The Retroactive Universe

Avi Rabinowitz

copyright 1993

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

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 Eden accounts 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[1], 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

 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, and which circulated widely since the [2], with a condensed version appearing in B'Ohr HaTorah. See  Quantum Kabbalah and the Instant Universe: "And God Said, 'Let there have been a Big Bang' ”

 To comment on this article or others written by the author, write to air1@nyu.edu  

Part I: The Significance and Nature of Free Will

Chapter I:  Einstein, Purposive Creation and Morality

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:

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?"

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 - 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. He wrote:

"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][For t]he man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation......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."

Einstein, atheism, materialism and free will: Einstein makes a statement about his psychological reaction to the success of science: "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". 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. 

Traditionalists can agree with Einstein that in the biblical conception, the type of choices possible to humans could not be the results of determined or random processes if the created beings are to be held meaningfully responsible for their actions by the creator of the universe and the laws of nature. 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][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[3]. 

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.

Believers in the Bible can agree with Einstein that in the Biblical conception, the type of choices possible to humans could not be the results of determined or random processes if the created beings are to be held meaningfully responsible for their actions by the creator of the universe and the laws of nature. 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][4]

    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.

       [4]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.  [5]

    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[6].

      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[7]. 

     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. 

    Nevertheless, although free will is not a provable fact of existence, and indeed runs counter to some scientific theories, 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   [8]

      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'. 

 [9]  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[10]. 

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.          [11]

      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, if the universe does indeed posses such a free will, so that it is meaningful and purposive from the outsider perspective, and for human activity to posses a dimension of moral responsibility from this 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

"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation ...a God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him 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."

A Einstein[12].

 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 not morally  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.

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? 

    A conscious being can feel meaning or purpose. We therefore define the words 'meaning' and 'purpose' here so that 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. 

    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. 

      Similarly, the universe cannot be 'uncaring' because only a conscious being can be uncaring (or caring). Instead one could say that a feeling is induced in some people that they express through the words "the universe is uncaring". What is referred to by this is an emotion, not an actual state of 'uncaring' by the inanimate universe. In the same way, it is meaningless to say that life is meaningless - '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 have meaning. 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.

    Certainly humans are conscious and many feel that their lives are meaningful. What is however of interest in considering the Biblical perspective on the issue of meaning and purpose is the question of whether the fact that a being feels its life to have meaning implies by definition that its life is meaningful. Similarly, whether the feeling or conviction of moral responsibility for one's actions is all that is necessary in order to consider that one is indeed morally responsible for them[13].

    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 had chosen 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 because it felt morally obligated to do so, and that it felt its existence had meaning and purpose because of its successful grappling with moral dilemmas and choices - such as 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[14].

    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.

We will see that just as free will can be defined as existing when it is felt that it 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. 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, so that 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[15] (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: Despite his great sensitivity to ethics, Einstein strongly believed in determinism:

           "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." 

           "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...."  

           "[16].... the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary as the past." "everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."                                                                                       A. Einstein

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

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, and this is because 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[17], 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.[18] 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. [19]

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[20].  This combination of random and determined behavior is termed here "probabilistically determined randomness" (PDR) or "probabilistic determinism". However, 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, because of our lack of sufficient scientific knowledge and adequate instrumentation, or if it was an actual physical requirement.  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.

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.   [21]

               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, [22]the relative probabilities of the various possible outcomes.

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

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.

That is, each individual event, though occurring “at random,” nevertheless contributes somehow to a pattern, in the aggregate, which can be determined beforehand. This combination of random and determined behavior is called here probabilistic determinism or probabilistically determined randomness.

Physicists were troubled since this “random” aspect seemed to be contrary to the “spirit of physics.”

Much inquiry was directed to the question of whether the chance aspect was only apparent—i.e. due to our lack of sufficient scientific knowledge and adequate instrumentation—or if it was an actual physical requirement. With the accumulation of more experimental evidence it was shown that, indeed, the nature of the physical universe appears to be such that intrinsically, at the most fundamental level, events are probabilistic and not deterministic.

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

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 ([23] 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"[24]. 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

[25],[26].  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 and even self-contradictory. 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 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[27]. 

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. 

Rather than accepting quantum theory as a statement that all events occur randomly according to a determined probability distribution, one can see it as a statement of the limits of scientific theories. 

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[28].

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[29]. 

            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[30] 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[31]. 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[32].

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[33] 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[34]. 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[35] 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[36], 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[37].

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[38]. 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, 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 - it would require a supercomputer to compute, 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[39] 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[40], 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[41].

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[42]:

        "[T]he idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficient personal God....[has] decisive weaknesses...

        [I]f 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"

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.

      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? What would it mean in the Biblical context?

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 who inhabits 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[43] 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[44]). 

Whatever the problems with defining 'an outsider's perspective'[45], 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[46]. 

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[47]. 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[48],  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[49].

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. [50]  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[51]. 

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[52].

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[53], 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 [54]. 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[55] - 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.

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[56]. 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 Eden account 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[57] 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[58]. 

Cosmology

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. 

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.

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[59].

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[60]. 

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.

In any case, as we stated previously, whether or not such a perspective can be rigorously defined is not important in this context. What is relevant is to consider what is our intuitive understanding of free will, moral responsibility, meaning and purpose in this context, to compare this to the outsider's perspective, and to investigate 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[61]. 

    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[62]. 

    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[63]. 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[64].

    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. 

    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[65]:

    "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[66].

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[67].  

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. Furthermore Eccles states that no purely materialist theory will be able to account for 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[68]. 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[69], 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[70]. 

               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[71]. 

      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[72]). Thus, in order for free will to be conceptualized in a non-self-contradictory manner, the concept of a chain of cause and effect -  the concept of causality - would possibly have to be modified[73]. 

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[74]. 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. 

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[75]. 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[76]. 

    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

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

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 [77].

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[78].  [79]

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.

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[80]. 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 God created the universe for a purpose, it must be true that a non-random, non-deterministic element has been injected into the universe. We postulated that a radical difference exists between the actions of man and that of the rest of the universe, and only free-willed decisions can provide an otherwise random/determined universe with meaning and purpose [81].

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

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 me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” 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 Eden accounts  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[82].

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[83].  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[84]. 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"[85] 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

                It may be that since the processes 'occurring' at the subatomic level are simply not describable using terms familiar to macroscopic beings, once we begin to describe the results observable by us macroscopic beings, we must use the non-quantum equations. According to this conjecture 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[86] 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].      

There is as yet no consensus on  this issue[87]. 

      In this book, we shall show how the consciousness option can be employed to shed light on the Biblical creation account, within the context of the instant universe theory.

Basically, it seems that the effectuation of a measurement whose result is recorded in a manner comprehensible by a conscious being somehow collapses 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.

This conclusion has led some leading physicists to conclude 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. We do not insist that this approach is the correct one, we merely wish to explore the ramifications of this approach.

[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[88];  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[89]. /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 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 ..........." [90].

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:

....[91]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[92].  

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

"   'observership' allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time"[93], 

 and the universe arises as follows [g]: 

" Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools.  After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership.  Acts of observer-participancy - via the mechanism of the delayed-choice experiment - in turn give tangible "reality" to the universe not only now but back to the beginning."  

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.”

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." [94]

"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."

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

the entire universe can emerge into true physical existence only via the observation of a consciousness!

[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."

[95]

………………

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.

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. Nevertheless our intuitions about what is logical make true free will counterintuitive. Thus 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: 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[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.

A question arises as to the origin of free-will[ed consciousness]: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that free-will evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon, matter ruled by pro­babilistic determined randomness (PDR), give rise via evolution to a qualitatively different pheno menon, free will processes?

One answer would be that 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.

Free will is the only phenomenon which involves processes not bound to the probabilistic constraints of quantum physics. Free will can even be considered as the gen eral phenomenon, and quantumprobabilism merely a special limited case of it – ie the case where many options exist for how an event will occur but it occurs in a probabilistic way rather than freely.

Thus it can almost be expected that free will "transcend" quantum processes in some way. Since consciousness is our only means of knowing of all physical events - they exist (to us) only inasmuch as they are reported by our consciousness - it can almost be expected that consciousness might play an important physical role in the actualization of events.

The Measurement Problem of Quantum Physics (the Collapse of the Wave Function)

Every event is "recorded" automatically as it occurs by virtue of its effect on the universe-however, this type of recording is not sufficient to "collapse the wave function". All measuring devices including the human brain are natural products of the nat ural universe. If their actions result from random/determined processes, then these actions are likewise random/deter mined, and thus their actions are natural events qualitatively no different than any other natural event in the physical uni verse. How then can it be that mea surement can “collapse the wave function”? One could postulate that it is only human measurement which can cause this 'collapse', however why would human measurement be qualitatively different from the automatic recording of an event by machine or by other events?

Free Will and QuantumPhysics: The difference has be attributed by some to human consciousness, however from the perspective developed here this is useless because if con sciousness is governed at its most funda mental level by quantum processes then the argument is circular. Instead we propose that the operative element is free will, and as a result we can understand why the measurement of a free-willed consciousness is qualitatively different. And different in precisely the required way. Free will can cause events which would not have occurred in a purely determined or quantum universe. It transcends quantum physics. It is in its essence a choice -making phenomenon, choosing which reality it wishes to create. Thus a free -willed consciousness is a unique pheno menon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function".

In addition, based on the idea postulated by Wheeler, perhaps only a free-willed consciousness can bring reality-retroactively-to the universe, (See Wheeler.) [7][7]

Quantum Physics, Free Will, Moral Responsibility and the Origin of the Universe

The belief that humans are purely physical beings and that consciousness is as physical a phenomenon as any other is incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs about moral responsibility. Indeed, if one had to choose between deterministic/materialistic science and moral responsibility, most thinking people would, as a result of intuition and feeling (rather than logic) choose the latter. This belief in human moral responsibility implies not rejection of quantum physics but of its universality (it rejects the assumption that mental activity in the human mind are restricted to PDR processes), and assumes that mental events can over-ride the seemingly logical demands of causality. However, here is no scientific evidence that true free will exists.

The mechanistic assumption that humans are purely physical is not only unproven but is also logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of. These assumptions are not science but rather are part of a philosophy, and the Biblical creation and Eden accounts present a diametrically opposite view: a created universe in which humans possess a true free will, so free that they can be held responsible for their actions even by the creator of the laws of nature, the Designer of the universe; so free that they give meaning to the universe even from the creator's perspective. Neither perspective can be 'scientifically proven': on the one hand the mechanistic perspective does not assume the existence of processes beyond what science can prove, on the other hand it is counter to some of our deepest intuitions; the religious perspective on free will assumes the existence of processes for which there is no physical experimental evidence, and is counter to logic, but is in tune with some of our deepest intuitions.

Quantum Physics, Free Will, Moral Responsibility and the Origin of the Universe

The belief that humans are purely physical beings and that consciousness is as physical a phenmenon as any other is incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs about moral responsibility. Indeed, if one had to choose between deterministic/materialistic science and moral responsibility, most thinking people would, as a result of intuition and feeling (rather than logic) choose the latter. This belief in human moral responsibility implies not rejection of quantum physics but of its universality (it rejects the assumption that mental activity in the human mind are restricted to PDR processes), and assumes that mental events can over-ride the seemingly logical demands of causality. However, here is no scientific evidence that true free will exists.

The mechanistic assumption that humans are purely physical is not only unproven but is also logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of. These assumptions are not science but rather are part of a philosophy, and the Biblical creation and Eden accounts present a diametrically opposite view: a created universe in which humans possess a true free will, so free that they can be held responsible for their actions even by the creator of the laws of nature, the Designer of the universe; so free that they give meaning to the universe even from the creator's perspective. Neither perspective can be 'scientifically proven': on the one hand the mechanistic perspective does not assume the existence of processes beyond what science can prove, on the other hand it is counter to some of our deepest intuitions; the religious perspective on free will assumes the existence of processes for which there is no physical experimental evidence, and is counter to logic, but is in tune with some of our deepest intuitions.

The philosophy and metaphysics of quantum physics: According to the philosophy of quantum physics, actual physical reality can exist (in the scientific meaning of the term existence) only as a result of measurement. When not being measured, the universe is in a quasi-real state amenable to description only in terms of probabilities and not facts.

What is the active factor in a measurement which causes this emergence into reality? According to some leading physicists, this factor is consciousness

 Since this is only one interpretation among many, we will refer to it as 'quantum metaphysics'. The great mathematician John Von Neumann, who provided a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics, believed that only a human consciousness can collapse the wave function [DUP: According to this view, it is only measurement performed by a conscious being which can bring the universe into full reality.].

The eminent Nobel prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner writes: 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.

This view is far from the dominant one among physicists, but it is accepted as a possibility. We can consider this thesis either an aspect of quantum philosophy or of quantum metaphysics.

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: if the universe emerges into reality only when it is humanly-observed, "[Perhaps] 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?…

Thus, according to Wheeler's “quantum metaphysics,” in some sense the univere emerges 'retroactively'. Wheeler has constructed a fascinating diagram to illustrate this concept. 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.” 

FREE WILL, QUANTUM PHYSICS, AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION

A free-willed decision, in order to be truly free, has to be unconstrained by the laws of nature and not determined by any physical phenomena. Hence free will must be neither the result of deterministic processes, nor the result of random processes occurring in accordance with the natural order of phenomena. Hence if the universe contains a free will, this free will must operate via interactions which transcend both the determinism of classical physics and the randomness of quantum physics. Free will is then unique in this respect. If some entity exists which can collapse the quantum wave function, then it is reasonable to postulate that this entity has to be a free will, since, as we just discussed, only free will transcends quantum randomness, as it transcends nature in general. Since a consciousness can affect the universe only if it has a free will, and a free will is by definition unthinkable without a consciousness, we will assume in the course of further discussion that free will subsumes within itself the concept of consciousness.

EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE ROLE OF FREE-WILLED CONSCIOUS BEINGS: We will now try to apply the conclusions we reached above to the question of the existence of the universe. As we saw, according to quantum metaphysics, the universe can emerge into reality only when it is observed by a consciousness. This consciousness possibly must function in a nonquantum fashion in order to “collapse the wave function.” The only such nonquantum factor in the universe is free will. Thus, we postulate that it is the presence of a free-willed, conscious being which enables the universe to emerge into reality.

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

Thus, since the true reality of the universe is the spiritually meaningful aspect, it should not be surprising that the emergence of the universe into reality is so intimately bound up with the emergence of those beings who endow physicality of meaning. Furthermore, once this connection is understood, it is most appropriate that the very characteristics of man which both according to quantum metaphysics and according to religious teachings allow the emergence of the universe into reality (i.e., his free-willed consciousness) are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning. We can thus see the fundamental interrelationship between meaning, purpose, free will, consciousness, and the very nature of reality (and how this is reflected in Creation).

Summary We have seen that according to quantum (meta)physics, reality is established via the observation of a (free-willed) consciousness. In addition, according to Jewish thought free-willed choice gives the universe meaning and is thus the “motivation” for the very existence of the universe.

 Just as according to quantum physics (or metaphysics) nature has delegated to humans the ability to determine the nature of physical reality within the limitations of natural law, similarly God, the Creator of nature, delegated to man alone the ability to determine the nature of spiritual reality, which then influences the physical. Of the two levels, the physical is merely the means to the spiritual end. Thus the determination by man of spiritual reality is even more fundamental than is his determination of physical reality. So, too, it is man’s spiritual qualities (free-willed consciousness) which are more fundamental than these physical qualities. It is up to man to use his own limited sense of right and wrong, guided by moral and religious criteria, to determine reality. This is the way to achieve one’s purpose - and it is this purpose which also gives meaning to the universe. Since it is man’s consciousness and free will which invest his choices with the possibility of meaning, it is therefore only free-willed consciousness which has the possibility of conducting reality-determining observation and measurement. Nature by itself is powerless to achieve self-realization; man is required to bring both himself and the universe into reality. Thus nature cannot determine reality, God does not decide reality; it is man’s prerogative and sole responsibility. Man, alive and physical and yet spiritual as well, albeit limited and fallible - or perhaps because he is limited and fallible - is uniquely qualified, by virtue of his possessing a free-willed consciousness, to determine the nature of physical and spiritual reality.

Emergence of Humans: As we have seen, quantum physics connects ontology (being) with epistemology (knowing), and quantum metaphysics postulates that the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when there are (free-willed) conscious beings in it. According to this scenario, man is not a random product of the universe but is rather a necessary condition for the very existence of the universe. In addition, since the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when free-willed conscious man is present within it, there is no true physical reality to any time prior to the emergence of the first free-willed conscious human. In Genesis this was called 'Adam'.

Chapter 9: Quantum Reality and Free Will

Introduction

Why should the presence of a conscious observer be required to bring physical events into reality. Why does it have this power to influence the reality-status of events - what might be the particular aspect of consciousness which would grants it this ability .  

Consciousness is in essence self-reflexivity; by definition, a conscious being is one which can be aware  of existence (of itself and of something else), as opposed to simply reacting  to existence.  It is also aware that it is conscious, and aware that it is aware that is conscious..... and so on.  Thus, it is certainly reasonable that events can have reality to us  only if we observe them. Nevertheless, it is not clear why this should affect reality in general, rather than just our own reality.  

Furthermore, it would seem that in this interpretation, consciousness has a physical ontological effect rather than simply an epistemological effect - that is, consciousness affects events themselves, not only our knowledge of events. If so, then consciousness must possess a radically different physical nature than the rest of the physical universe, with this unique otherness giving it the unique power to bring physical events into reality[96]. 

Of particular interest to us here is the possibility that it is the free-willed aspect of consciousness which is its crucial and active factor.

We will find that the resulting connection betweeen free-willed consciousness and existence serves to highlight various interesting points in our later discussions.

 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[97].

 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[98] 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. 

The Causality Transcendence of Free Will, and

the "Collapse of the Wave packet"

There are two fundamental features of our understanding of physical reality which were revised by quantum physics. One is that events at their most basic level are random, and the other that physical reality itself may be connected inherently to the existence within it of consciousness, and this in an acausal manner. 

The two are related in that they have bearing on the causal structure of reality, and it may then be only expected that free will, which has the most radical causal nature of all phenomena, may have some relevance to quantum phhenomena.

According to quantum physics the ordinary causal structure of the universe is not  deterministic, but is rather probabilistic, and the nature of physical reality is such that events occur in a pseudo-real universe of combinations of the various possible outcomes. One can say that it is the causal-transcendence of quantum physics which causes physical events to occur not in the solid reality provided by classical deterministic causality, but rather to occur in a limbo of pseudo reality. Then, it becomes almost expected that only a further transcendence of the causal structure - a transcendence this time of probabilistic causality - can lift the physical events out of this limbo of the pseudo-real, and allow them to emerge into the actual universe of ordinary reality. 

Since all phenomena in the universe except for free will are subservient to quantum probabilistic causality, it is quite natural to postulate that it is free will which is the quantum-probabilistic-causality-transcending phenomenon which serves as the medium for the emergence into reality of physical events [99].

Free-Willed Observation Vs. Measurement-Measured Interaction

Every event is automatically "recorded" in the sense that the universe is different due to the very occurrence of the event.  However, we have seen that this 'recording' is not enough to cause the emergence into reality of an event: it must instead be measured, which we have accepted as meaning observed by a consciousness.  What is it about conscious measurement that makes it so different from non-conscious measurement?  Using our idea that free will is the basic property of consciousness, we can understand the distinction between a conscious measurement and a non-conscious one in this way:

In order to perform a measurement, one must detach oneself from the system being measured, so as not to influence it in any way.  However any act of measuring is inevitably an interaction between the measured and the measurer, and the measuring apparatus is actually a part of the system being measured.  [The entire universe is actually one system, all events in it are interrelated via cause and effect[100]]

[DELETE:Nevertheless, since it cannot measure itself, the measurements it records can never be truly reflective of reality and so measurement of an event cannot cause that event to emerge into true physical reality.]

Measurement by free-willed consciousness is however quite different. Consciousness obtains its information input via the brain and via the sense organs, and so is acted on by them, but it does not necessarily act in return on the event or even on the sensory apparatus, and so there is no full interaction. The event interacts with the sensory organs and brain but not with free-willed consciousness. Free will activates the conscious measurement ina unilateral manner non-determined by the physical processes in the external universe. 

As free will is independent of the causal structure of the universe, an act of observation by free-willed consciousness does not  necessarily imply an interaction with the system of event plus sensory organs plus brain being observed and so free-willed consciousness, by observing a system, can perceive its true reality; only free-willed conscious observation can catalyze the emergence into physical reality.

Free Will, Consciousness, and "The Collapse of the Wave Packet"

The human free-willed consciousness is a phenomenon which by its very nature is of a "higher order" than the non-conscious realm - animate or inanimate. It is of a nature inherently "other" than that of any other known entity in the universe.; in addition, the "outsideness" of consciousness [previously discussed] may even have some vital ramifications for the rest of the universe (see below). 

                Furthermore, in any measurement proceeding not through the agency of free will, then the decision to observe any interaction or event follows from previous events, and is in itself not a unique physical occurrence - the decision is one of a superposition of mental states. How can such a superposition state itself collapse the superposition state of other event chains?

Since only free will is not subservient to quantum causality it brings physical events into reality. This is an additional uniqueness of free-willed consciousness; in observing a system, it is "outside" this system in a way that no other existent or phenomenon can be. There is a sense in which this observation could have been not carried out; the free willed being making the observation could have chosen not to do so. Thus, the choice of whether or not to observe was not   dictated by the state of the universe.  

As such, its measurement - the observation it makes of the state of the system -  is "outside" the universe's chain of cause-effect, and uncorrelated to any other event in the universe. Such an observation can then perhaps reveal the true reality of the entity being measured - and perhaps it is this property which endows consciousness with the power to "collapse the wave packet" from "combination of individual facets of reality" to one actual true reality.[101]

                Why should it be specifically free will which has the property that it can collapse the wave function?

                Without there being unequivocal ramifications to one's actions, there can be no real moral responsibility for the results of these actions. Therefore the combined existence of all possibilities destroys free willed moral responsibility, and accordingly it may be that it is precisely free will which is the quality which collapses the many possibilities into the unique path.

The EPR Paradox and Bell's Inequality

Einstein was very involved in the debate as to whether or not events had a real existence when not being measured[102]. He and two colleagues - Podolsky and Rosen - proposed the following experiment:

An electron can have either "spin up" or "spin down". Prepare a state with two  electrons having opposite values of spin, and have them fly apart from each other. According to general rules of physics, the two electrons must be in opposite spin states even after they fly apart. Thus, if we later measure one and find it has "spin up" then we automatically know that the other electron has "spin down" even without measuring it[103]. 

Einstein was convinced that one could thus deduce that a particle is totally existent in full physical reality even when it is not measured. However, a remarkable equation [the "Bell inequality"] developed by John Bell indicates that it is possible to experimentally determine whether or not  this is so.

Experiments carried out by Alain Aspect and others then showed that in fact Einstein was wrong - particles have real properties only when they are measured[104]! 

Bell's Inequality and Contrafactual Definiteness 

Bell's inequality is valid only if one allows that there is meaning to the satatement that the experimenter 'could have' performed the measurement other than in they way he did. Since events occur as they do and in no other way, it is impossible to prove that they could have been different than they were, as Bridgman pointed out, and so there might be no meaning to the statement that the experimenter could have chosen differently, and therefore some have claimed that Bell's inequality might be invalid.

This issue is closely related to that of free will, since as Bridgman pointed out, essentially no indisputable proof of free will could ever be offered since one could never prove that one could have acted differently than one did.

Bell's Inequality and Free Will

If all events in the universe at any one time are the probabilistically-determined random result of the events in the universe at some prior time[105],  then all events which occur today are causally connected to the events of the big bang - they are actually all effects of the same cause. In this sense, all events in the universe are in some measure "correlated".

An implication of this is that two events  which seem totally independent of each other may actually both be distant results of the same cause. For example, the state of a system being measured and the very decision to measure can both be  products of the same cause.  

Similarly, one particular event one hour could be the joint cause an hour later of two seemingly independent states - the state of mind corresponding to the experimenter's decision to measure, and the state of the phenomenon being measured.  Consequently, such measurement reveals only one individual facet of reality - the result preordained by that particular correlation of decision-to-measure with the measured event, and thus the event remains in the limbo of the totality of all such individual facets [b].

  In contrast, a measurement performed by a free-willed consciousness has the potential of being totally uncorrelated with the state of the system since the decision to measure is not a product of the big bang, or any other universe-state. 

According to John Bell, discoverer of the "Bell inequality" there is an alternate way to understand the result he derived, for it is only valid if there is free will [c]:

"..one of the ways of understanding this business is to say that the world is super-deterministic. That not only is inanimate nature deterministic, but we, the experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment rather than another, are also determined. If so, the difficulty which this experimental result creates disappears."

"....In the analysis it is assumed that free will is genuine, and as a result of that one finds that the intervention of the experimenter at one point has to have consequences at a remote point, in a way that influences restricted by the finite velocity of light would not permit. If the experimenter is not free to make this intervention, if that is also determined in advance, the difficulty disappears."

 There is a sense in which this observation could have been not carried out. The free willed being making the observation could have chosen not to do so - the choice of whether or not to observe was not dictated by the state of the universe. [A free-willed consciousness, in observing a system, is "outside" this system in a way that no other phenomenon can be.]

    Free-willed consciousness, moral beings, and the Creation of the Universe

According to Wheeler the universe can emerge into reality only via the emergence of consciousness: we claim further that consciousness is in essence subsumed in free will, and that the quantum probabilistic transcendence manifested in the power of consciousness to create reality can be  attributed to the quantum probabilistic transcendence (causality-transcendence) of free will[106].

So far we have discussed the role of consciousness in collapsing the wave function for individual events. However the universe as a whole - which is a collective of individual interactinf particles etc - also exists in a superposition state unless measured via a free will-ed consciousness. Therefore, we can restate Wheeler's idea thus: the universe can achieve reality only via the emergence within it of free will.  In addition, we have seen that free will can be assumed to operate only in moral beings, so that we can now make a final restatement of Wheeler's thesis:  "The universe can emerge into reality only via the emergence within it of a moral being". 

 The Garden of Eden recounts the emergence of morality, of free-willed moral choice, and therefore the concomitant emergence of the physical reality described in the creation. Our understanding of the role of moral choice in the creation of physical reality therefore provides the insight into the strong thematic link between the creation and Eden accounts.

                 The creation and Eden accounts complement the picture of creation as provided by science : our quantum metaphysics provides us with the insight as to the role of free-willed consciousness, and the creation and Eden accounts stress the role of moral free-willed consciousness in the emergence of the universe into physical reality. 

                 The combination of scientific origin theory and our interpretation of quantum metaphysics provide an explanation of the creation mechanism: a universe develops - from a singularity and big bang - and evolves in a pseudo-real state until its emergence into physical reality at the first exercise of free-willed choice. 

In philosophical and metaphysical terms therefore, the beginning of the universe is at the moral stage, and the universe is retroactively-existent from the big bang. From the perspective of a created universe, the reason is clear for the thematic connection between the onset of physical reality, the timing of creation, and the onset of moral beinghood and of meaning. Of course the creation and Eden account deal with precisely these themes, with a divine act of quintessential free willed choice to create a moral stage-teleoderived big bang designed to produce a free willed being -  in the image of the creator  - and in this context one can perhaps paraphrase Genesis as: 

"And Gd  Willed: 

'Let there have been a  moral-being-inherent  big bang'. 

And it was so."     

Chapter 10: Existence, Free Will, and 

Self-Causation

Existence and Self-Causation

Perhaps the greatest mystery that we encounter in contemplating the universe is that of its origin: how - and perhaps why - the universe came to exist.  

  It seems to many people that there is no compelling necessity for the universe to exist, that is to say, that it is logically possible that the universe could have not existed[107]. If so, the fact that the universe does exist seems to require an explanation.

 If the universe is not eternal, then it did not always exist, and its existence would therfore seem to have been the result of something which changed the status quo. That is, the universe would seem to have been caused to exist by some agency.

This agency can be non-physical, but this involves the mind-body problem of the interaction of the physical and the non-physical. In addition, by appealing to a non-physical entity as the originator of the universe, one is led to the question of where that entity originated. The answer that a non-physical entity (for example God) need not be originated is a possible answer, but as soon as one admits that something can exist without it being originated, one can apply this to the universe itself, and claim that although events within the universe are 'physical' and always are originated and follow along a chain of cause and effect, the universe as a whole has a 'non-physical' nature in that it need not have been originated.

 On the other if we limit ourselves only to the physical, and define "the universe" so as to include "all that is", all of space-time-matter-energy, 'laws of nature', and anything else which may physically exists[108], then there is nothing physically existent other than "the universe" which could have caused the universe to exist - so that if the universe was caused by something, it could only have been caused by itself. That is, the universe is either uncaused, or paradoxically, "self-causative".

We will see that the causal paradox of the origin of the universe is very  similar to the paradox involved in free will. 

Self-Causation, Free Will, and the Emergence into Existence of the Universe

As we saw, free-willed choice must be acausal or self-causative.  The paradoxical phenomenon of self-causation in free will is paralled by that of the self-causation of the emergence into existence of the universe itself. In this fundamental sense, the mystery of existence is tied into the mystery of free will.

The two paradoxes are related not only in their form, but they may also actually point to a fundamental relationship between the underlying processes of free will and emergence into existence.

 For example, perhaps a self-causative mechanism similar to that behind free will could account for the origin of the universe. Alternatively, perhaps the fact that the universe originated in a meta-causal or self-causing manner could explain how it could possibly contain a meta-causal  self-causative phenomenon such as free will.

 It may also be possible that the existence of the universe and that of free will are intimately related, and perhaps even cause each other. The existence of one perhaps resolves the paradox of the existence of the other -  that is, as explained by quantum metaphysics, the existence of the universe owes its origin to an act of will, while will can arise only within the framework of the existence of a universe. And, as it is the free-willed consciousness which evolves from the big bang which then provides retroactive existence to that very big bang, this interaction of free-willed consciousness and emergence into existence takes place in a paradoxical self-causative manner, and in this it is similar to the self-causation involved in free will and emergence into existence themselves.

With hinsoght it almost seems that one could even perhaps 'predict' the existence of a phenomenon such as free will, given the results of quantum metaphysics. If the universe is self-caused, via a causality-transcending self-referential act of consciousness[109], one can perhaps expect that consciousness will itself exhibit self-causing, causality-transcending, self-referential characteristics - for example what we call free will.

Quantum Metaphysics, Self-Causation, Creation and Eden

This connection of free will and the very existence of the universe provides a link between the creation account, which tells of the emergence into existence of the universe, and the Eden account, which recounts the emergence of free will in the universe.

From the Biblical perspective we have expounded here, the purpose of creation is related to the existence of moral choice, and only moral activity is truly meaningful. Therefore since moral choice can exist only if there exists free will, it is free willed-consciousness which allows the existence of meaning and purpose. 

It is most appropriate that the very characteristics of man which allow the emergence of the universe into reality - free-willed consciousness - are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning, so that there is a fundamental inter-relationship between meaning, purpose, existence, free-will, consciousness and the very nature of reality. 

This connection is then reflected in Genesis via the juxtaposition of the  creation and Garden of Eden accounts, the juxtaposition of the universe emerging into existence via purposive creation, and the emergence in this universe of free-willed conscious  moral humanity.

The Tree of Knowledge, Ex-Nihilo Creation, and Self-Causation

The basic paradox of self-causation not only ties the creation and Eden accounts together, but it is also present at the most fundamental level of the creation and Eden accounts themselves.

Self-Causation and the Eden Account: It is one of the fundamental premises of the Eden account that the eating from the Tree was that which granted the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Yet if man could not distinguish between good and evil, then he clearly cannot be held responsible for his choice to eat from the Tree.

Therefore the basic premise of the Eden account, that man is held responsible for having violated a command in Eden, involves a paradox - seemingly man already must have possesed an understanding of good and evil prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

It is as though the knowledge of good and evil was both a preliminary to the eating, and its result, so that in a way free-willed moral choice brought about its own origin. 

Free-will is therefore not only self-causative, but in the Eden account its emergence into existence in the universe was seemingly via a self-causative mechanism.

Self-Causation and the Creation Account: The very idea of creation ex-nihilo is in itself paradoxical, since it involves the creation of space-time, giving a 'beginning' to time - something which is quite impossible. Furthermore the idea of space-time coming into existence is paradoxical - it implies that space 'began existing where there was no space before', where the words 'began' 'where' 'before' are undefined.      

  Similarly, the creation account itself contains an underlying thread of paradox and acausality[110]. 

 Furthermore, according to tradition the final day - sabbath - was itself a creation, and it was for the sabbath that all was created. Yet, the sabbath is of course also the commemoration of the (cessation of) creation. Thus, the universe was created for the sake of commmemoration of its creation. 

In addition, according to Rambam the words "and God saw everything that he made and it was very good" means that the universe was created in order that God be able to grant to all existing beings the inherent good of existence itself. That is, existence exists in order that existence exist.

Eden, Creation, Free Will and Self Causation: The creation account deals with the paradox of the self-causation of the universe by attributing its existence to the free-willed action of a causality-transcendent creator. The creator is also 'self-caused', so that the first three words of Genesis 'beginning' 'God' 'created' all refer to entities and concepts involving self-causation, linking them with each other.

The paradox of free will is dealt with by attributing the capability for the possession of free will by man to the infusion into him of the divine spirit of the causality-transcendant creator, making him into the image of the transcendent creator by connecting him to the transcendent realm which is beyond causality, beyond the limitations of determinism/randomness, granting the universe existence for its own sake, yet also for the sake of the meaning and purpose made possible by the existence in this universe of free willed moral choice.

Quantum metaphysics then links the emergence into existence of the universe to the emergence within the universe of a moral being, so that the universe achieves existence when it becomes capable of supporting meaningful activity, and fulfilling a transcendental purpose.

Chapter 11: Cosmology and Kabbalah:

Broken Symmetry and Shvirat Hakelim,

Tzimtzum and Free Will

Cosmology, Biology, and Symmetry

        Recent developments in theoretical physics and cosmology show that the laws of physics are quite possibly manifestations of one unified law. This one Law appears as many  due to the fragmentation of the initial universe, its loss of unity and symmetry. 

   In the words of Heinz Pagels[111]: 

"Here, for the first time, we see a remarkable feature of the modern theory of the origin of the universe: the further back in time we go, the hotter the universe becomes, and broken symmetries are restored. The universe and all its particle interactions are becoming more and more symmetrical as we descend deeper into the big bang. This feature holds out the hope that the universe becomes simpler, more symmetrical and more manageable in its very early history, a hope to which physicists cling in their model building.

  Conversely, were we to progress forward in time, we would see that as the temperature falls, those perfect symmetries are broken. Now the physical differences between the various interactions - strong, weak, and eletromagnetic - become apparent.

  The universe today, with its relatively low temperature, is the frozen remnant of the big bang. Like an ice crystal that has frozen out of a uniform water vapor, it has lots of structure - the galaxies, stars, and life itself. But according to the modern view, even the protons and neutrons - the very substance of matter - are the frozen fossils of the big bang. They too were created as the temperature fell[112] ".

        A beautiful painting is actually a collection of paint drops spread on a canvas. If one were to remove the paint drops and mix them all together one would achieve maximal unity and uniformity, but the beauty and uniqueness would be destroyed. A human is composed of cells which are composed of atoms which are composed of elementary particles. Take apart the human and mix all the constitutent particles together, and one obtains unity, but the unique properties of a living being, of a working brain, are lost. Arrange all similar particles together in individual clumps, and one obtains great order compared to the chaotic distribution of particles in the body, but the complexity of the living body is destroyed. Physical life is organized matter and energy, and is based on differentiation. If all is the same, perfectly symmetric and uniform, totally ordered, then all complexity is absent, and there can be no structure, no life, no consciousness. 

        If one considers the patterns formed by matter at various stages in the development of the universe, it can be seen that initially the universe was a point and contained only a relatively uniform jumble of energy. This uniformity was destroyed when the universe began expanding and the energy was transformed into a jumble of various elementary particles, and then as the universe expanded yet more, into hydrogen atoms. In the ever expanding universe these began to clump together to form galaxies of stars, with planets forming, and so on. The more that there was differentiation, the more the initial order was destroyed, the more structure and complexity there was. Eventually, there was sufficient differentiation to produce living beings, brains, consciousness. 

        Life consumes matter, organic and otherwise, as fuel in order to suvive, in order to build new body cells and to provide energy for blood transport, for motion, for brain function. Humans eat complex entities such as plants and animals, and besides using them to build cells, converts them mostly into  less complex forms - energy and waste matter. Thus although life increases the order and complexity in its immediate vicinity, on the whole the net result is an increase in disorder, in entropy.  

        In sum, one can say that life can only come into being in a universe in which symmetry is not total, and can continue only by transforming pre-existent order into chaos.

Broken Symmetry in Kabbalah: Shvirat Hakelim  

        In Genesis, the operation of the universe in a complete and self-consistent manner begins after the creation of humanity and the onset of consciousness. In this sense, Genesis implies that the true existence of the universe begins with the existence of consciousness. 

        According to the Kabbalah, the emergence of the universe into existence, and its development leading to the emergence of an autonomously willed being, was a process involving increasing differentiation, fragmentation of the initial unity, and loss of the original harmony and symmetry of the cosmos.

          When the universe does not exist, there was only Gd. When the universe exists, there exists other than Gd - the universe. Thus, in order to create a universe, Gd must seemingly fragment somewhat the Divine unity and unique existentiality - a fragmentation which is however real only from the perspective of the beings inhabiting this physical universe rather from the perspective of the divine unity. 

        However, when consciousness does not exist, the existence of otherness is not manifest as there is no awareness of the fragmentation, and therefore the fragmentation does not yet exist. On the other hand due to its awareness of its own existence, and therefore of its otherness from the divine unity, the existence of consciousness adds an element of fragmentation to that caused by the existence of the physical universe by itself, making this fragmentation a reality. 

         However it is the existence of free will in the universe which produces the maximal fragmentation of the divine uniqueness, since the existence of moral beings introduces not merely a consciousness of fragmentation but also an element of independence of thought and action and the existence of a will other than the Will of Gd - namely the will of man.

        Free will is therefore the factor which brings the shattering effect of existence to its maximal level of fragmentation. 

        Prior to the existence of free willed beings, nothing was contrary to the Will of God, no consciousness of fragmentation existed, no thought or action had its source in fragmentation, whereas after the creation of existence and of free will, all this changes.

        From the mystical perspective in which only God exists, the concept of creation is paradoxical since it involves the creation of that which is 'not God'. One can address this paradox somewhat by defining creation in terms of the bringing into existence of a will which is not the divine will, but which nevertheless exists only as a result of the divine will that it exist. 

        In this approach, only the existence of a free-willed consciousness, which feels itself to be independent of God, can define 'creation'. From the point of view of God however, all is one, and the seemingly independent consciousness is actually an aspect of the One consciousness. In this sense, the emergence of a free-willed consciousness is not only necessarily simultaneous with the 'creation of the universe', but the creation of the universe - as in the creation account - can take place, can be defined, only at the point of maximal shattering, at the emergence into existence of a free-willed consciousness - as in the Eden account.

Tzimtzum 

        Another fundamental idea of the kabbalah in relation to creation is that of tzimtzum - a form of withdrawal of the divine which was a necessary prerequisite for creation. 

        There are two basic forms of tzimtzum. One is the necessity for the divine to 'withdraw itself' in order to allow the existence of physicality, and the other is a withdrawal of the divine will in order to allow human beings freedom of choice. Thus the creation of the physical universe and the endowment of free will both required a 'withdrawal of the divine': to achieve the goals of creation, God deliberately self- limited to allow the existence of a physical universe where prior to this there was only God, and the creation by God of a being who can choose to disobey Him was a self-limitation no less radical. 

        Thus, in order to create a moral universe, Gd must seemingly  fragment somewhat the Divine unity and unique existentiality, and must seemingly[113] 'sacrifice' the exclusivity of the Divine Will  [both are types of 'Tzimtzum'[114]]. As in the teachings of  modern physics and cosmology, so too in the Kabbalah: in order for free-willed conscious life to exist, it was necessary for the initial order, unity, and symmetry to be shattered. Without the shattering of the symmetry, structure - including life - could not exist.  

        Due to its linking of creation and the emergence of a free-willed consciousness, the idea of tzimtzum provides us with further insight into the connection between the creation and Eden accounts.

Tzimtzum in Natural Law

        The creation of the universe and the operation of free will have a commonality; both involve the withdrawal of the fundamental principle of science, that of causality[115].

        In the sense that the unity of natural law, the very lawfulness of the universe, derives from the underlying unity of God and from the divine will, the withdrawal of causality involved in the creation of physical existence and of free will is parallel to the withdrawal of the divine, tzimtzum, involved in these very actions.

Tzimtzum and Free Will

        By some definitions of what is meant by 'God' in theology and kabbalah, it is meaningless to say that there is something other than God. Nevertheless, as we stated above, if one states that God created the universe, then this of course implies that God created something other than God. Indeed, we are conscious and feel ourselves to have an independent will, and we feel 'other than' God, and therefore we can say that there is of necessity something other than God. This is a paradox.

         Kabbalistically, creation can be defined as the process whereby God undergoes the restriction or withdrawal of tzimtzum, enabling some aspect of the divine to achieve an independent consciousness and will, independent from its own perspective although paradoxically not independent from the perspective of the divine. 

Shvirat Hakelim

        In Kabbalah, ............

Tzimtzum and Shvirat Hakelim

        The two concepts of tzimtzum and shvirat hakelim in kaballah are paralleled in science by the concepts of existence and of free willed consciousness, and the connection between existence and free willed consciousness provides a link between these two kabbalistic ideas.

        From both the scientific and kaballistic perspective, the physical universe and free willed conscious life can only exist when the initial order and symmetry is shattered to allow diversity and complexity. Similarly, from the scientific perspective, existence and free willed consciousness are possible only due to a withdrawal of the basic law of nature, the law of causality (see discussion elsewhere in this book), while from the perspective of kaballah, they are possible only following the withdrawal of the divine.

        Existence in itself, and the existence of free willed consciousness, point to the presence of a realm beyond that dealt with in ordinary scientific endeavor. Furthermore, it is free will which provides the possibility of meaning to the universe, and which according to quantum metaphysics (see elsewhere in this book) is the catalyst which initiates the universe into full physical reality.

Introduction: 

Hitpashtut (to atzilut) = big bang     

The Creation and Eden Accounts

        Tzimtzum is that which allows the possibility of existence and free willed consciousness, while shvirat hakelim is the process of the actualization of this potential, leading to the emergence of existence and of free willed consciousness. Also, in quantum metaphysics, these two fundamental acausal phenomena - existence and free willed consciousness - are themselves linked by an acausal connection - free willed consciousness emerges in the universe and then retroactively brings the universe into true physical existence (see discussion elsewhere in this book).

        The ideas of tzimtzum and of shvirat hakelim are also reflected in the creation and Eden accounts. In the creation account, the first stages of creation are not said to take place on "the first day" - the creation account does not refer at all to a 'first day'. Instead, the initial creation is said to end with 'day one' or 'one day', implying a uniqueness - rather than 'the first day', which would imply that it was the first day of a series. Only after this is there mention of a 'second' and 'third' day and so on. The initial creation though was unique, not part of a process, with the term 'one day' perhaps a hint reflecting the unity of the creator - the divine perspective - rather than the fragmentation of the unity - the perspective of the created.

        Another hint of these ideas can be gleaned from the fact that the initial creation was of 'heaven and earth' undifferentiated, also perhaps a reflection of the unity of the creator. Only on later days was this successively fragmented to form the waters above and below, the luminaries, and so on. Light was created and then there was a division of light and darkness. Even the culmination of creation with the creation of man involves levels of differentiation. First we are told of a creation of Man in the singular, and then of humanity in the plural, and the creation then concludes with the command to be fruitful and multiply.

        The initial creation of heaven and earth contains within it the potential for all the succesive creation. As Rambam said:

INSERT QUOTE "........."

        After the initial stage, the emergence of the universe involved the increasing differentiation associated with the actualization of the potential inherent in the initial creation. According to Rambam, the universe was created because existence is good, and this process of differentiation was designed to bring about the existence of all that was implied by the initially existent creations -  a maximal existence, and therefore a maximal good. 

        The creation account deals with the fragmentation and withdrawal of the divine that is necessary to allow the existence of the universe, and to allow it to differentiate to achieve its maximal inherent potential for existence. In the Eden account one has the fragmentation and withdrawal of the divine will to allow the emergence of free will in man, and the fragmentation of man into man and woman.

        Both the creation and Eden accounts deal therefore with tzimtzum and shvirat hakelim, causality violation and broken symmetry, with the shattering of unity to allow differentiation and complexity, and with the withdrawal of the divine to allow the existence of the physical universe and of free will. 

  In sum: From the singularity that is Gd, there emanated a physical universe[116]. Beginning in a violent symmetry-shattering explosion, the universe emerged, and took physical shape. However, all the physical universe is in reality a shell - a frozen fossil of the shattered initial unity. A shattering which was made possible only via the self-willed withdrawal of the divine unity - a unity and symmetry which had to be shattered in order to allow the existence of life, and of free will in man; this perhaps is reflected in the physical universe by the requirement postulated by quantum metaphysics (see discussion elsewhere) that a free-willed being be present within the universe in order for it to emerge into physical reality. 

This connection between free will and existence again underlines both the motivation of presenting the Eden account in Genesis, and the thematic connection between the creation and Eden accounts.

…………….

The Anthropic principle  

Complexity and Design

     Recent research in astrophysics, cosmology and field theory has shown that there is an intimate connection between the design of man and the design of the universe. The conditions at the big bang[117] and the value of the fundamental constants of nature were precisely those which would allow the eventual emergence of life, and more specifically, of man. Had things been only very slightly different than they are - even in the most tiny amount -  the universe could never have developed into a life-bearing universe, could never have given rise to humanity[118]. There is thus a deep existential link between life and the universe, between the physical characteristics of living beings and the fundamental physical structure of the universe.

     There seems also to be a link between complexity and design. A biological cell is a very complex entity - moreso than any known non-biological entity - and its complexity seems to be linked in some way to the fundamental nature of the universe, of its design. Because it is so complex, and only very special types of universes could produce amoebas, the specification that a universe is to be designed so as to be capable of eventually producing an amoeba would probably suffice to specify most of the characteristics of the universe - perhaps the conditions of its initial state and the value of the fundamental constants for that universe.

      The more complex the entity, the more specially designed need be the universe that can produce it. The human brain is the most complex entity in the known universe, and it can only arise in very special circumstances, so that it will evolve from a big bang only if the laws of nature and initial conditions are exactly right. Thus, the specification that a universe is to produce a human-type brain is a more demanding one than that it produce an amoeba, and this demand might in itself suffice to specify (virtually) all the characteristics of the universe. 

     This idea is termed the 'anthropic principle'.  

     It may be however that there is a richer structure to the universe than that indicated by the human brain, and it may further be that there exist phenomena in the universe which exploit this richer structure, and exhibit a greater degree of complexity than does the human brain. Consciousness may be such a phenomenon.

     One can imagine a universe which is sufficiently rich in structure to produce such complex entities as human brains, but are not sufficiently sophisticated so as to allow the development of consciousness. If so, then the fact that we are conscious indicates that the universe possesses a greater 'depth' than simply a universe containing brains.

     Even moreso is the case with free willed consciousness. The phenomenon of free-willed consciousness is so unique that one can imagine universes containing human-type brains, even conscious brains,  in which it would never arise. 

     To support a free-willed consciousness with a moral awareness and the ability to recognize and negotiate moral dilemmas, there must be a complex brain. Therefore, the requirement of producing a moral being is more stringent that the requirement of producing simply a human-type brain. Thus, continuing the reasoning of the anthropic principle, one can speculate that one can completely specify all the laws of nature underlying the existence of the universe via the specification that it eventually produce not merely human brains, but rather via the specification that it produce moral beings.   

     The Anthropic Principle and Design

Recent research in astrophysics, cosmology and field theory has shown that had things been only very slightly different than they are, the universe could never have developed into a life-bearing universe[119].  

 The fact that conscious life exists even though only very special and seemingly improbable kinds of big bangs and systems of physical law would lead to the emergence of conscious life, has been interpreted in contradictory ways.  To some, this furnishes an indication that the universe was designed by a Designer, purposefully, in such a way that it would be guaranteed to bring forth life. 

 However, this argument can be easily seen to be fallacious. It may be that many universes have come in to being, and anytime this type of improbable big bang exists, beings will arise and eventually realize that their big bang is very improbable - it can be no other way[120]. If the universe were not  of this improbable type, there would be no beings around to notice it. Therefore the fact that the universe seems improbably suited to the existence of life is a tautology - any universe in which there is life must obviously be of the type suitable to contain life. [This is the only possibility - since we would not exist if it weren't.]

Nevertheless, some prominent scientists feel that since there is only one universe, and this universe did not have to produce life, the combination of coincidences is so unlikely that the universe must be the product of design[121]  [122]..

According to Stephen Hawking one of the leading theoretical phycisits of our day, and one of the co-formulators of the anthropic principle [e]:

"...a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours is immense. ..... I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

     Paul Davies wrote [f]:

             "Should we conclude that the universe is a product of design? The new physics and the new cosmology hold out a tantalizing promise: that we might be able to explain how all the physical structures in the universe have come to exist, automatically, as a result of natural processes. We should then no longer have need for a Creator in the traditional sense. Nevertheless, though science may explain the world, we still have to explain science. The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."     

….

This idea had been used by Brandon Carter and others to construct the "anthropic principle" which states that the strange improbable nature of our universe can be 'explained' by the very fact  of the existence of beings such as us. That is, not every type of being would give rise to beings such as us - or to any life at all. Therefore, we can deduce many facts about how the universe is constituted  from the fact that we  have arisen within it [123]. We can even correctly predict  the magnitudes of some of the fundamental constants of physics.

 As some have phrased it: "Things are as they are because we  are."

Wheeler has  taken this idea a very large step forwards, and has combined it with his idea of the retroactive causation of observation. Wheeler's theory is a type of anthropic principle, only it makes much stronger claims. Thus it is often termed "the strong anthropic principle"

….

It has however been suggested that there may be an infinitude of universes, or that the universe contains an infinite number of sub-universes, in each of which conditions are different, and in which most universes do not contain living beings.  Only those in which the conditions are right will eventually evolve life, and some even conscious life, and these will be a tiny fraction of the total amount of universes. In these universes however, if there is no knowledge of the plurality of other universes, it will seem odd that such an unlikely universe exist, and its inhabitants might speculate that they are the only universe and therefore that it must be that the universe was designed to produce life[124].

Many scientists however are hesitant at proposing the existence of an infinite number of universes, and feel that this is maybe even less likely than that the universe is in fact the product of design. 

The  Strong Anthropic Principle 

The weak anthropic principle shows us that specifying the design of the moral being will suffice to specify the design of the entire universe. The strong anthropic principle states that the universe can emerge into full physical reality only when there has emerged within it a conscious being. This principle implies that not only wasn't the form of Man left to the vagaries of evolution, but that instead - since from among all possible universes only a universe capable of eventually producing a moral being will actually emerge into existence - in some sense the laws of evolution, the big bang, and of physics as a whole were themselves determined by the form of Man. 

In the language relevant to a purposive universe, one can say that the universe was created from a blueprint, and the blueprint was designed according to the specifications of the desired moral being, and the universe emerges into full physical existence at the moral stage, as determined by the parameters of the moral being itself (To paraphrase an old philosophical maxim, " moral humanity is the measure of all things'.). This understanding sheds further light onto the creation and Garden of Eden accounts, and onto their interrelationship.

Emergence of Existence: Purpose and Chance

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a Gd. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." 

  Charles Darwin: Autobiography[125] .

The Religionist view:  According to the religionist the universe and the laws of nature were designed so as to develop living beings, and were invested with whatever inherent properties and qualities are requisite in order to guarantee that intelligent life develop from it at some stage[126].  

One can perhaps draw an analogy between the growth of a tree and the emergence of consciousness. The combination of seed, earth, environment, and laws of nature together possess all the properties necessary for the development of a tree from the seed. Similarly the combination of singularity[127], space-time-energy-matter, big bang, and laws of nature would possess all the properties necessary for the development of free-willed consciousness from the  initial singularity[128].

  Further, if it was desired to created not merely a universe with life but rather a moral  universe, then there would be created a big bang and appropriate "natural law" containing the ingredients necessary to ensure[129] the eventual emergence of moral beings[130],[131] [132] [133] [134].

["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. …..." Albert Einstein[135].]

Purpose vs. Chance 

To the religionist, the origin theories could be studied as revelations  of Gd's Will and  manifestations of Gd's Design. The conflict between the religionist and the atheist would center not on the origin theory itself, but rather on its interpretation - the essential issue being that of purpose vs. chance.

Atheists would claim that the universe and its life are products of chance; the fact that a singularity existed, that it developed into a big bang, that this evolved into a universe, that the universe evolved life in it, would not be accepted as being due to design - instead it would be considered as the result of chance.

Religionists, on the other hand, would claim that both the universe and life are the products of careful design and deliberate creation: the system of big bang and its concomitant natural law being specifically designed and created so as to produce moral beings. Neither side would be able to refute the other since they agree on the observable facts and disagree only on the aspects which are not empirically confirmable. Thus, the religionist could maintain that man has a divine purpose in life, while the atheist would deny this.

In this connection it is interesting to read the closing paragraph of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species".  

"Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved."          

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

Science, atheism and biblical religion: Science is a programmatic attempt to find naturalistic explanations based on cause and effect for all objectively observable phenomena. Science - as opposed to atheism - does not claim there is no God, it only seeks to find explanations which do not require invoking God; it does not seek to disprove divine intervention, but rather is an attempt to arrive at non-supernatural explanations – 'laws' (and to express these mathematically). The scientific 'origin theory' – combining the theories of the big bang and evolution - follows logically from the attempt to find naturalistic explanations for the existence and development of the universe and of humanity. The question of whether or not there is a physically-untedetectable God who designed the laws of nature and created the universe, or who intervenes in its development, is one which science leaves to people to address individually – it is an issue which has nothing to do with science.

The scientific and biblical origin accounts: Both accounts can be seen as flowing naturally from underlying assumptions, but given the differences between these assumptions it is only to be expected that they arrive at different conclusions regarding the origin of the universe.

Obviously if one seeks naturalistic explanations one will not suddenly find God popping up in the equations, and so the lack of mention of God in these theories is to be expected, and is not in any way a conflict with religion. In fact, quite likely if the creation account consisted only of the statement that God created laws of nature designed to produce humans, most religious people would find the present-day scientific origin theory quite convincing; it certainly seems to provide a logical way for our universe and life to have emerged if there had been no God, or if God had created the universe with laws of nature designed to produce life. The fact that one can arrive at convincing scientific theories without invoking God is very impressive, but it does not prove that there is no God, nor does science claim that it does; what it does prove is that the scientific endeavor has succeeded in its task of finding naturalistic explanations.  

In contrast, religion assumes the existence of a God, and seeks explanations which derive from this assumption. In particular, the Bible sets out a picture of a universe designed and created by an all-powerful being, for a purpose which includes the existence of humanity and of their moral activity. Jewish Tradition does not claim there are no other types of explanations for things, and does not assume or teach that scientific inquiries will lead no where, it simply tells of a special creation of the universe and of humanity, and tells of various revelations and miracles which occurred outside the realm of ordinary cause and effect. There is no inherent conflict between an account based on the existence of a God, and another which constructs a naturalistic explanation; the programs of science and of religion are sufficiently different that the validity of one of these accounts should not be considered as negating the validity of the other. There is conflict only with atheistic belief: the belief that there is no God, and the concomitant belief that events proceed strictly according to the scientific scenario without any divine intervention[136]. 

The scientific origin theory can be appreciated by a traditionalist as a theory which logically follows from its axioms, and as the way that God could bring about the emergence of the physical universe and of life via a natural-appearing process. In the below we will wish to indicate the converse as well: why even to someone who does not believe in the Bible the picture of creation it offers can be appreciated as one which to some degree follows 'logically' from its non-disprovable assumptions, the expected way a universe and the life in it would be brought into being by the type of God implied by the Biblical accounts. 

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

DELETE OR CONDENSE THE FOLLOWING SECTION??

The Anthropic Principle and the Creation of a Purposive Universe

                According to the Biblical view, since humanity plays an important role in the purpose of creation, the universe to be created is designed with humanity in mind. Consequently, the conditions of the big-bang can be derived from the consideration that it must eventually  develop into a  universe containing a moral being.  

As in Genesis, the anthropic principle may indicate that man is not an incidental or insignificant aspect of the universe, but rather a very unique and  definitive being which the universe was specifically designed to produce. If the universe is a product of design, then this points to its creation by a free-willed conscious intelligence, and if it is designed specifically to have the capability of producing humanity, then this  points to the unique significance to the cosmos of human free-willed consciousness. 

According to the anthropic principle in the context of a created universe,  since the design of free-willed conscious beings serves to produce the design for the universe as a whole, there is an intimate relationship between the creation of the universe and the emergence of moral beings - and therefore between the creation and Eden accounts. 

          We define the term teleologically inherent via the following context: In a deterministic universe whatever is present at any stage is teleologically inherent in all earlier stages. In a quantum universe, there may be many possible future states teleologically inherent in any given state of the universe, but only one is actualized. 

Whatever depth of emotion is experienced, whatever heights reached by the human spirit (understood physically), all is necessarily teleologically inherent in the big bang. Does this tell us something about the initial conditions (big bang etc) and the laws of nature - does it set limitations on their minimum complexity? Could a ‘shallow’ beginning have great depth teleologically inherent in it? Or must the beginning and the laws be at least as deep as what arises from it?/

          We are deeply stirred by our sense of purpose, despair when we feel our lives empty of meaning. Profound feelings suffuse us when we do the right thing in difficult conditions. MRMP are not simply properties of a being or of a universe, they involve intense and sometimes peak experiences; they involve emotion (and ‘spirit’) not simply intellectual endeavor. If we are investigating the ramifications of the existence of MRMP to a universe, we cannot ignore the emotional aspect. The universe is deep not only in that it possesses MRMP, but also in that there exist such profound emotions.

          Love, fear, hate, jealousy, pride,.... strong emotions. A physical universe can evolve with non-conscious entities, an exact replica of our own universe but without consciousness, or with consciousness but without emotion (i.e. we could have instinctive flight responses etc and the awareness thereof without the atttendant emotion). Is our universe not qualitatively different for its possesion of emotion, and of emotional depth? What can we learn about the initial conditions, the laws of nature, given that all this was teleologically inherent in it?

          Consciousness transcends causality in tat there seems to be no causal link to physical events, yet it is correlated to them - this is the mind/body problem. Free will is causality-transcendent in its essence, as is creativity. Since creation is clearly causality transcendent it would seem reasonable to see a link between these, and so emotion, awareness, and free-willed moral responsibility seem intimately tied up with the emergence of the universe into existence.

........

Note that Genesis tells of God being angry, depressed almost, “sad to His heart” “regretful of having created ...”.

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

Emotion: Genesis tells of God being angry, depressed almost, “sad to His heart” “regretful of having created ...”.

...........

The creation and Eden accounts tell of humanity’s relationship to its creator, to God, as well as of the relationship between man and woman.

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

One of the unusual features of the Biblical portrayal of the human-divine relationship is that humanity is created in the image of the creator. Throughout the Bible are statements which make sense only in this light, commandments such as “Thou shalt be holy, for I am holy” “six days shall you do work and on the seventh day shall you rest, for in six days God created the universe and rested on the seventh”. And, Abraham’s ethical debate with God over the justice of God’s intended destruction of the city of Sodom, and the brit, covenant between God and the Jewish people, which obligates not only the humans involved but also the deity making the brit. It would seem that the Biblical God takes seriously the idea that humanity is created in the divine image, and that at some level what is true about the Biblical creator is true about those created, and significantly, vice versa. All this strengthens us in the feeling that some level of anthropomorphic projection from human motivations onto this creator may have validity. Specifically, that just as we would not conceive of creating a universe without a purpose, in which activity without meaning takes place, so too with the Biblical creator. We assume therefore that the creator spoken of in Genesis created because of some purpose, and is concerned with the meaning of what occurs in the universe, cares about the moral behavior of the created entities. 

....

We look therefore not only for a universe which can allow for insiders to have MRMP which is validated from the outsider perspective, but is sufficiently deep to allow it to be meaningful from the outsider perspective itself.

Design, and a Designer

   The anthropic principle intimates that the universe may have been designed to produce that which is its most complex component, the human brain, and to give rise to the phenomenon unique to that entity, a free-willed consciousness[137].

                The question of design is the basis for one of the essential differences between the religionist and the atheist. The atheist denies that the universe is the product of design, and believes that it emerged without plan or purpose, and that all that evolved within it is similarly the product of chance. The religionist's position is that the universe began with a big bang or singularity designed so as to ensure that moral beings would emerge from it. 

                Since design is possible only for an autonomous entity, via an act of will, it can be said that the anthropic principle sees the universe as possibly having been designed by a free-willed consciousness to produce a being which can itself produce design via its free-willed consciousness - as in the creation and Eden accounts, a free-willed being created in the free-willed image of its creator.

Complexity and Entropy: 

Human Creativity vs. the Heat Death of the Universe

Entropy, Complexity and Life

According to one of the most basic laws of physics, known as "the second law of thermodynamics", the amount of disorder - or "entropy" - in the universe is constantly increasing.  However, this does not mean that order or organization or complexity cannot increase anywhere in the universe -  it can, but only at the expense of a yet greater net increase in disorder in the universe as a whole. Thus the net entropy of the universe as a whole always increases, even for processes which cause a local increase of order and complexity. 

This means that the entropy of the universe was at a minimum at the big bang, and has increased since then. However, looking at the universe at its different stages, one is struck by the increase in order and complexity, rather than in the increase in chaos.

Guided by gravitational attraction, planets are formed from chaotic combinations of gases, so that the resulting planet has a much more complex structure than the material it was formed from. Nevertheless, when all the subtle aspects of the process of planetary formation and its effect on the surrounding space are taken into account, it can be shown that it gives rise to a net increase in entropy. (Furthermore, although the action of the gravitational force leads to greater order, so that it would seem that order is increasing in the universe, and was at a minimum at the big bang, when taking into account the expansion of space-time which is an unavoidable consequence of the same law of nature which 'produces' gravity, one can see that entropy always increases.)

Living organisms grow in complexity as they proceed from seed to plant, or by turning plant food into complex cells, or developing from sperm and egg to beings with brains. Our planet, due to the life on it, seems therefore to be tending towards increase in order rather than the reverse. However, the earth and the life on it is no less bound by the laws of entropy than any other entity; all the order they experience through growth is due to energy pumped from the sun, and the sun provides this energy from its tremendous hydrogen fusion explosions, explosions which tremendously increase the entropy, totaling an entropy increase far greater than the seeming decrease of entropy which it gives rise to on earth.

   Some have compared the universe to a wound-up clock which is slowly running down, having started with a tremendous supply of order which it is granting to its present constituent parts. It would seem, however, that since there was no complex structure to the big bang, but rather a uniform one, the initial state of the universe was not one of order, of a 'wound-up clock', but rather of chaos, disorder, a 'run-down clock'. It thus seems paradoxical that it should contain all the potential for complex order in the universe as it exists today. However, one can see the process of universal development from the big bang to today, and onward, as that of a continual increase in complexity, accompanied by an increase in the total entropy.  

The Complexity of the Human Brain

By far the most complex entity known to humanity is the human brain itself, containing approximately ten billion interconnected nerve cells ("neurons") . To get an idea of this amount, we quote the following figures:  There are twice as many neurons in each human brain than there are humans on this planet.  Every day, in each human brain,  10,000 neurons die and are not replaced - a total of 300 million in a lifetime of 90 years - but this is only three percent of the total amount of neurons in the brain.  For these 10 billion neurons to form in a human brain in the nine months between conception and birth, on the average one and a half million must form every hour of those nine months - 25,000 every minute[l]!

The complex interactions between neurons has no analogue in any other entity known to humanity, and even the total complexity of all the stars of our galaxy together is less than that of one human brain - although there are ten times as many stars in the galaxy as there are neurons in one human brain, these stars are not linked to each other in complex interactions as are neurons, and the neurons themselves possess a more complex structure than that do stars[138].

  The quantitative difference in complexity between the human brain and any other physical system is so vast that it can possibly give rise to a qualitative difference, with new types of interactions generated by the complexity itself. According to some scientists, phenomena generated by the complexity of the human brain cannot be understood by the reductionist approach - they are not explicable as the result of the interactions of the atoms in the brain. 

 According to Nobel-Prize winning physiologist Roger Sperry [m]:

"The point is that human nature and these higher kinds of controls in nature don't reduce any more to physical and chemical mechanisms, but have to be reckoned with now in their own form, in their own right.  Vital, mental, social and other higher forces, once evolved, become just as real as the evolved forces of molecules and atoms and must be given their due, over and above the elementary physical components."

                These types of new forces or phenomena which may arise in a non-deterministic way from complex states of the universe are called 'emergent', and  consciousness and free will may be an example.

Wholism and Consciousness

                Physics generally treats of the interactions between two otherwise isolated systems. If all entities in the universe interact with each other in a significant manner however, it becomes impossible to define an individual entity. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the investigation of phenomena in which the effective linkage is insignificant, may be inapplicable in realms in which this interconnection is stronger. In fact, some scientists claim that the universe is an organic whole, and that any treatment of its fundamental properties which ignores this will lead to faulty conclusions[139]. This would especially be the case where higher-level phenomena such as mental events are concerned.

                In a wholistic universe, it is axiomatic that higher level phenomena will emerge as the result of the self-interaction of the universe. Some scientists feel that consciousness is not only a significant aspect of the universe, but it is non-derivable from any of the other forces or phenomena known to science. Indeed, one can speculate that the emergence of self-reflective phenomena such as consciousness might be a fundamental aspect of the workings of a wholistic universe[140].

The Uniqueness of Free-Willed Consciousness

Julian Huxley[141] saw the emergence of moral consciousness as a turning point in the evolutionary process itself:

"It is only through social evolution that the world-stuff can now realize radically new possibilities. Mechanical interaction and natural selection still operate, but have become of secondary importance. For good or evil, the mechanism of evolution has in the main been transferred onto the social or conscious level...The slow methods of variation and heredity are outstripped by the speedier processes of acquiring and transmitting experience...

And in so far as the mechanism of evolution ceases to be blind and automatic and becomes conscious, ethics can be injected into the evolutionary process....it becomes possible to introduce...moral purpose into evolution."

According to Erich Fromm [italics in original][142]:                

"....The religious need is rooted in the basic condition of existence of the human species.......the human species can be defined as the primate who emerged at the point of evolution where instinctive determination had reached a minimum and the development of the brains a maximum . This combination.....had never occurred before in animal evolution and constitutes, biologically speaking, a completely new phenomenon".

Using the terminology of Victor Frankl[143], one could say that the human being is unique in that it is driven at its most basic level by "the will to meaning". No other member of the evolutionary chain can be so described - and thus man is qualitatively different than his evolutionary forebears. This qualitative difference may have cosmic implications.

Conscious Evolution

As Huxley pointed out, the mechanism of evolution has ceased to be blind and automatic and has instead become conscious. Indeed, with the ability for manipulation of genes, for causing global ecological changes, destroying planets or making desert bloom, and by reaching into space, humans have become an important factor in the future evolution of life in the universe, and of the physical development of the universe itself.

As human or universal civilization grows, and accelerates the process of the increase of complexity by manufacture, agriculture, increased population, construction of complex machines and computers, there will be a corresponding acceleration in the increase of entropy. At some point, after all the stars have extinguished themselves by burning themselves to stellar ash, or conversely when the galaxies are linked in a universal civilization, the point will be reached at which there is no more raw material to develop, and entropy will begin eating away at the complex structures previously developed, until all order is lost, all complex structures reduced to chaos - the so called 'heat death of the universe'. 

Creativity, Acausality, Free Will and Entropy

However, it may be that entropy is not necessarily all powerful, that the heat death of the universe can be avoided.

Generally, in mathematical and logical systems, complex data is constructed from simpler data. However, the amount of actual information in the newly derived result/data cannot be greater than the sum of the amount of information in the original data plus the amount involved in the reasoning process required to arrive at the new data.

That is, one cannot "create" "new information": the total amount of information in the universe remains the same - or decreases as entropy increases.

 Computer programs can reach results only if they are given sufficient information, and thus computers are not creative because they can only do what they are programmed to do. 

A machine can construct an object which has greater value, utility, beauty than does the sum of its parts, however the end product is still simply the sum of its parts and no more, and likewise all other physical processes.

If there is nothing beyond deterministic and random processes, then all art, philosophy, science, religion, music and so on are determined/random products of the big bang and the laws of nature. All philosophical dialogue becomes somewhat irrational since all discussions and difference of opinion - including heated discussions regarding the possible existence of free will - is a working out of the consequences of the big bang, and all reasoning and creativity is mechanical or random. 

True creativity would perhaps seem to be impossible for humans as well, since it demands the production of a result from information which, by definition, is not sufficient to produce that result.  Nevertheless, human intuition and creativity seem somehow to be exceptions. The very term 'intuition' means the understanding of something from information which is seemingly insufficient to produce that result, while  'creativity' means the production of something which is greater than the sum of its parts, something beyond the theoretical capability of machines, computers, or the actions of nature.

It may be that the unique ability of humans to create is related to their possession of a free-willed consciousness. If the essence of free-willed consciousness is acausality, then results need not be derived via causal chains of logic from more basic information and perhaps thus "new information" can indeed be "created". In addition, perhaps by the exercise of free-willed consciousness in creative activity, one can also decrease entropy by creating information - a true act of creativity in itself [144]. In this way, human free-willed consciousness can be the unique factor in the universe which is acting to decrease the amount of entropy in it.

      Only if there is a free willed consciousness can there be a consciously formed creative act which produces something beyond that which previously existed, and which can engage in meaningful philosophical and ethical dialogue as opposed to reading out a script written by the big bang and directed by the laws of nature.

Universal Integration

It is also possible that just as the emergence of consciousness is associated with the evolution of complex structures such as human brains, the aggregate of consciousness in the universe after an intergalactic civilization is established would reach a quantitative threshold level of complexity which would give rise to a qualitatively new phenomena, the emergence of a new level of being[145]. Perhaps just as free-willed consciousness can through its creative and moral activity act to increase information and order, this higher level of being can be one for which entropy would be no barrier. 

A Godelian connection to a Platonic realm of Truth would sallow the human mind to transfer information into the physical universe, increasing its complexity and integration while at the same time decreasing the total entropy.

Moral beings by their united activity would in this way catalyze the development of the universe toward total integration, rather than to the total disintegration of pure entropy predicted by the laws of nature as now known.

Free-willed consciousness acting through creativity and moral activity may be the factor which sustains the universe against its heat death, and which allows the universal purpose to unfold, as well as being the factor which allows the universe to exist at all. 

Human Uniqueness

                Human beings seem to be unique in various ways. 

                As Godel indicated, mathematics and mathematical speculation, lead to the possibility that somehow the human mind can perceive truths which are beyond the physical, that the human mind is in some way connected to a transcendant realm of Truth.

                Furthermore, these truths cannot be produced by mechanical means, and it would seem that they are not realizeable by non-conscious entities. They are instead presumeably the product of creative thought and intuition, mental processes which cannot be duplicated by deterministic or random processes. 

                 Humans are also unique in that although they know that "is" cannot produce "ought",  they nevertheless comprehend the transcendant difference between good and evil; they are moral beings. They are also possesed of a free will which allows them to act in accordance with a moral code rather than according to the dictates of the determined/random universe.

                 Similarly, humans are unique in that they can engage in creative thought,  producing from a given amount of information as input, a result which goes beyond it, something that is not possible for the realm of the deterministic/random. In the same way that free-will is beyond determinism and randomness, so is creative thought. 

Creativity, Transcendence, and Genesis

                Creating, and moral activity; both are transcendant, and beyond determinism/randomness. In the context of the creation and Eden accounts, of the free-willed conscious being created in the image of its creator, there is a natural link between creation and moral beinghood, between the human and the transcendant 'breath of the divine' which is imbued in him. 

                The enigmatic last few words of the creation account ("all the works which God created to do."), right before the introduction to the Eden account, are interpreted in traditional sources as implying that the creation is incomplete, and that humanity is challenged to perform that which is necessary to bring it to a proper completion. 

                The creation and Eden accounts tell of a creator creating a being in its own image, and challenging it to complete the creation[146]. An act of creative will producing beings who can exercise an independent will. A transcendent being creating a being from deterministic/random matter-energy, 'earth', but imbuing it with its own breath, endowing it with a connection to the transcendent realm. 

                In the creation and Eden accounts we encounter a free-willed conscious transcendent being creating a free-willed conscious being with connection to the transcendent, a creative being in its own right, a moral being which is challenged to follow the correct path, which can then demand of its creator a fidelity to moral standards, as in the immortal challenge addressed to God by the patriarch Abraham: "will the judge of the whole universe not himself do justice?".

The Creation and Eden Accounts

In the creation account the universe begins in a state of chaotic disorder and procedes to a state of order, culminating in the creation of human free-willed consciousness, the factor which allows the universe to develop to greater order and complexity. This created being is then charged with the population of the earth and the harnessing of its power and potential, and as the concluding words of the creation account indicate according to the Midrash and Zohar[147], it is this being which is the factor which was created in order to complete the work of creation itself via its creative activity. 

Furthermore, moral beings are to employ their free will to bring a moral order to events, fighting against, reducing, the chaotic and evil forces in the universe.

The final act of creation was the command to humanity to create, to be creative, to complete the creation of the six days. By combating the heat death of the universe via creative acts, humanity maintains the universe itself, so that the creation of humanity is the means whereby the otherwise completed universe is given the ability to maintain itself.

The Eden account describes the same role in the moral realm.

The universe is saved from physical and spiritual chaos and entropy, is sustained as a creative process, by the creative and moral activity of free-willed consciousness. Creation and the emergence of moral beings are thus linked, as the corresponding creation and Eden accounts are linked in Genesis. 

The universal development was from chaotic big bang to the emergence of free-willed consciousness, and perhaps from there towards a higher state of being. Parallel to this, in Genesis the development is from chaos to moral beings, which according to traditional mystical sources, is the prelude to the time at which all human consciousness will be united in a higher level of being, to be reintegrated into the original creating consciousness. 

Infinitude, Complexity, and Mind

                Introduction

Can human beings understand everything there is to know about the universe? Perhaps at least to understand everything but ourselves? Is our mind bound by the physical limitations of our brains? Is there anything special in this respect about a brain capable of making free-willed choices?

                A Finite Brain Encountering an Infinite Universe

If the universe is infinite, then as finite beings we will be able to understand the universe only if it is very unsophisticated, having a low level of complexity. This would be the case for example if it is infinitely repetitive, so that all that needs to be known about the universe is contained in finite subsections of it[148]. 

                If the universe is infinite but not repetitive in this way, any understanding of ours might be approximate, or hopelessly inadequate, and even if it was adequate for a while, it could suddenly overwhelm us when our limited understanding reaches its limit, or if conditions change unexpectedly. 

                Furthermore, if the universe is infinite and itself contains substructures that are infinite and complex, then we perhaps could not grasp these substructures either. In such a case, we might find that although our observations allow us to construct theories explaining certain phenomenon, we could not form adequate theories of the universe as a whole, or of large sections of it, nor of more fundamental aspects of even small portions of the universe. Instead, there would perhaps always be some necessary information always ahead of us, necessitating constant fundamental revisions in our understanding of the universe  as more was studied, with no promise that an adequate theory would ever be achieved.

                Our universe is certainly one that allow us to correctly predict many fundamental phenomena, so that the situation does not seem to be one of mismatch between us and the universe, between our mental capacity and the complexity of natural phenomena. However in the realm of mental phenomena themselves we are still rather novices, and we do not yet know what other realms await our research.      [149]

                Our brains certainly seem finite, so we could grasp infinite structures only if we possess some other mechanism for attaining understanding, a mechanism which is infinite. As candidate, one can propose the mind, which is non-physical and therefore capable of grasping the infinite, and communicating it to the brain. However this type of interaction between the two leads us right back tot he mind-body problem.

                If the universe is infinite and so is our brain capacity, then we have the possibility of comprehending an infinite universe if it is not too infinitely complex even for our infinite brains. However the idea that a finite piece of matter such as the brain could be infinite in some sense is difficult to accept.

                If the universe is finite, then no matter how complex it is, at least in principle finite beings can understand it - so that there is hope that we can understand everything about the universe unless it is so complex that our brains are too limited for it. 

                Even in a finite universe, non-computable/non-modelable processes may be possible - processes which cannot be reduced to automatic or random ones. If so, then if our brain is limited to the computable, these non-computable processes or phenomena may be beyond us. Thus even in a finite universe, we may be inadequate to the task of understanding the universe. On the other hand, if the brain employs such non-computable processes (see Penrose), we might.......If the brain is non-computable while the inorganic universe is computable, we may find that our brains are the most interesting and sophisticated entities in existence.

                In terms of the dualist viewpoint, even though our brains are finite or computable, our minds may be infinite or non-computable - so that there is no one-to-one mapping, no strict duality, but rather some purely mental realm as well, which again is scientifically problematic.

Free Will: Computability and Modelability

                In order to qualify as free willed, our minds have to be not only non-computable but also non-modelable. However, that they be non-computable and non-modelable would mean that nothing could predict our decisions, but nevertheless there would be no guarantee that they are free willed, so that these are necessary but perhaps not sufficient conditions for our minds to be truly free-willed.

                However, as by definition free-willed choice involves non-modelable interactions, if free will exists the universe is necessarily non-modelable. This is another example of how knowledge of the existence of free will would inform us of an important property of the universe which non-free-willed beings might not even be able to conceive of.

Free Will: Finitude vs. Infinitude

                Does the brain have to be infinite in order for it to be free willed? Since free will is a quintessentially mental process, it does not seem that free will is dependent on the brain or universe being infinite nor is it necessarily relevant whether or not all purely brain processes are predictable. (Note that although predictability implies non-freedom of the will, non-predictability does not imply freedom of the will, since exceedingly complex events can be random/determined/chaotic and therefore unfree, yet be so complex that they are unpredictable.) 

Free Will and the Mental Realm

                Non-computability and non-modelability are necessary conditions for free will to exist in the physical universe, but they are not necessary in the mental realm for free will to exist there. What seems relevant to the question of the existence of free will is therefore not whether the universe is infinite or not, but rather whether or not there is a physical universe, and if there is, if the mind is 'beyond' the physical brain. Once the mind is beyond the brain, it may not be necessary to postulate that either one  is infinite. 

                 On the other hand, if the mind is completely parallel to the brain, then since the actions following from the mental decisions are those following from the physical brain, there is no free will - indeed not only is there no free will but since a finite brain is theoretically predictable, the mind would be also, and this would mean that all mental events are predictable. Even if however the brain and mind were infinite, if the brain is independent of the mind - even though parallel - since physical events cannot be free-willed, there would be no free will in such a universe. 

                There would possibly be free will in the mental realm of this universe, but if there is no connection between the two realms, it would be meaningless to speak of the physical realm at all. If so, we are returned to the scenario of a purely mental universe, and in that case it may not be relevant to require the mind to be infinite since the problems with regard to free will arise only with respect to physical law, causality and the like, and no such difficulties with regard to free will arise in the consideration of free will existing in a mental universe. Indeed, if at its most basic level the universe were mental rather than physical, this might in itself be sufficient to allow for the operation of free will.

Conclusion

                As we have seen from our discussion of quantum metaphysics, the fact that we are conscious - and perhaps free willed - is a matter of cosmic significance. Also, the anthropic principle showed us that much information can be gleaned about the fundamental structure of the universe simply from the fact that we are conscious, and possibly free-willed as well.

                Knowledge of the fact of the existence of consciousness and of free will would also tell us more about the nature of the universe itself, as not all types of universe are sufficiently complex to support free-willed consciousness - for example a finite universe or a computable one may be insufficiently complex. Furthermore, not all types of universes imaginable to us are of an appropriate nature to allow the existence within them of free-willed consciousness - for example a purely material universe could not possibly contain free-will or consciousness.

                Thus, the existence of consciousness or free will would tell us that the universe is not a purely physical one, and that the physical aspect possesses a certain minimal complexity, given by that of the human brain, two fundamental points about the universe.

Part V: The Mind-Body Problem: 

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 "Otherness" of Consciousness: The mental realm of consciousness seems to be entirely decoupled from the physical universe. Physicists among others have pointed out the resultant 'otherness' of consciousness, and its unique nature. The 'mind-body' problem.

Chapter  17: The 'mind-body' problem: Idealism and Free Will:  Materialism, Idealism and Dualism. The mind body problem has haunted philosophy for ages but free will introduces an interesting twist, possibly tipping the scales towards a funda-mental reality to the universe.

Chapter  18:  The Physical Ramifications of the Existence of Consciousness: (The Effect of the Mental Realm on the Physical) xxxxxxx...... 

18 A; Transcendent Truths and the Unprovable Philosophical Speculations Based on Godel's ResultGodel, Human Transcendance and Free Will : Godel's result and its implictions regarding the connection of the human mind to the realm of reality underlying the physical universe studied by cosmology. The Eden account.

Chapter 19: The Evolution of Free-Willed Consciousness: Consciousness is not physical, and free will is transcendant - so how can they evolve? Where did they come from? What is the relationsip of these ideas with the creation and Eden accounts?: Complexity, Holism, and emergence: The Origin of Free Will; The Macroscopic, the Microscopic, and the Mind

……………………………………………………………….

The 'Otherness' of Consciousness

Introduction

                There is as yet no unambiguous need for science to invoke consciousness in explaining any natural phenomena, and this has led some to question whether consciousness is a real phenomenon. However, it is clear to virtually everyone that they are conscious, and therefore the existence of consciousness can scarcely be denied.

                Furthermore, consciousness is associated particularly with the human brain, and there is no scientific theory of the human brain as yet, and therefore the fact that it has not appeared unequivocally as yet in science cannot be taken as an indication of its non-existence[150]. Since human behavior, brain states, and consciousness are still a mystery to science, there is room for a wide range of opinions among scientists regarding the existence, nature, and significance of consciousness.

                 Some psychologists have claimed that a complete theory of human behavior and brain-states  could be built without reference to mental states, and that therefore there was no need to postulate the existence of a consciousness. In the words of the behaviorist psychologist J.B. Watson[151]:

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

                However, we know of course that consciousness exists, and the question of whether or not it is necessary to invoke it in explaining human behavior is not directly relevant to the question of its existence. If consciousness exists - and we can barely conceive of the possibility that we are not conscious - then as a fundamental phenomenon in the universe it is of great interest to anyone who studies such things, for example physicists.

                From the perspective of science, consciousness is 'other' than all other entities, whether they be electrons, gravitational fields, light waves. mountains, or brains. SO far the exact sciences can deal neither with the mind itself  which is experiencing the events which the scientist studies, nor with the mental processes which led to the very construction of science.  

              A non-conscious robot scientist examining our brains with perfect precision would probably never determine that we are conscious. It could never access the sensations, only their physical correlates. Presumably it could arrive at an explanation for our behavior without invoking consciousness. So could a conscious human scientist, except that the scientist, knowing that she is conscious herself, will assume consciousness in us as well, but could not determine that from a physical examination. Exact science deals with the correlates of sensory perception - the events in the 'outside universe' which give rise to what we see, hear, and otherwise mentally sense, and the physical interactions within the brain which occur when we have these sensations. The sensations, however, are not themselves observable - science does not deal with these or with other mental events such as emotions, beliefs, and thoughts, even when they are correlates of physical events inside the brain itself. 

The Existence and Significance of Consciousness

              Consciousness is 'other' than all other phenomena studied by the scientist, and this endows it with a great significance. 

              In the following we will bring the statements on this topic made by many of the most eminent physicists of the last hundred years, virtually all of them Nobel Laureate physicists. 

              [The fact of their award of the Nobel prize does not of course mean that their statements are infallibe, especially since they are speculative rather than statements of scientific fact in that they deal with an area as yet poorly understood. Nevertheless the virtual unanimity of so many eminent physicists lends in itself someweight to their words.]

              In Ernest Schroedinger's words:

"The physical world picture lacks all the sensual qualities that go to make up the Subject of Cognizance.  The model is colourless and soundless and unpalpable.  In the same way and for the same reason the world of science lacks, or is deprived of, everything that has a meaning only in relation to the consciously contemplating, perceiving and feeling subject.   I mean in the first place the ethical and aesthetical values, any values of any kind, everything related to the meaning and scope of the whole display.  All this is not only absent but it cannot, from the purely scientific point of view, be inserted organically."

              According to the great mathematician and physicist Hermann Weyl[152]:

"Between the physical processes which are released in the terminal organ of the nervous conductors in the central brain and the image which thereupon appears to the perceiving subject, there gapes a hiatus, an abyss which no realistic conception of the world can span.  It is the transition from the world of being to the world of the appearing image or of consciousness." 

               According to Werner Heisenberg[153]:

"There can be no doubt that "consciousness" does not occur in physics and chemistry, and I cannot see how it could possibly result from quantum mechanics.  Yet any science that deals with living organisms must needs cover the phenomenon of consciousness because consciousness, too, is part of reality."

              Another founding father of modern physics, Niels Bohr,  said[154]:

"The real problem is:  How can that part of reality which begins with  consciousness be combined with those parts that are treated in physics and chemistry?. . . Here we obviously have a genuine case of complementarity..."        

              Wolfgang Pauli, who was a founder of quantum physics, stated[155]:

". . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously. . . .It would be most satisfactory of all if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality."

Conclusion

      Not only is consciousness 'other', and a mystery to science, but some eminent physicists have speculated that it is fundamental to the universe as a whole, to the very concept of the existence of the universe. Consciousness is a very real phenomenon, even a fundamental phenomenon, although it is mysterious in that it seems to be qualitatively different from all other known phenomena in the universe.

"The Mind Body Problem" :

Idealism and Free Will

Introduction

        Ghosts are claimed to be able to pass through walls, to shout and to generally present a frightful appearance. However, from the point of view of physics, the difficulty with ghosts is this very versatility. Only that which can emit or reflect light can be seen, and the emission or reflection of light is a very physical property, and therefore ghosts necessarily are at least partially physical. However a being which is physical enough to emit or reflect light is too physical to be able to pass through walls. Similarly with regards to howling and making any other noises. 

              The problem is then similar to that of a mind or consciousness in its interaction with matter - specifically, the piece of biological matter we call the brain. It would seem that the mind - or consciousness - is non-physical, and should therefore 'pass through' whenever endeavoring to establish contact with the brain. 

              Consciousness exists, and it is 'other' than matter, and the ability of the two to interact is mysterious, and to some so mysterious that it is said not to exist at all.

Three Positions: Materialism, Idealism, Dualism

              Many people feel that reality can be divided into the categories of mental and physical. Materialists claim all is physical, idealists that all is mental, and dualist that both exist. We will examine the meanings of these positions, and the ramifications to them of the existence of a free-willed consciousness.

Materialism

              Generally there is difficulty in understanding how a mental and physical realm can possibly interact. Some have tried to 'solve' this difficulty by proposing that there indeed exists no mental realm. This is the materialist view according to which all is matter - there is no mental realm, but rather mental phenomena are to the material world as is the software of a computer to the computer itself. However, whatever it is that materialists mean by their claim is not always clear, since we as opposed to software are conscious, and therefore we know that there is a mental realm. 

An Idealist Position

              To the non-materialist, the question is only whether or not there is a physical universe, and if there is, what connection there would be between the mental and physical universe. Since it is not scientifically necessary to postulate that there exists a physical universe, and this postulate gives rise to paradox, it can perhaps be stated that the assumption of the existence of a physical universe is unscientific.

              The idealist does not eschew materialist language, because in speaking it is indeed convenient to attribute our perceptions to actual phenomena, and then to divide these into categories of: 'occuring in the outside physical universe'; physical events 'occuring in the brain'; and perhaps 'mental events'. However this is not meant to imply that there really are such phenomena, or that this division represents anything other than semantics.

              As when we say that the sun 'rises' or 'sets', however, when such a semantic convenience is extended beyond its range of applicability, paradox results, at which point one must revert to the more correct understanding. If there is indeed no physical realm, then although the term 'physical' is useful, in order to avoid paradox there are contexts in which it is inappropriate. 

              Ideaistic sentiments were expressed by various eminent scientists: According to Nobel physicist Eugene Wigner (1964):

"There are two kinds of reality or existence - the existence of my consciousness and the reality or existence of everything else.  The latter reality is not absolute but only relative. Excepting immediate sensations, the content of my consciousness, everything is a construct."

       We earlier presented a quote from Sir Arthur Eddington to the effect that all the universe is simply 'part of the web of our consciousness.'

And, according to Sir James Jeans [c]: "I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe."

Dualism

              According to dualists, the mental and physical universe exist side by side, with or without interactions between them, and if they interact there may or may not be a complete parallelism between all of the phenomena in one realm and those of the other realm.     

              Applied to humans, this means that there is a parallelism, at least to some degree, between the physical events in the human brain and the mental sensations - thoughts, emotions, and so on - associated with the brain. This can be stated concisely as a parallelism between brain and 'mind'. 

Non-Interactionist Dualism

        If mind is parallel to brain so that all mental events are correlates of brain states - every thought is a direct correlate of a brain event - then the causal chain leading up to any brain event is also the "cause" of the correlated mental event. (Not the reverse, since not all events in the physical universe have mental correlates, but all mental states have physical correlates.)

        If all events in the physical universe are determined/random, then the mental states are also determined/random. Therefore there is no true rational thought, creativity etc - all thoughts are the result of determined/random chains of events.

        For example, it may be that evolutionary selection criteria caused all people to have a delusion that they are acting rationally, under their own volition, rather than as playthings of some other force. They may also be programmed to feel morally responsible for their actions, even if they are told that their actions are determined, even if they learn that their feeling of moral responsibility is determined.....

              From an outsider's perspective, the feelings of such beings, the belief that they are independent rational beings would be amusing or pathetic, while to the beings themselves the determined/random nature of their thoughts would not preclude their feeling that they are independent, that they are morally responsible - it could not do this, since they were programmed to feel independent and rational by the very forces of nature which they 'feel' themselves to be independent of. 

              However, there is a logical difficulty involved in non-interactionist dualism.

              If what we think of as the physical universe is indeed one, then the fact that we know of its existence means that there is a connection between the physical and mental realms - that is, between the physical universe and the mental realm of our thoughts and conscious knowledge. 

              Since awareness of the physical universe by the mental realm is itself an interaction, in dualistic universes with parallel but non-interacting mental and physical processes conscious awareness of a physical universe is impossible.

              If ours is such a 'parallel but non-interacting' universe, then we could not know of the existence of the physical universe parallel to our mental universe. Therefore, that which we think of as the physical universe is not really a physical universe but rather is simply a way we have of considering a certain group of our sensations, and there is no way of knowing if there is or is not a physical realm parallel to our mental universe. 

              Indeed, if there is no interaction between the physical and mental universes, it is meaningless to speak of it as one universe - they are two totally separate universes which cannot know of each other. Furthermore, since the only reason to suppose that there is a physical universe parallel to our mental one is because of our illusion of contact between the two, once we realize that this is an illusion, we can drop the assumption that there is anything other than our mental universe.

                                                                              INSERT re: Leibnitz''z views..... Actually his idea is therefore irrelevant...

                                                                                                              Universe of non-conscious beings - no difference to ours....

Free Will and Dualism

              The existence of free will would similarly point to the idealistic - mental - nature of our universe.

              As we said previously, a universe in which consciousness exists cannot be purely physical. Therefore as there can be no true will without consciousness, a universe in which will exists cannot be purely physical. In a purely physical universe, there is necessarily no consciousness, and therefore free will is impossible.

               In dualistic universes, consciousness is possible. However, even in dualistic universes free will may not necessarily be possible. For example, in a universe with parallel but non-interacting mental and physical processes, free will is impossible, since if there is a true parallelism between the physical and the mental realms, then by definition all that occurs in the mental realm corresponding to a free willed decision has a counterpart in physical occurences in the brain, and if the two realms are truly non-interacting, then these physical events would have occured even in the absence of the mental realm. Therefore physical actions taken by a body at the behest of its brain are attributable to the physical brain, and the mental realm is totally irrelevant - and therefore these actions cannot be attributed to the operation of a free will.

              In a universe in which mental events do not necessarily have a correlation in the physical brain, free will is possible if it involves this type of mental events, but then there is no way for free will to act in the physical universe - the will remains will and cannot be acted upon. 

              However we do not feel that our wills are powerless, and there is no a priori reason to assume that our universe is of this type.

              In a purely mental universe, it would seem that processes such as free will are more natural than in all other types, and no paradoxes arise. In such a universe, although there exists no true physical realm, one could conveniently divide reality into categories reminiscent of a dualistic universe: mental events which are experienced as though they are associated with an 'outside physical universe'; mental events which are associated with the perception that they exist in a 'physical brain';  'pure' mental events.

Conclusion

              If we are truly free-willed, then either we inhabit a purely mental universe, or we are part of an interactionist dualistic one. 

              Great difficulties of science, logic, and metaphysics, confront the assumption of the existence of a physical universe to which we are connected, which is perceived by our consciousness, and on which our free will acts. Any type of connection between the physical and mental is however counter to all logical and scientific understanding. Thus, postulating that there really is a physical universe seems to involve a contradiction, and illogical anti-scientific conclusions. 

              The opposite assumption  - that the universe is purely mental - is on the other hand paradox free.

              We shall see that this picture of the universe as a purely mental construct has been broached by various prominent physicists, and appears as well as a major theme in Jewish mystical teachings. We shall also see that the themes of free-willed consciousness and the mental nature of the universe are intertwined in the Kabbalah, and that this connection will help shed light on the meaning of the creation and Eden accounts as well.

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

The Physical Ramifications of the 

Existence of Consciousness

It is an unequivocal fact that consciousness exists, and that it is certainly not a physical entity. Indeed it is the existence of the physical universe which is more in doubt than the existence of the mental realm, for it may well be that what we experience is purely mental sensations from mental sources, which we mistakenly attribute to the existence of a physical universe 'outside us'. 

          As to the question of the possibility of interaction between a mental and physical realm - if there is a physical universe as is generally supposed in physics, then there is a connection between the mental realm of consciousness and the physical universe simply by virtue of the fact that consciousness is aware of the physical universe. That is, since the mental realm indubitably exists, if the physical universe that we sense also exists, this necessarily implies that whether it is comprehensible or not, the physical and the mental can interact.  

Measuring the Effect of Consciousness

          Whatever consciousness is, and however it interacts with the physical universe, physical theory implies that there should be some theoretically measureable consequence of its existence and of this interaction with the physical.

          One can postulate a minimal type of interaction appropriate to the nature of consciousness - that consciousness does not change the state of the universe, but rather ita effect on the universe is that  consciousness allows it to become manifes and brings it into phycical reality, as implied by various approaches to quantum metaphysics. This serves as a resolution of the mind body problem in the sense that consciousness need not "interact" with the physical other than in the very subtle sense of making the physical universe manifest. 

          Consciousness is not a physical entity and therefore does not seem to be of the nature of entity which is localizeable in spacetime, while on the other hand it is associated with a particular physical body, and seems to be connected to it for a specific time period. 

          If the phenomenon of consciousness is related to brain states - as is generally supposed - and if, as may or may not be, consciousness is localizable in spacetime, then perhaps there should be some measureable activity in the vicinity of brains experiencing mental states. 

          There is no physical theory of consciousness, and therefore one cannot even estimate the size of the energy transfer which might be involved in the operation of consciousness in becoming aware of a part of the physical universe, or in experiencing an emotion - as opposed to the purely physical energy of the neuronal interactions and the hormonal surges etc. If the amount is very small relative to other effects associated with the brain, the effect of consciousness will be difficult to detect. 

          Rather than speaking of space as an entity in itself, or of 'the universe' as though it is an entity, it is often fruitful to consider spatial relations between entities - it is easier to define the metric on a space and provide its other properties and to work with the points in the space than to decide what the 'space' itself actually is. Similarly as regards consciousness - it may be more fruitful to consider conscious experiences and conscious states, rather than the consciousness itself.

          Although it is not known what if any physical correlate of conscious thought there might be, a particle of thought so to speak, the mystery is in how the mental thought gives rise to the physical particle, not in the nature of the particle itself.

The Effect of the Mental Realm on the Physical

              Is the universe actually a mental entity - perhaps the mind of you the reader is all that exists, and everything else is simply a sensory impression in your mind? 

              There is no way to prove that this is not the case, nevertheless the usual assumption is that there is actually an entire physical universe 'out there' that we  experience through our sensory perceptions.

              Indeed, as we said the very fact that our minds can perceive this physical universe - that the physical universe impinges on our bodies and through our body to our brain and then to our minds, making us aware of its existence - indicates that the physical universe can affect our minds. This is a mind/body interaction in the body to mind direction with the very acceptance that we perceive a physical universe implying that there is an interaction between the physical and the mental. Generally physical law demands that there be a reciprocal effect in any interaction  - nothing can be affected without affecting in return.

              Is there as well an automatic interaction in the opposite direction - a mind/body interaction in the mind to body direction - where consciousness makes itself felt in the physical universe simply due to its very existence?

              The very existence of consciousness and its function as link between the mental and physical realms may affect the physical realm with measureable consequences, for example via the energy content of consciousness or of conscious processes, or via measurement of information transfer - or entropy change. 

              If the very fact of being conscious changes the way a brain will think as compared to a non-conscious brain, or changes the type of thoughts it will think, then the neuronal firings corresponding to these thoughts, and words and actions that result from them, are an effect on the physical universe which would not exist if there was no consciousness, and therefore they are an effect of consciousness on the physical world.

Free Will and the Effect of the Mental Realm

              Another category of interaction would be in terms of the effect of mental decisions taken independently of the physical processes in the brain - for example free willed decisions. If mind is parallel to brain and no more than that, and all mental events are correlates of brain states so that every thought is a direct correlate of a brain event, then the causal chain leading up to the brain event is the cause of the correlated mental event. 

              If there is free will, then since free-willed processes do not originate in the causal chain of events, and yet affect them, these effects are effects of consciousness on the physical realm[156]. 

Transcendent Truths and the Unprovable 

Introduction

One of the most surprising and significant mathematical results ever arrived at was formulated by Gödel in 1930, and this result concerning mathematical systems was found to have many philosophical ramifications.

Mathematical Systems: All mathematical and logical systems are built upon a basis of assumptions. These assumptions, which are intuitively true statements which cannot be broken down to simpler components, are termed 'axioms'. From these  axioms, one can build more complex statements. The truth of these derived statements is assured if the axioms are true, and if the  deduction procedures used to derive them from the axioms are sound.

The axioms together with the true statements derived from them form a mathematical system. Many different mathematical systems can be formed from the many different groupings of axioms.

Pre-Godel Logic:  For any given mathematical system, there are a finite or infinite number of statements which are true in that system. Before the work of the great mathematician Kurt Gödel, it was believed that for any (finite or infinite) mathematical system, a finite set of axioms can be constructed from which one can derive all the statements which are true in that system. Thus, given some such set of axioms, any statement not deriveable from the axioms must be false in that mathematical system.

Godel's Result

In 1930 Gödel showed that there exist systems such that given any finite set of axioms in the system there are true statements which cannot be formally proved from those axioms. Nevertheless, it can be shown that these statements are true by invoking "common sense" arguments independent of the axioms and formal deductive methods being employed. Although any such statement could in principle be added to the set of axioms, other statements could then be found which are not provable from the enlarged set of axioms.....and so on, and so on.

This astonishing theorem, which was rigorously proven by Gödel, destroyed the hopes of those who wished to reduce all of mathematics to a set of axioms from which all true statements could be derived. It became evident that the derivation of mathematical theorems would require continuing application of human insight and not merely preprogrammed mechanical processes.

Philosophical Speculations Based on Godel's Result

Prof. R. Rucker in his "Infinity and the Mind"[157]writes that:  "The Incompleteness Theorem shows that human beings can never formulate a correct and complete description of the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, …}, but if mathematicians cannot ever fully understand something as simple as number theory, then it is certainly too much to expect that science will ever expose any ultimate secret of the universe…" : "…rational thought can never penetrate to the final, ultimate truth."

Gödel himself even postulated that since man is able to grasp mathematical truths which are not provable within the relevant mathematical system - then perhaps, as Gödel put it, "sets and concepts exist externally to any individual's activities" [158]. 

Thus Godel found mathematical reasons to support the idea of the ancient Platonists regarding the independent existence of certain Truths.  

Furthermore, according to Gödel man can interact with these truths, which[159]: "…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 [160]  [161].

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[162]. [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[163].  

              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. (In a sense the complexity of the laws and initial conditions give rise to the emergence of complex entities such as humans, so that humans are created in the image of the laws of nature, reflecting their inherent complexity. In the language of the Bible, there is a created universe bearing the spirit of God and in which this breath of God was breathed into Humanity upon its creation, giving humanity the status of being 'created in the image of God'.) 

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. [164] 

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[165]. 

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 does not depend on the input and physical situation as would a process governed by causality, but instead it 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[166],

 "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"[167] 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 Biblical perspective, 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."[168]

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[169]. 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[170], 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.

From 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 which 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' 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.                                                                                    [171]

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."    [172]

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'[173] 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[174]: 

"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[175].

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[176].

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 Eden account. 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 '"? [177]  The Midrash answers that each "let there be" was accompanied by - or is in itself - an angel[178]. 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"[179].

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

The universe was created via a thought of Gd:  [Zohar Gen. 29a]

"`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]

According to R. S.R. Hirsch,  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" which means "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 Eden account 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 Eden account 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[180].

    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....". [181] 

    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[182] 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[183]. 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[184]. 

            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[185]:      

"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[186]:

"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[187]:

"...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[188]

 "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[189], 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." [190]"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[191], 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."   [192].

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[193] 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[194]. 

                    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[195]:

        "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[196]

"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[197]:

"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[198]. 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[199]. 

                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[200]. 

                                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[201]. 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[202]. 

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[203]. 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[204]. 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[205] [206].  

 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[207]. 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[208]. 

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[209] [210]. In this way, it is guaranteed that the desired moral-stage universe is created, rather than any other[211]. 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[212].

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[213], 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[214].  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[215]. 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[216],[217],[218]. 

            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[219].

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.][220] 

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.

The First Moral Beings 

on Earth

According to the theory of evolution, the emergence of Man is approximately described by the following dates [ Y.A.  denotes "years ago"][221]:

                  Early Hominid           3,000,000 YA = Australopithecus

                  Homo Erectus                700,000 YA = Java Man,   500,000 YA  =  Peking Man

                  Homo Sapiens            120,000 YA =  Neanderthal Man

                  Homo Sapiens Sapiens   100,000 YA =  Modern Man [ 200,000 -60,000 YA]

The Evolution of Morality

According to the scientific origin theory, we have been billions of years in developing:  from big bang to home planet, from inorganic matter to life, from simple life to ape, and millions of years more from ape to man.  However, it was only approximately 100,000 years ago that there appeared an ancestor we could identify as a member of our species: a truly sapient [thinking] creature, the first of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  Clearly, then, even if the universe is 15 billion years old, morality could only have emerged in the last 100,000 years[222].

   The essential human qualities we associate with a human, as opposed to an animal or a computer, are those of moral behaviour and the idea of moral accountability. These qualities, when they first arose among Homo Sapiens Sapiens would almost certainly result in the formulation of religion. Thus, the earliest religions would follow not too long after the first stirrings of moral consciousness. When one actually reviews the cultural history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, one makes an interesting discovery - it becomes clear that religion as we know it developed only in the last 5,500 years.  

A Short History of Major Cultural Developments[223]

10,000 YA                                  Painting[224], burials

                                          BCE

5000 YA                      3000                Writing, farming

4000 YA                      2000                Abraham: Monotheism formulated[225]

3500 YA                      1500                Moses .  Hinduism formulated 

3000 YA 1000  King Solomon: philosophy, ethicalwriting, poetry

2600 YA    600      Isaiah (Yeshayahu)

2500 YA                                                500 Ezekiel(Yeheskel),Buddha,Confucius,Lao-Tze                                                2400 YA         400   Greek Science/Culture/Philosophy:

                                                                                Socrates, Plato, Aristotle Etc.)  

1900 YA           =        CE   100        R. Akiva; Christianity (spread of); 

1400 YA                         600                Islam

  300 YA                      1700                Newton

  140 YA                      1850                Darwin

    80 YA                      1900                Einstein

Thus, Man's brain had developed about 100,000 years ago. His cultural abilities - painting, pottery and so on - developed perhaps 15,000 years ago. The first glimmerings of thought about death and life - the first burials - took place about 10,000 years ago, and the first religions were developed about 4,000 years ago.

The emergence of the first true moral being, with sufficient intelligence and understanding to make a free choice would presumably  occur somewhere between the time that man began to think of death and a possible afterlife, and the time that religious thought and attitudes were first developed .

  According to the chronology of the Biblical geneologies, this occured roughly 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the first religion developed, and about 4,000 years after the Cro-Magnon culture's cave-wall paintings.

We would then add one stage onto the chain of human development

*** Homo Sapiens Voluntas  6,000 YA =   moral humanity             [226]  [227]

We can see that:

1.               Humans as a race achieved modern type of intellectual capacity only 100,000 years ago, and prior to that many modern concepts - such as "morality" - were likely beyond the conceptual ability of humanity's evolutionary ancestors.

2.               All the world's religions were founded in the last 4,000 years, so that 4,500 years ago there was no real conception of a Gd, of moral responsibility, of purpose to a human life, and so on [228] .

      3.      The vast majority of our scientific knowledge was unknown only 500 years ago, and science had its rudimentary beginnings only 2,500 years ago.  The great ideas which are the foundations of our society - ideas of religion, philosophy, culture and science - are relatively recent innovations[229].

The Creation Account and Subsequent Chronologies

                After the Eden account, there follows the story of Cain and Abel, and then a chronology of 'Adam' and his descendants. The chronology speaks of Adam "who was created as male and female", implying that it is the Adam of the creation account. If one understands both the creation account and the Eden account as referring to an individual, and to the same individual,  then the Adam of the Eden account is the being who was created on the sixth day, and it is his chronology which is provided. The chronology concludes with the birth of Noah, and later the chronology of Noah's descendants is provided, ending with Abraham. From Abraham there are various passages providing chronological information leading to the time of the entry into the land of Israel, and from there to the time of the Persian conquests and so on. Since the time of the Persian conquests are known to historians from non-Biblical sources, one can construct a comprehensive chronology from the time of Adam to our day, and this provides us with a figure of about 6,000 year 

                However, of course the Adam of the chronology may not be the same Adam as the creation account, just as the creation and Eden account seem to speak of two separate Adams, "adam" being simply a generic term for "a man". Also, the chronologies speak of lifespans of many hundreds of years, and may well be allegorical, not historical. However, those who assumed that the creation account is a literal account of the actual creation of the physical universe and that the chronologies atre meant literally, concluded after adding up all the figures given in the various chronologies that Adam must have lived about 6,000 years ago.

Adam and the Emergence of Moral Beings on Earth

                As indicated above, the first moral beings on Earth may well have emerged approximately 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, and the chronologies of Genesis place "Adam" as having lived about 6,000 years ago.  Therefore, whether one interprets the "Adam" of Genesis as an individual named 'Man', or as the race 'Man', one can identify this "Adam" with the first moral beings who emerged on Earth - either the first such individual, or the race of  moral humanity as a whole.

The Creation and Eden Accounts

                 In the Biblical perspective which sees the purpose of the existence of the universe as tied up with the emergence of moral beings within it, it is appropriate that humanity should be considered as having begun with the emergence of the first moral being, and that the universe itself should be considered as having begun its relevant existence only with the emergence within it of moral beings, in Genesis symbolized by the enigmatic and ambiguous "Adam". Thus the creation account, reflecting this perspective, collapses into a very brief discussion the creation of the universe and its subsequent development until the emergence of Adam, and commences its recital of history with the emergence of the first moral being - symbolized by Adam - rather than with the big bang, or with the dinosaurs, or even with the pre-moral Homo Sapiens.

The Evolution of Adam

" from the war of Nature….the production of the higher animals, directly follows."              

                  (AR: Previously quoted, the closing paragraph of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species". ) 

Part I:

Scientific Monogenesis[230]

 It has long been recognized by many evolutionary biologists that all life emanates from a common source. The famous mathematical-physicist Hermann Weyl writes as follows[231]:

"Considerations of evolution in the large will of necessity lead to the question of the origin of life. The evidence of genetics makes one incline to see in life the chance success of a play of creative accidents. Not some predictable macrophysical or macrochemical process, that with a certain natural necessity came to pass at a certain stage of evolution  - and would repeat itself wherever the appropriate conditions prevailed - seems responsible for the historic beginnings of life, but a molecular event of singular character, occurring once by accident, and then starting an avalanche by autocatalytic multiplication (P. Jordan). Jordan adduces as a strong argument for this opinion "the fact that all the more complicated molecules found in plants and animals, especially the protein molecules, are stereochemically different from their mirror images". Indeed had they an independent origin at many places and many times their levo- and dextro-varieties should show nearly the same abundance. Thus it looks as if there is some truth in the story of Adam and Eve, if not for the origin of humanity then for that of the most primitive forms of life."

It is now becoming evident however, that there is yet more truth to the story of Adam and Eve:  a specific gene has been traced in the various races of Man which indicates that it derives from  a common ancestress who lived about 100,000  years ago.  

                 In this way comparative genetics indicates that all humanity existing today is descended from one genetic line, which mutated from the parent line about 100,000 years ago [232]. Thus even according to evolutionary theory, all huhumanity is  descended from one original progenitor just as in Genesis. Fittingly, evolutionary geneticists have dubbed her "Eve" [233]. 

 Genesis and scientific theory are therefore in agreement that the universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal; that all life is descended from a single original life form; and that all Humanity is descended from one unique ancestral human being.

The Emergence of  moral humanity

                Physical science does not generally recognize free will as a qualitatively unique physical phenomenon, but rather as a psychological phenomenon, and therefore evolutionary genetics can consider an intelligent conscious being with free will as genetically identical to one lacking free will. Therefore fossils and skulls may not be relevant as indicators of whether or not their owners were free-willed. 

                It is also not clear if one can ascribe different types of behaviour to true moral beings and to non-moral beings who imagine themselves to have free will, and therefore it is not clear if archaeological evidence can ever be used to distinguish between the remains of a civilization of moral beings and those of non-free-willed beings. Therefore although there are various theories and pieces of evidence which help determine when humans of one type or another emerged, it is not clear when free-willed moral beings first emerged.

                One can suppose however that since moral beinghood requires intelligence and foresight in addition to free will,  that the emergence of moral beings was somewhat after the emergence of ordinary Homo Sapiens. Indeed, as we saw in a previous chapter, it may perhaps have been relatively recently - about ten thousand years ago.

                One could consider Cro-Magnon Man as the first to have been capable of free will, and perhaps it was a genius from this stock who first formulated a moral code, and who taught morality to his contemporary latent moral beings. Alternatively, it may be that an additional mutation was responsible for the aquisition of free will, and the first such mutant descendant of Cro-Magnon Man was the first moral being and the father of a new race of moral beings.

                The emergence of the first moral being or society may be the event which is referred to in Genesis, in the allegory of the eating of the Tree of Knowledge and the consequent understanding of the concepts of good and evil. 

Adam's Birthdate

            The date of the creation and of the emergence of Adam - the first moral being - is not given explicitly in the Bible and is not referred to anywhere else in the Bible. A putative date can be computed via the geneology given after the creation account, however in it we are told of life-spans of almost a thousand years, so that the geneology is apparently not refering to ordinary physical ages and dates, leaving the date of the emergence of Adam unspecified. 

                Genetics does not deal in categories of purpose, and therefore the ability to exercize free will and become a moral being is not considered genetically significant. Genetically speaking, the first human may have lived long ago, however with respect to the category of purpose relevant in the Bible, the first true human was the first moral being, and we - who are moral beings - are its children.

                In the terms of reference of the purpose of the  human race in the Biblical context, it was the emergence of  moral humanity which allowed the onset of purpose. 

                Biblical perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose rather than to evolutionary-genetic development. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first   moral humanity are classified with the animals since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness. Only the moral being is a 'human' being, and can be classified as being 'in the image of Gd', so that the title of 'first human being' is bestowed on the first of ' moral humanity'. The Bible essentially begins with the emergence and moral development of the first such beings since their prior evolutionary development is not of direct relevance from the perspective of the category of purpose.

                Genesis and the origin theories agree that the race of modern man 'began' at some point, that there was a 'first man'. However from the categories of science and of religion 'human' is defined differently, and therefore the date of emergence of the 'first human' is different. Although Cro-Magnon Man may have existed for about 90,000 years before Adam, we are told that it was Adam who was the first human, and the only human of his time, since he was the first  moral humanity, and for a while, the only one.

Part II:  Adam's Predecessors as Inhabitants of the 'Prior Worlds'

There are statements in the Talmud and Midrash to the effect that "Gd created and destroyed worlds" prior to the creation detailed in Genesis[234]. It is not clear however whether this implies the creation of worlds prior to the very  creation  of heaven and earth - that is, the creation of prior universes - or if it is referring to the creation of planets within the universe whose creation is described in Genesis. And, if it refers to the creation of planets within the universe of Genesis, it is not clear whether the reference is to planets other than earth, or to the planet earth prior to the creation of Adam.

Indeed, another Talmudic statement declares that the destruction of an individual is considered as the destruction of a world. Thus, if God 'created and destroyed worlds' on planet earth prior to the emergence of Adam, this would mean that Adam was not necessarily the first human on our planet. Indeed, the Tifferet Yisrael[235] stated that fossil remains may bear witness to such pre-Adamic man. Similarly, according to R. Shimon Schwab[236] there may have existed human-like being without free will not created 'in the image of God'.

We can perhaps interpret the "creation of worlds" as taking place via a divinely instituted natural law - via an evolutionary process. One could then say that life - and man - originally arose on Earth via evolution. Then at some stage Gd "destroyed the world" which arose this way - that is, caused an evolutionary or climactic change such as for example caused the disappearance of the dinosaurs and later of Neanderthal Man, the ice ages and so on - and created Adam as described in Genesis - that is, caused the emergence of the first moral being.

Part III: The origin of the soul, and its transmission

                 According to religious philosophy, Man is connected to the spiritual realm and posseses a non-physical aspect - a 'soul'- as  distinguished from the animals. Since the soul is by definition a spiritual entity, not a physical one, we encounter the age-old philosophical problems relating to the difficulty of a purely spiritual entity interacting with a purely physical entity - a form of the mind-body problem. 

In Genesis, the soul-body issue may be hinted at by(/is referred to in) the phrase “and the spirit of God hovered above the waters”, where it was from the waters that life emerged, and especially in the almost shocking statement that after causing man to emerge from the physical elements at hand, “God breathed into him the living spirit.... creating him in the image of God”.

The genetics of soul

                In order to listen to the radio, one must have, as a necessary condition, a functioning, powered radio.  However, this is not a sufficient condition. There must also be a transmitter which is broadcasting, and among other things, the radio must be tuned to the same frequency as the transmitter.  Similarly, one can distinguish between the necessary and sufficient conditions to be fulfilled in order for a being to possess a soul.

                In order for the spiritual realm to interact with a physical being as a soul does, it is necessary that the being be of a highly developed type with a certain genetic structure.  This however is not a sufficient  condition, as it is also necessary that there be the transmitter, in this case the spiritual realm reaching out to the physical being.  In addition, the being must 'tune' its consciousness to the proper channel.

                This genetic potential  to tune in to the spiritual can be inherited genetically.  The spiritual realm is constantly reaching out to man, and anyone with the potential[237] can tune in if they choose to do so.  Thus, a 'soul' is more of an interaction, a reception, than an entity by itself.  It is not a 'thing' that can be inherited or given.  Rather, it is 'a phenomenon' available to all beings with the requisite genetic structure.

                Thus physical birth can allow transmission of a transcendant 'soul' from a mother, and the origin of a transcendant soul can coincide with a particular physical genetic development, so that the first being to evolve with sufficiently 'advanced' genes would  possess a soul , and pass it on genetically to its progeny. 

Summary

Genesis relates those points most relevant to the category of purpose: the universe is a purposive creation; God is involved in the universe, intervening in affairs in order to further a divine plan, including the evolution of  moral humanity; humanity is imbued with a spiritual nature in addition to its physical, evolved, animal nature; and humanity possesses the ability to distinguish good from evil, and the moral responsibility to choose the good. 

After presenting these ideas in the metaphorical language of the creation and Garden of Eden accounts, the Bible goes on to relate the history of the first individuals to encounter the divine, and continues with the revelation achieved by their descendants, and the commandments to all humanity - all within the context provided by  Genesis of a purposive universe directed towards moral activity.

Part IV: Adam:An Individual

 or a Race?

 Socio-Biology and Kabbalah

        August Comte, founder of sociology, considered a human society as an organism, and saw the society rather than the individual man as the basic unit of Humanity. Some scientists studying 'emergent properties' such as mind and consciousness also consider the possibility that a new and higher emergent level can arise when a sufficient number of individuals combine to form a society.  

                Morality is almost by definition possible only when there are two involved, and true moral consciousness manifests in choices made when facing moral dilemmas involving another moral being. Moreso, there are rules and dilemmas which arise only when a society is involved.

In this context one can speculate that perhaps a true moral being is only possible as part of a society of moral beings.  A race of moral beings as a whole forms a synergistic unit - a unit greater than the sum of its parts, and has the potential to exist on a higher level than that possible by one moral being alone or of a collection of individual moral beings[238]. Perhaps the onset of purpose, and the quantum metaphysical emergence of the universe occurs only with the emegence of a society, or of a race of moral beings.

The Term "Adam" (Man) in Genesis

Due to the ambiguity of the term “man” in the creation account, one can read Genesis as describing the creation of an entire race of Homo Voluntas, so that Adam had contemporaries of his own type. The creation of 'Adam' at the moral stage as related in Genesis would then be understood as the emergence/creation of a race of potentially-moral beings at the stage of the emergence of the first moral action by a member of that race[239].

Rav Shimon Schwab notes that the first and second creation account differ in the term used for the beings created prior to the creation of Adam. In the first account, the Torah speaks of "kol khayat ha'sadeh" ["all the animals of the field"] whereas the second speaks of "khayat ha'aretz" [the animals of the land"]. Furthermore, he points out that the word "kol" means "the rest of" as in Leviticus [Vayikra] 4:7, and that the Talmud speaks of a man-like being called the "adnei ha'sadeh" ["the masters(?) of the field"]. Thus, the phrase "kol khayat ha'sadeh" in the first creation account may be referring to the creation of a race of man-like beings prior to the creation of Man.

According to Ibn Ezra [1089-1164], there is a secret hidden in the word "Ha'Adam".  The Bible uses the term "Ha'Adam" rather than " Adam" and Ibn Ezra calls this distinction a "secret" of the Torah[240].  Ibn Ezra may be hinting that an entire race of humans was created at the time of Adam, and that this is why the Torah calls it "Ha'Adam" - "the species Man" - rather than "Adam" - the individual named "Man":

However, some commentators on Ibn Ezra disagree[241]. 

 Sforno[242] indicates the same point, that a species called "Man" was created. [Translation and commentary taken from "Artscroll Sforno"[243]:]

  It is only the the Garden of Eden account which speaks unambiguously of two individuals,  Adam and Eve. Even there, the language used implies a generic 'man' and 'woman' rather than a specific man and woman (Ha'adam and Ha'isha).  It is only after the Tree of Knowledge incident, when Gd is describing the limitations of the new reality they have entered, that language is used which indicates reference to particular people - to a man named "Adam" and his "wife" named "Eve"[244] - and even so, the events related there clearly point to their allegorical nature. There is thus ample evidence from the terminology and context that the Adam and Eve of the creation account represent a race or society rather than individuals.

In speaking of creation in general, we are told of the creation of the race of man; then, afterwards, we are told of the emergence [mutation or genius] of the first  moral humanity. Obviously the first  moral humanity must have been an individual, and just as obviously he must have emerged from within an entire race of human beings [via mutation, or as a genius], and thus the two accounts refer one to a race, and the other to an individual.

                In the Biblical context, Adam can be considered as a mutation whose descendants we are - via Noah - and thus Adam was unique, the first true human being, as tradition states. Alternatively, if one considers Adam not as a mutation, but rather as a genius who arose from within Cro Magnon Man, the “creation of man” can be understood asreferring to the creation of a race of moral beings.

          Traditional Monogenesis

The source available to us for the tradition that Adam was the only created man is the Mishnah in Sanhedrin  (Talmud: San. 37A),  and the Midrash:

"AND GD CREATED MAN.  Gd created only one man at first.  Why?  Lest the righteous boast that they are the descendants of a righteous first man, whilst the wicked plead that their first progenitor was evil.  Another reason: So that families should not quarrel with each other.  For if now, when man was created alone (and all have one common ancestor), there is strife, how much more so had two men been created!  A further reason: On account of robbers and men of violence.  If such exist even now that man was created alone (and they really rob their own kith and kin), how much more so if two had been created!  Yet another explanation is this:  Man was created alone to demonstrate Gd's greatness, that with a single die He created the entire world."

                Also:  "lest people say "there are many creators because there were many created beings in the image of Gd""[i.e. each god created a man in its image]  [245].

It seems clear from this Mishna that the reason one should not kill or rob and so on is not simply because all Man is descended from one ancestor, but rather that even were we to be descended from many,  killing and robbing would be just as forbidden. It is only the pedagogical lesson which differs in the two instances: it is easier to teach morality when one can say that all Humanity are brothers. 

Certainly of course Gd could have created many humans simultaneously, and this would be perfectly in consonance with the rest of the Torah. Certainly it  would make no difference whatsoever to the immorality of killing and robbing. The important thing would be for the Torah to state that one Man was created in order that people learn a moral lesson from this. However, it may well be that in actuality many were created, and that the ambiguity in the Torah whether "Adam" means "one man named Man" or "a race called Man" was deliberate, for the pedagogical reasons explored in the mishna above..   

 Furthermore, evolutionary theory agrees with the mishna that all humanity is descended from one individual, and one can accept the description of creation of Adam as representing both the creation of the first human, and the eventual emergence of an entire race from this individual.

Therefore, it  may not be necessarily a point of dogma to insist that  "Adam" meant an individual as opposed to a race.

Creation of a Race Rather Than an Individual: Biblical Indications

                The Bible itself can perhaps lend additional support for the idea that there were human contemporaries of Adam from the Bible itself.  A reading of the three creation accounts--the first five chapters of Genesis--reveals the following details.

                One hundred thirty years after creation a son was born to Adam [5:3].  Adam declares that this son is a gift of Gd to replace Hevel who had been killed by Kayin[246].

                From this we see that no male children had been born to Adam since the births of Kayin and Hevel, and also that Hevel had been killed within the first 130 years after creation.  Nevertheless, Kayin, when cursed by Gd to wander the Earth, expresses the fear that "anyone that finds me will slay me".  Of whom was he afraid?

                Hevel died   childless, Adam would not kill his own son, and surely Kayin was not afraid of his own children, especially as he didn't have any yet!  If there were no other male humans about, of whom was he afraid?  

                We are also told [4:17] that Kayin built a city in the land of Nod.  If there were no other people about, why was there a name to the land before Kayin arrived, and for whom did he build his city?  Another problem is presented by the question of whom Kayin and Lamekh and so on married.  One can say that the births of female children were simply not recorded, however we have seen that only three male children were born to Adam over a period of hundreds of years.  It is therefore quite possible that no daughters at all were born to Adam.  We see also that the wives of Lamekh are mentioned by name, and so one cannot presume that women were simply ignored by the Bible.  Indeed, the geneologies of Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah are recorded, and one might expect that the geneologies of the first few matriarchs of the human race would be recorded as well.

                Further, regarding the birth of Sheth, we are told "Adam again knew his wife", implying that he had not done so since the births of Kayin and Hevel - so that no daughters could have been born.  In fact, had there not been any other human contemporaries of Adam, then Kayin could only have married his mother or his sister.  Surely this detail is significant, and would be mentioned by the Bible[247]. Instead, the Bible tells us that "Kayin knew his wife" [4:17] rather than "Kayin knew his sister".

                In addition, it is clear that there were other types of beings present on the Earth at least at a later stage - the mysterious "Nefilim", and "bnei Elohim" [6:1-6:7] who interbred with the female children of Adam's line.  When were these daughters of Adam born?  After Noah   had reached the age of 500 years, we are told "And it came to pass, when Adam's line began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born to them, and the 'distinguished men'  saw the daughters of Adam's line. . . and took  of them wives. . . "

                This seems to imply that daughters were not born to Adam's line for a few generations, until after  they had spread out across the face of the Earth.  Who then were the wives and mothers of all these people?  Surely Eve was not the wife of all her male children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren!

            And who were these "distinguished men" - "bnei haElohim" - who were not of Adam's line? Man, and the Jewish people, are called  "my sons" by Gd in the Bible. In the third person, this is equivalent to 'the sons of Gd'. [1] In fact, the wording, "I will erase the Adam which I have created" indicates the existence of two races named 'Adam' [6:7]:  the "Adam which I created" as opposed to another Adam - perhaps one which arose evolutionarilywithin the created universe rather than as a direct creation. That is, non-Moral-Man.

                Perhaps they were the non-mutated, non-moral-man,  Homo  Sapiens Sapiens  rather than the Adamite  Homo  Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas.  Perhaps they are called "bnei Elohim" to tell us that they were the "prior creation" of Elohim, creations not possessed of moral consciousness and therefore not capable of good or evil, and therefore not requiring the Divine aspect of mercy called "Hashem" - but capable of being ruled by Midat Ha'din - by "Elohim".

                Then perhaps, it was when non-Moral-Man males took Moral-Man-females that problems began, with a corruption of the Adamite line, leading to the necessity of a new beginning, from Noah, the direct descendent of Adam.  

                                'ALSO FROM THE PASSAGE'  : MISSING:  SO IS NOT LATEST VERSION: INSERT ?

"from the day that God created man on the face of the earth, has any nation seen..": the implication is that there were nations existing at the time that man was created - from which on can infer that humanity was created as a race rather than as an individual.

                Of course there are answers to all these questions given by the Midrash, consistent with the picture of Adam as sole human.  However, from P'shat - the direct meaning of the words - it would seem that there were other humans. And in actuality it can be seen that this reading is not in conflict with the traditional interpretation since these contemporaries of Adam were not moral-man, and were not truly human in the sense meant by the Bible. Instead, they were the evolutionary predecessors of the first moral being, Adam, or alternatively they were seperate and prior creations.

Indeed, according to Rambam (Guide I:7):

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3).  As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning.  Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man."  With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son  in his likeness, in his form."  It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."

"Adam" - Individual or Race?

 As we havew seen above, indications of the possible existence of a human race at the time of Adam can be found in the ambiguity of the term Adam itself. We can also analyze the intent of Genesis in employing language which implies that only an individual rather than a race was created. A possible flexibility in the intended understanding of the situation can possibly be implied by similar flexibility in other instances, specifically regarding the survivors of the Flood.

                The Bible makes the point very clearly, and repeatedly, that Gd destroyed all man and beast in the whole world expect for Noakh and those in the ark.  Nevertheless, one of the Rabbis of the Talmud tells us that Og, King of Bashan, survived the flood![248]  Also, that the Amalekites predated and survived the flood is taught by the Zohar  [Gen:25a {Hebrew insert}].

Ramban quotes as acceptable the belief that others escaped the flood along with Og [see Ramban on "Bnei ha'elohim"].

Thus, the surface implication in the language of Genesis that an individual rather than a race was created may not reflect the intended understanding. 

A similar ambiguity can be found in the words of the prophets.

According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Humanity" when  "a nation" is what is actually meant. In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation[249].  

 This may aid us in understanding the statements of the Midrash and Zohar brought above. Perhaps a description of the complete annihilation of Humanity  in the flood account can in actuality be referring to the severe punishment of  one particular nation . However, applying this to an interpretation of the Flood is perhaps inappropriate: Rambam is speaking only of the words of the prophets, whereas the  account of the Flood was dictated by Gd , and that to Moshe - who received a higher form of prophecy than that of any other prophet  Nevertheless, it may perhaps be partially applicable in conjunction with the evidence given above that indeed according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all  Humanity outside the Ark.

Further, according to Maharal[250], the Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings.  Indeed, according to Malbim, passages in the Torah relating a seeming fact, may actually be relating a perception of human beings - even erroneous perceptions[251]. We can therefore perhaps suggest that if humans at the time of the Flood considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own family -  a delusion which we are told was the case with the daughter of Lot after the great destruction of 'the cities of the plain' [Soddom and Gomorrah etc.] - then perhaps this is why the Flood is so described in the Torah. And similarly, why it is possible for Genesis to state that the entire Earth was covered by the Flood, and all Humanity was destroyed, while tradition tells us that the Land of Israel was not covered, and that various people did survive the flood.

Just as the implications generated by a surface understanding of the Flood account in Genesis can be misleading as to  its true intent, and 'the destruction of all humanity' was not meant in its strict sense, so too perhaps with the account in Genesis as regards the implication that 'all Humanity' descended from Adam and Eve. In fact Eve is so named Genesis tells us, becuse she was 'the mother of all life' which is not the case according to Genesis itself, which does not claim that all living beings emerged from Eve!

II) There is an alternate way of resolving the contradiction between the survival of Og and Amalek and the passage which states that "all Humanity" was destroyed. One can perhaps distinguish between humanity as represented by Noakh and that represented by the giant Og.  According to Midrash, Og was 15 feet tall, and thus was possibly not of original human stock, but of a priorly evolved race.  Similarly, Amalek is the only group which it is incumbent on the children of Israel to fight, and it is a group which is genetically rather than culturally determined.  Perhaps they are the perennial arch-enemies of the Jewish people because genetically they represent a different, non-moral, strain of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.[252]

If this is so, then we can conclude that only Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas  was destroyed in the flood, and thus that when the Bible tells us that all humanity was destroyed, it means all of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas   and not necessarily all of everyone else.

This would explain the widespread evidence uncovered by archaeologists that there were civilizations which were seemingly not destroyed in a flood 4,000 years ago.

It would also strengthen the case for there being non-Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas present at the time of the creation of Adam - just as "all humanity" clearly refers only to a certain portion of Homo Sapiens Sapiens  in the flood account since we are told that at least one survived, so too the creation of humanity in the creation account possibly refers only to the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas.

One can perhaps also adapt the remarks above regarding the interchangeability of "Humanity" with "a nation", and "total annihilation" with  "local diaster", as indicating the possibility that the implication that Genesis is relating the creation of all Humanity is erroneous - it is instead perhaps relating not the creation of all Humanity, but rather the emergence of Homo Voluntas. 

Monogenesis[253] and Genesis

 The creation accounts are somewhat ambiguous as regards the number of humans created. In the first account, humans are created in male and female form in unspecified numbers, and even the second account deals mostly with a generic 'man' and 'woman' - Ha'adam and Ha'isha - rather than an individual named 'Adam' and his mate.              

 The accounts in Genesis do not state explicitly that a race of humans was not created. The first account can easily be understood as seems to be taught by Ibn Ezra, that a race of humans was created. The second account - that of the Garden of Eden seems to speak of one couple, but its connection to the first account is far from clear at the level of surface interpretation since much of it seems to contradict the first account. 

It certainly seems possible at the surface level of interpretation to understand the Garden of Eden account as referring for example to a  couple inhabiting a world already populated by the humans of the first account. Indeed, the Adam of the Garden of Eden account is not 'created' as is the case in the (first) creation account - instead he is 'formed from the dust of the earth'[254]. Accordingly the first account may perhaps be understood as relating the creation of a race of humans, while the Garden of Eden account relates the story of one couple within that populated world.  

Rambam and Monogenesis

 According to the Rambam "it is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created"[255].                

                Here the  Rambam links two  seemingly unrelated  conflicts. One conflict is between the idea that Adam  was created alone vs. the hypothesis that an entire race being created. The second conflict  is that between the idea of creation vs. the idea of the eternity of the universe.  Rambam connects the two because he fels that one implies the other, as follows:  If the universe is eternal, there was no creation of man, and therefore there was always a human race . Therefore Adam was not the only  human existing at  the time of the events related in Genesis. 

                However, Rambam himself admits that if there was a convincing proof of the eternity of the universe, he would accept it and interpret the creation idea as 'allegory' just as he did with anthropomorphisms. Therefore,  that Adam was the only Human  is as much - and as little - dogma as that creation occurred . The implication is that if there is convincing proof to the contrary (i.e. that Adam was not the only Human), we can accept it.

                 One can perhaps assume that Rambam's elevation to the status of dogma of the idea of individual creation  (vs. race creation ) was due to his apprehension that belief in race creation would be within the context of belief in an eternal universe.  However, it is clear that although the eternity of the universe might imply the existence of a race "Adam" rather than an individual "Adam", the opposite is not the case. Thus, in our case where they are unrelated, perhaps we can assume that Rambam would not consider  individual creation as dogma.

                  If  individual creation is not necessarily dogma - even Rambam agrees its acceptance is contingent on their not being any proof to the contrary,i.e. that such proof is theoretically possible - it would seem that the reason we are told that only one man was created is to make the  moral/pedagogical points related by the Mishnah and Tosefta of Sanhedrin.  That is, it is quite possible that in actuality more than one man was created, but we are told not to derive sanctions for   antisocial behaviour from this fact.

                The Rambam however states in strong form that only one human was created.  Therefore, we could perhaps be safer in saying that indeed only one human being was created; i.e. only one moral being was created, the rest were not moral beings and so do not count fully as "human beings". 

 In any case, even in the evolutionary theory, all humans stem from one original human being; and so the Midrash  and the Rambam can be interpreted literally[256]. For example, the "Ha'adam" of the first account could be the first human, and the Adam of the second account is the first human to exercise free willed choice, who lived much later. 

Summary

                If we interpret both creation accounts strictly literally, they contradict each other as to the order of creation of man, woman, and animals; as to the purpose and role of the animals; and as to the days on which all was created.  Therefore part of the creation account is necessarily non-purely-literal: that is, it is allegorical.  Within this partial allegory, partial literalness, we can say that the very wording of the Torah implies that a complete human race was created, and that the Tree of Knowledge incident is an allegory for a process which involved man as a species - and that is why even the second account speaks in terms of a generic 'man' and 'woman'.

                 The first two passages of the fifth chapter of Genesis states:

                "This is the book of the descendants of Adam: In the day Gd created Adam , He created them as male and female:and Adam bagat Shem.....[Gen.5:12].

                The Midrash on this passage tells us that everything in the Torah  until this point belongs to the "toldot shamayim va'aretz" - the generations of heaven and earth - rather than to "toldot Adam" - the generations of man. That is, the story of the Garden of Eden is not a description of actual events ocurring to man, but is rather part of the description of the process whereby Gd created the heavens and the earth

                 Malbim quotes a Midrash to the effect that the Torah itself really begins at Genesis 5:1 with the words "This is the book of the generations... ". Certainly however, the entire account up until the fifth chapter is an account of creation, and hence of events beyond human comprehension. The beginning of actual events commences with the birth of Shem as related in the fifth chapter. That is, the first and second creation accounts are not the record of actual events as implied in a literal reading, but are rather descriptions of mysteries as told in language comprehensible to man.

                According to the Sforno, at this juncture  the Torah begins to detail for us the history of the human race - that is,  on the day Adam was created, there was already a human race .

                The Torah begins with a description  of the creation of the physical elements of the universe (the first creation account), and then the Torah describes the onset of free-will, morality, etc (the second account).  It is only then that the Torah begins the tale of actual history - dealing with a specific couple, Adam and Eve, and their descendents.  [This history is meant literally, and is an account of actual historical events.]

                Consequently, according to this 'partially allegorical' interpretation, there is no problem concerning the creation of woman separately from man, or of the contemporaries of Adam and Eve: the first account tells us that man and woman were created simultaneously in unspecified number.

                The idea of the separate creation was given as an allegory for man's existential loneliness, his search to give and receive love and companionship, and so on.  The idea of the uniqueness of the Adam/Eve pair is  to teach humanity that all men are equal since they originate from one pair, and all are truly brothers  since they derive from the same parents 

Appendix:      Adam as Mutation Vs. Adam as Genius

                What does it mean to say that Adam was the first moral being?  Certainly amoebas are not moral beings.  However, would it be true to say that no evolved being prior to Adam was a moral being?  Was Adam a mutation, and therefore uniquely the first being capable of moral consciousness and free will? Or was he a genius, but not a mutant?

                If he was a mutation, then he was indeed the unique physical progenitor of our race; if he was not a mutation but rather a genius, he was the spiritual progenitor.

Although a mutant, Adam would posses almost all his genes in common with the non-Voluntas species, and some of his offspring would not carry his mutant gene. Indeed, according to Rambam,  some of the descendents of Adam did not have his special characteristic - the Divine "form". Rambam states that as a result these offspring were not "human"[257]. 

 Thus, from the Biblical perspective, neither the ancestors nor the contemporaries of the first  moral being are considered human. And so, in Genesis we are told that the first human had no human ancestors, nor did he have human contemporaries. 

 All the ancestors of this first free-willed human were of the animal kingdom, whereas he was the first true human. Genesis tells of the emergence of the first true human, after the emergence of the animals, including the pre-free-willed humanoids.

Genesis and the origin theory are consequently in agreement that the first human had predecessors, and that these predecessors were not human in the way we are. 

                Sources indicating that Adam was a mutation  and not merely a genius with the same genes as his contemporaries:

                In the third and last recounting of events at the creation (Gen: 5:1), we are told that on the day man - Adam - was created, he was created in the image of Gd ... [Gen: 5:1-3].

                As we can see, we are told only of the birth of Sheth, not of the birth of  Kayin ("Cain") and Hevel ("Abel").  Sheth was born to Adam, "in his likeness, in his image" whereas Kayin and Hevel were born to Chava (Eve) [Gen 4:1-2][258]. 

                After telling of the birth of Sheth, the Torah tells us of his line of descendants:  Adam; Sheth; Enosh; Kenan; Mehalalel; Yered; Chanoch ["Enoch"]; Methushelach; Lemech; Noach.

                Chanoch ["Enoch"] was so righteous the Torah says of him that he "walked with Gd" and did not die but  rather " and he was no more, for he was taken away by Gd"... [Gen: 4:25].

                Noach was of course the Righteous man of his generation, and the progenitor of all post-flood humanity.  Consequently, only the descendants of Adam through Sheth were truly righteous, and only they survived the flood.  The other children of Adam were seemingly not quite so righteous: Kayin was the first murderer, and his victim Hevel (Abel) was the first person mentioned to kill at all, in this case an animal, albeit to sacrifice to Gd.  Of the descendants of Hevel we are told not of spiritual accomplishments but that they initiated cities, cattle farming, music and metal instruments - all of which could be used both for good and for bad.

                Perhaps we can now understand why the Torah tells us that only Sheth was born of Adam "in his likeness in his image": just as Adam was created "in the image of Gd" by virtue of his ability to use free willed choice, perhaps only Sheth of all his children was sufficiently advanced to become capable of moral choice and spirituality, while the others possessed only the creative instinct without a refined moral sense[259].  If this were the case, we can understand why they are not called children of Adam, but rather children of Chava, why they are not "in the image of Adam", why they created art and technology, rather than spirituality, why their descendants did not survive the flood.

                In terms of our thesis, one can say that the mutation which made Adam special was not passed on totally to all of his children: only Sheth inherited that physical complexity which enabled him to respond to the divine and to develop a moral sense: the others were different from Adam's predecessors in their advanced intellectual and creative ability, but not in the realm of the spiritual[260].  

                The "selection" provided by the flood weeded out those morally unfit, and allowed only the Righteous Noach of the line of Chanoch and Sheth to repopulate the world[261].

   Ha'adam:  'Man' the Species vs. 'the man', an Individual

According to the creation account as remembered by most people, man was created alone, a single male individual without any contemporaries.  From this man, a woman was later created.  However, careful reading of the Torah will show that this is inexact. 

 In the first creation account, the species 'man' is created in male and female types from the very outset.  The idea that the male, Adam, preceded the female, Eve, is only developed in the second account. It is difficult to imagine that a male human would be created if no female were existent or planned. The second account, however, is  quite possibly meant allegorically, as Rambam states[262]. However, one can attempt an interpretation which stays close to the literal meaning.

 The very factors which define a male as such, would be meaningless and superfluous in the absence of a female, and even undefined before the idea of a female human was created.  Thus it would seem most logical to assume that, as indeed stated by the Midrash, the Adam which preceded Eve was not male, but was rather either a neuter or a combination of what was later separated into male and female [263] [264].

                Indeed, since no command was given to the original Human to multiply until after woman was created, there was no need for any reproduction mechanism at all in the original Human.  Thus, this Human (Ha'adam) was probably not 'male', and  perhaps without gender  at all.  Therefore, since there could be no 'man' without 'woman', 'man' was created only when woman was produced out of Ha'adam. That is, man and woman as such were created simultaneously out of Ha'adam.

                Thus "Ha'adam" is the evolutionary predecessor of the first true human beings,  male and female . And as in the origin theory, man and woman emerged separately but from a common source.

Appendix:            Scientific Monogenesis

According to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all humanity stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had existed previously. This of course agrees with the teaching of Genesis on this matter.

We will now briefly sketch the reasons  why geneticists have reached this conclusion.

Genetic differences between man and ape and between man and man

                                                                    1 gene

Chromosome      

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                INSERT DRAWING Of Chromosome

                                                                    1 gene                                pairs of nucleotides

                All the physical characteristics of a person or an animal are determined by their genes and their environment.  The genetic constitution of a being is determined by the type and order of its DNA nucleotide chain [see end of chapter C for more detail.].  

            When comparing two beings, one cannot necessarily make a linear correlation between the percentage difference in their nucleotide-pairs and the percentage difference in their proteins, nor between these and vital qualities such as intelligence, creativity etc. Nevertheless, one can take these measures as rough guides to the 'similarity' or 'dissimilarity' of the two beings. 

Human beings and chimpanzees have approximately 5 billion nucleotide pairs in their chromosomes. The vast majority of these nucleotide pairs - 99% of them - are identical, so that the proteins of humans and chimpanzees are largely alike, as are their resulting genetic traits: both have two arms with 4 fingers and a thumb each, 2 legs with 5 toes, similar face, similar skeletal structure, similar blood etc.  The physical differences between man and chimp are due to the 1% difference, i.e. the approximately 50 million out of 5 billion nucleotide pairs which are different in the two species.

                The genetic differences between even the most widely disparate humans is very small in comparison with the genetic difference between any human and a chimpanzee. The difference between two people of the same 'racial/ethnic' origin[265] is approximately 200,000 nucleotide pairs, i.e. 0.4% of 1% of the total.  It is this difference which causes the physical differences between any two people of the same 'race'.  People of the same general 'racial' origin but from geographically divided points will differ by very slightly more, and people from differing 'races' will differ by yet a slight bit more.  The difference between two people of different 'races' is not significantly more than the difference between two people of the same 'race'.  The reason that people of different 'races' seem so different is that the few actual genetic differences that do exist between them are the easily discernable differences of external features such as skin colour, hair type, nose width etc. 

                 The reason that people of different 'races' differ so much in external features is that it is precisely these external features which make the difference in differing climates (Skin colour determines sunburn, absorption of ultraviolet for the synthesis of vital vitamin D; nose width for staying cool in heat etc.. Thus these features will be selected for in different ways among different populations depending on their environment).  However, the number of genes necessary to govern these is quite small - the vast majority of genes are the same for all humans.  [It is ironic and perhaps unfortunate that the extremely tiny differences between people of different 'races' cause exactly those changes which are visible to the eye.]

                The tiny differences between people of different 'races' shows that all the 'races' originated from the same group of people, and that the differences between them arose when various individual families migrated to distant areas, over thousands of years, and slowly the changes solidified into clearly visible changes.  [Among those who migrated to Africa, and other tropical climates, those with darker skins were healthier than light-skinned people: dark skinned people had stronger, and more living, children - intermarriage darkened the skin more, these were ever more survival-successful: and therefore dark skins eventually dominated and v.v. in colder areas, etc.)

                Clearly, since the difference between man and chimp is 250 times that of the difference between people of different 'races', and people of different 'races' have no significantly greater genetic differences than people of the same 'race', it would be absurd to say that the different 'races' arose from different mutations from the apes.

                There are approximately five 'racial' groupings, each differing from the closest type of ape by 1% of their genetic material, yet all sharing 99.995% of genetic material with each other.  For each of the five racial types to have evolved separately from the apes is so improbable as to be quite impososible since it would mean that 5 separate mutations occurred during a very short while (20,000 years), all 99.995% identical to each other, yet all differing by 1% - the same 1% - from their pre-mutated form!  The mutation from ape to human is highly unlikely and took millions of years - for it to happen 5 times within a few thousand years and result in individuals identical in 99.99% of their nucleotide pairs would be absurdly improbable.  Thus, all men of all 'races' must have originated from one original mutation of 1% and then these mutated in 5 different ways, each of approximately ~0.5% relative variation.  Since Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose only about 60,000 years ago (40,000-100,000) and all today's 'races' are Homo Sapiens, the split into different 'races' must have occurred some time after this. 

AR: Deleted From ch 11

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

The creation accounts as they relate to man[266] will then be interpreted as describing not the entire evolution of man from ape, and ape from earlier forms, but rather as dealing with the emergence of the first moral being [267].

Ch 28: The Age of the Universe

Introduction

                The determination of the age of the universe is in some sense straightforward in modern cosmology, with an answer somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 billion years. Yet, as we shall see below, in other more subtle senses it is perhaps impossible to actually determine the age of the universe,.

                The weight of scientific evidence points to the origin of the universe in a big bang billions of years ago. Nevertheless, as we have seen quantum metaphysics points to the possibility that the big bang and subsequent events occurred in a 'superposition of states', with the universe beginning its true physical existence only when there emerged within it the first free-willed consciousness, and so the emergence of the universe and the emergence of a moral being are juxtaposed.

                This result of quantum metaphysics also implies that the universe is essentially only as old as the first moral being, and since the earliest moral being we know of would be some version of modern humans, the age of the universe would be computed in the thousands of years (probably between five thousand and a hundred thousand years) rather than in billions of years[268].

                From the viewpoint of Genesis and of standard cosmology - and as opposed to the view of Aristotle and Spinoza - the universe began some finite time ago, rather than being eternal. How long ago? The answer depends on the perspective: if of standard cosmology then the universe began in a big bang fifteen or so billion years ago; if of quantum metaphysics combined with Genesis, it began with the emergence of  moral humanity some thousands of years ago.

                Alternative Definitions of Time passage

                Even from the standpoint of standard cosmology, the question of the age of the universe is a difficult one for various subtle reasons. 

                One such reason has to do with the idea of a clock. There can be only one universe, since by definition of the word universe we mean 'everything that exists'. But if there is nothing other than the universe, then the clock which tells us how old the universe is must be part of the universe itself. 

                A clock can keep time, and we can use it to measure the amount of elapsed time since it was first put into operation - but we would need a second clock to determine how much time had elapsed from the time of the creation of the first clock until its initial operation, and so on and on...... Furthermore, no actual clock could have existed in the conditions obtaining in the early universe (extreme high temperatures etc.) and progressively more sophisticated clocks would be required the closer to the origin that one wished to probe. In any case, at the earliest time, when all was chaotic energy, matter as we know it did not exist, and certainly no known type of clock existed.

                In addition, since no clock can exist independent of the universe, then whichever type of 'clock' will be used to tell the age of the universe, it must necessarily be part of the universe itself. There is therefore a problem in defining the age of the universe[269]. Scientific estimates place it at about fifteen billion years, but the closer one gets to the origin of the universe, about fifteen billion years ago, the fuzzier the definition of the elapsed time[270].

Time, Consciousness, and Creation

                Even the definition of  the elapsed time since the big bang is not necessarily an objective one. Color is a mental sensation, subjective, and would not exist in a universe without mind. So too the very idea of a flow of time may be subjective, a property of consciousness rather than of the universe in of itself. 

                Take a film-movie of the universe from big bang to the end and then lay it out on a surface and view all the frames simultaneously. There is no time, all is simultaneous. Cut the film into separate frames and then shuffle them and number them in the new order, and then show the movie. Nothing in the history of the universe has changed, only the order in which the events are viewed by the viewer. The change is in the consciousness of the viewer not in the universe.

                The equations of physics are symmetric with respect to time reversal - they are the same whether we suppose time flows forwards or backwards. In fact, from the laws of nature themselves there is no reason to suppose that there is a flow of time at all - no past present and future - but rather all of space-time exists as a whole. 

                Time is not a true parameter in physics - it is inserted by consciousness, which perceives the universe within the conceptual framework of time. As a result, in a real sense it can be said that when consciousness did not exist, time did not exist, so that the universe-clock can be said to have begun ticking only when consciousness arose within it.

                 There was in this sense no time before there was conscious life in the universe, so that the the universe can be said to have 'begun' when it was first perceived by a conscious being.

                How old were you when you were born?

                If the universe indeed emerged into existence as postulated by Wheeler, how old is it? How old was it when it was born?  One second after the initial observation of the moral being was it one second old or was it fifteen billion years old?

                If the universe emerged into existence with the first observation of the first moral being, does the 'time' that 'passed' in the non-full-reality of the quantum superposed states count as real time? Do we count the age of the universe from the emergence of the moral being or do we add 15 billion years to this?

                If the flow of time, the division into past present and future, is a mode of perception of consciousness rather than an objective feature of the universe, then is there any meaning to assigning a flow of time prior to the emergence of consciousness? 

Metaphysical Definitions of "The Age of the Universe"

From the perspective of scientific cause and effect and step by step development - the standard origin theory - the universe begins with the big bang even if this big bang can emerge into existence only with the emergence of  moral humanity, especially as from this perspective  moral humanity is an incidental development, not designed, and the universe is therefore 15 billion years old. However, from the perspective of the Bible, since the universe was created as a purposive one, and begins to have purpose and meaning with the emergence of the first moral being, the universe can be said to be only as old as  moral humanity, as in Genesis - especially as  moral humanity served as the template for the blueprint of the universe and the big bang.    

       From the metaphysical perspective, the universe begins when non-simulatatable, non-extrapolatable history begins  and so it is only as old as the amount of time elapsed since this primary stage. To determine the age of the universe from this metaphysical perspective, we must therefore determine at what point the universe began its real - non-extrapolatable - existence,  and isolate the true primary stage of the universe.

The Onset of Non-Extrapolatable Existence

             In a universe without free will, in theory the big bang can be extrapolated using the laws of nature to compute the paths of possible histories up to the end of the universe. However, in a universe in which free will emerges, the extrapolation can continue only up to the point of emergence of free will. Beyond that point, it is impossible to predict what paths the universe can take, or what probabilities to assign to these paths[271]. 

A universe which is extrapolated past this point contains a history of events which may seem to have been free willed, and for which Man was morally responsible, but were actually neither real nor free.

Thus the latest point at which an extrapolated universe would optimally  begin to unfold in reality - rather than as an extrapolation - is that at which free will emerges, or when the first free-willed choice is executed.

Furthermore, as we have seen, since purposive meaningful activity begins only with the emergence of a moral being, prior existence of the universe would be meaningless from the perspective of the creator, and therefore the point at which a moral being emerges is also the earliest point for a purposive extrapolated universe to begin its existence. 

From this perspective, the universe is only as old as the time elapsed since the emergence of moral beings within it, that is, thousands of years rather than billions.

The Initial Stage of Existence: Four Perspectives

·         There is no objective meaning or purpose to existence other than that which life creates for itself, free-willed consciousness is a side effect of the development of the universe,  and the universe begins with a random big bang fifteen billion years ago. [272]

·         quantum metaphysics: the universe begins actual physical existence only upon the emergence of a moral being (just as Genesis implies);  therefore this emergence is the first stage of the existence of the universe and the universe is one or several hundred thousand years old. 

·         the strong (religious) anthropic principle:  The primary stage in the creation of the universe is that of the design of the moral being, which then serves as the template for the design of the universe as a whole; laws of nature, and initial conditions (big bang). This design did not occur 'in time' but is 'logically prior' to the creation[273]; no 'date' can be set for it, and the 'age' of the universe has no quantitative meaning in this sense.

[From the perspective of the anthropic principle, the universe is designed to produce moral beings, and therefore in a teleological sense the onset of its true existence is at the emergence of the first moral beings; the universe is said to exist telologically speaking only since the emergence of the first moral beings (perhaps a mutant form of Cro Magnon between 100,000 and 5,000 years ago) just as Genesis implies that the universe is only as old as the first moral beings to arise in it, Adam and Eve (who are implied to have lived about 6,000 years ago).]

·          Biblical perspective: there is objective purpose to existence and meaning to life, the big bang was designed to produce life, to produce moral beings. At the level of ideation, intention, and design, the moral stage of the universe - symbolized in Genesis by Adam in the Garden of Eden - precedes the big bang, and serves to specify the design of the big bang.  The true initial stage in the creation of the universe is that of the design of the moral being, and the creation and Eden accounts can be the description of the construction of this design, and also of the creation of the universe from this description. The big bang itself and all its development until the emergence of the first moral being are teleologically secondary, and in a sense thematically irrelevant, and would not be part of a description of creation. The true first stage of existence of the universe as a teleological and purposive entity is that of the emergence of the moral stage, and it is this event which would take central place in any creation account. The universe 'began' immediately after the emergence of the first moral being, and so in Genesis the creation and Eden accounts are juxtaposed [274].

[the true history of the universe begins - as in Genesis - with the onset of moral history, with the emergence of the first moral beings]

……………………..MESH………………….

Designing the Big Bang: God’s Choice: Einstein, though he didn’t really believe in a Creator, wrote:  “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world”[14]. Our universe could not have emerged from just any big bang - only a very specific type would lead to a universe with human beings. Similarly, from the Biblical perspective, since a central purpose of the created being is its exercise of free-willed moral choice, the universe would have been designed to contain morally meaningful situations and dilemmas.  If God were to create the universe via a big bang, its design would be carefully worked out in advance [15] to give rise to the desired opportunities for moral choice.[16][2]

Creating the blueprint of the universe: From the Traditional perspective it is therefore the eventual human moral challenges that prescribe the universal blueprint; since the Torah prescribes these moral challenges, it sets the parameters for the design of the universe and humanity. As the Midrash says: “God looked into the Torah and created the universe.”[17] Only after assembling a complete picture of a moral being and an appropriate universe would there begin the design of the big bang and laws of nature leading to their emergence.

In this scenario the process of divine creation began not with the big bang but rather with the prior idea to create a being with moral responsibility, and the mental picture of this moral being and the universe it would inhabit. Prior to physical creation there would be a mental assembly of the desired main ingredients of the universe, the design of everything necessary to produce a moral being. We can interpreting Genesis in this light as describing the creation of this blueprint one stage at a time. After each stage"God saw … that it was good”[18] and proceeded to the next stage. The end product is the desgin of a being created in the Divine image, and integrated into the rest of the Creation, after which“God saw ... that all… was very good.”[19] Only then,[20] given the entire functioning integrated blueprint of a universe containing moral beings, would a big bang be designed and programmed to teleologically produce them.[21] Studying the universe from the scientific perspective would yield a description not of the blueprint described in Genesis but rather of the big bang designed to actualize it.

……………

Solipsism of the Moment

  We saw that the past exists only in our memory, and although the universe exists now as you read this it is possible that it did not exist any time in the past i.e. that the universe was created just now, or at any point in 'the past'. 

                  Indeed, according to quantum physics, there is a non-zero probability - non-zero but so close to it that it is virtually indistinguishable from zero to most intents and purposes - that a universe such as our own would pop into existence spontaneously without any prior cause, complete and developped as it is now, with all its artifacts, fossils, memories and so on, and then cease to exist spontaneously immediately thereafter. There is no way for us to know that we are not inhabiting such an ephemeral universe[275].

                The age of the universe is then indeterminate, since it can logically have begun its existence right now or at any time in the past. From the scientific perspecrive of course there is no particular eason to suppose that the universe originated other than in the big bang 15 billion years ago, while from the Biblical perspective it might be reasonable to suppose that the universe originated at the onset of meaning and purpose from the perspective of the creator - specifically at the moral stage, with the onset of free-willed moral choice.

                As there is no operational distinction between the two, there is effectively no conflict betweeen the two perspectives.

                From the scientific perspective it is irrelevant and scientifically meaningless to ask when the universe 'actually' began its existence, since all is exactly as though it arose in a big bang15 billion years ago -  the universe is 'big-bang-emergent' - so that we must employ the big bang model to learn scientific facts about the universe.

                 From the Biblical perspective on the other hand, the question of whether or not our universe is big-bang-emergent is not as relevant as the issues of moral choice and of moral responsibility, which are central to the issue of meaning and purpose of the existence of the universe - especially so as the big bang itself which science describes is in this perspective a derivative stage - the specifications of the big bang are teleoderived from the moral stage.

                For all intents and purposes, from the scientific perspactive the universe is 15 billion years old whereas from the Biblical perpspective it is only as old as the existence of free moral choice.

The Scientific and Biblical Perspective  [Merge this with previous section]

                  As we saw in the discussion of solipsism and Occam's razor,[276]the question of whether other minds exist is unanswerable as there are no observable consequences of either possibility, and therefore the issue is irrelevant to science. Similarly, whether or not there exists a creator is unanswerable as there are no observable consequences of either possibility - the universe could have been created in any manner at all, and then subsequently manipulated by a sufficiently advanced being into the universe as it is now, with this performed in such a manner as to have left no trace of these manipulations accessible to human scientific investigation. 

As a result, the question of when actually the universe emerged into existence in not truly a scientific question, as it is clear that the universe could have emerged into existence right now or at any previous time either spontaneously or via the action of a creator, without our being able to detect how it emerged or when.

 What is instead of relevance, what is a meaningful question, is what the evidence available to scientific inquiry implies as to the origin and development of the universe, and the elapsed time since this origin. Science has found that all the evidence available to scientific investigation - as opposed to evidence gained via other possible means such as revelation - reveals that the universe emerged from a big bang billions of years ago, and has evolved into the universe as we now know it in the intervening time.

Accounts of the origin and development of the universe as related from the understandings of other perspectives, relying on knowledge obtained from other sources than scientific investigation - as for example is the case with the Biblical creation and Eden accounts - are of no relevance to science, and neither conflict nor support science, as they relate to a different realm of discourse.

Summary and Conclusion : The question of the age of the universe is therefore more one of metaphysics than of physics - indeed, there is no scientific means of distinguishing between a universe created this very instant, one which emerged from a big bang fifteen billion years ago, or one which emerged retroactively upon the observation of a moral being .  

God as Quantum Observer

Introduction

                Our exploration of quantum metaphysics familiarized us with the idea that it is conscious observation which brings into true physical reality that which was previously only existent as a quantum probability wave, and that in the cosmological context the universe can be said to have begun its true physical existence only upon the emergence within it of a conscious observer.             

                This idea has other cosmological implications as well: since no human consciousness can observe the entire universe, the reality status of the large part of the universe not being humanly observed is cast into doubt. Inevitably, large parts of the universe will be left 'unrealized' unless there is some mind which can observe the entirety, and with this implication quantum metaphysics may seem to point in the direction of a mind 'outside' the physical universe. 

                Is such an entity then within the purview of science? 

                Science deals with that which can be tested, with phenomena which can be verified by scientists in various countries independently of their beliefs or their culture or language. This is not to say that scientists consider all else uninteresting or insignificant. Rather, science limits itself to certain types of phenomena, and makes no judgment or indeed reference to matters outside its purview. No unequivocal demonstration of the existence of a such a Mind has ever been presented that convinced scientists everywhere, no experiment has been devised which would point to its existence in a manner convincing to all laboratory workers, and therefore the subject of such a Mind is not considered generally to be of relevance to scientific endeavor. The topic therefore remains within the bounds of speculative quantum metaphysics rather than of physics itself.

                From the Biblical perspective however, there is a Mind which is creator of the universe and of all laws of nature, encompassing all of its creation, and sustaining its existence.

Schroedinger's Cat and Wigner's Friend

                The eminent physicist Erwin Schroedinger, one of the founders of quantum physics, suggested an interesting mental exercise, of the type termed by scientists a 'thought experiment', designed to illustrate some of the interesting ramifications of quantum theory.

                In order not to alienate cat lovers, we stress that this is recommended only as a thought-experiment: put a cat into a closed box containing a poison and a triggering mechanism to release the poison. The trigger's activation depends on the outcome of a random quantum event in the box, so that poison is released or not released into the cat's body depending on the outcome of the inherently random quantum event.

                Since the state of the cat is dependent on a quantum event, its state can only be described by quantum physics. In terns of physics, the totality of information regarding the cat is contained in its quatum wavefunction. While in the box, this wavefunction is the sum of two other wavefunctions - the wavefunction for the state of being dead by injection of poison plus the wavefunction  for the state of being alive.

                Of course when the box is opened, the cat will be seen to be either dead or alive - that is, the wavefunction has been collapsed to assume one of its possible components. The wavefunction of the cat is either one corresponding to 'dead already ten minutes', or 'alive but angry at being locked up in a box for ten minutes'. However, relative to those outside the box, the cat was in a combined state of 'dead plus alive' until the box was actually opened.

                 Wigner then asked what would be if a person [later dubbed 'Wigner's friend'] were in the box. As we have seen, the wave function of a sysem is collapsed when the state of the system is measured, or observed by a conscious being. Of course the person in the box would know if he were alive, and he would not feel himself to be in a combination of states. However, for those outside the box, he is in a combination of states until they open the box. 

                Similarly, for anyone who enters the room ten minutes after the box is opened. Until they are apprised of the result, relative to them the original observers are in the following combination of states: 'saw ten minutes ago that the person in the box was dead' plus 'saw ten minutes ago that he was alive'. 

                The person who was in the box and the observers in the room, form a quantum state in regards to the observer waiting outside the room. Just before the one outside the room is apprised of the result, the people inside the room comprise the state: 'the person in the box has been dead twenty minutes with the others mourning him already for ten minutes' plus 'the person who was in the box is alive and joking for the last ten minutes with his friends who opened the box ten minutes ago'. However, as soon as those outside the room are told the result, the wavefunction is collapsed to only one of its components.

                 Since all events are at their most fundamental level quantum events, all chains of events must be described by quantum wavefunctions. Until the result of a chain is known, the wavefunction is a combination of all the possible wavefunctions and as seen in the previous example, the chain can easily lead to large scale phenomena involving many people. As a result, all events are quantum events - not only microscopic events involving fundamental particles, but even events involving many people have to be described by the wavefunctions of quantum physics.

Universal Consciousness

Since all physical interactions extend out to all distances,  everything in the universe interacts with every other part[277]. As we have seen, Bell's inequality has shown the interconnectedness of the most distant parts of the cosmos. Thus the entire universe is a system, with all parts interacting in an inseparable manner. As Rambam put it:  "Know that this universe, in its entirety, is nothing else but one individual being." 

Since the universe is one interconnected whole, the universe as a whole can possibly be considered as a quantum wave function[278]. One could then ask what then collapses the wave function of the entire universe - what measurement can there be which can measure the state of the entire universe. Some scientists have speculated that it is a network of observations of conscious beings, and therefore that the universe can reach full physical reality only when there exists within it a society of conscious beings able to observe the entire universe - perhaps by being so numerous and thoroughly spread out that they can in the totality of their observations encompass the entire universe. 

Within the Biblical perspective, this is indeed part of the mission of humanity: as the blessing to humanity and the summation at the conclusion of the creation account states - in its midrashic and kabbalistic interpretation: "be fruitful and multiply and fill the physical universe....which God created for humanity to complete"

Creation as the "Observation" of Gd

  We have seen previously that "the wave function" is collapsed only when a measurement is made and recorded.  However, from the perspective of the Bible, prior to the emergence of man and his technology, only Gd could made such a 'measurement'. As a result, one could postulate that it is Gd's  'observation' of the universe which would cause it to emerge into reality.          Indeed, according to Midrash [279]:

INSERT HEBREW TEXT:

   `nlr `xae `ziixe`a lkzqd.   Gd "looked" into the creation blueprint - the Torah - and thereby created the universe. That is, the universe emerged into existence via an observation by Gd on the  pseudo-real  blueprint-universe. 

The Torah is the blueprint of creation, and it is the Torah which governs the functioning of the universe: by looking at the Torah - observing - Gd created the universe. Each act of observation maintains the universe's existence, so that the universe is constantly being created anew - as the Midrash states, "Gd  renews the creation every passing moment".

This idea was also proposed hundreds of years ago by the philosopher Berkeley, who considered all of reality to be existent only in that it was perceived by God, however now there is a motivation for this idea not only for philosophical reasons but also from quantum metaphysics.

"And God Saw That it was Very Good"

After creation of the big bang, the universe - as a quantum system - could be only in a "superposition of states". It would not emerge into true reality until Gd chose to 'observe' it. Thus the universe would develop simultaneously along all possible paths until God 'observed' it.

This 'observational creation' can take place at the big bang or at a later stage, however there is a particular point at which the collapse into a unique history is most likely to occur: when the universe has developed to the point at which the desired moral being has  evolved on the optimal path. God could then pick out this desired potential universe from among all its parallel paths, and cause only it  to emerge into existence by observing it. This would be the genuine act of creation - creation of 'the best of all possible worlds'. As the end of the creation account states: "and God saw all that He had done, and it was very good"[280].

 The emergence of the universe into existence would then have taken place with the emergence of the first moral being - as implied in the juxtaposition of the creation account referring to the emergence of the universe, and the Eden account referring to the emergence of the first moral beings.

Traditional Jewish Sources

The idea of Gd bringing the universe into existence via the operation of  an act of observation can alo be found in other traditional Jewish sources. According to the Zohar[281], the universe was created and is maintained via Gd "self-observing".  Rambam states that Gd is the "ground of being' of the universe and "knowing self, Gd knows all" [282].

 According to Ramban[283], there are various levels of physical reality: the bringing forth into actual reality was accomplished via Gd's 'words', or 'verbal commands' ["let there be ..."] whereas the permanence of the things called into existence was granted by Gd's 'seeing' them ["and Gd saw that it was good..."]. The terminology also indicates, continues Ramban, that the coming into existence of all creation was via an act of Will, and the continuing existence of all creation is dependent on Gd's Will. Should there be a lack of the Divine will regarding the existence of some entity, it fortwith ceases to exist[284][285].

This of course parallels the quantum metaphysical concept of the bringing of the universe into actuality via free-willed observation[286] [287] [288].

The Universe of the Spiritual Forms and Man's Free Will

Introduction 

             Creation consists of two parts: the physical and the spiritual.  There is a parallel between the two: the transcendental forces of the spiritual realm are the roots of all that is in the physical realm, and the two can interact via acts of man's free will.  These spiritual Forces were created first; the existence of the physical universe emanates from them.  Therefore, it was only after the creation of the spiritual 'forms', and after their methodology of interaction was set, that the corresponding physical universe and its physical law could be created.

The Creation Accounts

            We can in fact interpret the first creation account as a description of the creation of these forces - that is, a description of the creation of the universe of spiritual forms. The second account then tells of the emergence of the active ingredient which can uniquely manipulate this realm - free will. Free will is that which connects the spiritual and the physical, and it is free will which allows and causes the emergence of the physical universe from its spiritual counterpart.

            The third account then states that the physical realm was created.

The Universe of Spiritual Forms, Free Will, and Potentiality

The universe of spiritual forms was the "blueprint" of the physical universe, and thus it was created first. The only process which can directly affect the spiritual forms, are acts of human free will: it is only a free willed being which can cause the potentially existing physical universe to emerge into existence from its blueprint universe of spiritual forms, just as is the case with the observer bringing the physical universe into reality from within the potential universe of quantum pseudo-reality. 

As stated above, the blueprint for the creation of the universe is the universe of the spiritual forms and their interactions.  The physical entity corresponding to this blueprint is the Torah, which gives the rules of interaction between the physical and spiritual universes.  

           Gd created a parallelism between the spiritual and physical universes:

        "He made this world corresponding to the world above, and everything which is above has its counterpart here below...and yet all constitute a unity."[289] [290] 

These 'Forces' are 'Potential Forces': concepts are conceived potentially among the Forces and are then translated into physical actuality.  The universe of the Forces is therefore known as the universe of thought.

The Forces are the ground of existence of the universe [291].  

Thus, the most basic level of reality is that of the universe of thought, of potentiality. The physical universe derives its reality from this thought-universe of potentia - and the connection between the two is man's free will. Indeed, only an act of free will by a moral being can bring the physical universe into existence.

AR: MESH?

Creation, and the Creation Accounts

                The universe of spiritual forms was the "blueprint" of the physical universe, and thus it was created first. The existence of the physical universe and natural law came about as an 'emanation' from the spiritual Forms.

                As part of the parallelism between the two realms, there is also a physical entity corresponding to this blueprint - the Torah. The Torah gives the rules of interaction between the physical and spiritual universes, based upon the operation of moral consciousness, and it begins with the creation and Eden accounts as preface.

                Rather than being a description of the creation of the physical universe, therefore, the creation account can be interpreted as a description of the creation of the universe of spiritual forms, while the Eden account relates to the emergence of the active ingredient which can uniquely manipulate this realm - free will[292]. 

 Free will is then that which both catalyzes the emergence of the physical universe from its spiritual counterpart, and which serves as the connecting link between the two realms, so that it is natural that the creation and Eden accounts are juxtaposed.

Man's Free Will as Catalyst of Creation:

                                                             Traditional Jewish Sources

 Genesis tells us that Gd rested, after creation, from all His work "which he created to do".  The midrash explains that the words "to do" [zeyrl] means "everything that Gd created, requires the 'doing' of man". Thus man is partner in creation and in our scenario his free will - and role as observer - brings into actuality the universe created by Gd.                    

Another source relates to the Tree of Knowledge. According to our speculations here, the universe emerged into full existence when human free will emerged, symbolized by the partaking of the  Tree of Knowledge. That eating of the  Tree of Knowledge could enable man to bring an entire universe into existence is an idea actually found in the Midrash[293].  There we are told of the Rabbinic opinion that the snake tempted  Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree by telling them that "from this tree Gd ate and created the universe" and that "Gd does not want you to eat of the Tree because he does not want you to create other worlds". 

Summary

 Since it is only free will which can bring forth the physical universe from the potentiality of the universe of the spiritual forms, the universe cannot emerge into physical reality until the emergence of a moral being. 

Both quantum metaphysics and the Kabballah therefore indicate that the universe would begin its existence at the emergence of the first true moral being - giving a creation scenario entirely parallel to that portrayed in Genesis.

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

In addition to the physical universe, Gd created man, and did so "in the image of Gd" - i.e. possessing free will, which is the Gdly attribute of transcending causal necessity. Free will is thus the cause of the existence of the universe both in potential (Gd's Will) and in actuality (man's free will).

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

Man is created in the image of GOd, and the physical universe is the image of the Spiritual Forms. (The mishkan is the image of the higher mishkan, and of the physical universe etc)

Instantaneous creation via the Will of Gd

INSERT HEBREW TEXT

z` dyr mini zyy ik mlerl `id ze` l`xyi ipa oiae ipia" :fi :`l zeny

 ."ytpie zay iriayd meiae ux`d z`e minyd

that which He wished had come into existence = "ytpie"

"Guide": very end of I:67:   (`n) epx`a xake ,ytp on lrtp `id ytpie :fq :`  lk ly lrtl d`ivie evtg znlyd epipr didie ,oevxde dxhnd epiprye ytp.oipr `id dlrzi eil` qgia dxn`py ytp oexkf lke" :`n :`  epevx

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

.ipevxe

According to Ramban[294] and Rambam[295], the universe first existed in a state of non-form, with a potential for physical existence. 

    Furthermore, as stated above  Ramban teaches that [296] Gd's word brought things into existence, while Gd's observation  gave full reality of concrete existence to the entities created previously only in Mind - and all this was an expression of the Free Will of Gd. [297]   [298]  

The Universe As Gd's Will

                The Divine Will is both the 'cause' of the existence of the universe, and also its 'ground of being'. If Gd actively Wills the universe to cease to exist, it of necessity automatically does so. Further, if it  is not Gd's Will that the universe exist, the universe has no ground of being, and does not exist.

                 We can speculate that there is a connection between the universe having been infused with free will  and that as an emanation of Divine Will, the universe itself is, in its essence, Will.  

 Humans, although ostensibly physical beings, bear within themselves the 'breath' of Gd, and are created in the 'image' of Gd, in a universe created out of the Will of Gd;  it is fitting that seemingly-physical humans can possess free will.

                 The universe emerged into existence as the actualization of Gd's Will.  The purpose of the creation involved the activity of a being infused with the Divine ability to employ free will. Fittingly it would be the emergence of free will in this being which would provide concrete reality to the universe created from Gd's Will[299].

                Perhaps therefore, it is the purpose of man to return the cosmos to its former state: To restore the exclusivity of the Divine Will  by  developing  one's own will to conform to the Divine Will - thus  realizing fully one's status of a being 'in the image of Gd'; to restore the Divine unity  by "cleaving unto Gd" "with all one's one's heart, with all one's soul, and with all one's might", by "walking in My ways"and by "being Holy as I [Gd] am Holy"[300].

                  [301]

Transcendant Realms

The nature of the fundamental reality underlying all of existence has intrigued philosophers, scientists, and mystics throughout the ages.  Some have claimed that it is fundamentally physical, some that it is spiritual, others that it is a thought in the mind of an intelligent being, and more recent speculations have likened it to  software (computer programs). or pure information.

[AR: Can mesh this with previos section on Godel]

Godel, as we have seen, felt that his discoveries regarding the fundamentals of logic, mathematics and human intuition indicated that "sets and concepts exist externally to any individual's activities"[302], an idea similar to that of the ancient Platonists regarding the independent existence of certain Truths. Indeed, he wrote a paper discussing how one could "prove the consistency of mathematics by assuming that mental objects have an objective existence"[303]. 

According to Gödel, although "…rational thought can never penetrate to the final, ultimate truth", nevertheless man can interact with these truths. These truths manifest themselves in the human intuition and [304]"

In this conception there exists a realm of 'reality' beyond the physical in which there resides the truths of mathematics and logic, but these truths are not accessible to the rational mind, nor to sensory perception, nor to formal computational systems. Instead there is some unique aspect of the human being which allows a connection to the underlying reality behind the physical universe, beyond that perceived by the rational mind and by sensory perception.

As we have seen, the human brain is unique in that it possesses a free-willed consciousness, and a creative intelligence - which may derive from the self-causative nature of its free-willed consciousness - allowing it to transcend the limitations of entropy and information to initiate creative activity. Further, as we have seen, it is this property of free-willed consciousness which allows the human mind to transcend determinism and randomness, and which may be connected to the transformation of the physical universe from pseudo-physical to full reality.  It is perhaps also the acausal nature of the human mind which endows it with the ability to transcend the physical universe and connect with the realm of the absolute truths postulated by Plato and Godel.   

The Spiritual Universe

The idea of the existence of a transcendant realm beyond the physical, a realm which is accessible to humans, is also present in the Kabbalah, and there it is stated more explicitly that the critical faculty which allows humans to connect to this realm is their free-willed consciousness.

             According to the Kabbalah, and as explained in the teachings of Ramkhal, creation consists of two parts - the physical and the spiritual - and there is a parallel between the two:

 "(God) made this world corresponding to the world above, and everything which is above has its counterpart here below...and yet all constitute a unity."[305] [306] 

The spiritual cosmos is a universe of 'forms', of potential forces, where concepts are conceived potentially and then translated into physical actuality.  The universe of the forms is therefore known as the universe of thought, and the forms or forces are the ground of existence of the physical universe [307]. The only processes in the physical universe which can directly affect the spiritual forms, are acts of human free will 

              Thus, the most basic level of reality is that of the universe of thought, of potentiality, and it is from this thought-universe of potentia that the physical universe derives its reality.  

The Shadow Universe

              As we have seen, according to Jewish mystical teachings the basis of all of physical existence is the cosmos of spiritual reality. Free willed actions in the physical universe affect the spiritual cosmos, however not all that is to be achieved in the spiritual realm can be comprehended when viewed from the limited perspective of its shadow realm, the physical universe. 

              That the physical universe is the "shadow" of the spiritual realm is an old idea - indeed some kabbalistic sources state that the expression "tzel sha-dai" "the shadow of the Lord" refers to nature. One can further connect "tzelem elokim" "the image of God" to "tzel Elokim" "the shadow of God".

                According to the "Nefesh Hachayim", "tzelem Elokim" refers to humans' ability to construct and give life to spiritual realms above them[308].  

The interaction between the physical and spiritual realm can be allegorized by a shadow - the shadow and that which casts it do not interact, yet the shadow imitates all of its motions. Only when the entire context is seen, the light source and the area around the shadow, can one understand that the shadow represents a lack of interaction relative to the lit area surrounding it[309]. In this allegory, the light is the spiritual realm, the shadow is the physical, and that which casts the shadow is the soul and free-will, and the spiritual and physical realm interact only in the sense that the physical is the absence of the spiritual - a form of tzimtzum.

The universe was created from the blueprint provided by the Torah, and derives its existence from the spiritual level above, and the Way specified by the Torah is the means whereby free-willed beings can affect this spiritual level to further the goal of creation.

Summary: According to our speculations, only free will can actualize the physical from the potentiality of the spiritual forms - the universe cannot emerge into physical reality until the emergence of a moral being, just as is the case of quantum physics, as discussed earlier.

Both quantum metaphysics and the Kabballah therefore indicate that the universe would begin its true existence at the emergence of the first moral being - giving a creation scenario parallel to that portrayed in Genesis, and providing a thematic link between the creation and Eden accounts

The Anthropic principle 

and the Maximization of Existence 

Introduction

     The anthropic principle sets humanity as the measure of all things, and the strong anthropic principle goes even further and sees free-willed consciousness as being that which brings the universe into full physical existence. If such is the case, then both the design of the big bang and the very existence of the universe itself are specified by the requirement that it be capable of eventually producing a free-willed conscious being.

     Therefore, according to the anthropic principles, the existence of free willed conscious biological beings is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the specification of the universe and also for its initiation into full physical reality. 

     Similarly, in Biblical philosophy God is both the necessary and sufficient agent for the existence of the universe and of free willed conscious beings. The anthropic principles therefore provide an extension to man of the idea of God as creator and ground of being, which is highly appropriate for the being created in the image of its creator.

     A created universe in which the big bang is designed so as to eventually produce free willed beings is here termed 'a teleoderived universe', that is, derived from the teleologically-prior stage of the emergence of a moral being, the 'moral stage' of universal development. In such a universe, all entities and life-forms which eventually evolve from the big bang owe their existence to the fact that a big bang designed to produce moral beings also produced them. This idea can shed some light on traditional Jewish views regarding the purpose of existence of the universe and of its constituent elements.

 Rambam's Views on Existence

                      According to Rambam, the Torah teaches that the universe was designed so as to specifically include man.  He then points out that  many people, feeling that this teaching implies that all was created for man, ask why spiders detrimental to man were created, and why Gd created the distant stars if they are out of  man's reach[310].

                     In response, Rambam states that it is simply not true that all was created for Man. Rather, existence is a good in of itself, and the reason that harmful and useless entities were created is that it is Gd's Will that these entities exist, and because Gd wanted to grant the good of existence to all possible beings.

                     As stated previously, according to the anthropic principle, and from the Biblical perspective, the conditions of the big-bang are determined by the teleological consideration that it must eventually  develop into a  universe containing a moral being.  A big bang which is designed to give rise to human beings will need to be of a very specific type. 

     This type of teleologically derived big bang, on the way to producing moral beings as it is designed to, will produce many other species - from amoebas through amphibians to apes. All these other beings - animals, insects and so on - which derive from the resultant teleoderived big-bang, can be seen as the "possible" beings Rambam speaks of. They are then given actual existence through Gd's creation of a big bang.

     As Rambam pointed out, Adam could have been created without the rest of the universe (Guide III:13):

     "We who believe in the creation must admit that God coud have created the universe in a different manner...the principal object, man, could have been brought into existence without the rest of the creation." 

     However, in order to give the good of existence to the maximum amount of beings within the context of a moral universe, the initial state was teleoderived from the moral stage to form  a big bang which would produce all the beings inherent in the design of the moral being rather than simply the moral being itself.

     There is thus not only a deep link between the physical characteristics of man and the fundamental physical structure of the universe, but the universe also contains virtually all that is implied by this interconnection - specifically, the physical and biological links between a big bang which would produce a human, and the human itself. 

A Big-Bang-Emergent Universe:[311] Maximizing the Amount of Existence

     According to the Midrash, all was created in potentia in one act of creation, and the entire universe developed from this one state. We are also told by the Midrash that Adam was first a shapeless mass of clay, and was shaped  into Man during a certain period, finally receiving the Divine "image" on the sixth "day". One can then say that the initial creation contained the rudiments of Adam, and the passing of time brought closer the development of this entity to being "Adam". 

     On the basis of this one can construct the following image: All beings which were links in the evolutionary chain leading to man can be considered as one continuously existent  being, taking on various transient shapes, each one more complex than the last, until the final shape is achieved - that of man[312]. 

     Since the big bang was teleoderived from the design of the moral-being, it of necessity contains within it the potential development of man's evolutionary predecessors, including of course his near 'ancestor' the monkey/ape.

     The sole raison d'etre of the monkeys and apes in a teleological sense are as the logically necessary evolutionary predecessors of man.  The monkey is a transient being in the evolutionary sense since it eventually mutates to become man, and in the teleological sense because after the appearance of man, its existence no longer serves a teleological purpose - thus both the species and its teleological importance are transient.

     Even more so, all species which developed along branches of the evolutionary chain unrelated to man - species unnecessary as steps towards the eventual emergence of man - are not only teleologically purposeless now that man exists, but always were so;  nevertheless, their existence is guaranteed by the fact that they are inherent in the big bang which is designed to produce moral beings.  

      As outlined previously, Rambam provides us with a reason for why rather than creating Adam alone, instead God created the universe in a  big-bang-emergent state, containing the full variety of beings inherent in the big bang. According to Rambam, existence in itself is a great good[313] [314]. As a result, Gd wished to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible[315]. In our context, this would mean not only to give existence to man, as the purpose of the evolutionary process, but also to all those other beings who would exist as a result of that process.  

       Thus it was Gd's Will to create the moral universe not with only  moral humanity inhabiting it,  but also with all the creatures implied in the form of Man. That is , Gd wished to  give the benefit of existence to all the creatures which would exist  in a universe designed to produce a moral being,  all the creatures which would develop from a  big bang-emergent universe teleoderived from the design of a moral being.

     This then sheds light on the fact that in the creation account although after virtually every stage of the creation it is commented that "and God saw that it was good", after the creation of man there is no such comment, whereas immediately after the creation of humanity, which heralded the completion of creation as a whole, it is said that "God saw all that He had done and it was very good". In our terms, the whole was derived from the design of man, and therefore the maximal good came not simply from the creation of man, but rather from the creation as a whole, with all that was inherent in the design of man.

Existence is a good in of itself          

    According to the Rambam it is wrong to assume that if a being exists, it does so to serve man, or for man's benefit.  Instead, they exist because Gd wanted to give existence to all that could exist, including and especially the transiently-purposeful transient being which evolved into man - the monkey.  In the words of Rambam [316]:

 "no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man's benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man's ignorance of the nature of transient beings[317], and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible"[318]. 

Conclusion

     From the Traditional perspective existence is good, and therefore creation proceded in a manner designed to produce maximal rather than minimal existent entities. Thus, rather than a universe containing only humanity and a minimum of other entities, the universe was instead created with all that is implied in the existence of a human being - all that follows logically from a self-consistent system designed to eventually produce a moral being. 

     This is the metaphysical teleological motivation for creation to have resulted in the big-bang-emergent universe we inhabit.

     That there exist parts of the universe which are seemingly useless to humans - for example the distant stars or some of the millions of insect species, and so on - indicates that they do not exist because of - that is, to serve - humanity.  However, since all these parts exist only in order that the universe be in a self-consistent big bang emergent state teleoderived from the state containing moral humanity, then all that exists does exist because of humanity, that is, because humanity exists[319]. 

     As the Mishna in Sanhedrin states, humans must say "Bishvili nivra ha'olam" -  'because of me was the world created'. So, the universe is  designed for Humanity, and any being living in it exists only because they are part of the chain of being which stretches from the first creation to the first moral people. However, they were not created for the purpose of serving humans, but rather they were created because  Gd wished to give the Goodness  of existence to all those possible beings whose existence was implied in the chain. That is, they exist because of humanity, not for hmanity; Ie  because it was desired/necessary to create man, they were created also.   

     From the traditional Biblical perspective, the universe is designed to produce moral beings, while all other entities no matter how vast or numerous, if they are not free-willed conscious beings, exist because they are inherent in the teleologically designed big bang. 

     Humanity is therefore told in the creation account that the sun moon and stars, lofty and huge though they may be, will be convenient time-pieces; humanity is enjoined by the Bible to make use of the resources of the world, to harness the power of the animals and of the forces of nature, to channel all towards the purpose of moral action for the betterment of self, of the lot of others, and the worship of God. However, there are limits to the exploitation of nature - cutting down fruit trees, causing unneeded pain to animals, wanton destruction - since the universe and all it contains were not created simply to serve humanity's needs. 

     Humanity is instead to face the challenges inherent in its ability to discern the moral aspect of events and situations, and to utilize its free will to make the proper choices - that very free-willed consciousness which sets the tone for the design of the universe, which gives it full physical reality, and whose parameters define the extent of all possible existent beings. 

Appendix:      Possible Beings and Rambam 

          When we say that Gd wished to give existence to all possible beings, it is obviously not meant all beings which can possibly be imagined since that would be an infinite number, and since in any case it is clear that many imaginable beings were not created.  Clearly then "all possible beings" means 'all beings possible which fulfil a certain criterion' - the criterion being logical self-consistency and consistency with the rest of creation. As Rambam says: (adapted to our interpretation) 'All beings which would arise along all the possible branches of evolution' (rather than just the existence of their teleological end, man).

      "Possible beings" are those which are present in the big-bang-emergent universe, and the big-bang-emergent universe arises from a big bang teleoderived from the moral stage. Thus it is the characteristics of the moral stage, and particularly of the moral being, which determine the forms of all "possible being".  In contrast, the existence of any form of being not  derived in this way from the moral stage is "impossible".  Since the moral stage is that which is directly designed according to the purpose which Gd's Wisdom has decreed for the universe, one can say that the existence and form of all possible beings is dependent on the original decree of the Divine Wisdom.

     We can now read the continuation if the above passage by the Rambam:

     "... a different form was not decreed by the Divine Wisdom, and the existence [of objects of a different form] is therefore impossible, because the existence of all things depends on the decree of Gd's Wisdom". 

     Thus, the universe exists in a big bang-emergent state because existence is a good in of itself, and Gd wished to bestow the intrinsic good of existence on all "possible beings".  This truth is not obvious to man only because man erroneously believes that the whole universe exists only to serve his purposes, and that all created entities achieve their purpose only through their being of use to him. Because  of this delusion, when they find no use for some of creation, they erroneously assume that these creations resulted from trivial, purposeless, or vain action on the part of Gd: as the Rambam says (translation): 

     "Know that the difficulties which lead to confusion in the question what is the purpose of the universe or of any of its parts, arise from two causes; first, humans have an erroneous idea of themselves, and believe that the whole world exists only for their sake; secondly they are ignorant both about the nature of the sublunary world, and about the Creator's intention to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible, because existence is undoubtedly good. The consequences of that error and of the ignorance about the two things named, are doubts and confusions, which lead many to imagine that some of Gd's works are trivial, others purposeless, and others in vain."

The Evolution of Life: 

from Amoeba to Adam

                One of the most fascinating questions addressed by science is that of the origin of life, and more specifically, the origin of humanity.

                In addition to the interest of the question as part of a quest for theoretical understanding, there are practical dimensions as well. Certainly one would expect that the process whereby life and huhumanity arose left its traces in humanity, and that an understanding of this process would allow us greater understanding of self. Furthermore, an understanding of the process might allow us to simulate it and become creators on our own.

                The question of origins has indeed occupied great thinkers for millenia, and has culminated in the theory of origins presented by modern science, including genetics, radioactivity and its genetic effects, the idea of random mutations, selection of the fittest, paleontology, geology, anthropology etc.

Origin Theory, Creation, and the Emergence of Humanity

One can claim that if correctly presented, the scientific origin theory cannot be untrue. 

The scientific origin theory is based on assumptions, observations and logical reasoning. Indeed scientific knowledge in general is not a list of facts, but rather a compendium of assumptions, observations, and the conclusions reached on the basis of these assumptions and observations. If the assumptions are untrue, or the observations inaccurate, or the logic faulty, then of course the conclusions may well be untrue. 

A scientific statement should perhaps really be formulated as follows: 'if the following assumptions are valid, and the following observations accurately represent the reality, and the logic is valid, then the conclusion is that....(and if these are not valid, then the conclusion may be invalid.)". 

When completely and precisely formulated in such a manner, any such scientific statement should be incapable of being untrue[320].

Astronomical observations, calculations, assumptions and extrapolations have revealed that there is a pattern to the motions of the stars - they are all receding from each other. This, together with other data and certain assumptions has led to the conclusion that the large scale structure of the physical universe is dynamic, and that it was different in the distant past than it is now. Similarly, geological and paleontological discoveries have led to the conclusion that long ago the earth and its inhabitants were quite different than they are now.

These conclusions lead to the further conclusion that the earth did not always exist, and that it did not always contain humans.

If one assumes that humans are purely natural beings rather than possesing a soul, or perhaps even without free will or even true consciousness, and one adds the assumption that all events follow patterns - 'natural law' - then the conclusion from all these observations and assumptions is that humans arose via the actions of natural law alone. 

Given this conclusion, one naturally begins to seek the mechanism whereby this can occur within the framework of the operation of the laws of nature.

The answer was found in the laws of probability, physics, and  genetics, and in logical reasoning. From probability, it is seen that given sufficient time and scope, almost anything physically possible can and will happen. In particular, given the conditions prevalent on earth long ago, atoms would eventually combine to form various types of combinations of atoms - molecules - and with enough time available self-replicating molecules will form[321].

Common sense shows that non-viable molecules will produce fewer and less successful copies of themselves, and eventually the more viable will dominate. Due to the nature of quantum physics, and other mechanisms, some of these copies will be inexact. Most of these inexact copies will be nonviable, and will not produce copies, but a very few here and there will be even better than the original, more developed, more successful.

 If one cuts out all the letters on the page of a book, and throws them repeatedly into the air, each time a different combination will result, the vast majority of these combinations being meaningless. However, eventually the original order will reappear. It may require a few billion years of throws, but it will eventually occur. Similarly, given sufficient time, throwing scrabble letters together will eventually result in a meaningful combination.

Analogously, under the appropriate conditions and with sufficient time available, it is almost inevitable that beings with the physical qualities of humans would eventually emerge.  

This is however not meant to imply that humans did necessarily emerge in this way, or that science even claims that they necessarily did. Rather, one can state that given the assumptions that humans did not always exist, that they arose according to the laws of nature, that self-replicating molecules arose naturally, that the laws of physics as we know them are accurate, that there was sufficient time, and so on, then humans would arise as a result of the operation of natural law. 

This formulation is then merely a matter of stating certain observations made on the universe about us, some assumptions about these and about the nature of reality, and certain conclusions based on these assumptions. It entirely sidesteps the question of whether or not some agency may have created the universe and perhaps designed natural law to achieve the result of human development, and the question of whether or not the assumptions are correct, and therefore whether the conclusions are in fact correct. Formulated in such a manner, the origin theory cannot be untrue, and therefore cannot conflict with anything.

Even if it were the fact that the universe was created and designed by God, and that humans are the product of a special act of creation, it may nevertheless be the case that the universe was designed in such a way that even had such a special creation not taken place, nevertheless humans would eventually have arisen 'naturally'. If this is so, then one could say that although human origin was actually not via the mechanism of evolution, the theory of evolution is nevertheless in fact quite correct.              

Furthermore, even if one maintains that humans possess a non-physical component which could not possibly arise through the action of natural law - such as a soul or perhaps even a consciousness or free will - nevertheless the theory of evolution could still be a correct description of how the physical aspect of a human being could arise naturally - a theory of the evolution of the body and brain rather than of the mind and soul.

              Emergence of Existence: Purpose and Chance

The Religionist view

We mentioned the religionist view of the universe and laws designed to produce beings with properties needed to guarantee the eventual development of intelligent life, consciousness and moral beings . 

   As illustrated by the anthropic principle, there are argument which can be put forward to butress support for the belief in a design to creation, and there are counterarguments employing opposite reasoning as applied to the identical data. The question of the underlying orign of life and existence in general does not seem answerable via the mechanism of publicly communicable unambiguous conclusions of rational thought. The conclusions reached - even the questions asked - will depend on opinions and beliefs which are formulated on evidence and sources of knowlege or understanding not accessible to scientific arbitration.

Conclusion

From a perspective in which there is no objective meaning or purpose to existence other than that which life creates for itself, and which investigates only that which can be measured objectively, the answer to the question of the origin of life can be provided only by knowledge gained from the physical universe, by the evidence which can be measured and independently verified by others. From this perspective it is clear that the universe begins with a random big bang, and that life evolved by chance.

From the perspective of quantum metaphysics, the existence of beings such as humans is indispensable to the existence of the universe itself, as the universe begins actual physical existence only upon the emergence of a moral being.

From the perspective of the teleological anthropic principle and of the Bible, life is programmed into the universe - indeed the universe is designed to produce moral beings.

From the perspective of a search for meaning and purpose, and an inquiry into the 'why' of existence, the questions addressed by science and the scientific method of obtaining answers may not be relevant. It is only relevant in that it is interesting to know what type of conclusions would be reached by different types of inquiry. However, the truly relevant questions and answers are those which address the fundamental questions of 'why' which science excludes from its purview, and which access sources of understanding which are outside the realm of acceptable sources which scientific inquiry has established for itself. 

                 Neither of these three perspectives can be proven by employing scientific means of analysis, inquiry, and proof, and the three are compatible in the sense that acceptance of all perspectives simultaneously leads to no physically measureable contradiction. Nevertheless, obviously accounts of the origin of life and of humanity which are written from the different perspectives will necessarily differ, and a comparison of these is meaningful only when the fundamental perspective underlying the various accounts is given appropriate consideration. 

The Biblical creation and Eden accounts are in this perspective not meant as substitutes for other approaches to the same subject - they instaed represent a particular perspaective on these issues - the perspactive of a document communicated to humanity by a creator of a purposive teleo-derived moral universe.

Part VII: Traditional Themes

Various topics relating to free-willed moral consciousness and its relevance to issues involving the Biblical perspective on the purpose for the creation of he universe, the method of its creation, the role of human development of Biblical law, and the meaning of life.

Chapter 31: Divine Creation: A Perplexing Contradiction in Maimonides: In Maimonides's: "Guide for the Perplexed" there is a discussion regarding which of the fundamental aspects of the divine was involved in creation - Will or Rational Thought. Paradoxically, it is specifically the contradictions in this discussion which point to Rambam's intent. The relation to free will, and to the accounts in Genesis.

Chapter 32: Time Travel, Free Will and the Development of Jewish Law:  The immutable Jewish law given at Sinai has in fact changed over the ages - a paradox resolved via the concept of free-willed consciousness.

Chapter 33: Kohelet, Cosmic Pessimism and Free Will: The book of Kohelet, seen by some critics as a pessimistic or even atheistic lament, is interpreted as a treatise on cosmology and free will, with hints to the creation and Eden accounts.

 Will, Wisdom, 

and the 

Self Justifying Universe 

Introduction

                Most of the phenomena of the physical realm are categorizable as being the result of the operation of one or more of a very few basic laws of nature. Many scientists believe that eventually all will be seen to result from one fundamental 'law of everything'. To some, the universe as a result has been seen as reflecting the underlying unity of the creator.

                From the perspective of science, all occurs as a result of the laws of nature, the constants of nature (the speed of light, etc), the initial conditions of the universe, and its fundamental features such as its four-dimensionality. The question has been raised as to whether or not there is a connection between all these - so that perhaps a universe with the dimensionality of our own must necessarily have a constant speed of light, and with the value it has in our own universe, or even if perhaps the only universe which can exist is one with all the characteristics of our universe. Einstein phrased the question thus:

                " What I wonder is whether God had any choice in creating the universe as it is".                                                                                                                                  [INSERT EXACT QUOTE]           

                In ancient times, a form of this question was raised as well, and was given extensive expression by Aristotle (350BCE-xxxBCE INSERT), whose theories reigned supreme for hundreds of years, and were later rediscovered in the middle ages. Aristotle felt that God had no choice in creation at all - that the universe is actually a necessary byproduct of the existence of God's very existence. Rambam on the other hand stated that it was a basic tenet of Jewish belief that the universe was created by God as a deliberate act, in order to accomplish some divine purpose.

                We shall investigate an important philosophical difference between Rambam (11xx -12xx) and Aristotle on the fundamental issue of whether or not human logic can be applied to God, and a few important metaphysical areas where their differing conceptions on this issue led to disagreement: whether the universe was created as the result of a choice on God's part or if it exists necessarily; whether the universe has a purpose or not; and whether the universe has been in existence for an infinite amount of time or was created a finite amount of time ago. 

                All these metaphysical issues were related to a central question - in the language of Aristotle and Rambam, the question of whether God created the universe via the divine Wisdom or the divine Will.

                We will find that Rambam's resolution of the questions involves intentional paradox and contradiction, and these will point us back to our central themes: the nature of free will, the purpose of existence, the connection between free-will and emergence of the universe into existence, and the connection of all these to the creation and Eden accounts.

I: The Existence of the Universe: Necessity or Choice 

                In ancient times the manifestations of God in the universe were considered to follow from specific divine attributes. Two of these attributes - the main ones?? - were those of the divine Wisdom, or rational thought, and that of the divine Will.

                According to Aristotle, if the existence of the universe is the result of divine Will, one can say that since the existence of the universe is dependent on God's Will that it exist, and this Will is a matter of choice, God could have decided that the universe should not come into existence.  

                However, if the existence of the universe is the result of divine Wisdom, then this means that it is wiser to create than not create. Since God is necessarily as wise as can be, God always takes the wiser course of action, and therefore it is necessarily true that the universe would be created. Effectively, the universe would be a necessary byproduct of the very existence of God.

                However, if the universe exists necessarily, as a byproduct of the Wisdom of God, one cannot say that the universe is a product of God's creation. Rather than God creating the universe, Aristotle claimed that if the universe was a product of God's Wisdom, it would be more correct to say that the universe exists due to the fact that God exists.

The Age of the Universe: eternal?

Imagine God and time co-exist; there is no existence of God when there is no time. If God is infinite and eternal and time always co-existed with God then time past is infinite. 

                Also, assume that the universe is not eternally co-existent with God as is time; i.e. the universe was created by God at a certain time. One could then ask why God chose to create the universe at that time rather than at another. Did God suddenly decide to create a universe? Did something happen to make God take this decision? 

                If God is eternal then from any given point of time God's existence stretches back an infinite time past, and ahead an infinite time into the future. Therefore from the point in time that the universe was created an infinite amount of time stretches to the past. This means that an infinite amount of time passed before God created the universe. Why would God wait an infinite time to create the universe? Was the creation of a universe so difficult a task to God that it necessitated a very long time to plan and execute? If God is infinitely-powerful the creation of the universe should be accomplishable instantly.

                If the universe is a necessary byproduct of the very existence of God, there would never be a time when God would exist but the universe would not. Since God is eternal, and has existed already for an infinite amount of time and will exist in the future to infinity, the universe would necessarily have existed already for an infinite time and will exist to eternity.

                From this perspective then, if the universe is a product of God's Wisdom, the universe is not created, and does not have a certain age, but rather it exists as a necessary byproduct of God's existence, has existed an infinite amount of time, and is eternal into the future[322]. Indeed, this was the perspective adopted by Aristotle.

                It is interesting that these philosophical questions also arise in the discussions of kabbalists, and indeed Rambam considers all the matters connected to creation to be part of the secrets of Torah. 

Rambam's View

                According to Rambam human logic cannot be applied to God's actions, thoughts or reasons, and conclusions based on such considerations are invalid[323]. He therefore rejected the validity of those of Aristotle's arguments which led to the conclusion that God had not created the universe by choice, and that the universe is eternal.

                Furthermore, according to Rambam not only is logic opposed to such an argument, but also it is a basic tenet of Biblical belief that the universe was created according to the will of God. Indeed this is implied quite clearly in the creation account, where the various created entities result from commands of God such as 'let there be...', and are generally followed with a statement that 'and God saw that it was good' which implies that had it not been so, it would have been remade. 

                According to Rambam one cannot apply rules of human logic etc. to God - God is beyond our comprehension. Thus, we cannot decide the issue of whether God created using Will or Wisdom, or whether the universe is eternal or created, by using human logic applied to God's actions or method of operating, as Aristotle attempted to do. Furthermore God is above time, and our conceptions of God's actions as they relate to time are faulty.

                As opposed to Aristotle then, Rambam held that the universe was a creation of God, created by choice rather than being a necessary byproduct of God's existence, and that it was not eternal.

Modern Conceptions

If God is beyond time, and created time along with the universe, then there is no meaning to 'before the universe was created', and therefore no meaning to the question 'why did God not create the universe "immediately" so that it would be co-eternal with God', or 'why did God wait before creating the universe'.

It is also not obvious that the concept of an infinite being or of eternity is meaningful.

The universe exists only because God willed that it exist, and it exists according to the design of God, and so God is logically prior to the existence of the universe, not temporally prior. God is also the source of the existence of time, and so God is 'beyond' time, or 'logically prior' to time, though not 'temporally prior' to time.

How does a being beyond time create time? How does such a being experience the time of historical events, or intervene within time? These are old philosophical conundrums, and it is not entirely clear that any of it is actually meaningful - it is inevitable that we enter into paradox and contradiction when dealing with this subject since the terms are not well-defined, and are perhaps even meaningless.

Is the Universe Eternal?

                Rambam states that[324]:

"There is no other difference of opinion as regards any portion of the universe, except that the philosophers believe in the eternity of the universe and we believe in the Creation.  Note this." 

Rambam also points out that the creation account clearly implies that the universe began at some time rather than having always existed. (He also notes that it does not directly imply anything about whether it can continue to exist to eternity in the future) . Nevertheless, Rambam continues, if there was proof of the fact that the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time already rather than having been created some finite amount of time ago, this proof could be accepted, since the creation account may be allegorical. However, as Rambam felt that the prevailing proofs of the eternity of the universe were not convincing, he felt that one should accept the traditional understanding of the creation account as implying a created rather than eternal universe. 

II: The Universe: Purpose vs. Purposeless

                As a result of his position that the universe exists as an eternal byproduct of the divine Wisdom, a necessary side effect of the existence of God rather than being a creation of God's Will, Aristotle believed that the universe was not created by choice, and therefore that there can be no ultimate purpose to the creation and to the universe as a whole. 

                Aristotle admitted that even though the universe considered as a whole does not have a purpose, events within the universe can have a purpose. He postulated that only a finite amount of steps or historical events would be necessary to achieve any purpose of any event within the universe, and that these would therefore take only a finite amount of time to occur from the onset of the existence of the universe. Since the universe has already existed for an eternity the purpose of those events would have been already reached, and thus events occurring now could not be considered purposive .

                   Aristotelians did however consider all events as expressions of an immanent purposiveness, and saw the world from a teleological point of view [325]. Events were considered to be teleological in the sense that events were 'caused' by their eventual effects, and therefore the 'purpose' of events was to bring about that which occurred. (However they denied overall purpose to events in the universe and certainly to the universe itself[326].) 

                Aristotle also posed a challenge to those who believed that the universe was indeed created, and created as a result of a choice: the challenge to determine what was the purpose of this creation[327].

Rambam: Creation as an Act of Will

                 Rambam claimed that creationists did not have to produce a reason for God to have created the universe. Indeed according to Rambam it is  logically impossible for us to do so, as the Divine reason to create is necessarily beyond human comprehension. [328]

                Rambam also concluded that creation was via the divine Will - the creation was willed - rather than the automatically existent universe which is implied by the operation of divine Wisdom  as per Aristotle.

                The question of why God created the universe is a meaningless one because it cannot have an answer - it is logically impossible for us to understand whether or not God had a reason to create. Of course Rambam could have postulated that there was a reason, just that it was beyond human comprehension, but he preferred to rule out reason based on the following argument. All reasons we can devise to explain the Divine decision to create, will give rise to an infinite regress of reasons, and reasons for the reasons and so on: if the purpose of creation is X, what is the purpose of X?  If it is Y, what is purpose of Y ?... etc. etc. ad infinitum. 

                 Rambam then states that the only answer to the question of why God created the universe is "it is the Will of God". It is problematic to apply human concepts such as reason and will to God, but nevertheless for two reasona Rambam concluded that creation results from God's Will rather than from some reason or purpose. The positive reason: the universe's existence was not automatic. The negative reason: creation via Wisdom implies a reason for creation, which is not possible.

In the language of ancient and Medieval philosophy, the universe is a result of "the divine Will" rather than "the divine Wisdom" - and Rambam quotes the Rabbis as being in support of this view. 

 III: The Eternity of the Universe vs. Creation: Metaphysical Reasoning[329] 

                In addition to the issues of whether or not the universe was a product of a creation, a choice, and whether there was a purpose to creation, there was yet another central issue on which Rambam disagreed with Aristotle. As we mentioned previously, according to Aristotle the universe is eternal, whereas according to Rambam, it began a finite amount of time ago.

                Aristotle felt that he had proved this, while Rambam felt that these proofs were unconvincing, as outlined below.

The Unchanging Nature of God Implies the Eternity of the Universe

                 According to Aristotle, if creation is the result of God's Will, the universe must be eternal, and he reasoned as follows. 

                God is not affected by anything outside God, and so the cause of the Will to create the universe is inside God. Since God is eternal and unchanging, therefore God's Will is unchanging. According to Aristotle, the fact that the universe exists now implies that God wishes that it exist, and if God now wishes that it exist, then since God knows all and therefore doesn't change his mind, the will that the universe exist must always have existed in God's mind (and would always exist). Since there is no obstacle to God, God always can act on his wishes, and therefore God would have created the universe as soon as this was his wish, but since this must always have been his wish, the universe must always have existed; it would be coexistent with God eternally rather than created. 

                Alternately, if creation is the result of God's Reason, or equivalently, of the divine Wisdom, then this implies that there was a good reason to create the universe. However God knows all and nothing is new knowledge to God. Therefore, if it was ever true that there was a compelling reason to create, the reason to create could not be the product of previously unknown information. Therefore, if a reason to create ever existed, that same reason would always have been valid, and would always be so.  Therefore the universe would always exist. That is, the universe would be co-eternal with God, rather than created.

       Thus Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that irrespective of whether the universe was created via divine Will or divine Wisdom, the universe would necessarily be eternal, rather than created[330]. According to Aristotle therefore, God is not the 'creator' of the universe: since however the universe exists only due to God's existence, God is the 'ground of existence' of the universe[331].

The Eternity of the Universe: Another Proof

                According to Aristotle, reasoning - which is the basis of wisdom - is a chain of logic, so that for each link in the chain, there is  a prior link which is its cause. Each link leads necessarily to the next link in a logically necessary way. 

                Aristotle argued that if God created the universe as a result of Divine reasoning - the 'Divine Wisdom' - then each link in the chain of logical reasoning leading to the decision to create  implies a prior link. Therefore the chain of logic could not have a beginning, since the beginning - by definition - means there is no prior cause, and if there is no prior cause to some link, then by definition that link arose without cause, and something which arises without cause is obviously not the result of reasoning. 

                Therefore, since the chain of reasoning cannot have a beginning, the chain is infinite in length, so that the  initial links in the decision to create existed an infinite time ago. Since God can do as he wishes, as soon as he decides to create, this would occur. That is, the actual creation would have occurred a finite amount of time after the decision to create. 

                Since the beginning of the chain of reasoning to create was an infinite time ago while the creation was a finite time after this, the creation was therefore also an infinite time ago. [If something is infinitely far away, and then moves a finite amount closer, it is still an infinite distance away - and similarly for time.] Since creation was an infinite time ago, the universe has existed for an infinite time, that is, it is eternal.[Eternal back and forth in time from now, assuming that it will always exist - which is the case according to Aristotle if God doesn't change his mind, which is indeed the case in Aristotle's philosophy according to which God's Mind is unchanging ªas explained previously).] 

                As we saw, Aristotle reached the same conclusion regarding a universe created via the attribute of the 'divine Will'. Aristotle reasoned further that if God created the universe not as a result of reasoning, but rather as the result of a caprice, then there could be no reason for this caprice to arise at one time more than at any other time. Therefore, since God is eternal, and there is equal chance of the choice having been made at any time, there is an infinitesimal chance of the caprice having occurred during any finite interval of time. Therefore it did not occur a finite time ago. Therefore since the caprice-decision must have occurred an infinite time ago, the universe must be eternal. 

                Aristotle therefore reached the conclusion that irrespective of whether creation was via divine Wisdom or divine Will, the universe is necessarily eternal, with God its ground of being rather than its creator.

 Rambam's Response to Aristotle

Regarding creation via the 'divine Will': Although Aristotle had argued that God's Will is eternal and unchanging, so that if God Willed creation at one time, then it would always have been willed, Rambam stated that even though God is indeed beyond time, nevertheless it is wrong to say that this implies a limitation on God - that is, God can create 'in time'.  God's  Will to create need not always have existed in the sense which implies that the universe would then always have existed. Rather, the Will to create the universe could have been acted on a finite time ago - the Will to create can take effect at some specific 'time' and need not be eternal.

                 Similarly if creation is the result of the Divine Wisdom, Rambam stated that God's Wisdom can take effect at some specific time and therefore something created in accordance with the divine Wisdom need not be eternal.

                 Furthermore Rambam stated, even if creation is the result of Wisdom, then even if this means that it is wiser to create than not create, it is not true that the universe exists as a necessary byproduct of the Wisdom of God rather than as a product of God's creation. That is, it is possible for the universe to be a creation rather than a necessary byproduct of God's existence.

                 Therefore since he believed that one cannot apply human logic to God, Rambam rejected the Aristotelian view of the logical necessity of concluding that the universe must be eternal, and this opened the possibility that the universe is created rather than eternal. Since now Rambam had shown that logic was not conclusive one way or the other, he declared that tradition is the proper guide, and according to tradition, the universe is not eternal and there was indeed a creation.  

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

The arguments of Aristotle and Rambam seem to imply the existence of time during God's existence

.........

The creation account relates that it was six days to indicate that it was not a long time, and that it was IN time...

........

IV: The Contradiction in Rambam

Introduction

                Although Rambam stated that God employed the divine Will in creating the universe and that the Rabbis supported this view, at a different juncture Rambam states that God used Wisdom in creating, along with Will, and states that the Rabbis supported this view that creation involved both Will and Wisdom. 

                "...the creation was not the exclusive result of God's Will, but rather the divine Wisdom made the actual existence of the universe necessary. Our sages frequently express this idea." [Guide:III:25.]

                "...The Jewish Sages....clearly stated that it was not logical necessity that determined the existence of all things, but rather it was the action of the divine Will." [Guide:III:13.]

Thus Rambam contradicts himself, and by bringing the Rabbis as being in support of both views, he seems to involve the Rabbis in the same contradiction.

                In addition, whereas previously Rambam stated that it is meaningless to discuss the reason for creation, as any possible reason would be beyond us, Rambam himself later provides a reason for God's creation of the universe.

Rambam: Contradictions as pointers to 'Hidden Matters'

                In his  introduction to the "Guide for the Perplexed", Rambam writes that it contains contradictions within it which are a result of the need to hide certain esoteric religious secrets[332]. Since these contradictions are deliberately contrived to obscure the true meaning, it is easier to get to Rambam's true meaning by comparing what he says in all the places where the matter is dealt with[333]. One example is the contradiction between the two chapters discussing the issue above - whether God created the universe by employing the Divine Will alone or with both the Divine Will and the Divine Wisdom[334].

 Rambam: Creation as Both Wisdom and Will

                 According to the Rambam, it is important to attribute the creation to both God's Wisdom and God's Will. Creation via Will alone without Wisdom would imply creation as an act of caprice - senseless , purposeless and vain -  and it is impossible to assume that God acts in such a manner. 

                 On the other hand, creation via Wisdom without Will implies that since Will was not involved, the creation was not an expression of God's Will to create - instead, the universe exists because it had to exist, and God could not have chosen not to create. This conclusion however seems to imply  that God is limited in his freedom to act, which is not possible.

                 Thus, Wisdom alone or Will alone could not have been the source of creation - the only possible resolution must involve a combination of both Will and Wisdom.

                However, some religious philosophers had indeed proposed creation via Will alone. Rambam states that the reason these religious philosophers attribute God's act of creation to a pure act of Will without the purposefulness of Wisdom behind it is because they fear that if they claimed that the creation involved Wisdom, then they would be forced by Aristotle's reasoning to conclude that the universe is eternal rather than created. In their view, this would not only contradict the Biblical teaching of the creation, but even more importantly, as we have shown above, it would lead to the idea of the purposelessness of the universe as a whole[335].

                However, as we saw above, Rambam rejected the conclusion that the involvement of the divine Wisdom implied the eternity of the universe as opposed to creation, and therefore Rambam showed that the universe could be created via the divine Wisdom. Furthermore as we have seen above, Rambam showed that creation via Wisdom did not imply the necessity for determining a reason for creation - which would be impossible for  humans to do - precisely because such a determination is impossible .

                Thus Rambam did not feel constrained to state that creation was via Will exclusively - as had other religious thinkers - since he rejected the logical consequences of the divine Wisdom stated by Aristotle, and therefore Rambam felt free to conclude that there was an element of divine Wisdom involved in creation in addition to the divine Will.

The Purpose of Creation According to Rambam

                 As we saw above, postulating that the universe exists of necessity - via the divine Wisdom -  obviated the troubling  question of the "Purpose" of the universe, and this was a polemic advantage which the Aristoteleans claimed, since they demanded of the creationists - who proposed creation via the divine Will - to come up with some reason for why  God created the universe .

                Rambam of course had claimed that creationists did not have to since the divine reason to create is beyond human comprehension, and speculation into the Purpose of creation leads to an infinite regress, and so the only answer to the question of why God created the universe is "it is the Will of God".  

                Despite this, later (Guide:III:25) Rambam says that it is nonsense to believe that God created the universe without any Purpose, through caprice of the divine Will.  Instead, Rambam says, there is a very good reason why God created the universe: because existence is a good in of itself!  Thus, since God wanted to do good and existence is a good, God gave existence to the universe[336].  

                By providing a reason for creation, Rambam has allowed for the divine Wisdom to have played a part, which removes any problem of caprice or purposelessness. By involving the divine Will, a willed creation of the universe is possible. Therefore by postulating a combination of the divine Will and Wisdom, it is possible to propose that the universe is the product of a purposeful willed creation. 

                Rambam then states that the Rabbinical sage support his view that the universe is a product of both divine Will and Wisdom. However this view of Rambam's  seems to contradict what he says earlier (Guide:III:13), that creation is a result solely of the divine Will - where  Rambam also claims that the sages back him up !

The Resolution of the Contradiction

                 There is however one instance in which the problem of infinite regress or its flip side, caprice, is resolved - if existence is a good in of itself relative to that which exists. In such a case, when the universe does not exist, there is no necessity or reason that it should exist. However, once the universe does exist, the good of existence is the reason for God to provide it with continued existence, and its existence provides a good reason for the universe to have been created. Thus the decision to create is free, but is not caprice, since creation leads to existence, which according to Reason is a good.

           In such a case, there is no chain of reasoning to explain the reason for creation - the reasoning is of an acausal type.

                According to Rambam, indeed the universe exists because existence is good in of itself, and God wished that this good should be. Thus existence is self-causative in the theological sense; the intrinsic good of existence is the cause of the universe's existence.

                Although stating that creation is a good in of itself does not solve the problem since one can then inquire as to the reason for God to do good, a different formulation leads to a cleaner resolution: "The purpose of existence is existence itself". Then in human terms, as humans see things from the perspective of how their existence is good for them, one can state that they and the rest of the universe exist because 'existence is a good in of itself'[337]. As Rambam stated:

                "We must be content and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause (purpose) for things that have none, or have no other final cause but their own existence, which depends on the Will of God, or if you prefer, on the Divine Wisdom."

Existence, Acausality and Free Will

                This problem therefore involves an acausality difficulty - the infinite chain of logic implied by creation via reason, as well as a free-will type difficulty - will without reasoning is mere caprice, yet reasoning is deterministic.

                Where 'Will' is taken as meaning caprice - randomness - Rambam cannot accept that God created the universe via the divine aspect of 'Will' alone. Instead it would necessarily be via a combination of 'Will' and 'Wisdom' tha thte universe was created. However, where 'Will' means 'free will', then since free will involves reasoned choice, Rambam can accept creation via 'Will' alone. 

                In essence though, Rambam's approach is unambiguous - it is merely the terms that were in use in philosophical discourse which were ambiguous, and it is the concept of free will itself which introduces the difficulty. Free will is not discussed clearly by Aristotle, and it is not entirely clear what he meant by 'will', and 'will' could be synonymous with 'randomness'. For Rambam on the other hand the freedom of the will is a major and basic tenet of Jewish belief, and 'will' generally means 'free will', which by definition is not random but rather is reasoned - free will is a combination therefore of will and wisdom. Therefore when Rambam states that the universe was created via the divine 'Will', and that this was the opinion of the Jewish Sages, this is not contradictory to his saying that creation is the result of a conjunction of the divine 'Will' and 'Wisdom', and that this too was the opinion of the sages.

                For Rambam, all matters pertaining to the creation of the universe involved secret knowledge which was to be passed on from master to disciple in private tutelage, rather than information which was accessible to the masses, and therefore he chose to deal with these matters in a manner which involved apparent contradiction.

The Creation and Eden Accounts

                It is interesting to note the connection of self-reference and acausality in Rambam's resolution of the contradiction. Existence itself is an acausal phenomenon, and its use here is in a self-referential context in that according to Rambam although there is no reason to create existence, existence  exists because after it already is a fact, existence is good.   [338]

                In these discussions the emergence of the universe into existence is via Will or Wisdom and involves the issue of free will and causality. Of course in our approach free will is a process closely connected with the bringing of the universe into retroactive acausal existence at the moral being stage when man with will and wisdom emerges.

                One could also see the Biblical description of creation as referring to these matters - the two accounts representing different aspects of the divine. The creation account involves the divine Will, however it is centered on clear logical construction of a universe, and represents the action of the divine Wisdom, while the garden of Een account, although also involving Wisdom, centers around the acquisition of free Will.

                Furthermore, by dealing with matters related to creation in a veiled manner - deliberately employing apparent contradictions - Rambam is also making a veiled comment about the Biblical accounts which deal with the same matters. One could infer from Rambam's method of discussion that the Bible itself used the method of apparent contradiction in dealing with creation as a deliberate means of keeping secret that which was not meant for the masses.

                 This then puts the creation and Eden accounts in a new light - the clearly apparent contradictions between the creation and Eden accounts are meant to point the careful reader to deliberate paradoxes whose resolution could then lead to a deeper understanding, so that the juxtaposition and contrast of the two accounts is then part of the accounts themselves.

NEED TO EDIT THIS: MERGE? DELETE?

Thus one can be the solution of the problem of the other (as in Joseph's dream-solving in Egypt):  Will is OK because it is only after Wisdom decided that it would be good that Will chose to do this good, i.e. it is not caprice; and Wisdom is OK because it is not forced on God - rather Will still has to choose whether or not to do it.  How choose?  By using Wisdom!  This is a full circle - involving acausality , or self-causation . {THIS STILL INVOLVES REGRESS : i.e. WHY SHOULD GD WANT TO DO THIS etc]

________________________________________________________________________

*   Perhaps we can resolve the contradiction etc. and problem by recalling that free will involved an inherent impossibility/paradox, i.e. the necessity that it be rational vs. necessty that it be free.  This is same problem:   Maybe  with God it is  two separate faculties: the rational and the free = the Wisdom and the Will , and the conflict is the same as the internal contradiction of human free will.[our limited comprehension causes the appearance of duality/opposition/conflict/paradox.

_____________________________

                As we discussed earlier [section X], the essence of paganism is the absence of a moral imperative, of moral absolutes , and of a purpose to existence.  The Aristotelian system was a strange mixture of religion and science, yet it remained thoroughly pagan.  Indeed, as the Rambam showed, although Aristotle believed in a God, he believed that the universe existed simply as an automatic byproduct, or side-effect of the very existence of this God.  As a result, the universe could not be considered to be existing for any "purpose".*   In contrast, it is one of the most fundamental beliefs of Judaism that not only does there exist a God who brought the universe into existence, but that He did so as part of a Plan.  Thus, in the Jewish view, the existence of the universe is the result of an act of Divine Will, rather than an automatic byproduct of God's existence, and the universe itself exists in order to fulfil some Divine Purpose, rather than merely existing because of logical necessity.

                However, in order that it not seem that God created the universe out of a caprice of his Will, (the) Rambam stated that the world was also partially the result of God's Wisdom: God's Wisdom declared that the universe should exist (must exist in order to achieve the Purpose), and then God's Will that the universe exist brought it into existence.

                This is of course a parallel to our scenario:  man was created in "the image of God" which is understood as meaning that man has a free will (as does God).  Man also attained wisdom, i.e. an understanding of good/evil and of his free will.  God's Wisdom and Will brought the universe to potential existence, and man - created in the image of God  brought the universe into actual existence through his will and wisdom (the exercise of free will and the understanding of its significance).

                Man is the purpose of creation - "Bishvili ... " - yet Rambam says "the major error....":

" ...

[Gd's Will was to create man, who possesses both will and wisdom.] 

[Gd's Wisdom dictated that it was necessary to create a big-bang-emergent universe - so that when man uses his wisdom to seek his origins , the results should not stifle his free will.]

Also, Will and Wisdom are in essence the same thing since wisdom is the understanding of the significance of free will, and one without the other is meaningless or useless.  [Consciousness is not sufficient;  self-consciousness, i.e. the awareness that one is conscious, is also necessary.]

?*            "Wisdom" in Rambam is (translated as) "Chochma" but free will is related to "(the tree of) knowledge"="da'at";  in Kabalah, Chochma, Bina, Da'ath are related.  What is the relevance here, etc.?  Did Rambam write of it in Mishne Torah (i.e. using terms in Lashon hakodesh)?

The connection drawn here between the instant universe concept and the ideas expressed by the Rambam on this issue are related by another interesting "coincidence": the discussion as to whether things were created for man or for their own sake includes the following discussion.

Note:  All evil is nonexistence:  all existence is good: [Dover  p. 266  III:X]

"Ubacharta betov, vechai bahem" = choosing good = choosing existence.

Man's awareness of the distinction between good and evil brought existence from non-existence.

"All the great evil which men cause to each other ... are ... due to non-existence; because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom", p.267 Dover III:XI.

 Time Travel, Non-Causality and

 The Evolution of Halacha

Introduction: Time Travel and Paradox

          The possibility of time travel has intrigued people for generations, however the paradoxes involved seem to rule out many types of time travel.

                 Of course we are all time travellers, as we all move into the future. However, physics actually teaches that one type of time travel is possible - travelling into the distant future in a short amount of time. As special relativity shows, the faster one moves relative to any other body, the greater the elapsed time as measured by the other body. Thus for example a person moving in a rocket at a speed very very close to the speed of light for a few thousand years as measured by the earth, will measure one hour time passage on their own watch, and will age only one hour[339]. Thus, if one wishes to travel to the distant future, one need only travel quickly. 

                However, there is no possibility in special relativity theory of going backwards in time, and therefore the trip is one-way only according to this theory.

                Recently researchers in general relativity theory have attempted to investigate the possibility of time travel if a sufficiently advanced technological civilization were capable of forming a theoretically possible entity known as a 'wormhole'[340].

                Travel to the past seems to be possible using certain types of wormholes. However, if one were to travel to the past, one could conceivably end up killing one's ancestor or otherwise changing events, thereby erasing or changing the chain of events leading up to the trip to the past. These paradoxes have led many to conclude that travel to the past is impossible, and therefore that wormholes of the type that permit such travel are actually physically impossible[341].

                There are similar paradoxes which arise when one considers the possibility of information transmission. If someone were to be able to obtain information about the future, they could in theory prevent that very event from ever occuring. In addition, any information which is sent faster than the speed of light will give rise to paradoxical situations where the information can be used to prevent the information from being sent to begin with. 

                Of course any event which is predictable can be prevented, in which case of course the prediction itself is changed, so that there is no additional paradox involved in obtaining information regarding a future event if one postulates that the future is not fixed. The past would seem to have to be fixed in order for the present to remain as it is, but if the future is changed then there is no repercussion on the present, and therefore changing the future involves no inherent paradox. Knowing the future however implies that there is an already existent future which cannot change, and this is what involves paradox since the knowledge obtained about an event occuring in the future can be employed to prevent that very event from occuring. Therefore knowing the future of non-predictable events implies that the future is (un?) changeable. 

                Of interest therefore are those events which cannot be predicted for one reason or another, with the associated question of whether such events can be known before they occur without this involving paradox.

Divine Omniscience and  Free Will

                Since by definition a creator of the physical universe is beyond the limitations of physical law, and has infinite computation ability, all determined events can be predictable to the creator. Random events may be unpredictable if they are truly random, but it is also possible that what is random in the physical universe is not random to a being beyond the realm of physical law. 

                As to free willed events however, prior to their occurence there is no means to know what the choice will be - if it were otherwise it would not qualify as free will. Nevertheless, in Jewish philosophy it is generally assumed that God does indeed know beforehand the results of future free willed decisions. Often this pre-knowledge has been felt to imply that these free willed decisions are actually determined, and therefore not free.

                An interesting approach to this question was suggested about a thousand years ago by Rav Hai Gaon[342]. According to Rav Hai Gaon, events have to actually occur in the universe in order for God to have known them in advance. Therefore, God does not know the outcomes of future free-willed choices because they are predictable, but rather these future choices are known only because God is beyond time. Free willed events are truly free and are unpredictable to God, but those free willed choices which occur at any time during the existence of the universe are known to God at any other time, including a prior time. However it is only known because it has been injected into the stream of reality via the free willed choice of the individual at some point in the existence of time. 

The Evolution of Halacha, and Non-Causality

                The end of the creation account states that God rested from the work of creation"which God created to do". According to the Midrash and Zohar, this is a reference to the need for humanity to complete the creation, which was deliberately left incomplete in order to allow humanity to form it according to free willed choice, and creative activity.

                There is an additional realm of incompleteness in the initial creation which is filled-in via human activity involving free-willed choice and creativity - the development of halacha. In Jewish philosophy, the guidelines for correct action are determined by halacha, and it is up to individual free willed choice to decide whether or not the halachic path will be followed. As situations change, halacha must evolve to meet the new cases which arise. Halacha is determined by Torah scholars, and they are guided by intelligence, knowledge, and inasmuch as their opinions may be affected by natural inclinations and biases or remain free of such taint, by their free-willed choice.

                Metaphysically, the Torah is the blueprint of creation, and halacha is the fine-print of the blueprint, and therefore the development of halacha is the detailed filling-in of the blueprint of creation.

                 Together with the approach of Rav Hai Gaon, this idea can help us understand a few interesting statements reflecting the worldview of the Jewish sages in regard to Halacha.

                Although of course the creation of the world preceded the development of halacha, it was perhaps only because halacha would be developed as it was that the blueprint of the universe - the Torah - emerged as it did, and therefore that the universe could be created as it was. 

                This gives meaning to the Midrashic and Kabbalistic statement that God consulted a blueprint in order to create the universe and that this blueprint was the Torah, implying in some manner that the blueprint was derived not from God. Indeed in this context one can attribute the existence of the blueprint to the fact that after the creation of the universe the development of halacha would procede as it has. This again is a self-referential non-causal loop, as is the case with all matters involving free will.

                Similarly, according to the Talmud, Moses received the entire body of Jewish law, all of halacha, at Mt. Sinai, and that all halachic insights and novel ideas that anyone later ever come up with are actually part of what was given to Moses at Sinai. One can then interpret this in the same manner - that Moses received at Sinai all that would ever be introduced by later Talmudic scholars. On the ther hand the Talmud states that halacha is a continually developing system. One can then say that Moses was able to receive all of halacha at Sinai only due to the fact that this halachik matter would later be developed, and only because the transmission to Moses was via God who is beyond time and therefore has access at the time of the giving of the Torah to all that would eventually be developed.

                Similarly, the Talmud relates relates that God translated Moses in time so that Moses himself attended a lecture given by Rabbi Akiva. At this lecture, Rabbi Akiva stated that all that he was teaching originated with Moses - yet Moses himself heard these matters for the first time! On can then understand this in the same manner: Rabbi Akiva indeed originated the material, and then this fact allowed the material to become known to Moses via God prior to Rabbi Akiva's birth, at Mt. Sinai, creating again a non-causal loop. 

                The means by which at Sinai Moses was made aware of all the halachot which would eventually be developed is generally taken to be via direct transmission from God, as was the case with the rest of the Torah. However the means by which Moses is made aware of those matters discovered by Rabbi Akiva may have been by the bringing of Moses forward in time to participate in Rabbi Akiva's lectures. 

      Kohelet and Free Will