities of the sensory impressions. Or equivalently, science is constructed from our interpretation of the regularities of the alleged events of the postulated outside universe supposedly causing these impressions.

In the words of the eminent physicist Eugence P. Wigner on the occasion of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1963:

" Physics does not endeavor to explain nature. In fact, the great success of physics is due to a restriction of its objectives: it only endeavors to explain the regularities in the behavior of objects. This renunciation of the broader aim, and the specification of the domain for which an explanation can be sought, now appears to us an obvious necessity. . . .

"The regularities in the phenomena which physical science endeavors to uncover are called the laws of nature. The name is actually very appropriate. Just as legal laws regulate actions and behavior under certain conditions but do not try to regulate all action and behavior, the laws of physics also determine the behavior of its objects of interest under certain well-defined conditions but leave much freedom otherwise."

Idealism, Materialism and Dualism

It is possible to consistently classify all entities in the universe into two categories: the mental and the physical. Emotions, thoughts, sensations, "mind" and so on are mental, while atoms and tables and brains are physical. The relationship between the two categories has historically been seen in three different ways: the idealistic, the materialistic, and the dualistic.

The idealist considers an "atom" to be a concept invented by the human mind in order to easily categorize and summarize certain ideas and conclusions obtained after much thought; "table" is a word used to signify a certain set of sensations; and so on. To the idealist, only the mental exists - the "physical" is a collection of concepts within the mind.

Since one is conscious only of one's own consciousness, it is impossible to prove to another the existence of one's consciousness, and thus one has no conclusive proof that anyone else exists other than as one's conscious experience of them. This is called "the problem of other minds".

The idealist position which does not accept the existence of other minds is called solipsism, so that the solipsist position is essentially that all that exists is 'my consciousness'.

At the other extreme, the materialist considers the "mental" to be a physical aspect of the physical universe - no less physical than atoms, tables, and brains. "Mind" is physical in the same way that a computer program is physical. However, most people find it impossible to understand how mind can be matter.

To the dualist, both mental and physical exist, and they interact in some as yet not understood manner. How it can be that they interact is the essence of the 'mind body problem' of philosophy, one of the most intractable of difficulties, which has puzzled thousands of philosophers and scientists for thousands of years.

Occam's Razor and the Exernal Physical Universe

One of the most useful of principles guiding the development of physical theory is that of simplicity and economy ("Occam's razor"). Assumptions which cannot be proven, and are not needed to explain facts, are excised from physical theory.

Some of the greatest problems of philosophy and science derive from a number of basic assumptions which are unprovable. Without these assumptions, these problems do not exist, and this may be sufficient reason to disgard these assumptions. However, the assumptions are assumed to be so evidently true by most people that very few are willing to relinquish them, even at the cost of incurring so many intractable problems in philosophy and physics.

The problems we are referring to are the 'problem of other minds' and the 'mind body problem' in philosophy, while in regard to physics, they are the problems of the nature and origin of consciousness and of its interaction with the physical universe (and 'the measurement problem' involving the 'collapse of the wave function' in quantum physics). The assumptions we speak of are that there is an 'outside physical universe', and that there are consciousnesses other than our own.

If one accepts only what is directly known, and rejects assumptions (that which is not verifiable), then it is clear that there is no need to postulate the independent existence of an outside physical universe, or of other consciousnesses - it is impossible to prove that there exists a universe 'out there', it is impossible for anyone to prove to us that they are conscious, and no fact of our experience is rendered inexplicable if we leave out these assumptions. Since these are unnecessary assumptions (not needed to explain observed facts), and they are unprovable, and they complicate matters by introducing complex and perhaps unresolvable paradoxes, it is far simpler to reject these assumptions.

Not all problems can be solved in this way, but the problems which remain are present also in the usual model as well, so that the idealistic solipsistic approach does lead to less problematics, even if it is not a perfect system. The great mystery that remains is how our consciousness came to exist, and why it operates as it does, but this is the same mystery we encounter in the ordinary model of reality, the question of how our universe came to exist, and why it operates as it does.

However, even if we accept that only our own consciousness exists, we seem not to be masters of our own fate. This fact need not be taken as an indication that we are not the only existent entity, since it might be that by sufficient development of self we can decide what our experience will be - as many mystics claim. Furthermore, the question of why we seem to feel that we exist in a physical body in a physical universe, and why we experience what we do, is essentially the question of why the univere is as it is, which is unresolved in the ordinary model as well.

Solipsism, the idea that only our consciousness exists, may be considered psychologically unappealing to many, but it is not only logically impeachable, it is in certain instances the simplest assumption which fits the facts, and therefore, by 'Occam's Razor', it should be the preferred explanation.

Indeed, according to Nobel-Prize winning physicist P. W. Bridgman^[1]:

"This position, which I suppose is the solipsist position, is often felt to be absurd and contrary to common sense. How it is asked, can there be agreement as to experience unless there are external things which both you and I perceive? Part of the hostility to the solipsist position is, I think, merely due to confusion of thinking, and there is a strong element of the pseudo-problem mixed up here. If I say that an external thing is merely part of my direct experience to which I find that you react in certain ways, what more is there to be said, or indeed what other operational meaning can be attached to the concept of an external thing? It seems to me that as I have stated it, the solipsist position, if this is indeed the solipsist position, is a simple statement of what direct observation gives me, and we have got to adjust our thinking so that it will not seem repugnant."

The various people in a dream event seem to be independent, with individual consciousnesses, and we in our dream have no control over them - sometimes indeed we are victimized by them. Nevertheless, when we awake, it is clear to us that all these 'individuals' were elements of our own consciousness.

The solipsist position maintains that such is the case even when we are awake - only our own consciousness exists, and all other seemingly existent entities and beings are elements of our own consciousness, so that 'reality' is essentially an elaborate 'day dream'.

The Problem of Time, and Solipsism of the Moment

A great source of philosophical and scientific puzzlement derives from our conception of time - for example how time can originate or end, and why the 'passage of time' does not exist in physics.

In relativistic physics, space and time are on an equal footing, and just as space exists without 'flowing', so too all of time can be thought of as existing simultaneously without 'flowing' - in physics in general there is no indication that time 'flows'. The 'flow of time' is an element of our experiance which is not reflected in physical theory, and therefore it can be concluded that the experience of time flow is subjective.

One can know only the present - the past exists only in our memory, and as part of our interpretation of present situations, we assume that they 'developed' from some 'previous time'. As Nobel Prize winning philosopher Bertrand Russel stated:

"It is quite clear that I can have a recollection without the thing remembered having happened; as a matter of logical possibility, I might have begun to exist five minutes ago, complete with all the memories that I then had."^[171]

It is certainly not impossible that the universe exists now as you read this, and did not exist any time in the past, so that although you have a memory of having read the previous paragraph, this never actually happened. Or that the universe exists only now, as you read this next sentence, or.... In the words of Stephen Hawking, one of the world's leading physicists and cosmologists:

"One could still imagine that Gd created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang."

Indeed, if we do not make the assumption of the reality of moments of which we are not directly conscious, a simplification of many philosophical and physical problems is arrived at.

If one rejects what is not directly known, in this case the assumption that there is a flow of time, or that time exists at all, all the scientific and philosophical difficulties associated with time disappear^[172]. Science then becomes a method of ordering our perceptions and our memory of prior perceptions, rather than a description of an external physical universe possessing a history.

This is not to imply that we accept that the universe exists only for an instant or that solipsism is an accurate reflection of the 'underlying reality'. Instead, what is being suggested is that since science is a relation between elements of consciousness, excess fundamental assumptions going beyond what is directly known to consciousness can introduce contradictions or paradoxes. There is no way we can scientifically or philosophically know of the actual nature of 'the underlying reality', and any such elements introduced into scientific discourse - such as the assumption of an external universe, the existence of other minds, the existence of more than just one moment of time or that the universe necessarily emerged into existence at some specific point - may well lead to inconsistency in scientific theory or philosophical discourse.

The scientific solipsistic position proposed here is however one of epistemology rather than ontology: rather than making statements about what the universe is really like, one speaks about what one can know of the universe, and concludes that there is no way to distinguish between a 'real' universe and a solipsistic one, and that therefore the distinction between the two is meaningless. More importantly, one concludes that any statement which relies on the assumption that the universe is 'real' as opposed to solipsistic is potentially misleading or simply incorrect.

Conclusion: The validity of the basic truths, "I exist, I am conscious" cannot be questioned, however the postulate "there is an external universe" is not provable, and is indeed not necessary in the construction of science. The conviction that we are free willed is one of the most basic that we possess^[173], however it cannot be proven - at least at this juncture. Indeed, from some perspectives it is difficult to see how free will can exist if there exists a physical universe outside our minds. However, the postulation of the existence of an external universe is as much of a speculative assumption as the postulation of the existence of free will, and a clash between the two certainly need not invalidate one or the other.

The Biblical perspective: There exists a spiritual realm separate from the physical: God is in some sense 'outside' of the universe, 'beyond' spacetime, perhaps beyond the concepts of human thought. God is a spiritual entity who originated the physical universe of matterenergy-spacetime, and is outside of it yet intimately connected, active all the while in directing historical events. In a similar manner, each human is imbued with a soul, infused in them "by the breath of God", a soul which is spiritual yet interacts with the body in some way. Similarly, humanity is created 'in the image of God'^[174] and possesses a free will, independent of the causal workings of the physical universe, a self-causative phenomenon reflective of the original creative act, which is both beyong causality and physicality, yet nevertheless is intimately involved in human physical activity.

The question of the actual physical existence of the universe is not decideable by science, and it actually irrelevant to the pursuit of science - it is instead correctly considered an issue of metaphysics. Whatever the actual nature of existence, the introduction of assumptions about it which are not provable may lead to paradoxes. Therefore without taking a stand on the metaphysical question of the existence of a 'physical universe', it can be seen that science as such offers no reason to conclude that free will is not a fundamental feature of reality.

Indeed from the perspective of the creation and Eden accounts, free will is intimately linked to creation and the purpose of creation, and the mind/body paradox is hinted at in the phrases "and the spirit of God hovered on the waters...", "and God breathed into him the spirit of life".

Moreso, the contradictory natures of the creation and Eden accounts, highlighted by their juxtaposition, can be seen to mirror the two basic contradictory human conceptions, that of the existence of a physical universe and of the reality of free will: the creation account detailing the construction of a physical universe, and the Eden account relating the emergence of free will, are incompatible at the literary level as a mirror of their fundamental metaphysical paradoxicality. ^[175]

Dreams of Existence: the Universe as Thought

Introduction: Over the years, a number of physicists have come to the conclusion that the universe is actually something to the effect of "an idea in a mind".

The anthropic principle presents the idea that the big bang can be described as that set of conditions which would be necessary to eventually produce a moral being. It therefore raises the possibility that the universe is the product of design, of the deliberate planned creation by an intelligent conscious being; an act of will.

In order to create a big bang which would indeed eventually produce a moral being, the desired form of the moral being would have to be considered, and a blueprint drawn up for the required big bang. One can imagine the creating mind as deliberating over the desired form of the moral being and of the big bang prior to actually creating the physical universe. Indeed, one could define the creation of the universe as the assembling within this mind of a complete outline of the desired universe.

In this chapter we will look at various sources for this idea from ancient to modern times.

God as Mathematician

Even prior to the formulation of the anthropic principle and of quantum metaphysics, Sir James Jeans, the eminent astrophysicist, wrote [c]:

". . . Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.

. . . We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds - not, so far as we have discovered, emotion, morality, or aesthetic appreciation, but the tendency to think in the way which, for want of a better word, we describe as mathematical.

. . . And the concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature . . . all these concepts seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought, incapable of realization in any sense which would properly be described as material.

. . . To my mind, the laws which nature obeys are less suggestive of those which a machine obeys in its motion than of those which a musician obeys in writing a fugue, or a poet in composing a sonnet.

. . . If all this is so, then the universe can be best pictured, although still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisting of pure thought, the thought of what, for want of a wider word, we must describe as a mathematical thinker. Again, we may think of the laws to which phenomena conform in our waking hours, the laws of nature, as the laws of thought of a universal mind. The uniformity of nature proclaims the self-consistency of this mind." ^[176]

Recently, Davies writes:

According to Barrow...

INSERT QUOTES

The idea of the universe existing as a thought in a mind is not new, and indeed some of the earliest Biblical commentators have seen the creation account in Genesis as referring to a mental creation - creation of the universe not as a physical entity but rather as a thought or dream in the mind of God. Philo, writing in Alexandria of 1,800 years ago, felt that prior to the emergence of the material universe there was an incorporeal universe which existed in the mind of God, just as the design of a city exists in the mind of its designer prior to ita actual physical construction.

INSERT PLATO QUOTES

Emergence of the Universe into Existence

Sir James Jeans also raised the idea that the initial creation was actually an act of thought:

". . . if the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought. Indeed the finiteness of time and space almost compel us of themselves, to picture the creation as an act of thought."

The results of science and of scientific speculation picturing the universe as having emerged as a product of deliberate design, and seeing the universe itself as a mental construct in the mind of the intelligence which designed and created it, can allow us to better understand the creation accounts, and the way in which the creation was pictured by many traditional Jewish sources.

According to the midrash.......

And, the Zohar....

INSERT QUOTES

One Talmudic source can be interpreted to imply that the universe existed for a period of time as a mental construct prior to its actual creation[d]:

"Why do some say the universe was created in Tishrei and some say it was created in Nisan? Because there arose in [Gd's Mind the] thought to create the universe in Tishrei but it was actually created in Nisan".

In the Biblical perspective, the universe is the creation of a conscious mind, freely choosing to create, deciding what and how to create. The entire universe is a product of deliberate design, and the creation account relates to the mental design of this universe by a free-willed consciousness. Following it is the Garden of Eden account, referring to the bestowal of the divine image on the created being, granting it the ability to transcend the physical constraints of the universe about it via the exercise of its own independent free-willed consciousness.

Creation of the Laws of Nature

Physics and cosmology teach that the universe began with the big bang, and that at that time the laws of physics we know of today were operating. That which may have been beyond this beginning is not necessarily within the realm of science, since the ultimate origins of the universe involve the onset of time, and it is not clear that there can be scientific meaning to 'the origin of time'. Similarly, if science is the study of the laws of nature, it is not necessarily within the purview of science to deal with the origins of these laws, since the laws of nature could not have originated according to laws of nature without involving paradox and infinite regress. However, much research today involves pushing back the border of the unknown in this direction.

In the context of the anthropic principle, one is led to the idea that the big bang and laws of nature were designed 'prior'^[177] to their actual creation. During this planning process of course, the laws of nature being designed were not yet operative.

Creation would then involve very separate types of activity; the planning of the big bang and laws of nature so as to produce a moral being, and then the actual creation of the big bang and the laws of nature.

According to many traditional sources, the creation account deals with a period during which the laws of nature were not yet applicable. Thus, in the context of the big bang theory and anthropic principle, the creation account deals with the period preceding the actual physical creation of the big bang and laws of nature, the period during which the form of the laws of nature and the character of the big bang were being established.

As Rambam states [a], not only do the 'six days of creation' in the creation account refer to a period prior to the establishment of laws of nature, but in addition:

"the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith....All our sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of the six days....the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed."

According to Sforno^[178]:

"On that day Gd set in order, from heaven, the permanent natural laws of the earth and of its 'offspring'. This was after the six days of creation.... by setting this order, Gd made its existence permanent."

Aristotle believed the universe to be eternal and unchanging, and felt that any laws of nature currently operating were always in force, but according to Rambam, in the spirit of the anthropic principle, the 'laws of nature' observed to be in effect now were designed, and were therefore not always in effect (see later, part VII.,for a more extensive discussion of these issues). Rambam writes [b]:

"It is quite impossible to infer from the qualities which a thing possesses after having passed through all the states of its development what its condition was at the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing at that moment show what its previous condition had been.

"The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. The arguments of our opponents are thus refuted...."

"In short, the properties of things when fully developed contain no clues to what have been the properties of the things before their final form was established. We therefore do not reject as impossible the opinon of those who say that the heavens were produced before the earth, or the reverse, or that the heavens have existed without stars.........other forces than those the universe has at present were acting at its creation..."

That is, according to Rambam, the universe was not necessarily created in accordance with the manner and order dictate by the laws of nature. It was not the laws we now have discovered which governed how the universe developed; rather it was the final structure of the universe which determined which system of laws would come into being.

However, rather than following Rambam's view that the creation of the laws of nature followed the initial creation of some elements of the physical universe, we can follow the insights of the big bang theory and anthropic principle to understand the creation account as referring to a period 'prior' to the actual creation of the physical universe, with the actual creation being that of a set of natural laws and a carefully designed big bang.

Indeed, according to tradition, the universe was created from a carefully designed blueprint, and this blueprint was the Bible itself. Thus, inasmuch as the creation account is part of this blueprint, rather than being a description of events accompanying the creation of the universe itself, it refers to the period during which the moral-being-producing big bang and laws of nature were being designed.

Creation from a Blueprint and

the Creation Account

The Zohar and Midrash [k] state that "Gd looked in the Torah and created the world (from it)".

Philo, possibly repeating an ancient tradition, also states that the first creation account - or part of it - is a description of the construction of the blueprint for creation^[179].

If the Torah is the blueprint of creation one can perhaps say that the mental blueprint for the design of the universe was written into the Torah as the creation account, and then this served as the blueprint for the creation of the universe .

R. Chayim Volozhiner, the outstanding disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, was the author of a mystical treatise entitled "Nefesh HaChayim". In this work he states that the Torah is in a manner of speaking 'of Gd'. It is a 'part' of the Creator, the aspect called "Chokhma" ["Wisdom"]. A such it is on a level higher than that of any of the Emanations of Gd which form the strata of the cosmos, including all spiritual and physical creations [l]. Consequently it can serve as a blueprint for the spiritual as well as the physical cosmos. Being the aspect of Wisdom, the Torah can perhaps be considered as the Mental blueprint of the universe.

Of course since the Torah preceeded the creation of space-time-matter-energy, it could not be a physical entity. Also, since it is a spiritual aspect of Gd, it cannot be 'written', certainly not written in human language. Thus, R. Chayim states, the Torah which we possess is a translation into physicality and into human terms of the beyond-human-comprehension actual Torah [m].

Nevertheless, says R. Khayim, the Torah which was the blueprint for creation was the Torah as we know it. When we are told that Gd created the universe by looking into the Torah, what is meant is that Gd looked at the words "Bereisheet bara Elokim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" ["In the beginning Gd created heaven and earth"], and then Gd created heaven and earth. Gd looked at the words "Yehi ohr" - "Let there be light[ohr]" - and then created ohr.

Thus, the first creation account is the actual blueprint of creation.

It would perhaps follow that there must be two creation accounts: the first being the creation account into which Gd looked to create the universe, and the second being an account of the actual creation, that is, an account of Gd's looking into the first account and creating the universe. There is indeed a second "mini creation account", following the Eden account, containing a short reference to the creation of the universe^[180].

In the above approach, this second account can be relating that when all was mentally designed - physical universe, natural law, and moral being - as laid out in the first creation account, the universe was created, emerging into reality with the emergence within it of conscious free-willed moral humanity .

Reality and Imagination

What can possibly distinguish a real from an imagined existence? If a universe exists in God's mind, does this universe enjoy the same reality status as one which actually exists physically?

There is one criteria which does seem to provide an arbiter of reality, and that is the existence of free will in the universe whose reality status is being weighed. If there is free willed consciousness present, which by definition is free only if it is not a direct consequence of the will of the creator, then the universe by definition possesses an independent existence.

It is free willed consciousness which serves as the model for the universal blueprint in a purposive universe. free willed consciousness is the active ingredient which defines independent existence, and according to quantum metaphysics it is free-willed consciousness which initiates the universe into true physical reality.

Within the context of the above discussion, the creation account is a description of the construction of the mental blueprint, designed about the requirement of the moral being whose emergence is described in the Edenaccount. Consciousness, free will, and moral choice provide the bridge between the existence of the universe as a mental blueprint, a cosmos of spiritual forms, a semi-real quantum superposition whose description is more appropriately provided by the imagery of the creation and Eden accounts, and the full physical reality of the universe inherited by the children of Adam and Eve.

APPENDIX: Design and Creation of the Universe as an Act of Divine Thought: Traditional Sources

The Midrash asks: Why does it say "In the beginning Gd created Heaven and Earth" rather than "and Gd said 'let there be Heaven and Earth '"? ^[181] The Midrash answers that each "let there be" was accompanied by - or is in itself - an angel^[182]. Therefore, people might have assumed that the initial creation was done in partnership with an angel. In order to prevent this most serious error, the initial creation was done via thought rather than via word.

Another source, in the Talmud [e], states that 974 generations of man were to have preceded Adam. Rashi explains that these generations were 'uncreated'. According to R. Bakhya, these generations were destroyed in thought, in Gd's 'Mind". This of course implies that they had previously existed in Gd's Mind.

Furthermore, according to Ramban [f] where the words "and Gd said" appear in the creation account it actually means "and Gd thought". This "thought" was a creation in of itself, and occurred during the day (boker) while the actual physical creation took place at night (erev). Similarly, according to Ibn Ezra, "vayomer" ["and Gd 'said' "] means a creation in Gd's mind , and "va'yar" - "and Gd saw (that it was good)" - means "a thought" that it was good [g].

We can see that the idea of Gd creating a Mental picture of the universe prior to creating the universe itself, and of creation as a mental act is found in many sources. We thus can perhaps feel comfortable in considering the creation to have proceded in the manner most logical to us - that is by the creation of a Mental blueprint universe as described in the first creation account.

The Creation Account as Referring to Spiritual Events Accompanying or Preceding Creation

According to various sources, the universe existed initially in a non-physical state, partially or purely on the spiritual plane, until the transgression of Adam. At that point, the universe became a truly physical entity.

After the onset of free will, it was no longer possible for Man to know unequivocally of Gd's existence - it was now a matter of free willed choice to believe or not. Thus the universe was transformed from a Garden of Eden existence in which Gd's presence was a fact, to a rational physical universe where Gd's presence is hidden. In our interpretation, the universe was transformed from an unequivocally created universe to a big bang emergent one.

We can speculate that perhaps the universe was initially created on the spiritual plane as told in the first account , and developed on this plane as detailed in the second account. Then, after the transgression, Man was expelled from the Garden, that is, the universe emerged into physical reality as a big bang emergent universe at the moral stage.

We can then understand the first creation account, the Garden of Eden account, and their juxtaposition, in a new light.

Further Jewish Sources

According to the Zohar, "Be'resheet Bara" should be read as "Be'resh Yeetbara" which we can here interpret as "In Gd's mind, it will have been created" or "In the beginning, it will have been created"^[183].

One can interepret the passage at the end of the first creation account as implying that the universe was created in one instant - after being created in thought - as an expression of Gd's (Free) Will:

INSERT Sources in Hebrew:

(near middle)oipr `id dlrzi eil` qgia dxn`py ytp oexkf lke" :`n :`

ivtga epipr ,dyri iytpae iaal xy`k exn`a (hl) epl miiwy itk oevxd

"`nlr `xae daygnc d`lr `xdifc cg `tehra shrz`c cr"

According to the Zohar, the universe was created in one moment, & via the thought of Gd. [h] [Zohar Gen. 29a]

According to R. S.R., before they "became", heaven and earth were thoughts of Gd. He further states that the word describing the completion of creation in Genesis "Vayekhulu" derives from the root "coloh", meaning "cease to exist", or "reach highest state of perfection" [i]. Therefore we can translate "Vayekhulu hashamayim ve'ha'aretz" "the universe was completed" as "the universe underwent a transition from potential to actual".

Part VI: The Emergence and Significance of the Universe and of Humanity

The creation account, the age of the universe, emergence of life, the evolution and significance of humanity.

Chapter : The Creation and Eden Accounts: An examination of the cultural context of biblical text, its relationship with scientific theory, and the type of meaning we attribute to the creation and Eden accounts in our discussions.

Chapter 23: Quantum Randomness and Teleology: Due to quantum randomness, anything can happen, and therefore the emergence of free-willed moral beings is not guaranteed. This will have implications which turn the Edenaccount into an extension of the creation account, shedding new light on their relationship to each other.

Chapter 24: Human Significance: Many have derided the role of humans in the cosmos. Are humans truly insignificant?

Chapter 25: The First Moral Beings on Earth: Humans are late developers in the universe, nevertheless from what we have seen until this chapter, they are quite significant. When did morally aware beings first arise on Earth? Who was Adam, and what does it mean to say that he was the first human?

Chapter 26: The Evolution of Adam: Modern evolutionary genetics and the creation account show some interesting parallels.

Chapter 27: Adam as a Race of Beings: Does the creation account refer to the creation of an individual human or of an entire race? What would be the characteristic feature of this race, and what is the meaning of the Edenaccount in this context?

PROPOSED: Put most of this into an Appendix

Chapter 28: The Age of the Universe: Defining the age of the universe is not a trivial matter. There are difficulties in the concepts involved, and in the practical meanings of the terms. It turns out that the universe has many ages, depending on the context.

Chapter 29: God As Quantum Observer: Quantum metaphysics points a finger at God, and generously accepts God's role as creator, but in its own terms.

chapter 30: The Anthropic Principle and the Maximization of Existence: We turn to the anthropic principle and Maimonides' "Guide to the Perplexed" to find out why should there be so many species, what is man's role among the myriad life forms and the inanimate universe, and a possible reason why God might create a big bang which gave rise to a garden of Eden and so much else rather than just creating a garden of Eden by itself.

Chapter 30b: The Evolution of Life from Amoeba to Adam: The emergence of life and its evolution thereafter from the perspectives of science and of the Bible.

Chapter : Genesis, Tradition, History, and Science

Note: This chapter is intended for those readers who are interested in the issue of the supposed conflict between scientific and traditional readings of Genesis.

It is quite interesting that only 60 links in the chain of Tradition are required to connect Moses, who lived about 3,500 years ago, with a child studying Bible today. In Traditional communities many a child learns from an adult, teacher or grandparent who is 60 years or so older than they are. Sixty links of sixty years gives 3,600 years!

Those who accept the Bible as a divinely revealed text most often do so not due to claims or proofs in the text itself, but rather as a result of a chain of tradition which claims to reach back to the time the Bible was given. One's grandparents relate how their grandparents related...etc ....back along the links in the chain to the time 3,400 years ago that according to tradition the Bible was revealed to man^[184].

Indeed, the Bible does not make outright claims about itself, as a complete book. It does not open with a statement such as "I, God of the universe, am giving the following book to man" or even "These are the words of God as revealed to Moses..". Instead it opens, without introduction, without revealing the identity of the narrator, or even the source of the information supplied. Simply "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth....". ^[185]

Much later on the book relates that God told Moses to write various things down and present it to the people of Israel, however we are not told explicitly and unambiguously in the text what it was that Moses was told to include in the text. There is also no mention in the text of an intention by God to give an inviolable text to the Jewish people which would contain a creation account, a history of the patriarchs and so on.

Should there not have been some written record of the seminal event of the giving of the entire text of the torah to the people, accompanied by a discussion of the meaning of the text, reasons for giving it, and so on?

Of course one could reason that since a description of the giving of the text must of necessity be composed after the giving itself, it cannot be included in the given text. However, the text does describe the death of Moses, which must have occurred after the giving of the text, if it was Moses who gave the text to the people.

According to tradition it was indeed Moses who gave this book to the Jewish people, and this part of the text was written either by Moses in prophecy, or by Joshua. Similarly, it would not be impossible for the giving of the text to have been mentioned in the text itself - written either by Moses via prophecy, or by Joshua. Nevertheless these seminal events and all-important information about the text were not included.

How is it that the book does not itself relate to its readers what its intended purpose is, and that the author of he book is God? Perhaps because even were the text to make claims about itself, such as “this book was written by God”, these claims would not be accepted simply on the basis of the textual statement itself. And so, the text must in any case be accompanied by an oral tradition in order to be complete. Therefore there is perhaps no logical necessity in including the claims itself in the text. And so the text makes few claims about itself; most of the claims regarding the text are made by the oral tradition accompanying the text.

Instead, the oral tradition can tell us all about the book - where and when it originated, why it was written, even how it is to be understood. For example, the Bible does not specify if it is meant as poetry, history, science, theology, myth, moral homily or literature - this must be left to the oral tradition accompanying it. In some instances a written text by itself without an accompanying oral tradition about it is an orphan, incomplete.

The Bible has been transmitted from generation to generation, in a tradition thousands of years old. Those who transmitted it included a framework within which it was to be understood. The oral framework to the written text, the oral tradition, include not only insight into the purpose and source of the text but also interpretations of the material in the text. It is the framework provided by the oral tradition which gives legitimacy to the written text, not vice versa. Again, the written text is a part of the oral tradition. As such, the traditional understanding of the Bible^[186] as understood within this framework - if it has been correctly transmitted to form the present day - has more authenticity than possessed by a seemingly more objectively accurate literal 'translation' of the written text.

Traditional (“Orthodox”) Jews believe in what the tradition says, and believe in the Bible because the Tradition tells them to. It is very important to understand this, that for traditional Jews Judaism is built on the tradition and not on the the Torah. Therfore the meaning of the Torah as a whole and of particular segments, is determined by Tradition, for example as recorded in the Talmud, rather than by philological analysis o f the Torah text itself. To a traditionalist, it is not relevant whther or not a literal translation of the Bible conflicts with something she holds to be true, since the literal apparent meaning is not canonical (religiously accepted) .

The Bible and Science

The Bible is written in the Hebrew language. The words of the Bible can therefore only be properly understood within the context of the cultural-linguistic context of those Hebrew-speaking people to whom it was first given, and within its own internal context. Any translation is necessarily an interpretation, especially translations composed long after the Bible was originally written.

Even an understanding of the text as written in the original Hebrew is an interpretation because the words may have different meanings now than when it was written. And given a text, even if the language is familiar, to understand it properly one must understand the intent of the writer to determine whether it is to be understood as poetry or as science^[187]. Scientific texts are meant as literal and complete accounts of the contents they speak of, however this is not necessarily the case with poetry, or other types of texts. For these and all other texts, one must look into the text itself and to the oral tradition accompanying it to decide how it was meant to be understood.

If the Bible is indeed interpreted as a purely literal and complete surface-meaning description of actual physical events, then clearly the Bible and science conflict. However, since from the Traditional perspective the Bible is meaningless without the context provided by its accompanying oral tradition we will interpret it according to the tradition within which it is embedded, rather than as a science text book, or via a translation into English or even modern Hebrew.

Those who transmitted the Bible through the generations have bequeathed a comprehensive, flexible, and even multifaceted attitude toward the meaning of the Bible. As a result, the Bible as interpreted within the framework of approaches taught by Jewish tradition is very different from its literal 'translation'. In particular, the creation account as understood from within many of these approaches is not in conflict with science.

............................

A poem is recited to a loved one: "your eyes are stars, your face shines as the sun...". Is this poem true?

Clearly the question of the truth or falsity of the statement "your eyes are stars" is misplaced here, and knowing that it is a poem is the key. Only if it is presented as a statement of scientific fact rather than as a poem is it false. A culture which had only science and no poetry might well misunderstand the intent of such a statement, and finding it in a book would conclude that the author was proposing a cosmology in which all stars are actually some type of eye, and that some people had eyes which were of this type. They might then conclude that the author had a primitive notion of the universe and disregard the book - another culture upon seeing the book might adopt this belief themselves. Both would be misunderstanding the author's point.

A poem which states that the sky is composed of the breath of one's beloved obviously does not conflict with science. However, for readers to base their cosmology on a literal understanding of the poem may indeed represent a conflict with scientific teachings regarding the nature of the universe. The poetry book in itself, and the words of the book are not in themselves in conflict with science, however it may certainly be the case that the beliefs held by some due to the words of the book may indeed be in conflict with science.

Similarly, the possibility of contradiction between science and the creation and Eden accounts arises not due to the Bible itself - the very existence of the Bible cannot by itself represent a conflict with science - nor even due to its contents, but rather due to various beliefs about its contents. Specifically, the beliefs regarding the universe which some people have as a result of their interpretation or understanding of the words of the Bible may be in conflict with scientific understandings of the universe^[188].

Furthermore, even those traditional views regarding creation which seem to conflict with science do not necessarily involve all of tradition in their conflict, since not all of the ideas regarding matters cosmological expressed in post-Biblical traditional sources are necessarily authoritative. As Rambam states^[189]:

"You must not expect that everything our Sages say regarding astronomical matters should agree with observations for mathematics was not fully developed in those days, and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which either they themselves possessed or they derived from contemporary men of science."

Regarding cosmological knowledge and its relation to the traditional secret teachings, Rambam stated^[190]:

"Know that many branches of science relating to the correct solution of these problems, were once cultivated by our forefathers, but were in the course of time neglected, especially in consequence of the tyranny which barbarous nations exercised over us. Besides, speculative studies were not open to all men, as we have already stated only the subjects taught in the Scriptures were accessible to all.....no portions of the secret teachings of the Torah [were] written down...[they were] orally transmitted....the natural effect of this practice was that our nation lost the knowledge of those important disciplines. Nothing but a few remarks and allusions are to be found in the Talmud and the Midrashim, like a few kernels involved in such a husk, that the reader is generally occupied with the husk, and forgets that it encloses a kernel."

Regarding the metaphysical cosmological ideas current in his time, and the opinion of some that they were in conflict with religious belief, Rambam states^[191]:

"...these theories are not opposed to anything taught by our prophets and our Sages....But when wicked barbarians have deprived us of our possessions, put an end to our science and literature, and killed our wise men, we have become ignorant...Having been brought up among persons untrained in philosophy, we are inclined to consider these philosophical opinions as foreign to our religion, just as uneducated persons find them foreign to their own notions. But in fact it is not so."

The Bible without the accompanying oral tradition is just a book rather than a set of beliefs, and therefore there can be no conflict between the Bible itself and science. The Bible plus the traditional belief that the Bible originated with God, word for word, does not in itself give rise to a conflict between the Bible and science. Although it may be that some have beliefs about the content of the Bible, about the words which tradition ascribes to God, which lead these words to conflict with science, Traditional Jewish understandings of the creation accounts are generally not in conflict with scientific teachings.

In the words of Prof. Walter Kaufmann of Princeton University^[192]

"The contemporary Jew faces no grim problems in connection with specific scientific statements. He need not choose between dogma and Darwin. Whatever dogmas various Jewish theologians may have thought up from time to time the contemporary Jew can repudiate and still be a pious Jew, even a so-called Orthodox Jew."

The Surface Meaning of the Creation and Eden Accounts

We have no way of knowing from the text itself if the Genesis account and most of the other sections were part of the writings which God told Moses to write down and give to the people. Even if the text began with a claim to the effect that the creation account was part of that, we would have no means of knowing if that claim were true and so we search for the origins of the Book in that which people know of it - that is, in tradition.

We are not told by the text if the creation account is an actual or poetic description of physical events. We are not even told in the text why the story is told, whether the fact that it is told means that we must read it, study it, know it; we are not even instructed as to whether we must believe that the creation account is an actual description of physical events.

Certainly anyone can see that on the surface it contains many inconsistencies^[193], so that it could not have been meant as a purely literal surface-meaning account of actual physical events. Furthermore, the anthropomorphisms in the creation account such as “God said” or “God saw”, or “”God rested” are inconsistent with Traditional religious belief itself that God is not corporeal (God is a spiritual rather than physical entity and therefore does not have a physical body) . Clearly, proponents of Tradition cannot accept the account as totally literal. Clearly then, one cannot legitimately assume that Traditional belief necessarily considers every word of Fthe creation and Garden of Eden accounts as literal. However, what these accounts do mean, and why they were included in the Bible, and how we must relate to them are not in the text, and cannot reliably form part of the text - for this context we turn to the tradition which accompanies the text.

As stated above, many of the statements regarding the creation and the creation account in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and in the classical Jewish Bible commentators seemingly conflict not only with each other, but also with the Biblical creation account itself. Because they contradict each other at the level of their surface meaning, it is not possible to claim that the creation account and the statements about creation in traditional sources are all meant literally.

In addition, many of these statements speak of processes which are not mentioned in the creation account, so that they can be true only if the creation account is not a complete account of all the events which took place at creation, and in the Garden of Eden. Many of the statements are also somewhat vague, and are therefore amenable to a wide range of interpretation.

Whereas a dogmatic religious fundamentalist makes the claim that every word in the Torah was meant totally literally, and as a description of actual physical events unless religious tradition unequivocally states otherwise, many - perhaps most - traditional Jewish sources imply that the creation account is not meant as a totally literal description of actual physical events.

The most authoritative voice of Jewish Traditional philosophical beliefs has been that of Maimonides, whose views have reigned for the last eight hundred years. Seven hundred years before Darwin, Maimonides wrote:

"..the account given in Scripture of the creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal." ^[194]"The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even to entirely abandon and reject the principles of our Faith."

He states categorically that according to Tradition, the Garden of Eden account is allegorical. Of course that they are meant allegorically does not mean that they are trivial stories. R. Crescas, in his commentary on Rambam's statement that the creation account is at least partially allegory^[195], states:

" Allegories....means that the mention in Scripture of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, the description of Adam, his initial condition and what he later became, the serpent, Eve, the naming of Adam's sons Cain and Abel, and all that long narrative, all refer to extremely deep matters which are inaccessible to the common run of humanity and were therefore given in the form of allegory." ^[196].

Even the very idea of a creation ex-nihilo (from nothing), which is seen by some as one of the central points in the creation account, was included by Maimonides as possibly in this category. In a discussion of Aristotle's belief that the universe is eternal rather than created, Maimonides states^[197] that just as the anthropomorphisms in the Torah are not meant literally, it is theoretically possible that the idea of creation ex-nihilo presented in Genesis is also meant allegorically^[198].

Other great Traditional Biblical commentators and philosopher such as Rashi and Ramban (Nachmanides) have intimated that the initial chapters of Genesis should not even be seen as a 'creation account', since the Divine actions leading to the creation of the universe are beyond man's comprehension. Instead, these accounts are meant to teach humanity certain basic truths - and in this book we shall indeed look at these accounts in this light rather than as cosmogonies.

Origins

Speculations on the origin of the universe have fascinated man for thousands of years. During the last few thousand years one of the most widely accepted answers - and one considered quite authoritative - was provided by the book of Genesis. In recent centuries however, this source has seemed to be somewhat in conflict with the results of careful observations of the universe about us, and with the deductions from these observations. To many readers, the origin theory of science and the origin model described in Genesis seem quite incompatible with each other, and this has led many to feel that one could not accept both - painful though such a choice might be. Einstein writes^[199]:

"I had attained a deep religiosity by the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking."

However, the conviction that one is faced with an inescapable contradiction can be founded on misconceptions. Darwin for example^[200]

"revealed his lack of expertise in biblical matters by replying to the information that the notorious 4,004 B.C. date for the creation of the world was Archbishop Ussher's and not Moses' by laughing, 'How curious about the Bible. I declare I had fancied that the date was somehow in the Bible'."

Many of the traditional Jewish interpretations of Genesis might well have astounded Darwin. Quite a few do not consider the creation account to be that of a standard cosmogony at all. Furthermore, many of those which do so consider it, contradict the plain meaning of Genesis, and do so rather more than does the theory of evolution.

The following, which on the face of it bears virtually no resemblance to Genesis, is a composite of traditional understandings of the creation referred to in Genesis^[201]:

"Before all was created

God reigned

and after all ended

God reigned

Time emerged from no time,

and there passed 17 1/2 billion years

Then,

in the beginning,

nine hundred and seventy four generations

prior to that of Adam,

God was to have created the universe

but didn't.

God contracted Herself

and emanated a number of emanations from Himself

in descending order of contact with the Divine.

God looked then into that part of Himself which is the Torah,

and created the universe from a black fire.

God then created and destroyed several universes.

Then God created a universe in one day,

containing among other things

a two-headed male-female creature

with scales, webbed fingers and a tail,

whose height was such that

it could see from one end of the world to the next.

[At first God wanted to create a female and a male separately, but then God decided not to.]

In the heavens, God created two suns,

but changed one into a moon later on........

There is virtually no similarity between the above 'creation account' and that given by the Bible. In fact they 'contradict' each other no less than the origin theory 'contradicts' the Biblical creation account, yet every idea in the above derives from traditional sources hundreds or thousands of years old.

One can say that an elephant is gray, or that it is huge, or that it has a certain odor, or that it has four legs or that it is a mammal, or that it is noble. Each description can indeed be that of an elephant, and each is very different, yet it is clear that none of them contradict any other - unless they are offered as being the exclusive truth about the elephant as perceived from any possible perspective. The differences in the descriptions derive from the differing perspectives or senses which are being used in order to compose the description.

Science, the Kabbalah, and the Midrash, are all systems which provide explanations regarding certain aspects of reality, and do so from differing perspectives. They see things differently, and are interested in answering different types of questions^[202]. Thus, each system describes the origin of the universe from the point of view of its concerns, leading the unwary to the impression that this difference implies a contradiction and a conflict.

Just as traditional sources like the Midrash and Zohar are explanations of the Torah rather than contradictions to it, so too the scientific origin theory is an explanation of the creation account rather than a contradiction to it. Discovering how the two are related is one of the subjects of both this book and its companion volume entitled "A Garden of Edens: the Many Faces of Genesis".

Whatever one's approach to the Bible, the text itself implies that the creation and Eden accounts refer to many of the same events. However, even the casual reader easily notices that the two accounts portray these events in widely divergent fashion, with the surface meaning of the two texts often being in direct contradiction^[203].

Indeed, by presenting in the creation and Eden accounts two very different and conflicting descriptions of what are seemingly the same events, and by juxtaposing these two accounts, the Torah itself makes unmistakably the point that the creation and Eden accounts are not to be interpreted naively according to a straight 'literal' understanding^[204].

Jewish tradition, which indeed sees the two accounts as referring to the same subject, does not see the surface meaning of the texts as the level from which its meaning can be gleaned.

The Bible as Moral History

History is not monolithic. The past may be objectively existent, but history is not, as it is merely a subjective and selective human view of the past.

Some history books begin with the ancient empires of the near east, and contain accounts of various wars and political struggles. Others mention wars not at all, but focus instead on the artistic achievements of humanity, beginning perhaps with cave-drawings found in southern France - subjects entirely absent in the previously mentioned history books. The careful reader of a 'history of the world' must understand the context of the work, and the intent of the author in order to correctly integrate this 'history of the world' into a coherent understanding of the world's complete and objective history, its 'past'.

According to the greatest of the traditional Biblical commentators, Rashi, the creation account is not really a chronological account of the creation of the universe, but is instead a teleological account. That is, the very first few words of the creation account usually translated as "in the beginning God created", actually mean something quite different, more on the line of "The reason that God created the universe was for [and Rashi specifies]......".

Since in these traditional views the creation account is not a chronological description of the creation and evolution of the physical and organic universe, and its focus is upon the moral dimension, tradition may feel no need of searching it for mention of the big bang or of stellar evolution or the extinction of the dinosaurs.

As some of the greatest of traditional Biblical commentators have pointed out many hundreds of years ago, the so-called creation accounts cannot be that, since creation ex-nihilo is beyond the reach of ordinary human comprehension^[205]. Instead of being a description of divine creation therefore, these accounts serve a different purpose, including setting the stage for the subsequent commandments and narratives.

Rather than being fundamentally chronological, the creation account refers to the underlying purpose of creation.

QuantumRandomness and Teleology

Section I: randomness, teleology, and the emergence of a moral being

One of the ways in which the laws of physics are remarkable, is that although there exists such a precise order to the phenomena of nature, at the heart of all events there lies a core of randomness.

It was the conviction of many generations of scientific and philosophical investigators that the universe operates like an ordered machine with all its motions completely specified, with cause followed by effect in a determined manner. However, in the last seventy or so years experiments and the theory of quantum physics have shown that events at the most fundamental level are not determined, but can instead occur in more than one way, so that there exists an element of randomness in the development of events^[206].

When applied to the context of the emergence of life in the universe, this means that there can be no guarantee that life would eventually evolve from any given big bang^[207]. Even if the initial state of the universe was in theory suitable for the emergence of life from it eventually, the quantum randomness inherent in the laws of nature could cause the universe to evolve on a different quantum path, one leading to a sterile, lifeless universe.

Creation of a moral universe therefore involves more than just the creation of a particular big bang designed to be suitable for the eventual production of life; it involves also actions taken to ensure that the universe indeed develops along quantum paths leading to moral beings. Thus creation of a moral universe may begin with the creation of a carefully chosen big bang, but the process of creation can conclude only with the emergence of a moral being - an earlier cessation of creative activity can result in the non-emergence of moral beings.

In the Biblical teleological perspective, our universe was indeed created to produce moral beings, and thus from the perspective of quantum physics, Biblical creation can be complete only upon the actual emergence of a moral being. From the combination of the teleological perspective of the Bible and that of quantum physics therefore, it is appropriate that the process of creation of the moral universe central to Genesis does not begin and end simply with the creation of a big bang.

Instead, as presented in Genesis, the ultimate act of creation is the creation of a conscious being - a being created 'in the image of God', followed by the initiation of this being into moral beinghood.

Thus the juxtaposition of the creation and Eden accounts symbolizes this interdependency - the creation of the universe as described in the creation account is completed only upon the emergence of a free willed conscious being, as described in the Eden account.

Section II

In this section we deal with metaphysical and theological issues related to the ideas expressed in the previous section.

Guaranteeing the Emergence of a Moral Being

Although a big bang cannot be guaranteed to develop into a universe containing moral beings, there are ways in which moral beings can be produced by a determined creator.

By throwing a many-sided die enough times one can expect that eventually the desired result will emerge, especially if the die is 'loaded' - constructed so as to make the desired result the most probable one^[208]. Similarly, teleoderived big bangs could be created and left to develop on their own over and over, and eventually one would develop along the desired quantum path leading to moral beings^{[209] [210]}.

An alternate possibility is the following: According to one interpretation of quantum theory, all the possible results actually occur. Each of the infinitely many possible universe-states which can follow any given universe-state,do follow. There is a 'super universe' in which infinitely many universes exist, representing each possible universe which could develop from the big bang^[211]. According to this 'many-universes theory', among all the infinite states, the desired branch is sure to develop [If it so desired, all the undesireable branches could be eliminated allowing only the desired branch to develop].

Another alternative would be to create a big bang whose most probable path would lead to a moral being, and then to intervene at each stage so as to force the quantum choices to occur as they must in order to actually produce that moral-being-path^[212].

For a creator, beyond the space-time-matter-energy of the physical universe a different type of alternative is also possible, and is indeed possibly the most aesthetically pleasing alternative. Any big bang which was designed to produce life would have been the product of careful planning, and would be created from a detailed blueprint. This detailed blueprint could be extrapolated forward to the moral stage, and the moral-stage-universe could then be created from this mental blueprint^{[213] [214]}. In this way, it is guaranteed that the desired moral-stage universe is created, rather than any other^[215]. Thus, rather than creating the universe at the stage of the big bang, it would be created at the stage of the emergence of the first moral being, at which point it could be left to evolve according to the laws of nature^[216].

Theological issues

Einstein maintained that the basic laws of the universe are in actuality deterministic. That is, he believed that the indeterminacy of quantum physics was a reflection of our ignorance rather than a fundamental property of nature: as he put it once, "God does not play dice with the universe". If this is so, then it is possible for a big bang to have been created which would develop inevitably into the desired moral universe, even though to man, because of his ignorance, it would seem that it developed that way due to chance.

However, most physicists today accept that the indeterminacy of quantum physics is a basic fundamental feature of the universe^[217], and thus even a teleoderived big bang could not be designed to arrive inevitably at any particular state, and thus no big bang can be created which would be guaranteed to give rise to moral beings.

However, once we are dealing with the concept of a designed big bang, we are speaking of a creator of the universe and its laws, and therefore of a being who may well transcend these laws. Therefore, from the perspective of a creator who created - and therefore transcends - quantum physics, the universe is not random^[218]. Therefore even if quantum randomness is fundamental at the level of human reality, when speaking from the perspective of the creator, we can say that - to paraphrase Einstein - "God does not play dice with the universe".

If this is so, it may be meaningful to state that a big bang could be created which would necessarily develop into the desired moral universe.

One problem with this approach is that according to Rambam it is improper to attribute to God the ability to do that which is inherently impossible^[219]. Therefore, if quantum events are inherently non-predictable, it might be that it is meaningless to say that God can know the outcome of a series of quantum events without actually creating them - as meaningless as saying that God make a circle which is square^{[220],[221],[222]}.

Although Rambam states that it is meaningless to attribute to God the power to do that which is impossible, this is probably so only for that which is logically impossible rather than merely physically impossible. For example Rambam states that it is possible for God to know the future of man's actions without this implying that these actions are determined. There is no logical contradiction between the two, but it seems to us that there is a possible physical impossibility - yet it is possible to God.

There is of course no way that we can know what is truly impossible, and what merely seems impossible to us because of our present incomplete knowledge of the laws of nature; and to distinguish between that which is truly impossible to attribute even to God, and that which seems logically impossible to us because we are limited and physical beings, but which is actually possible to God.

Appendix: Quantum physics and random development

No prior background in physics is needed, and no equations will be introduced. However the material is nevertheless slightly technical. It can be skipped over, or skimmed through, without prejudicing the thread of the argument of the rest of the book.

At the level of fundamental particles, events do not occur in an inevitable manner, but rather each state of a particle or system of particles can be followed by a variety of possible states, each such state having a well defined probability of occurrence. However we cannot know what will actually occur. Nature so to speak rolls the dice and chooses one of the possibilities, according to the relevant probabilities.

For example: Quantum formulas applied to process X show that there are five ways for it to occur; ways A B C D and E; the formulas show further that way number A has a 10% probability, B a 5% probability, C has 35% probability, D a 27%, and E a 23% chance. Speaking very figuratively, nature constructs the following table in its mind:

Way type Relative Probability Code Numbers Assigned

________________________________________________

A 10% 1 - 10

B 5% 11 - 15

C 35% 16 - 50

D 27% 51 - 77

E 23% 78 - 100

________________________________________________

Imagine a hundred 100-sided die: each number from one through one hundred has an equal chance in each throw. Nature then decides how an event should occur as follows: it rolls a one hundred-sided die, and then consults the table. If the number on the die is for example between 1 and 10, then since code numbers 1 - 10 have been assigned to way A, event X occurs in way A. If the number is for example between 51 - 77, it occurs in way D, etc.

Combining the relevant physical law and the relevant circumstances with the rules of quantum physics, for PDR events one can exactly determine the relative probabilities of each "way of occurrence" for every type of physical process, under any circumstance.

……….

Appendix: The impossibility of guaranteeing that a moral stage develop from any given big bang.

The state of the entire universe with all its contents at any given time will be here termed a universe-state. The history of the universe can thus be divided into a series of consecutive universe-states.

According to determinism, any one specific total state of the universe at some instant leads necessarily to another specific total universe-state at the next instant. In contrast, quantum physics teaches that the universe has an infinite number of possible next-states for any one given universe-state. Of course, most of these are highly improbable, and even of the remaining ones many are somewhat improbable. However, none can be excluded since all are possible.

It is, in principle, impossible to predict which particular one of these infinite universe-states will actually occur: the "choice" of which universe-state to evolve into is "made by the universe" at random. Thus, for any given big bang, there are an infinite amount of possible "immediately-post-big-bang" universe-states. Similarly, there are then an infinite amount of possible universe-states representing the "second instant" after the big bang. [Each of the infinite possible post-big-bang universe-states has an infinite amount of subsequent universe-states into which it can evolve.]^[223]

Chapter 24: Human Significance: Many have derided the role of humans in the cosmos. Are humans truly insignificant?

Is Human Life Significant?

What is “Significance’?

“Significance” is a conception of the human mind. The feeling that something is significant is just that, a feeling. That which is considered significant is not in itself significant since the significance does not reside in the entity or event, but rather the feeling of significance is an aspect of the mind which feels the sense of significance; it is not intrinsic.

‘Significance’ is a feeling or a name for a concept, it is not a property of an object or event. ‘Significant’ is an adjective (?) describing the reaction of a mind to an objet or event.

Endowing Something With Significance

Similarly, nothing can be ‘given significance’, e.g. a death cannot be endowed with significance by some action of the survivors; the significance is forever resident in the mind of the feeler, just that as a turn of phrase we can say for short that the significance lies in the object/person etc.

[The same for ‘meaning’ and for ‘beauty’.]

To give significance to one’s life, or endow it with meaning, is the same as to see it as beautiful, i.e. it is to have the feeling of significance/meaning/beauty associated with the thought of one’s life. The significance/meaning/beauty are not properties of the life lived but are words describing the feelings of the mind contemplating that life.

Love and Significance (the significant other)

‘Human life is significant/insignificant’ is a statement of the feeling of a mind in reaction to something, it cannot be an ‘objective’ statement about the things/entities/people themselves outside the mind that feels this.

To say that e.g. ‘love gives significance to human life’ means that some person/people feel a sense of the significance of their/another’s/human life when they are in love or feel love etc and the memory of this feeling gives rise later to the statement ‘love gives significance to human life’.

Human Significance and the Size of the Universe

As some would put it, a Human is a being evolved from slime crawling on the face of a speck of dirt in the galaxy which is itself an insignificant speck in the universe.

In actuality however, whatever the size of the universe etc, life is neither significant nor insignificant; rather the contemplation of the size of the universe can give rise to feelings in some people of the significance/insignificance of life.

Should the size of the universe etc give rise to the feeling of human insignificance? Is it irrational to feel otherwise?

Well, in any case often feelings have nothing to do with what is rational intrinsically. But in this case, since objectively neither are factually correct, logic is not relevant. Whatever people feel they feel. Perhaps if we knew all there was to know about human brains etc, we could predict what a ‘rational’ mind would feel upon being presented with the understanding of the size of the universe, and then expect that as the ‘rational’ feeling. As it stands, since some people feel one way and others another, there does not seem to be anything intrinsic in the wiring of the human brain which establishes the necessity of all human brains reacting in one particular way.

When Significance Does Not Exist

Since significance is a property of the mind of a sentient being, if there is no sentience extant, or no sentience exists which is capable of experiencing the feeling of significance, then there is indeed no significance to anything in the universe, indeed the concept of significance has no meaning, it would never arise, no entity would say ‘significance is meaningless’ because they would not even understand the concept - no, the concept would not even exist - and it must first exist for it to be incomprehensible.

.............

“The Rembrandt or the Baby”:

If there was a fire, which would you save?

“Human Significance in the age of Science”: Existentialist despair, self-abnegation, animal rights extremists. End with last part of geo article from BH.

We know that tree falls etc, this is trivial. Deeper is the realization that without Mind there is no significance. Without FW there is no active agent in the un.

The idea of the insig of humanity began with: geo, then evo, and Freud etc.

.................

Insert here adaptation of last part of article "Geocentrism" from B'ohr Ha'torah #5 or "Fusion" regarding human significance.

................

UNTIL HERE = approximately the FIRST HALF OF THE BOOK: The entire book is in the file below