Maybe then creating a separate article based on the 2002 article, with only the additional material?
Timeline of BH articles etc
1. I gave lectures at AOJS while in grad school?
2. Geo english 1986
2. GEO Hebrew 1986
3. Cosmic Connection 1987
4. FW 1987 (there was a lot of evo material in here, including mention of the Wheeler diagram, and this material carried over to the lecture at the Miami conference and the diagram appeared in the article about the conference (not sure whether it wa spart of the lecture).
5. QP & H: Dec '87 (Chanukah), the Miami BH conference had a presentation of the material, maybe it is on video? [ Aleph Institute and held in Miami Beach, December 20-22, 1987]; Dec '87; Fusion, BH Reader, & BH journal Hebrew ; "Against all Odds" Jan 1 1990 has re the Miami conference;
6. Evo bb article: 2002
7. JCT: "The Heart of the Matter": 2009
Also relevant are the lectures on video, now on Youtube: LI synagogue, YU museum, Stern/YU science club.
.......
R Carmell was a co-author of "Challenge", published 1976,
which was a major resource on the subject at that time,
Much of my evo bb stuff is contained in '86&''87 articles in BH and then Fusion in '89, and the '90 edition with Feldheim.
When I wrote these articles in '86, there had not yet appeared the two books which later changed the situaiotn:
Both 'competing' books were published in the same year, 1990!:
Gerald Schroeder "genesis and the big bang"
Natan Aviezer's "in the beginning: Biblical creation and science"
DId they publish articles before publishing the books?
R Carmell's letter to me was written in '94? not long after these were published and so he mentions them, says my book has more physics and jewish sources, but my solution is not as interesting.
I can write in the book(let) that a the time of publication of my articles there was not so much material available
...
create a bar-code for the website, and put it up on note in Ohr Sameach, with title "QuantumKabbalahVsNihilism
so that makes the URL rememberable:
https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/quantumkabbalahvsnihilism
BUT I NEED TO MAKE SURE THE PAGE REMAINS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
Evolution of the Instant Universe material
Started in 1985 or so as article "The Instant Universe";
then grew to book-length;
then new material was added and it was refocussed and re-branded as "The Retroactive Universe".
instant universe book: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/justbecauseitdidnthappendoesnt/instantuniverse-fullbook
Retroactive Universe: Book https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/andgodsaidlettherebemeaning/the-retroactive-universe-intro-to-book
Bio blurbs/footnotes mentioning the evo book
TItle: "And God said "Let there have been a big bang", in BH bio preface or footnotes:
(Is there any printed reference in AOJS of this period?)
Mention of the book in these:
1. Geo English: 1986: Footnote 3, p11, "...creation vs big bang, see my article "Let there have been a big bang" in the next issue of BH (AR: of course that only happened 15 years later = Let there have been an article!)[Unfortunately, the footnote omitted "And God said", so it is referred to only as "Let There Have been a bb"]
2. Geo Hebrew: 1986: Unfortunately, the original English footnote omitted "And God said", and so it was translated for the Hebrew version as "sheyihyeh mapatz gadol", which would be funny if it wasn't frustrating and tragic. Actually, it uses the ter "pitzutz gadol" which is wrong as an accepted term, but mybe the term in Hebrew was not yet accepted 'officially'?
3. Cosmic Connection:1987: The bio blurb preceeding the article says: "his large work on the bb and genesis is still in progress".
4. FW: 1987 no bio blurb, bec it is in the same issue as the FW article in that issue. No footnote mention of the book, but has lots of relevant material.
5. QP & H:
conference booklet;
Fusion 1990 Feldheim, BH Reader 1994 Jason Aaronson; Against All Odds, Simon & Schuster, January 1, 1991
BH journal Hebrew 1988: footnote 9 describes the main content of the book and refers to it with the entire title "And God said..."; footnote 20 refers to the last sentence or so of the article which mentions evolution etc and the footnote refers to the book again but with incomplete title and says 'now in printing process'
6. Evo bb article: 2002:
Bio blurb before article says it is "an excerpt from the author's book "The Instant Universe".
Footnote 10 says "For more about...see my ms "The Retroactive Universe"; Footnote 24 says: "See my book "The Instant Universe".
Footnote 22 refers to 'my "The Retroactive Universe" '.
After the article, section "for further reading": "the article is excerpted from the author's book the Instant Universe which circulated widely in manuscript form from the mid 80's"
7. 2002 lectures at YU museum and LI Synagogue;
8. AOJS: 2000, 2002, 2003;
9. JCT: "The Heart of the Matter" 2009: copied from BH evo article, so it has the same blurb re it being an excerpt of my book "The Instant Universe".
10. Ukraine, and Jlm Bnai Noah.
editing for the evo bb BH article:
1)p10: Paragraph "The First Moment": AR: there is a confusion or conflation of two ideas:
a) that the interesting nonautomatic activity beginds after fw emerges;
b) and then from "in the teleological sense...creation is completed" it seems like another idea is being presented, that nmc cannot emerge fronm big bang and so intervention was needed to have c and fw emerge, so creation was not compete until that happened, but this idea is swallowed into the previous one.
..
2) p10-11: paragraph "The inst retro un": p11 top, first word is 'juxtapose", but here it is about the actual procedure followed by God as opposed to what I say in other versions or elsewhere in this article, that I am speaking only of why the two stories are juxtaposed despite being separated by billions of years, ie not assuming God actually created them this way, it is only justifying a narrative technique.[as I say in another version, see email "We claim that the type of purpose which the Bible imputes to the universe could not commence until a free-willed being emerges, and so both quantum metaphysics and biblical religion require the beginning of the universe to be tied up with the emergence of a free-willed being, which in biblical terms is the Adam of the Eden account (Adam after eating from the 'Tree of Knowledge'). Thus it is reasonable both from the biblical and our quantum metaphysical perspective that the bible - which is intending to describe the purpose of creation rather than necessarily a chronology - presents the creation of the universe juxtaposed to the emergence of Adam."][also: "ein mukdam umeuchar beTorah"]
3) from an email of mine: "BH evo article, my understanding now": I write as if God only had to design the bb to produce fw'ed c. moral beings, ie it is physical and encompassable in a big bang. And then i say that it required intervention in order to guarantee the appropriate quantum path was followed, as if a q path could produce fw, which is a problem: I seem to imply that moral being was designed into the bb, which cannot be since fwc is not physical. I need to revise the article a bit around this point.
However in the section "Designing the cosmos" , p9, I get it right, but I don't use this point in the relevant way: I say re infusion of the divine, vayipach etc, so this is NOT at the bb. this is when humans reached the appropriate brain development, so it needs a divine intervention, it is not just fast forwarding, which is only good for the material universe - ie the un is ff'd to the evo of a brain which is at the right stage to be able to operate with infused fw.
This idea of needing vayipach is the right one, need to stress it, I don't develop this point in the article, ie that it it not just a mater of ff'ing to that point but of intervention at that point (eg after ff'g)
So really the un begins when fwc begins to operate or when fw is infused, and the latter is a more convincing reason to say that the un was created then, bec it is God's final step in creation, not just that meaning starts then. If one would insist that creation happened all at one period, rather than a late infusion of fw, then it (the 6 days story) must have happened with the emergence of fwc, not at the bb, ie recently rather than 15 b y.a.
.....
The below can be an intro of sorts to the Prayer article reconfigured as "cosmic connection" spiritual metaphysics etc. BH Reader qp&halacha article p71? section "some epistemological.."
.....
There are aspects of various articles of side-relevance: a reader of the evo article might question whether humans are indeed so important to the emergence of the universe, so the answer is that according to the Biblical view as understood by Orthodox Judaism, the answer is yes: eg:
Geo article: material in last section of re human significance;
the qp&halacha article: material re humans overcoming physical reality etc
the fw article: if it is true that fwc is the key factor cosmologically etc, then this universe was 'designed' around this property, ie around beings with fw, humans and perhaps others..(or perhaps c rather than fw, but I prefer fw since it is acausal and is the active ingredient of c)
prayer article: human physical action affects the spiritual etc, physical is shadow of spiritual which is primary, so in our context here (evo bb article) we can see that fwc which is key to purpose of un is higher-levle than the physical bb.
See a little of this in the attached file referred to below (is it this '08 email: "evo BH article revised with additional qp etc material"?):
....--------------------
Which question are we trying to answer?: An answer depends on which question is asked.
a) If we ask what is the most reasonable way the physical material universe & life would have oriiginated if only the material exists then we get to the bb theory, evo etc.
b) But we go a different route. We first build up a model of reality and THEN ask within that model what is a reasonable path, and then compare it to Genesis and bb theory.
Building a model of reality: We start with what we KNOW, then what we deeply believe then what we surmise from that or what it implies etc. So we start with the existence of nmc. ANd that it is more fundamental than the material. Then we go off into beliefs: good & evil, moral responsibility, which implies exists fw. And it is all mind, no material. So we then wonder how it came to be, and one answer which we are drawn to is that there is a Mind which brought it into existence and which is the foundation of the moral responsibility etc. And then we speak of the material universe, and if we take its existence seriously rather than ideaslism/solipsism etc, so we ask why it would exist, and we cn conclude that the Mind wanted a venue for the unfolding of moral challenges with moral beings employing free will etc. And so only then will we ask "ok, so if the Mind want sto create a physical mateial universe with all this, how would it go about doing that?", and that's basically the route we follow.
Genesis: We use the Biblical Genesis scenario of a God, creator, rather than just 'Mind', but much of what we say is equally applicable to a 'generic' Mind.
---------
Each version of the evo bb article has a subtly different agenda/approach.
The BH version states an 'axiom' and shows how the biblical account can be interpreted as the logical way of realizing the goal set out in the axiom.
It is not concerned with specific details like the 6 days of creation, the order of creation, the actual age of the universe, how long ago did the first fw'd moral being emerge, adam as race or individual, so it doesn't event mention issues of allegorical interpretation (does this word appear in the article?).
And it is not claiming that this is how it actually happened, only showing how some essence of the creation/Eden accounts can be seen to follow from the axiom (at least in some sense).
In contrast, the oldest evo version listed all these as problems to solve and each chapter went at a problem, age of un, 6 days, adam as race or individual etc etc.
If a reader would ask me "do you really think God did all this, extrapolation and fast forward etc?" I can answer:
it is not my interest here to make such a determinaiton, only to show how the method outlined in Genesis can be interpreted to be consistent with the axiom.
Also: No-one can know 'what actually happened' since an inst un or ff etc is indistinguishable from one which developed ordinarily from the bb. So to me it is not so intresting to discuss what actually happened. It could have happened this way or another way, and the Torah's account would be understood as reflecting the axiom, but then that takes us into issues of allegorical etc that I didn;t want to address in this version.
...
My side-agenda in the evo bb inst un book is to show that this book really was published in the 80's, not 2001 when the inst un article finally emerged.
I gave lectures at AOJS while in grad school?
The first BH article was fw in 1987, so that would be the basis,
then I can present excerpts from the later articles, qp & halacha at the Miami conference around the same time, in the Fusion book,
and then the evo bb article of 2001.
...
Below: re Evo material in
1. the qp & halacha article: presented Miami? Dec 87?, and in Hebrew BH 1988
2. the fw article '87
so maybe the material of both can be intertwined, and then add material from the 2001 bb BH article.
....
The fw article is the first one that is relevant, 1987
The qp& halacha article: evolution of the article:
'85 Branover saw rebbe's article re halacha & qp, and spoke to me.
Dec '87 (CHanukah), the Miami BH conference had a presentation of the material, maybe it is on video? [ Aleph Institute and held in Miami Beach, December 20-22, 1987]
1988: appeared in BH in Hebrew (never in English BH journal?): has the Wheeler diagram, and the essence of the juxtaposition idea of the BB/evo article; "There is no true physical reality prior to the emergence of the first fwc being, in the Bible ...", and footnote 19 there mentions my evo book in progress. Mentions the FW article.
Then the book "Fusion": pub Dec 3, 1989, Feldheim: Selected papers presented at the First International B'Or HaTorah Conference, sponsored by the Aleph Institute and held in Miami Beach, December 20-22, 1987. , proceedings of the Miami conference, not from BH;
then the Jason Aaronson 1994 "Science in the Light of Torah: a BH reader": the Wheeler diagram is in it, and it references "Fusion" for the diagram!
I also have the lectures on youtube from 1988 or so, and AOJS, etc....
...
'Mind' in the BH evo bb artcle: The article doesn;t stress consciousness, only fw, but it DOES mention c, and in the first section after "Introduction", heading "The common ground..":
I write in the first paragraph about soul but footnote 5 states that science doesnt encompass mind either (yet?)
in the next paragraph I talk of "God's infusion of a soul - and perhaps a mind as well - into a humanoid".....
Perhaps later I also mention mind, but it should be stressed more.
Except that many people don;t understand and so it distracts attention, and so see below re idea to excise it entirely!
...-
Editing: tell the reader tha tthe only changes are man--> humanity, and re God no "He".
...
Cover Art: go through the various material and make a choice.
-----.......
Title for mind Evo free will book
Make diagram of evo line, "CHAIN of being", humans evolve but they are not conscious, and then another mutation leads to a separate evo branch, they are conscious, the chains in the cahin of beings is shattered, unshakeled form pure material universe, but STILL CHAINED TO CAUSE AND EFFECT. And then a further development, of capacity for free wiled chouice, and now truly unchained.
But not all humans are descended from them!
.......
see email "New Book: Mind + Evo + Chumash: New editing : re-casting evo bb inst un book instant universe , & 'Mind': Combining many emails from the past year:"
see diagram.
see especially the section describing: "Two books:
1) The bible-based evo bb age of uiniverse etc book will ignore Mind since people don;t understand it, and so will use the ideas eg the onset of moral choice but withtout really stressing the mind and acausal fw aspect
2 The other book (can be titled: "Reclaiming Mind in the age of I") will be meaning & purpose & moral responsibility & human significance-based, not specifically at first focussed on Genesis etc. ""
.....
I should be careful not to make the book hard to read just bec I want it to reflect my side-agenda (to show that this book really was published in the 80's) I need to remember that this point of when it firt came out is not interesting to the reader.
Perhaps I can start with an opening overall presentation, and then place excerpts directly from the published articles.
Eg since the fw article exceprt might be first and doesnt mention Genesis, I can say in the preface to the excerpt that the notion of fw and moral resposibility and God caring about this, and re God as designer & creator of the universe and humanity etc began perhaps only with the Bible (does not exist as such in early religions such as Hinduism, Greek paganism etc ; and so when I speak of these immediately after this in the excerpt of the fw article, the reader will understand that it is meant to refer to the Biblical Genesis context, wihtout me having to actually say that, without it needing to be in the article excerpts.
Similarly re the qp&halacha Wheeler diagram, it doesn't mention Genesis since Wheeler doesn;t, but the above, or an added intro, will place it in the Biblical context.
.....
Two versions of the article are in a .htm file attached to this '08 email, "evo BH article revised with additional qp etc material". FIle name is visible in the screenshot below "The instant universeBH EJ6.htm" (or BHEJ6.htm?)
The first version in that file includes spiritual-physical connection as per prayer article and qp&halacha article
2nd version is "Quantum Kabbalah and the Instant Universe" which is the BH article with a new paragraph at the beginng, and a little addition here and there.
1987: Cosmic Prayer Connection article
1986
Mentions of the book version etc in the 2002 BH evo bb article
This article mentions Adam, see -->
and footnote 19 there references my book at the time, though it misquotes the title (important error): -->
Should be: "And God said: "Let there have been a big bang".
Top & bottom: re meaning purpose of universe
Bottom: Adam!
Re connection of spiritual and physical etc, as in prayer article: there is a lot in the QP&H article as well.
...
Evo bb material in the Qp & Halacha article
The bulk of the article is re QP and isn't relevant for the first part of the evo article re onset of meaning etc (except for the brief mention above).
It has brief mention of Adam in footnote.
Mention of my book (mis-titled) in footnote - the correct title gives a good overall picture of the intent of the evo bb article. I can include a photo of the title page of the book (ms) in the pamphlet since the book is mentioned here in the footnote (1988 in Hebrew, 1989/90 in English), and perhaps in the bio intro.
The bulk of the article is good as background when QP is broached (Ch 5,6 of book etc): it has a lot re:
a. duality and superposition/reality, measurement etc;
b. q metaphysics-consciousness;
c. free will as the active ingredient;
d. has the Wheeler diagram!
BH Journal Hebrew QP & H: 1988: See footnotes 9 & 20
footnote 9 describes the main content of the book and refers to it with the entire title "And God said..."; it mentions that Genesis says exactly this, that the universe was created right before a free willed being emerged in it. So this is most explicit explanation of the book idea, more specific than the English version. On the other hand the book (English) version has a paragraph in the article itself relating to this rather than a footnote as in the Hebrew (article), but it is not as directly about Genesis.
footnote 20 refers to the last sentence or so of the article which mentions evolution etc and the footnote refers to the book again but with incomplete title and says 'now in printing process', so it is not about the article which was complete, and was inserted into the QP&H and FW articles.
I need to place everything together, from the two articles and the various versions - to be able see the subtle differences
BELOW:
Adam mentioned in footnote
in 1988 Hebrew version of QP H article in BH
(no QPH article in English BH journal, only in conference proceedings and BH reader)
Significance material: To 'justify' how it can be that humans are so central to the purpose of the universe, and therefore to the creation story, justifying 'juxtaposition' etc, I can also add some material from significance section of Geo, even the hostorical part too, and also the cosmic connection aspect from the prayer article, and relevant material from the QP&H article.
.......
evo bb drawings: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1V9rrhdJTxOvabUkwk_iYWPb8J323ZGIr (shofar at bb, couple in empty universe...)
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lISVrMGoVkSfCbatpNUkZxHKK33tT5Pq has also eden snake drawing, god as observe
A different book idea: combining separate 'books': Bible, philosophy, evo bb, Mind, FW etc; cover drawings etc
(The Biblical) Genesis & Bugs Bunny Cartoons (ie they are written on many levels to be simultaneously illuminating to different..)
A Mystic, A Philosopher and a Child walk into a bar. Don't worry, it's a bar mitzva.
Genesis is written not just to make it accessible to children also, but also to prepare the way for a later deeper understanding, ie to instill a close familiarity and sense of wondrous fascination in a child which lasts into adulthood, so that the deeper meanings can filter onto that pre-existing deep layer...
Combining material from
Problem of Evil
Meaning of free will, moral responsibility
origin of consciousness and free will etc
existentialist realization that human is not like the other animals
echoes of evolutionary processes
design of the universe to produce humanity etc (evo bb/Retro Un)
deep meanings of Genesis: counter-astrology; human existentialism ie we are not animals; we are all brothers;* tzelem elokim so humanism is spirituality (10 commandments); sanctity of time, and cyclical nature added later, shabbos, annual recurrence of spiritual energies;
book is from God, dictated to prophet, so it presents the very notion of prophecy, in J meaning of connection and transmission of insight, inspiraiton and even specific informaiton, not "prediction". Purpose of a prophet: Abraham & Moses "got it" etc; Jonah as most successful etc; "makel shaked" as indicaiotno f human limitaiton on understanding divine communicaiton etc;
what 'actually' happened, not possible to define, diff levels of reality and of observing it, creation account i) actually happened ii) but as blueprint design for universe not the actual creation, iii) as told over to humans given our limitaitons, iv) in a way comprehensible also to a child v) stressing the essence not irrelevant details, but the essence for a story to be whole and for the messages to be understood.
can add "Jews don;t believe in the Bible"
Title for mind Evo free will book, great chain of being diagram.pdf"Kabbalistic Cosmology" book composed of my bh b'ohr hatorah articles, and similar material
Kabbalistic Cosmology_ book composed of my bh b'ohr hatorah articles, and similar material.pdfInstead of agonizing about whether or not to include the technical parts of the articles, and thus delaying the whole thing, I'll let the Ohr Sameach readers tell me whether they think it should be included or etc, that after all is part of the purpose of showing it to them.
In general, I don't need to make the book fully finished just in order to give it to the Ohr Sameach people, after all it is NOT a final version, on the contrary it is meant to familiarize them with what I want an editor to help me with in order to prepare a final version, and what I want to distribute, and what I seek input from them on in order to prepare the final version
So it can be based on copies of the book/journal articles pasted into the pages of booklet, and the benefit of this is also that it makes the impression more clearly that this is indeed a(new framing of a) compendium of already-published material.
The technical parts are:
GEO - 20 pages which can be online and with url,;
FW: very little is technical, it can be appendix or footnote
QP&H: The qp thery part is useful, and the Wigner & Weeler part is great, Adam is terrific, but I am leaving out the halacha part, it can be on website, it is about Judaism, not fundamentals of religion; it is an application of the philosophy espoused in the booklet.
Prayer: the interconnection of human and cosmos is great, but I am leaving out the prayer part, it can be on website, it is about Judaism, not fundamentals of religion. it is an application of the philosophy espoused in the booklet.
Evo: all is good.
...............
email: Book of BH articles
Book: The material should be re-arranged, not slavishly placed as printed.
evo/bb/chumash book
collection of article:
a. The prayer article: it is re cosmic connection philosophy of the mitzvot so it can be part of the big bang book since it is related to "cosmography" and inter-alia to the creation account, ie how God arranged the interelation of the spiritul and physical cosmos that were created.
b. The QP&H article has good material re Adam and big bang which should be separated out: eg it has the Wheeler diagram and some re Adam etc, so it belongs as a reference for the bb article.
First publication of the QP&H article was in Hebrew. Then? it appeared in Fusion and then in the '94 Book "science in the light of torah"
Was there a 1989 Shamir print, published by BH, woithout Feldheim, and then in 1990 (Jan 1?) it was publsihed by Feldheim in conjunction with shamir/BH.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BRAFAS Fusion: Absolute Standards in a World of Relativity: Science, the Arts & Contemporary Life in the Light of Torah Herman Branover, Arnie Gotfryd & Shalom Lipskar (eds.) B'or Hatorah Publications (1989) Jerusalem : B'Or Hatorah Publications
c. Geo: It should be re-ordered, with the significance section first, then the general material re GR and how EInstein changed the issue and quotes from Reichenbach etc, and only as appendix to have the physics material.
...
For Hebrew-language version of the book:
The geocentrism article appeared in Hebrew.
there is a Hebrew version of the BH QP article
I had written a mini article in Hebrew for chumash book re quantum aspect (a printout of it is in the plastic envelope with the BH Hebrew QP article printout),
I have some pages in Hebrew handwriting re evo bb
..................
vip for Mind evo free will book, retroactive universe:
Monotheism as Abraham's innovation re nmc (mind) & fw
Humans evolved with intelligence but not necessarily mind, especially as it is physical and cannot result from evolution.
So mind arose much later, and maybe Abraham & possibly the earliest Hindus were the first to create a religion based on it.
Buddhism/Hindusim has many of the ideas of Judaism but wo the notion of a Being, though perhaps some versions believe in a cosmic Mind which is similar, though it does NOT have a Will. This is the crucial difference.
It seems that many religious people (Jews and Catholics etc) are materialists as I would define them, so they don't really believe in mind nor Mind, certainly not free will.
Their religion is something like the old paganism, God is a human-like being out there etc.
Avraham originated a revolution: as opposed to Hindusim, monotheism in the sense of a Being not only with mind but with Will. Mybe he originated it beause he was among the firs tto actually have free will, whose origin is described in the Eden account.
In some sense Judaism as outlined in the creation/Eden account is similar to the old paganism in that this Being is in OUR image, ie has a mind and will like we do, just that we have it because of that Being giving it to us.
Judaism as understood today by Traditional Orthodox has Bible interpretation of Creator via Will, overseeing universe via Will, and image/breath of God humanity having free will.
Much later, Christianty broke off from Judaism and reverted to more pagan notion of god as physical being, maybe some also preferred no mind. And some (Calvin etc) preferring no free will
Maybe some pagans DID have mind and attributed it to all of Nature...
...
So the possibilities/combinations are:
no gods; Nature has laws that are 'intelligent' eg Karma and reincarnation, not necessarily mind, and not MInd: eg Hinduism
no gods; Nature has laws that are 'intelligent' eg Karma and reincarnation, humans have mind, and can join the Cosmic MInd: eg Buddhism
god(s) but no human mind and no Mind, ie old paganism
Nature/god(s), humans have mind and maybe there's a Nature Mind (like Gaia etc), ie newer paganism
physical god(s) w mind, and if have mind then w or wo fw, ie maybe Christianity
non-physical god, ie a Being with Mind(Monotheism), and with Will ie Judaism [any intelligence in nature is from this Gd]
The Geo article has material re the general science/religion conflict, which can be relevant for a book(let), and of course the Signficance section, but most of that is not actually directly relevant (Ironically, the cosmic prayer connection article has more relevant material re humanm signfiicance!).
The Miami conference: Dec. 1987
It was at the end of 1987, ie after the first three of my articles in BH:
Geo ('86), FW ('87), & Cosmic Prayer Connection ('87).
So this frames the material well, as being about the significance of humanity.
Note that the blurb above does not mention any evo bb material in the lecture, it was my own contribution.
The statement "a being possessing free will" is not EW & RF etc, it is my own speculation, forming the basis of my instant un evo bb article, as can be seen from the FW article published that year.
"Against all Odds" Jan 1, 1990 has re the Miami conference
my diagram: simulation, moral responsibility etc
Fusion: QP & H: 1990
B) Free Will BH article
Below are the excerpts directly related to Evo BB.
The points made are to support the existence of true free will that is not inherent in the usual physics type of big bang in order that there be purpose/meaning from the creator's perspective, but there is no discussion of the notion that the universe would be created at the time of its emergence, nor speaking of Adam as that first fw'ed being.
Insight: all my books are merging
evo bb book turned out to hinge on consciousness, and mindless materialist article is the fundamental aspect of several related articles, but it now has a lot of sources re Darwin and Wallace and Jaynes etc which are great for evo bb book
and it is all the fundamental for Meaning and purpose, and free will, and also significance of humanity
With this configuration the BH free will article becomes a big bang article.
Simply sandwhich it by adding a short section before and after the article, and giving the whole thing a new title, as follows: THIS WAS INSERTED TO BOOKLET WEBPAGE
Editing "Free Will" BH article:
Introduction: Leave it out.
Part I: give it new heading: eg: Is 'Mind' Subject to Natural Law? Then the next heading immediately following makes sense: The Concept of natural Law.
Keep section "The Concept of natural Law" and the next: "Natural Law vs FW" (except change last sentence, see below)
Put the section "Causality and Determinism" as an Appendix for advanced readers, and change the reference to it in the last sentence of the preceding section.
Keep the next sections, but in section "Explanation of QP" put the paragraph "For example" as advanced Appendix.
Part II: Keep
Part III: Contentious. Whitehead quote is good for this, but maybe just leave it all out. But keep last paragraph, just delete But delete the first phrase of the second (=last) sentence.
Part IV: Keep, but something is missing, need to change order. I don’t present the idea of consciousness collapsing the wave function but I refer to it! And there's a heading "FW & Collapse" before the heading "The Measurement Problem". So I need to insert material re QP/Collapse, and then re consiousness and then re FW. Eg the last sentence of "FW & Collapse" should be part of an intro or conclusion of a section re the measurement problem.
Need to explain that perhaps consciousness is governed by naturallaw and ultimately by qp, the type of FW we are referring to is by definition not.
Part V: Make Option C less dogmatic.'We must" "all people" etc.
Editing "Free Will" BH article:
Introduction: Leave it out.
Part I: give it new heading: eg: "Is 'Mind' Subject to Natural Law?" This provides the context for the next heading immediately following:"The Concept of natural Law".
Keep section "The Concept of natural Law" and the next: "Natural Law vs FW" (except change last sentence, see below)
Put the section "Causality and Determinism" as an Appendix for advanced readers, and change the reference to it in the last sentence of the preceding section.
Keep the next sections, but in section "Explanation of QP" remove the paragraph "For example", and make it instead an advanced Appendix.
Part II: Keep
Part III: Contentious. Whitehead quote is good for this, but maybe just leave it all out. But keep last paragraph, just delete the first phrase of the second (=last) sentence.
Part IV: Keep, but something is missing, need to change order: eg I don’t present the idea of consciousness collapsing the wave function but I refer to it! And there's a heading "FW & Collapse" before the heading "The Measurement Problem". So I need to insert material re QP/Collapse, and then re consiousness and then re FW. Eg the last sentence of "FW & Collapse" should be part of an intro or conclusion of a section re the measurement problem.
Need to explain that although perhaps consciousness is governed by natural law and ultimately by qp, the type of FW we are referring to is by definition not.
Part V: Make Option C less dogmatic.'We must" "all people" etc.
Kabbalistic Cosmology_ book composed of my bh b'ohr hatorah articles, and similar material.pdfCompendium of emails from 2019,2020,2021,2022_ for evo bb_ in the light of my Mind articles, my critique of my BH instant universe evo article re consciousness.pdfFROM HERE ON DOWN, ALL THE MATERIAL WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE OTHER WEBPAGE ("Human significance vs nihilism")
Below: More directly relevant to Evo/bb
Prayer article 'cosmic connection': 1987
Contrasting the atheist-materialistic and Biblical-religious perspectives:
A) re human significance, and moral responsibility
The atheistic materialistic perspective: The universe emerged by chance, life and humans arose by chance, and due to evolutionary-socio-biological influences there arose in human brains the notion of 'significance' in general, and in some human brains the notion of "the sanctity of life" and "human significance" etc, however other than this evolutionary-induced feeling inside some particular human as to whether or not they feel their lives to have significance, there is no "actual significance". Or for that matter, no "insignificance" either.
The physical universe emerged without relation to the eventual emergence within it of humans, and human brains initiate actions and make decisions as follows from the laws of nature and their relevant life-conditions, and could not possibly have acted differently than they did, except that the randomness of quantum effects might have caused some other decision or action, but which of the possibilities unfolds in actuality is not a decision of the human in whose brain these processes are occuring.
The Biblical perspective: Humans are very significant, having been created "in the image of God" by God "breathing/imparting spirit into matter". The God of the Bible has great interest in human affairs and directly intervenes, and even communicates (or did) with some humans.
God granted humans a sufficiently-free will that even though God designed and created them and the big bang which gave rise to the conditions of their lives and which governs what human brains decide to do - God can legitimately hold humans responsible for their moral choices.
B) Re: The meaning of life, the Purpose of the universe, and the onset of its existence
The atheistic..
and so the universe arose billions of years before humans did,
Biblical...meaning,, purpose begins when fw being emerges... juxtaposition of the Biblical creation & Eden account ...humans are so cosmically significant that to God the purpose of the created universe cannot begin to unfold until there emerges...
.....
Claim: The laws of nature which were carefully designed to produce a human with free will, and the creation process ended ater God's creation of a big bang designed to follow,
The above is untenable for several reasons:
1) qp randomness, so to guarantee emergence of humans need interventions, so universal automatic development can only start after fw emerges....
2) if by 'big bang' we mean the situaiton described by physics, then it cannot produce nmc
3) All agree - atheist materialist and Biblical religionist - that the type of fw we spoke of (and even nmc) cannot arise from
a big bang - it CANNOT produce the type of free will necessary for God to hold us morally responsible since this true fw is NOT compatible with logic and physics, not even qp, so if by 'big bang' we mean the situaiton described by physics, then it cannot produce true fw.
4) Wheeler: from the q metaphysical perspective..Wheeler.. and so...paradoxically the universe emerges into physical reality only after the emergence within it of fw'ed beings: DIAGRAM.
If the process of creation is considered to have ended when all the elements of the universe are completed in potentiality, the universe cannot be considered completed until fw (and nmc) are implanted in humanity. Therefore creation continues long after the big band and only is completed when humans emerge with brains capable of housing fw, and God decides to 'implant' fw in them.
So our emergence was itself a new creation, it would have needed to be a divine intervention long after the big bang.
In the light of this, it makes sense that a creation account telling not of chronology but of the purpose of creation etc as stated by Rashi, would speak of creation as a process culminating billions of years after the bb when humans in the divine image emerged, ie as described in the Eden account, at the initiation of true fw.
Conclusion: Since the accounts of creation provided in the Bible are teleologically-oriented, the biblical and eden accounts are juxtaposed, which has the effect of making it seem that humans arose around the same time as did the universe itself.
.....
Creation, design: Even scientists who feel confident that there is no evidence of design or creation would likely agree that there is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility that an advanced alien being deisgned our universe and brought it into being, it's simply an empirical questitn, ie either thius did or didn;t happen and these scientists may feel confident it didn;t happen.
However, this is not the case for the notion that there is a free will of the type which would make it reasonable for that alien to hold the beings it created or brought into being morally responsibel for their actions to the extendt of punishing them for evil acts - that type of free will is considered logically and scientifically mpossible, and a being doing this would be considered insane or pathological etc.
So the notion expressed in Genesis that there is a being who designed and created the universe is not in itself problematic, but the notion of free will justifying moral responsiblity and punishment is problematic in the exterme. This problematic notion permeates the Bible and features prominently in its first chapters, especially the story of the onset of this free will, in "the Garden of Eden".
In this work we will assume that this type of free will indeed does exist, tha tit was implanted by God, that God is beyond the constraints of physics etc, and that this paradigm helps us understand the way in which the creation and Eden accounts are presented. (juxtapoisiton etc)
...
ספר הזוהר ויפח נשמת חיים
QP & H article
The rest of the relevant pages:
for QP aspect of Evo BB article
My inst un evo bb idea was presented in the 80's: to show this by adapting/transforming 1) the FW BH article + 2) the Quantum physics & Halacha article, for use in a BB evo book
Avi Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>
Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:28 AM
To: Avi Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>
In order not to make this all into a Mind article, put the nmc and mindless materialists stuff in footnotes?
----------
I'm not concerned in the first part with attacks on Judasm or Torah so much as on religion, and evne not religiou specifically as the underlying aspects, eg are humans significant, is there mening purpose, MR.
Later, at evo, I'll b dealing more with chumash, breishis, but even then not with the quesiotn of the literal or allegorical meaning of the psukim.
Certainly not re psukim in GEO, but rather the issue of significance, even if the geocentric system is incorrect we are significant ie we accept that it is incorrect, that is not the issue. So what about the psukim? In footnote can say that we assume it is obvious that God did not intend that we should think that we are required to believe goecentrism etc. I wrote about all this elsenwere, it is not the focus here.
So if we ccept non-geocentrism and re not worried re the psukim, why is it interesting to go through the whole GR aspect re center etc? Bec we know the sci relg conflict started with this issue, and it made a huge impression and then after GR was discovered we have eminent relativists saying that GR shows geo is not more incorrect than any other, and I wanted to explain why that is so. NOt that we beleive in geocentrism or believe the Torah requires us ot believe in it, butthis issue was culturaly- important enough to get Eddington and others ot make these statmeents bec of the history invovled, and so it was interesting to me to explain what they meant.
And this is a sort of part of the 'convergence' notion.
re FW: there are psukim or actually whole accounts whose import is that we are morally responsible etc, but that is ikar not just a matte rof literalism of psukim, and we stand by its truth, without needing to talk of individual psukim - that is the whole issue, we have FW, indeed at the cost of stating that religion is in direct conflict with science!
The qp part was partial move towards FW, and this is a sort of part of the 'convergence' notion.
An physics cannot say what can;t be in this regard, it describes what can be measured.... so it is NOT a conflict with physics, it is simply a statement tha tther eis more to reality than can be encmpassed within physics.
And similarly re Evo, not focussed on the psukim and literal issues etc but on the overall picture, as part of dispelling the force of the counter religion attack in the name of science.
The bb theory showed creatiom, so this is a sort of part of the 'convergence' notion.
ANd WHeeler diagram is also sort of part of the 'convergence' notion.
----------
----------
----------
Nihilists correctly showed that the universe is devoid of meaning and purpose, and there is no hint in any scientific experiment of the existence of some type of non-subjective morality. However it is childish or pre-scientifically primitive to suppose that nature contains within it any of this. Only in pre-scientific times, before the mind-body distinction clarifications of Descartes, and the mechanical explanations of natural phenomena by Galileo, Newton and others would people expect that. For example, they spoke of a stone falling to the earth due to its wish to go to its natural place, the ground, and similarly perhaps they would project values or meaning onto elements what in modern times is known to us as "the physical universe". Of course there is no meaning or purpose or hint of moral responsibility and good and evil in the physical universe. Instead it is in the other half of Descartes' mind-body division, ie it is "in the mental realm", which science does not include (since as Descarted clarified, these phenomena are known directly to us, but are not provable to anyone else).
Although some conclude from this that therefore there is in fact no meaning and purpose, to the author such a conclusion - that our existence lacks meaning - seems more of an indication of a lack in the person making that judgement, perhaps a lack in their possession of the 'mind' aspect of reality, ie they perhaps are purely-material. In contrast to them, are those who possess the type of consciousness-awareness which underlay the passionate writing of scientists who though living after the dawn of existentialist nihilism - Eddington Einstein Jeans etc etc - scientists who are well-aware of what is or is not included in the physical universe, were convinced of the existence of a plane of reality beyond the natural studied by science. It is in this realm in which reside the qualities the nihilists misguidedly sought for in the physical universe, granted them a status beyond the 'subjective'.
It is this conneciton with the Transcendent plane from which our awareness/consicounsess derives the grounding of the non-subjective values, of the moral responsibility to choose to do good rather than evil, and of the free will to enable such choices to be made. Those who do not posses this connection to the Transcendent will however conclude that it does not exist, and thus embrace nihilidm of one sort or another.
....
All this will be explained in the articles ahead...
----------
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nihilism
nihilism, (from Latin nihil, “nothing”), originally a philosophy of moral and epistemological skepticism that arose in 19th-century Russia during the early years of the reign of Tsar Alexander II. The term was famously used by Friedrich Nietzsche to describe the disintegration of traditional morality in Western society. In the 20th century, nihilism encompassed a variety of philosophical and aesthetic stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the universe.
wikipedia In popular use, the term commonly refers to forms of existential nihilism, according to which life is without intrinsic value, meaning, or purpose.[18] Other prominent positions within nihilism include the rejection of all normative and ethical views (§ Moral nihilism), the rejection of all social and political institutions
https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/ Internet Encyc Phil
Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism. For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. “Every belief, every considering something-true,” Nietzsche writes, “is necessarily false because there is simply no true world” (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: “Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one’s shoulder to the plough; one destroys” (Will to Power).
The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny “the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and ‘Why’ finds no answer” (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity:
What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . . (Will to Power)
Since Nietzsche’s compelling critique, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche’s analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist “shatters the ideals”; the Apollinian nihilist “watches them crumble before his eyes”; and the Indian nihilist “withdraws from their presence into himself.” Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.
Re existentialist nihilism: the existentialist athisatic philosophers generally cared about humanity etc, and were often very perosnally ethical, so in some sense we are fighting agianst a straw-man, we are countering the tenets of a philosophy, and making belief in the opposite not seem like a wish-fulfillment fantasy emant to kake oneself feel better, but actual truth.
..
....
Title on book cover:
"Human significance":
the message of "Quantum Kabbalistic Cosmology" against atheist materialist nihilism
or: Quantum Kabbalistic Humanism vs atheist materialist nihilism
Although this is a preface, it would be understood only after reading the book....so please re-read this preface at the end...:)
Message isn't to prove the divine origin of the chumash or the truth of Judaism or creationism etc, it isn't against any other religion or against Humanism, but rather vs nihilism, whether of the atheitsic materialism or even some religious variety if such exists.
It isn't to say that other religions or philosophies are not against nihilism, but rather merely to present a particular approach.
It certainly is not against science, but rather is not hesitant about staking clearly the ground claimed here for these views.... Making clear what science is not qualified to determine in this regard, etc. And to unapologetically state that there is no purpose in trying to fit science and religion into the same box when the most basic fact, our existence in the nmc sense, is kept by science carefully outside its own box, and especially so since religion begins exactly with that which science so carefully and impressively excludes from its purview.
Message isn't to prove chumash or Judaism or creation etc, it isn't against any other religion or against Humanism, but rather vs nihilism, whether AMN or even some religious variety if such exists. It isn't to say that other religions or philosophies are not against nihilism, but rather merely to present a particular approach.
It certainly is not against science, which has made such incredible advances due to its exclusion of that which cannot be experimentally measured/proved, but rather is not hesitant about staking clearly the ground claimed here for these views which are precisely in the area science has limited itself from dealing with .... Making clear what science is not qualified to determine in this regard, etc
No purpose in trying to fit science and religion into the same box when the most basic fact, our existence in the nmc sense, is kept by science carefully outside its own box, especially as religion begins exactly with that.
...
The booklet can incorporate elements of - or at least refer to - the site/googleDoc "Quantum Kabbalistic Astrology, Karma, and Self-actualization: The cosmic secret of human transcendence"
Blurb: ―A theoretical physicist‘s mashup of astrology, karma and kabbalah‖"
It has a lot re human significance.
...-----
"Quantum Kabbalistic Astrology, Karma, and Self-actualizatio. was dream stuff from misc": Quantum Kabbalistic Astrology, Karma, and Self-actualization The cosmic secret of human transcendence Blurb: ―A theoretical physicist‘s mashup of astrology, karma and kabbalah‖ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5eDYQ2oWFxuZjZoS0pLbFBzeHc?resourcekey=0-b_3mTqgpx_HCjG0OJ4Qi_w ..
https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/quantumkabballahastrologydream/home Quantum Kabballah: Cosmology, Astrology, Karma & Dreams
.............----------...
TItle: "Quantum Kabalisitic Cosmology" 's message of Human Significance
As opposed to nihilistic philosophies, the message of the Torah is that each individual human is the creator's image/breathe, and our choices, actions and feelings underlie the universe's design, and are the purpose of its very existence. Only our ego - self-involvment - serves as a barrier separating us from our essence, and the more we lower it the more our essence - the divine spirit - shines forth, constituting a revelation of the DIvine presence, as occured with Abraham and Moses whose compassion for those suffering or about to suffer, and their complete dedication to the needs of others, was such that they were willing to sacrifice their lives to save their fellow humans. In fact, there is a delicious irony that in both cases the danger to them was due to their holy chutzpah of confrontation with God(!) to save others, not fearing the possibility that God would annihilate them on the spot - and it was this ego-reduction to engage in confrontation with God which led to a high level of revelation of the Presence of God! This ultimate significance of human beings - based on their being in the image of God/divine breath is a deep message of Biblical God-based Humanism.
In contrast to the position of some existentialists to the effect that the miniscule size of humans compared to stars somehow indicates our insignificance......we are unique among living beings and elements of the natural universe from tiny elementary particles to vast galaxies of stupendously-large stars, in that we possess a characteristic and ability which are beyond physical laws, beyonds the chains of nature....a non-material consciousness which cannot arise via natural processes and which most scientists deny exists. And it is this which makes it possible for there to be a physically-transcendent meaning to our feelings, our deep emotions, our longings and pain and suffering our contrition and sincere aspirations, making them poignant even to the creator af all.
And in contrast to the notion that we are puppets or robots or machines or ruled by the randomness of chance via quantum processes....what we choose to call "QKC" teaches that we possess a free will which makes our moral choices relevant even to the creator of all, a phenomenon which is so radical that most scientists deny the possibility of its existence - being that it is beyond the randomness of quantum phenomena, beyond the determinism of the statistical ensemble of quantum phenomena, and even beyond logic.
In contrast to the materialist atheistic deterministic philosophy that we are our bodies/physical brains and therefore are tied to the determinism and randomness of the physical universe .....duNouy ..
what we are referring here to as "QKC" teaches that ...Our bodies and brains are physical and can arise naturally - with various scientific theories describing possible mechanisms - but not these properties, which science does not enfranchise and so does not claim arose naturally, and which the Torah tells us were imbued directly into the physical aspect of humanity in a special creative act which is part of the reason the cosmos exists at all.
And this is how there is direct resonance at the divine level of our human sense of meaning and purpose, and our conviction of the existence of a non-subjective moral responsibility for our choices/actions.
And we will see another profound speculation of quantum metaphysics - a kind of almost-mystical quantum physics posited by various prominent distinguished physicists - which relates human existence at this non-material level with the deepest aspects of cosmological emergence, and which echoes a fundamental aspect of the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis, so that humans are indeed partners in creation as taught by Jewish Tradition.
And it is via our special material-transcendent attributes that we can interact with the spiritual cosmos at its deepest levels - and as the image of the creator we can even interact with the creator, and given that our essence is the divine breath, we can do so directly without intermediary.
In fact this divine aspect of our essence which motivates my somewhat tongue-in-cheek definition of "Biblical Humanism" = all people are created in the image of God, with their essence being God's breath/spirit, and God expects you to treat people accordingly". And that our essence is God's breath/spirit enables our purpose: as Kaballah explains, the reason we were created is so as to experience the greatest possible joy, which occurs through attaching to (or reunite with) our essence, the creator, after the death of our body. The path to the greatest joy, the deepest degree of attachment after life, is that outlined in the Torah - via spiritual actions in this life, and when we lower our ego and compassionately care and act for the benefit of others even at great self-sacrifice so that our essence - the divine spirit - shines through, making this physical world "a dwelling place for God". A life lived in this manner guarantees the greatest attachment after death, and thus the greatest possible (eternal) joy.
This is the message of the Torah, which in various ways conveys the interrelation of mystical cosmology and ethical self-development.
And none of this in any was "contradicts" science, which deals exclusively with the material aspects of the universe and of humanity.
This is the message of human significance and of the relative roles of religion and science which we wish to present via the articles in this collection.
...
Doubt is human and therefore legitimate and is part of the process, despair and rebellion agianst God are part of the nature God designed into us, struggling against disbelief and materialism and self-gratification are part of what is our purpose, so this is not meant to disienfranchise these... and the philosophers who preached nihilism seemed very dedicated to revealing truth to ther humans, dedicating their lives not to achiving wealth and power but to educating others in the truths they believed in, and this is actually quite a noble life - and similarly atheist materialists are often highly moral and preach ethics - so this book is not meant to denigrate the nihilists or nihilistically consider their lives as meaningless but rather to enfranchise that type of struggle as part of what God designed us to do.
Perhaps the chief benefit in our lifetime of a belief in all this is the possibility of an awareness of a relationship with the Source of all
One can be the child in the desert being carried on the shoulders of their father but unaware, but benefiting from their father's help but in despair at being abandoned, or one can be aware and benefit from the relaitonship as well as from the help. [Perhaps even nihilists can remain as they are, and create a relationship based on their disbelief and despair, and benefit from it...?!]
The Jewish People accepted at Sinai - and all Jewish sould of all time were present at sinai - that God is allpowerful and all knowing and there is only God, that all evil is from God, and yet God is inifinitely merciful and compassionate - a total contradiciton, and yet true, and this unyielding belief that God is good despite whatever happened that God could have prevented was the basis for God's love and the resulting deep and eternal bond between God and the Jewish People. Abraham and Moses railed agianst an unjust God, and God made sure to include accounts of this in the Torah, but they did this not to deny God's existence or to deny the compassion of God, but rather they directly confronted God with their complaint, and this was the basis of their deep relationship, and this was the the reason God loved them. And these stories are included in the Torah in order for us to know that this is a model of how to connect to God - via the desire to protect humanity against harm, even if via struggling agianst God in some sense, based on the recognition that all humans are afer all, (as described in Genesis) in some way vessels for the spirit of God.
..
The articles which follow, develop these ideas in specific contexts, relating to various aspects of the supposed "religion-science conflict", as described in the articles themselves.
....
The articles are presented in the chronological order in which they appeared, with the only editing changes being Man --> Human, He (God) --> .... , and a correction of the title of one of the articles as rendered in a footnote.
...
The idea of nihilism might seem extreme, so opening with it maybe is not a good idea, better to see how it developed, ie the booklet can start with:
A) The overview of relig sci conflct re the significance of humanity, stemming from the issue of geocentricity and humans as machines vs fw, and evo as chance rather than design etc.
So start with:
1) The beginning of the GEO article (1985) but the version from BHR:
p82-mid p 84,
and p118-19 the two paragraphs of "Part II: The s of m" (but place the latter earlier, after the historical list)
2) And then the relevant material from the FW article (1986):
the first 1.5 pages or so,
plus p148 1st paragraph of "Prob Q FW",
then the three sections: "The U as G's (Q) M" , the Life of the UN, The U wo G,;
then from the end of the article, p156-7, insert Options A and B.
This sets up the problem (and the later part of the booklet will have the full article with more statment of the problem, plus my proposed solution).
B) Then the nihilism material with quotes etc, present it as the 'result' of the above 'conflict"
C) And then as intro to the rest of the book, my new preface, and I can say that the above frames why I will present these articles: from the abve the conclusion was that the overthrow of geocentrism reduced us to cosmic insignificnce, the mechanisitc interprettion of ll including our brain made us souless machines automatons, and the bb evo theory took away the ide aof the niverse as designed and creaed, and removed our role as beings in the image of God designed for a purpose etc
GEO material re geocentrism (no we are not insignificant),
FW (no, we are not machines),
bb: it is PRO creation, not against!
evo(no un and we are not incidental/random etc, we not appearing by chance, purely-material etc)
D) and then footnote 3, then GEO stufff re geocentrism itself, then FW, QP&H, Evo, Prayer.
...
to tie in the topic/idea of convergence, and Einstein's Blunder lectures:
Mention that I gave keynote address at AOJS e convergence, give barcode url to that
Maybe before the eco article, say: "For thousands of years it was assumed that philosophy proves universe is eternal, and this presented a contradiciton to genesis's notion of a unverse created a finite amount of time ago. The big bang theory supprted the genesis notion and so this was a major aspect of convegence, evne though many religious figure considered it as a cntradiction to Genesis. Give ref to my lecture videos etc.
...
To some degree, this is relevant as Preface to the Evo article, rather than as preface to the booklet as a whole (orignially the booklet was going to be only evo, so it was appropriate as the preface ot the whole thing)
Tell the reader that all the below will be expanded and explained:
Contrasting the atheist-materialistic and Biblical-religious perspectives:
A) re human significance, and moral responsibility
The atheistic materialistic perspective: The universe emerged by chance, life and humans arose by chance, and due to evolutionary-socio-biological influences there arose in human brains the notion of 'significance' in general, and in some human brains the notion of "the sanctity of life" and "human significance" etc, however other than this evolutionary-induced feeling inside some particular human as to whether or not they feel their lives to have significance, there is no "actual significance". Or for that matter, no "insignificance" either.
The physical universe emerged without relation to the eventual emergence within it of humans, and human brains initiate actions and make decisions as follows from the laws of nature and their relevant life-conditions, and could not possibly have acted differently than they did, except that the randomness of quantum effects might have caused some other decision or action, but which of the possibilities unfolds in actuality is not a decision of the human in whose brain these processes are occuring.
The Biblical perspective: Humans are very significant, having been created "in the image of God" by God "breathing/imparting spirit into matter". The God of the Bible has great interest in human affairs and directly intervenes, and even communicates (or did) with some humans.
God granted humans a sufficiently-free will that even though God designed and created them and the big bang which gave rise to the conditions of their lives and which governs what human brains decide to do - God can legitimately hold humans responsible for their moral choices.
B) Re: The meaning of life, the Purpose of the universe, and the onset of its existence
The atheistic..
and so the universe arose billions of years before humans did,
Biblical...meaning,, purpose begins when fw being emerges... juxtaposition of the Biblical creation & Eden account ...humans are so cosmically significant that to God the purpose of the created universe cannot begin to unfold until there emerges...
.....
Claim: The laws of nature which were carefully designed to produce a human with free will, and the creation process ended ater God's creation of a big bang designed to follow,
The above is untenable for several reasons:
1) qp randomness, so to guarantee emergence of humans need interventions, so universal automatic development can only start after fw emerges....
2) if by 'big bang' we mean the situaiton described by physics, then it cannot produce nmc
3) All agree - atheist materialist and Biblical religionist - that the type of fw we spoke of (and even nmc) cannot arise from
a big bang - it CANNOT produce the type of free will necessary for God to hold us morally responsible since this true fw is NOT compatible with logic and physics, not even qp, so if by 'big bang' we mean the situaiton described by physics, then it cannot produce true fw.
4) Wheeler: from the q metaphysical perspective..Wheeler.. and so...paradoxically the universe emerges into physical reality only after the emergence within it of fw'ed beings: DIAGRAM.
If the process of creation is considered to have ended when all the elements of the universe are completed in potentiality, the universe cannot be considered completed until fw (and nmc) are implanted in humanity. Therefore creation continues long after the big band and only is completed when humans emerge with brains capable of housing fw, and God decides to 'implant' fw in them.
So our emergence was itself a new creation, it would have needed to be a divine intervention long after the big bang.
In the light of this, it makes sense that a creation account telling not of chronology but of the purpose of creation etc as stated by Rashi, would speak of creation as a process culminating billions of years after the bb when humans in the divine image emerged, ie as described in the Eden account, at the initiation of true fw.
Conclusion: Since the accounts of creation provided in the Bible are teleologically-oriented, the biblical and eden accounts are juxtaposed, which has the effect of making it seem that humans arose around the same time as did the universe itself.
.....
Q: What actually happened? Is the above a guide to a creation account written from the teleological perspective or an account of what actually happened? And can this distinction be made within the parameters of Orthodox belief? (Footnote: And we'll even see that from the scientific logical perspective, it is not obvious that there is physical meaning to "what actually happened"...[Footnote or for that section, give examples: even "now , far away" has no real meaning; what state is that atom or system in now while I am not measuring it" has no meaning...etc)
If we are interested in what actually happened, would God bother to actually create the bb and wait billions of years until it developed to that point, or would there be a more elegant procedure? We of course cannot know, but there is an intersting path of speculation, outlined in these chapters:m,n,b. For example if we are God's simulation, it would have been extrapolated up to the appropriate point.
....
Maybe for postscript?
A recently-freed Jewish slave standing at Sinai, with sensibilities formed by Egyptian civilization and the Tradition handed down from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, would perhaps not have understood many of the concerns discussed in this book, but we consider ourselves to be part the same divinely-inspired Tradition. Similarly regarding the authors of the various canonical works such as the mishna, Talmud, Rambam, Ramban, shulchan aruch, etc. We were all at sinai, so the majority of souls there were not of that generation, but rather of people in the future...Here in the future our understanding of what was said by God to us at Sinai includes perspectives and sensibilities based on scientific advances in our understanding of physical cosmology, biology, genetics, human neurophysiology and psychology etc, and the issues we face are based on contemporary life etc, and there is some element of (the game of) 'broken telephone' in terms of the transmitted Tradition, but all that is designed by the creator into the mix, so though the interpretations of the Biblical text in the canonical works mentioned above, and in our own contemporary understandings may differ from that of those living at the time, our understanding of the Tradition - since we are all "in the image of God" and all were present at sinai - can equally well be considered as authentic echoes of the Voice, valid interpretations, and comprise that which God meant for us to understand when as souls we saw the Voice at sinai.
..
Why we ARE significant
Physics used to be thought of as the arbiter, but physics does NOT encompass mind, which is the basis of all, the most fundanetal. Physics has no way o grapple wiht it, to een erecognize its existence.
Due to their ossession of a Mind, humans are qualitatively diff than inanimate, and maybe than other biological entities at leas itn degree, we dont hold other morally responsible, ie we hold ourselves to a higher level, our actions have a greate significance
So scinece, physics, biology, anthropology etc cannot be bsis for a conclusion aobut the signficanc eof humanity
significance is a feeling/concept in human (or other) Minds, so by definition WE decide what is significant :) so maybe sig means nothing on an absolute scale but there is NOT absolute scale...
difference between "we ar einsignificant" and "can;t say we are significant"
THe first is a judgement depending on the existenc eof an absolute scale, gsed n which we are not sig, but tha tis not what those people are claiing of course
It is not logical to project a human's feeing of insignificance on to "the universe", as if the universe is making a judgement; instead, it is simply that one person'sindiivual FEELING And if a feeling tha thuman ar einsignificant is valid then o is isthe feeling that humans ARE significant!
are there reasons to assume humans are NOT significant/
People thought science somehow demonstrates our lack of sig: via
evo bb , randomness of our emergence etc
no need for a god, so no god, so we are not in divine image
no real absolute morality etc so dont magnify our obsession with that
mind doesnt exist
sould doesnt exist
we are not center of the unverse as previously thought
...
Fallacous argument -types
the other side clais the same so oyour clai is not valid (the corectns sof my side is not dependent on noone else claining tha ttheir side is the valid one.)
it goesaginst a princile, egequiy etc (who said tha tprinciple is vali?!)
..
50-page booklet of inst un
excerpts of BH articles
print a few versions
distribute in Ohr Sameach, ask rabbis for permission?
insert note re looking for editor.
aim at producing a new verison after input/suggetions from readers
contact ilana re using shamir or BH as name of publisher.
Maybe peter kalms, and guy who sponsored inst un, and miami etc would sponsor?
ask ilana re diagram, whether she remembers or has records
-----
Timeline of BH articles etc
1. Geo english
2. GEO Hebrew
3. Cosmic Connection
4. FW
5. QP & H: Fusion, BH Reader, & BH journal Hebrew
6. JCT: "The Heart of the Matter" 2009
7. "Against all Odds", has re the Miami conference.
In 1988 I was teaching qp at YU
----- ....
use qpH article material re wheeler etc re c, not fw, then and add re Adam and creation account noot eden account, to make the point that it makes sense that a creation account of the universe includes the emergence f humans, and also since c is nmc and tha tis non physical it is tzelem elokim and therefore it makes sense to include all that in the account of the creaiton of the physical iuniverse as per wigner. And can add from FW article re God fast forwarding to emergence of humans, so it is instant universe, Then wheeler re retroactive, so now have "the retroactive instant universe"
...
scientists were not atheists only against organized religion or church or specific church doctrines etc, n so
....
before telescope it was thought the physical universe was earth and stars around it, so it was reasonable to think all else was 'calastial',, and chr's thought devil was in center of it all....also: no reason to think of awareness as differnet than anyhting else... all was a mix of what today we would consider physical and non-physical
When telescopes invented, Galieo saw many other physical places, and large universe, so earth not special in its physicality, and so for religious people God could not be out there spatially... so it become easier to think of God as non-physical
nowadays this is absurd, we intuitively already incorprorated this insight, and automatically think of spiritual as non physical, God not located in a specific physical locaiton, and so in the same way it is now easier to think of c as nmc, ie there is a physicla brian and nmc is different than the physical, not 'located spatially in the brain'...
.....
In 1988 I was teaching qp at YU, I can mention that
at end 1987 was the Miami conference (what was the exact timeline? did I start teaching at YU right after the conference?)
The Heb BH QP&H article came out then, which has the Wheeler diagram; and Fusion.
The Hebrew version of the GEO article came out in 1988/7? and it has more re signficiance at the begining and end of that sections?
The '87 conference presented material re significance/convergence as per Hofman's book.
.....
The Hebrew version of the GEO article came out in 1988/7? It mentions Mach;s principle still being discussed giving as ref "some strangeness..." in a footnote , is that in the Eng version? Add quote from Rosen in binder, and Komar notes etc.
The bottom line is that it is not at all clear whether one can say that physics invalidates the physics aspect of the relativity of perspective (ie as opposed to the psychological/perception aspect is obviously valid, and of course any eq can be cast in any coord system), but it may be that it IS valid, but even if o, it is true about ANY point in the universe, not specifically aobut the Earth, but of course there is no Jewish religios dictum that says that the statemnts imlying geocentricity in Tanach are meant to convey that God expects Jews to believe that the Earth as some physic-relevant special physical location in space! Bibe quotes a lot from people;s perspecties etc, it is not God saying "And God spoke to Moses sayingL you must believe that 'the sun rises', meaning it moves aorund th Earth, and it does so in a sense that physics can prove" or whatever. Judaism does NOT say this. And Physics has no problem with a book authored by God whcih speaks in human terms, as long as it doesnt make claims ike the spurious one in the previous sentence.
....
State that the big bang material appeared in lectures gven when I was in grad school to the AOJS in NY and then later at the Miami conference lecture, and in two articles of that period, FW and QP&H/
Make a distinction betwen the article which was presented, and apeared i the above, and the book.
re the book: Add thank you to Ilana and SHAMIR for preparing the ms, intensive editing, and typing it on a word processor when that was not readily available to all. And then quote the blrb about it being widely-distributed since the 80's.
Add material from R Carmell, and perhaps from Jason Aronson, mention he had published the BHR.
.....
Preface to FW article for booklet:
Change the title of the article! since it was mentioned in the previous one, GEO: "The inst retro un: And God said, 'let there have been a big bang'". The FW article has the idea of God extrapolating bb, but it is about prediction, not the idea of extrapolating upto fw emergence and then creating, nor even about God granting fw via special act of creation, and of course no mention of creationt and re Adam, but tha tis in the QP&H article, so the combinaiton should be enough, especialy since the title tells it all. ANd then later the evo article will make it even clearer.
Logic of the presentation path: first c then nmc then fw.
consciousness: Before mentioning free will, present the parts of the QP&H article re the notion of consciousness collapsing as in wigner etc, then cosmological application via Wheeler.
nmc: Start with explanation that a jackhammer bangs hard but doesnt feel pain, nor would a robot, what I mean by c is nmc, which NOT enfranchised by science.
Wigner/Von Neuman didnt say this explicitly but it is clear to me that they proposed c as the active component in "meausment' bec thy took it for granted everyone understood it is nmc, but other phyiitsts did not agree bec they dont believe in mmc etc.
Most physicists disparage their notion of the relevance of c! It is NOT "accepted physics" and not even geenraly-accepted 'opinion'. And I agree with them. The c that physics recoginzed would have no efficay in the way WIgner proposed. Only nmc could!
nmc as beyond physics & bb: My point then is that the bb proposed by physics could not give rise to nmc, it would require special act of creation....
Interpreted in the Bblical context - God created the bb, and infused nmc into a being emerging from it,
When nmc emerged it changed reality fundamnetally! As philosophers pointed out, and as ratified by physicists (quotes) can't have reality as we know it wo nmc.
Simialrly for Wheelr idea, from my point of view it is not consistent, becsue it assumes nmc (frm my point of view) yet (I am convincd) that cant arise frm a bb! So present the Wheeler diagram but discus what I think is the inconsistency, that the nmc observing the unverse could not arise frm a bb!
Interpreted in the Bblical context - God created the bb, and infused nmc into a being emerging from it,, and this then enabled the un to emerge into physical reality And God said "Let there have been a bb", the retroactive universe, which emerges into reality as a universe a few billion ears old with the first nmc being. ie it is anintstant un, ie a retroctive instant universe.
the meaning or part of it of tzelem elokim etc I think it is nmc.
And then present the bb-related material in the two articles, and give title "the instant retroactive universe, and god said let there have been a big bang", but it is re nmc not yet fw. So it is not focusses on eden account, only on creation account.
...
Next level: FW: Only after the above re nmc, present free will, as my own addition re qp (since this was not clear in the articles).
nmc alone is just experiencing, not intiating, for which one needs fw. And the origin of fw is vayipach, ie in the context is a creative being who chooses what to make ex nihilo in terms of the physical universe, and so tzelem is nmc plus vayipach is fw, [which also includes the creative ability to ex nihilo in terms of the physical universe to come up with new ideas etc..,. ]and it appears in the gan eden account bec it is fw, and so it is the emergenceof fwc not just nmc which bring about the emergence of the universe, and that is why the creation and eden accounts are separate, and that is also why they are juxtaposed.
....
The bb referred to by physics could not produce the fw referred to by the Torah, indeed that type of fw is impossible from the point of view of logic and physics, and so it could not have emerged naturally, ie humans with free will who can be held repsonsible for thie morl choices by their retor could not emerge naturally, from a bb.
Therefore , if God created the un via a bb, it would be necessary to separatelty instill fw in the evolved human, ie the process of creation would not be completed by having the bb emerge into existence but rather only many billions of years later - the creation process would be concluded only with the emergence of a fw'd being, This is indeed how it is portrayed in Genesis.
To understand this point, one need to understand the importance to the Torah that it is the physically-impossible type of fw which humans possess, and why it is physically impossivble.
I can write: Note that this was the article followng the GEO article, as promised in footnote 3, but the focus was turned to FW itself rather than the context of creation
THEN I CAN PRESENT THE FW Article
...
Hoffman's "Despite all Odds" has photo of me speaking at the Miami conference, and on p124: quotes me at conference speaking of convergence of science and religion (Torah), so I should include that and perhaps use it as a hook to include also the AOJS convergence talk?
..
The book(let) can also have urls/barcodes of videos of bb lectures at YU museum, LI synagogue, Stern/YU science club (and in Hebrew/Russian: Ukraine and Ylm to Bnei Noach)
----------
After Geo article is FW article:
Intro is good,
The first two subsections of Part I are good: "The concept of Natural Law", & "Natural Law vs FW" but without the last paragraph.
Place in an appendix the next section "Causality and Determininsm", but two of the last three pargraphs are good: the third to last can be a footnote, the 2nd last is good but maybe is a dup of earlier, and the last continues off from the earlier material of that section, so it belongs with it in the Appendix.
The next subsections are good, upto "Explanation of QP". In that section, the chart and 2nd paragraph explaining it can be in an appendix.
The rest is good, upto "Probabilistic Q FW", of which the first paragraph is good, the rest should be in an appendix.
The next is "The Basic Problem": skip until top of p149 "What still remains...
The rest of Part II is good, ecept or the lst pararaph (top p152).
Part III: can use first two paragraphs to state the problem, then place the paragraph "If a person.." and the dialogue in an appendix, and continue with "It is impossible.." until the end of the article.
...
Then comes the QP&H article: (see "how to turn the QPH article into a bb article")
Three appearances: Hebrew BH, Fusion, BH Reader
BH Reader is most recent.
The bio blurb is different.
Opening paragraph of the article has important correction: measurement instead of observation.
Section: "Reality & Measurement":
the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs are different; the new version BHR is very good, but maybe the other is also necessary, so maybe both versions should be included.
Change "universe emerge into existence" into "there is only physical reality to the measured state, not to what we think must be happening now - "what state it is in now" - given the experimental result a second later".
Then when mention Wheeler's delated choice experiment cant say "wheeler" offhand if I didnt meniton him before.
Then only later talk of applying this to the whole universe.
re Berkely: VIP: the word 'only' maybe was mistakenly moved over., in both versions...
Section: "The Role of Consciousness"
Don't stress 'human', stress 'consciousness'.
I should insert a note that it means nmc!
Then I speak of Wheeler, and universe, but this should refer to the previous notion of applying it to the entire univers,e where the new apsect is consciousness, not universe, just that theimplicaiton is cosmological - need to make this clearer.
A sentence about chasidus and emanation in Fusion was rmoved in BHR, good that it was omitted, it wasnt my sentence.
The Wheeler diagram was placed at the end of the BHR article rather than right where it is discsussed as in the Fusion article.
I need to stress that the notion of FW is MINE, it is not wigner or wheeler or acepted qp etc, and that I am applying it to motivate and justify why consciousness has this ability. It is the counterpart to my point that what Wigner etc meant re consciousness is specifically NMC!
Two headings with the word "reality" have the idea of the interconneciton of the spiritual and physical realm or whatever, it is like the prayer article, maybe this should be be featured elewhere in the article, or elsewhere in the booklet....
And the last two pages of the article also....
In between the two points directly above, are several pages re halachik detemrinaiton of reality, which can be in a separate 'article' or an appendix.
QP material
There is a bunch of material re qp: need to have a preface perhaps, eg the behavior we witness and which is intutive to us, of objects with well-defined properties travelling along well-defined paths etc turns out to be not representativ eof how things behave in the small - the things we see, a leaf falling or a piece of dust on a desk are composed of trillions of tiny particles, each of which behaves vey differently it is only the aggregate which behaves as we are familiar with, it is as if if we looked really vlosely at any entity we would see billions of not-well-defined entities with ill-defind properties, making up the 'well-behaved' (ie conforming to our intuition) whole.
So the reason for the duality section is to understand that what we say about superposition and ill-defined properites is not just for energy, waves, etc but for all particles and therefore for evverything making up the universe. Which sets up the ground to introduce the notion tha tthe entire universe is such a system.
Should I combine the qp parts of the various articles? eg the probability box-chart in the FW article is useful for explaining the 'probabilistic' aspect of the duality section. Or should I present a general overview and then mention the specific aspects relvant to each article (qp&H, FW, evo)? Or are they the same aspects for all three articles?
----------
Then the prayer article: with intro: "Now that we see the Jewish view of the significance of humanity, and the non-material physical-universe-transcendent essence of every human, we can understand how it can be that there is a direct connection...
It can start with the part in the online article version re human interconnection/significance: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2031/jewish/The-Cosmology-of-the-Mitzvot.htm
..
Then is the evo article, which can stand as is.
I can add as preface the material re bb is pro-chumash, with url of the lectures.
---------- ----------
The GEO article has:
overview of conflict etc
footnote 3 framing the chronology
GEO stuff
Significance material
GEO
The essential point: whatever 'geocentric' claims can be made ie for the Earth, could equally be made from any other location in the universe, whether from my nose's location, or that of the moon or of mars or the sun or Haly's comet as it zips around or a point in betwwen them or on some other star or on a planet orbiting it or in some distant galaxy or any other location in the universe. Whether or not a physical experiment will ever be able to unequivaocally show that all of these places are not the center etc, or whether physics will show that all can equally say that they are the center is a moot point, under debate, however what is not debated is that there is no scientific reason or justification to suppose that Earth is any different in this way from any other planet or indeed any other location in our universe, ie whatever geocentric claims can be madec for the Earth, could equally be made from any other location in the universe.
The BHReader version of Geo is later:
BH uses G-D, BHR used 'God'! This alone is a major benefit of using BHR, or using it as part of a MASHUP of the two versions.
The layout is of a book not a magazine in two columns, and the font is large, so this is perhaps better.
The preface is different, says "Christianity-science conflict"! not religion-science. And uses Eddington quote re GR making it moot. But it doesn;t give the precise reference.
The opening diagram of head poking out of universe is missing (Figure 1), as are the copernican ptolmey diagrams, Figures 2 &3; The last image, "You are here" is missing from BHR, probably due to permissions issue?
p9 crucial problematic statement of orig BH article in irony 1), is modified, removed "GR showed geo is right"!!!
my statement at end of irony 2) re clash is bet scientists and theologians not sci and reli is good, maybe make it mor prominent
irony 3) was expanded with various good quotes, but need to explain diff bet rotation and orbit.
Part II starts with a new mini-intro that restates the crucial claim "is no more valid", so that is very good, also it says readers can skip this technical section.
Par II: contests-->denies
(necessarily) was removed from brackets, this is better
a whole slew of paragraphs were added after the Reichenbach quote, they are good.
The bibliography has more books, including Eddington, but not the page # for the quote.(are most of the added books for the added quotes?)
There are almost double the amount of notes in the BHR version. (are they for the added quotes?)
Obviously I need to refer to my website version, maybe via a barcode. refer also to WIkipedi footmore re the article.
In preface to the booklet version, if i use the BH version, I need to concisely summarize: there are two issues, the daily spin and the annual orbit and they introduce different issues. There are various subtleties not addressed and some controversies around these issues even today.
Add Komar's comments in binder, [see expanded form (both pages are handwritten)]
Clarify that as discussed in Part II of the article, neither the statement "sun is at center" nor "earth is at center" have 'physical significance', they are scientifically-legitimate statements from specific perspectives. As absolute or physical statements they equally INcorrect. Or perhaps one might say 'equally correct', where the perspicacious reader will understand that if two contradictory statements are equally correct, perhaps they are also equally incorrect. (anecdote of the rabbi and rebetzin)
Part II: Significance:
In any case, as explained in the article the Torah does not specify geocentrism, and its 'overthrow' is not a blow to religion and certainly not to Judaism or to the Torah, and in any case none of this is relevant to the main issue I discuss in the article - human significance. [Kind of like defendant saying: "It didnt happen, and in any case I didn't do it, and by the way I was right to do it"]
There's a statement about human signifiance as being the essential topic of the article, it is right before the GR section, Part II, maybe it can be placed at the beginning, after footnote 3 intoduce the topic altogether.
The '87 conference presented material re significance/convergence as per Hofman's book......
Geo BH article: Part III significance fits directly seamlessly after Part I, but the Reichenback quote at the end of Part II is useful, and maybe I can refer readers to the website version with various other qoutes.
Towards the end of "The Jewish View" , after the "we are here" photo, re size etc, the last words re "qualitative concept" are missing, but maybe isnt needed.
...
characteristics
...
What elements are kabbalistic?
that we are image and breath is pshat not secret teaching, but the interpretation is kabbalah.
en od milvado, not secret, but the interpretation is kabbalah
Ramchal purpose of our having been created is kabbalah
that we have fw providing MR from outsider perspective is pshat, but understanding it brings one to its deep implication of our being outside the causal realm of nature/physics, see quote from Lecomte du Nouy, and it it this which is quantum kabbalah
https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/The-interrelation-of-mystical-cosmology-and-ethical-self-development
----------
To: Avi Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>
"Free will": reworked into this, or on new sites. The original article is available there, and here in two sections: Free Will-1, Free Will-2 [On website as pdf, and edited into different order (placed on newer nyu site) ] (listed here)
"Quantum Halakha" with Prof Branover, reworked into this on new sites: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/quantum-halacha-analogies/home, and this article. See also the brief video linked to on that page of my site (video included below).
"GeoCentrism & EgoCentrism": Googling "geocentrism" leads directly to the Wiki page for "Geocentric model"; footnote 73 of the Wiki article (referring to the section "Orthodox Judaism" in their article) refers and links to an article on my website based on the article in your journal & book (with Prof Branover). My article may be easier to read on the newer site. See also the brief video linked to on that page of my site (included below). The original article is available here in three sections: Geocentrism-1, Geocentrism-2,
BH articles, reworked
-3.
And God said: "Let there have been a big bang", (re the big bang & evolution): see here for the article split up into separate topics. (Abstract of the article.) It was a condensation of a book.
"The Cosmic Prayer Connection" or as titled in the version published by Chabad: "The Cosmology of the Mizvot". Reworked here: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/cosmology-of-prayer-nd-mitzvot/home [Links to the original article (in two sections): The Cosmic Prayer Connection-1 , The Cosmic Prayer
"Quantum Halakha" with Prof Branover, reworked into this article. See also the brief video linked to on that page of my site (video included below).
"Geocentrism": Googling "geocentrism" leads directly to the Wiki page for "Geocentric model"; footnote 73 of the Wiki article (referring to the section "Orthodox Judaism" in their article) refers and links to an article on my website based on the article in your journal & book (with Prof Branover). My article may be easier to read on the newer site. See also the brief video linked to on that page of my site (included below).
"And God said: "Let there have been a big bang" ", split up into separate topics.
There are various writings on my older site, one of them a little more recent: Quantum Kabbalistic Platonism & the sophistication of reality
These are the videos: (9 & 10 were older versions, removed)-2 [here]. Although this article is not about science & religion as are the rest, it CAN be re-cast as part of the Retroactive Universe book material, ie a type of cosmology and cause-effect that is different than the scientific one, more linked to spirituality, and those who https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/home/quantum-kabbalistic-platonism-the-sophistication-of-reality true free will etc.
----------
The "conflict" between religion & science"; Mind, Free Will, Meaning, Purpose & Morality; The existence of a Cosmic Mind, and our ability to connect to It: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/maximal-sophisticated-universe/the-conflict-between-religion-science-cosmic-mind
..
...
...
https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/home/quantum-kabbalistic-platonism-the-sophistication-of-reality and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JK3iwAGflIUpzAm8S84kwGY-hSg7i33D/edit Quantum Kabbalistic Platonism & the sophistication of reality
-----
If it is too contrived to make a pamphlet of my evo material with the order of the appearance in BH, I could instead make it as a compendium of all my articles, and in that context make it clear that the inst un bb material was early.
In the pamphlet, all can be gathered under one rubric, NOT just "a compendium of articles published in BH" but THEMATIC, eg "Human Significance", or Quantum Kabalistic Cosmology & Human significance, or "Quantum Kabalistic Cosmology's message of Human significance".
So in this context, it is clear and appropriate that the Genesis material is not about age of universe etc but rather that humans are integral to the universe at the most fundamental level, and can affect it profoundly, etc.
The Miami conference actually made this the rubric! so it all fits perfectly.
With this framing I can in a natural way start with the 1st BH article, Geo, giving the date of publication, and the rest of the material with the date: The booklet would start with the footnote re evo article in the next issue, with the stress on human significance, and its ref to "my article in the next BH". It would have only the first and part of the last sections of the Geo article, (the rest can be referred to via url). Re the overall-title: the Geo material is definitely cosmology, no quantum, but maybe I can cast it as kabalah in some way.
then some of the cosmic conneciton article re human interaction with higher level, and maybe add re the hasidic philosophy re chain of being (add some re Lucretius?) and application to eating, re overall title: no qp? it is somewhat cosmology, and somewhat kabalah?
then can have Wheeler diagram with my explanations from FW article re qp etc, as an indication of human significance. Cosmology definitely, quantum definitely, and it is metaphysics, and sounds like kabalah!
then in that context I can present my fw speculations and its applicaiton to Wheeler's notion, so all this is without mention of evo bb etc, and all is re human significance. It is qp bec I tlk of fw as trancending it etc, it i cosmology bec it is reasn for universe and etc, and is kabalah in th sens eof being non-literal interp of image of God etc (My new idea: God is presented in Genesis as a creator, with Will/choice, and so to be in the image of God in the context of where it is mentioned means to have the ability to create, in this sense it is true creativity and other acausality, eg fw)[Note: Once I clarify that essence is moral choice etc, (I can add that any being on earth or elsewhere which is capable fw + moral sense is included in my category 'human'.]
Then I can present the evo bb related material from the various early articles, in the context of all the above material. This part can have the title The instant retroactive universe: and God said let there have been a big bang (and it was so!)
Then the later evo article.
Then maybe a url/link/barcode to other material
underlying all this is the nmc idea, I mention consicousness several times in the articles, but I can write a footnote and give a url to my site re this.
I can maybe even mention chumash material re this topic: the DorLedor articles are re human interaction with God/events etc, and the chumash material re ego for breishis and noah illustrate idea of lowering ego to allow divine breath to shine through (I can use M"R helix material also etc)
---------
title: Quantum Kabalistic Cosmology
The instant retroactive universe
and God said let there have been a big bang (and it was so!)
....
why k'c? answer: k means Tradition (ie passed on from generation to generation), and also 'esoteric', so we mean it in both senses:
k says the interp of genesis is not the literal one, so although this is all about Genesis, it is not the literal interpretation;
Tradition says Geneis creation account is about the Purpose of creation, not a chronological record, so we will not focus on the 6 days or the age of the universe but rather as per Kaballah focus on the message in genesis regarding the meaning of life and the purpose of the creation of the universe and of our existence, etc
ramban says k'c interp of genesis is re all started with initial point in potentia (like bb), and that is the approach we take of how created the universe rather than the description in terms of the 6 days etc.
significance of humans, my BH article, this is k'c rather than sc'c idea.
en od milvado, God's Mind, extrapolation, algorithm etc,
humans are image of god, etc = Biblical, but the idea is k'c because of interpretation as fw'd nmc;
...
add re ego reduciton --> shining in chumash FB post
.....-----------------
If the focus is genesis, then I can start with asking what are the main points of the creation/Eden acionts and how to view them in the perspective of science.
eternity vs not:I can use my mini article re Big bang is actually pro-breihsis
nmc: science seems to be neutral though many scientist are against, but it is fact not peculaiton not religion, but also not science since can't prove/measure it: it is th most fundamental aspect ofuniverse, so genesis is perhaps about the initial generations to posses nmc. That it is about nmc is indicaeted by God blowing breath/spirit/soul in to human. I can quote descartes who speaks of soul when I would speak of nmc
MR: the clear idea expressed throughout that account and in the Bible as a whole of MR rather than mr, since it is from the Outsider perspective
FW: Eden account, and in the context of enabling MR, true free will ("FW" vs "fw")
The above are the essence of the accounts, not the 6 days and the alleged age of the unverse etc.
----------
Titles:
Are we God's simulation?
Post modern biblical fundamentalism
Retro inst un
Etc
Place a list of titles, and other questions on last page or on site with url and barcode on booklet, and Ask readers which title they think it's best, capturing the content and catching attention of potential readers.
...
Create a pastiche of photos of the relevant parts of the various articles, to create one unified article.
...
On my site page for inst un I say "Un is designed to be meaningful".
But to whom?!
Answer: To God , and to us.
To God: the emotions of deterministic nmc machine might be meaningful to God, but for deeper? Type need real fw.
To us: need emotions etc. Can say also need nmc, though MCs will say not so, but nmcs will say need nmc for it to be meaningful from the nmc perspective! A bit circular.
Maybe need a "sense of meaning".
----------
To indicate that my inst un evo bb idea was presented in the 80's
Ask Ilana whether it is ok to say that my evo book "And God said "Let there have been a big bang" was published (or 'printed',eg on laser printer at BGU) by "SHAMIR publishing" in 1987.
On frontspiece of the pamphlet, place an excerpt from the burbs/bio/footnotes below, with the date, to frame the bb evo book as being from that period, mid-late 80's.
Mention of my evo book "And God said "Let there have been a big bang". In BH bio preface or footnotes: (Is there any printed reference in AOJS of this period?)
Mention of the book in these:
1. Geo English: 1986: Footnote 3, p11, "...creation vs big bang, see my article "Let there have been a big bang" in the next issue of BH (AR: of course that only happened 15 years later = Let there have been an article!)[Unfortunately, the footnote omitted "And God said", so it is referred to only as "Let There Have been a bb"]
2. Geo Hebrew: 1986: Unfortunately, the original English footnote omitted "And God said", and so it was translated for the Hebrew version as "sheyihyeh mapatz gadol", which would be funny if it wasn't frustrating and tragic. Actually, it uses the ter "pitzutz gadol" which is wrong as an accepted term, but mybe the term in Hebrew was not yet accepted 'officially'?
3. Cosmic Connection:1987: The bio blurb preceeding the article says: "his large work on the bb and genesis is still in progress"
4. FW: 1987 no bio blurb, bec it is in the same issue as the FW article in that issue. No footnote mention of the book, but has lots of relevant material.
5. QP & H:
conference booklet;
Fusion, BH Reader
BH journal Hebrew 1988: footnote 9 describes the main content of the book and refers to it with the entire title "And God said..."; footnote 20 refers to the last sentence or so of the article which mentions evolution etc and the footnote refers to the book again but with incomplete title and says 'now in printing process'
6. Evo bb article: 2002:
Bio blurb before article says it is "an excerpt from the author's book "The Instant Universe".
Footnote 10 says "For more about...see my ms "The Retroactive Universe"; Footnote 24 says: "See my book "The Instant Universe".
Footnote 22 referes to "my "The Retroactive Universe".
After the article, section "for further reading": "the article is excerpted from the author's book the Instant Universe which circulated widely in manuscript form from the mid 80's"
7. JCT: "The Heart of the Matter" 2009: copied from BH evo article, so it has the same blurb re it being an excerpt of my book "The Instant Universe"
....
My inst un evo bb idea was presented in the 80's:
To show this by adapting/transforming 1) the FW BH article + 2) the Quantum physics & Halacha article, for use in a BB evo book
---------
Photos of the relevant pages from the two articles in the journal are here:
Site: "In the beginning God said "let there be meaning" Creating an evo bb article from two other BH articles https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/andgodsaidlettherebemeaning/transforming-2-bh-articles-fw-and-qph-to-a-bb-evo-article
---------
I placed this on the site: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/andgodsaidlettherebemeaning/transforming-2-bh-articles-fw-and-qph-to-a-bb-evo-article
Preface to the BB evo booklet, to set the tone, outline the end-goal.
After this framing of all the material, I can insert it without worry overly about the order of the material, it should all fall into place given this overall perspective.
So after this I can insert relevant material from 1) the FW BH article + 2) the Quantum physics & Halacha article, the significance material from Geo, and some from Prayer.
Then I can place the evo article last since it deals in detail with it all.
Maybe some from retro un? or does that already destroy the main idea of showing that it was all there in the late 80's?
...
----
The creation account is not a
Rashi on Gen 1:1 וְלֹא בָא הַמִּקְרָא לְהוֹרוֹת סֵדֶר הַבְּרִיאָה לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ קָדְמוּ,
Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first,
for if it came to teach this, it should have written:“At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth,” for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):“In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim” ; (below 10:10)“the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign” ; (Deut. 18:4)“the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn.” Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,“At the beginning of the Lord’s speaking (דִּבֶּר) to Hosea,” (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (דִּבּוּרוֹ) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, “the Lord said to Hosea, etc.” Now if you say that it came to teach that these (i.e., heaven and earth) were created first, and that its meaning is: In the beginning of all, He created these-and that there are elliptical verses that omit one word, like (Job 3:10): “For [He] did not shut the doors of my [mother’s] womb,” and it does not explain who it was who shut [the womb]; and like (Isa. 8:4): “he will carry off the wealth of Damascus,” and it does not explain who will carry it off; and like (Amos 6:12): “or will one plow with cattle,” and it does not explain: “if a man will plow with cattle” ; and like (Isa. 46: 10): “telling the end from the beginning,” and it does not explain that [it means] telling the end of a matter from the beginning of a matter-if so, [if you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation] be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Moreover, the heavens were created from fire and water. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later [acts of creation].
...
Ramban: God's intent is not for us to think that we can understand what occured from the words of the chumash, but rather from the kabbalsitic teachings which explicate those words.: מעשה בראשית – סוד עמוק, אינו מובן מן המקראות, ולא יוודע על בוריו אלא מפי הקבלה עד משה רבינו מפי הגבורה, ויודעיו חייבין להסתיר אותו. לכך אמר רבי יצחק שאין להתחלת התורה צורך ב"בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא", והסיפור במה שנברא ביום ראשון ומה נעשה ביום שני ושאר הימים, והאריכות ביצירת אדם וחוה, וחטאם ועונשם, וסיפור גן עדן וגירוש אדם ממנו, כי כל זה לא יובן בינה שלימה מן הכתובים.
..
Ramban: initial creation had potential for all the rest: הוציא מן האפס הגמור המוחלט יסוד דק מאד, אין בו ממש, אבל הוא כוח ממציא, מוכן לקבל הצורה ולצאת מן הכוח אל הפועל. והוא החומר הראשון, נקרא ליוונים "היולי". ואחר ההיולי לא ברא דבר, אבל יצר ועשה, כי ממנו המציא הכל והלביש הצורות ותיקן אותן.
......
.,,
Does this googleDoc versions of inst Un bb evo article have anything others don't?
Insteaof printing a new booklet with the articles or excerpts of them, I can give out the actual physical copies.
For all three articles (Geo, FW, Prayer), there is plenty of space in the actual physical copy to glue in an intro/preface to frame the article.
The QPH article is not in Eng BH, only in the two books, Fusion and BHR, and the Hebrew vol %vav (6).
Geo is in BH & also in BHR, and in Hebrew BH vol #heh (5).
Full page available opposite, and a bit on top of the opening
Lots of space available above and below the illustration on the page opposite, and a bit on bottom of the opening page.
Especially if I don't mind covering the drawing of mountains? under the bio section.
Or i canuse it to cover the bio?!
I can also lend the books. BHR is more recent and is a better version, I have two copies in Jlm, and one or two in NY. There's space to put a sticky-note, a full page on the opposite page, and space on top of the opening.
Much of the article is technical, and re psukim etc so can be skipped, the notes on the inserted sticky can also guide the reader as to what to read.
Full page available opposite; I wouldn;t need more than that.
But I can even perhaps use it to cover the bio!
QP&H: I can also lend the books. BHR is more recent and is a better version, I have two copies in Jlm, and one or two in NY. There's space to put a sticky-note, half a page on the opposite page, and some space on top of the opening.
Much of the article is re halacha etc so can be skipped, the notes on the inserted sticky can also guide the reader as to what to read.
