RU footnotes

The Retroactive Universe: Avi Rabinowitz:  page                 

________________

[1] (Rambam and Max of ex. as max of good was here)

[2] Nevertheless our intuitions about what is logical make true free will counterintuitive. Thus our intuition is in favor of the idea of true free will, but our conception of logic makes the same true free will counterintuitive.

[3] , though by saying ]."... the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation" he erroneously universalizes it to all scientisits

[4] The arguments presented are intended to be quite general, but as they are about intuitive rather than objective concepts, they may not conform to the intuitions of all readers. And, since one cannot prove one's intuitions in these matters to be superior to those of another, these arguments can be viewed more as the author's personal view, or as reflective of a view held by many people, rather than a statement of what the author believes to be a universally accepted objective fact. 

        Furthermore, we do not claim that this type of free will exists - we merely present what to us seems to be the ramifications of the existence of the type of free will which would support the key metaphysical concepts of moral responsibility, meaning and purpose (MRMP).

[5] Discovering how the approaches of science and the Bible are related is also one of the subjects of the author's upcoming book "A Garden of Edens: the Many Faces of Genesis".

[6] p11 bottom, of Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers 1954. based on Albert Einstein "Mein Weltbild" Amsterdam 1934.

[7] DELETE: In a later chapter we shall speak of idealism, of science as an ordering of a subset of sensations, and of consciousness as the arena in which these sensations occur - so that physics does not deal with consciousness, but rather is an ordering of a subset of consciousness.  

[8] There are various conceptions of what is meaningful, and what constitutes a purpose for the universe; the scenario here of a universe in which life is/can be meaningful and the universe purposive follows the author's conception [the author believes this is also compatible with the intuitions of most people regarding moral responsibility meaning and purpose.

[9] Put later or mesh with the next few paragraphs: Anything that objectively exists is a candidate for scientific study. Consciousness indubitably exists and therefore issues related to its existence and nature should eventually be studied by science. In contradistinction feelings, beliefs and convictions, and concepts such as meaning and purpose are not existents but are rather states of consciousness; as such, can neither be verified nor disproved by scientific experimentation. One cannot look to science to determine whether or not humans have moral responsibility for their actions, whether life has meaning or the universe has purpose. [We will use the abbreviation MRMP for “moral responsibility, meaning and purpose”.] 

        Science can however investigate for example whether or not there is a detectable difference between a universe in which there is meaning and purpose and one in which there is not - whether a universe with meaning must also contain some particular phenomena, object or interaction. Then the scientific method can be applied to determine whether or not this phenomena, object or interaction exists; if it does, meaning and purpose can exist in that universe. Similarly for free will: science can investigate whether there indeed exists that which is necessary as an underpinning for free will to exist.

[10] We also limit ourselves to the type of anthropomorphic outsider who is similar enough to us for our concepts of MRMP to be applicable to it. In Biblical terms we are 'created in its image'.

[11] The issue of free will is of interest for its own sake, and certainly from the physics point of view - the type of free will which is of real interest to physics is the same as the type that is capable of giving support to the concept of moral responsibility from the outsider perspective. However, free will is of philosophical interest generally only in the context of moral responsibility, and so free will is of philosophical interest only when it allows for moral responsibility and purpose 

….. only outsider-relevant moral responsibility, meaning and purpose corresponds to our intuitive understanding of these …...

[12] Essay: "Religion and Science" in "Ideas  and Opinions". p39, line 5.

[13] This will hinge on the issue of whether or not there is any more objective perspective on a person's moral responsibility than their own perspective, and whether if there was such a perspective, it would be relevant to the definition of moral responsibility.

[14] Of course we would be aware that our own response to their declaration is no less determined than the declaration itself.

[15]    A brief discussion of holism in this connection appears in a later chapter.

[16]"My Worldview", (on p40 of I &O).

[17]   This is related to the realm of inquiry termed chaos theory.

[18] Even if a theory of quantum gravity should be required to describe the brain, as per Roger Penrose, the brain processes will not be free in the sense we have discussed.

[19] This section should deal with qp re randomness vs determinism, while in Part IV the section on q.p. deals with the aspects of q.p. related to the collapse of the wave function.

[20] Similar results are obtained with a two-slit setup. We will discuss the one slit diffraction for simplicity. For more advanced discussion, see eg the first chapter of Feynman’s Lectures on Physics Volume 3.

[21] from BH qp article

Note to the reader: This section presents in more detail the ideas discussed in the previous section. It is somewhat technical, but no prior knowledge is required. Readers may skip to section III which is also somewhat technical, though less so .

SECTION ONE: QUANTUM PHYSICS

For many years there was a debate among scientists regarding the nature of light. Certain phenomena seemed to indicate that light is a wave, while others pointed to its having a particle-like nature. The debate was stilled early this century when it was realized that all entities can be considered to be both waves and particles—some physical conditions cause a manifestation of the wave-like properties of these entities, and some cause a manifestation of their particle-like properties. This duality became one of the fundamental concepts of the newly-developed quantum physics.

The duality concept arises as follows. If one were to eject an electron from an electron gun and run it through a slit of some sort, one would expect that since an electron is a particle, it would continue straight in a flat trajectory and reach a screen or a detector directly opposite to where it emerged. On the other hand, if one has a water or light wave, the waves bend as they traverse an opening, and form a complex pattern on the other side. When water or light waves are passed through a double slit, it has been shown that the resulting pattern can be attributed to the fact that each wave passes through both slits. It was shown experimentally, that surprisingly even particles, such as electrons, form the same patterns as do waves, as though each particle passed through both slits—which seems impossible to our intuition. This led to the understanding that all entities in the universe are both waves and particles.

[22]     Summary of explanation of quantum physics as previously explained: Prior to the advent of quantum physics, science was believed to demand that every event in the universe occurred as an inevitable and necessary result of previous events.  Quantum physics, introduced near the beginning of this century, brought with it a drastic change in this viewpoint: Chance ruled each individual event, however, when numerous similar events occur, the pattern which emerges resembles the results one would expect from pre-quantum physics.

        The aggregate pattern can be exactly determined beforehand.  This combination of random and determined behaviour is termed here "probabilistically determined randomness" (PDR) or "probabilistic determinism". However, this 'random' aspect seemed at first to be contrary to the 'spirit of physics'.  Much inquiry was directed to the question of whether or not the chance aspect was only apparent, because of our lack of sufficient scientific knowledge and adequate instrumentation, or if it was an actual physical requirement.  It was shown that indeed the nature of the physical universe is such that intrinsically, at the most fundamental level, events are probabilistic and not deterministic.

[23]   It may be that quantum physics is more an expression of limits on what can be known rather than as a description of what occurs - that is, quantum physics states that overall the pattern emerging from large amounts of microscopic events will be identical to that of a random distribution, but that individual events need not occur in any specific manner, as long as they add up in the end to a random distribution. If this is the case, then individual events can occur even in a free willed manner, but quantum physics then describes statistical distributions of free willed choices, rather than the choices themselves. If this is so quantum physics may be compatible with free will, but it will still not be able to describe such processes.

[24]  Definitions of free will have been proposed which are specifically designed to fit a universe where these two conditions are not true. Such definitions of free will are not reflective of the intuitive meaning most people assign to free will, and   are not compatible with  a view which sees morality as more than a human-centered feeling.

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

[26]  Conversation and correspondence with physicists Wheeler, Bohm, Christodoulou, Hawking, Komar, Finkelstein, Davies and others indicate that there is as yet wide disagreement on this entire issue. For further discussion of these and other points related to free will  discussed later in this chapter, see Rabinowitz “Free Will and Purpose”.

[27] In fact 'random' can only be defined in terms of aggregate patterns. An individual event that is 'random' cannot be differentiated from one that is not. Only by measuring the disparate effects of two identical causes can one begin to conclude that there is a non-determinism at work, and only the total pattern can define that the distribution is 'random'.

[28] Bohr proposed that it would be impossible to physically trace mental events with any instrument without interfering with the mental events being traced, so that physics could not hope to describe them. Thus physics could not rule out the existence of free will. However, many disagree because they feel that the processes underlying a thought are too complex to depend on single quantum events and a thought itself is too ordered to depend on a single quantum event, and therefore these processes would be sufficiently macroscopic to resist the disturbance created by a minimally-disturbing measurement. Thus they conclude that physics could eventually describe human thought processes.

[29] If ffree will in fact exists. If not, one can claim that there is no meaning to an individual event unless it is measured, and that unmeasured events should not be describable by a physical theory. This issue formed the basis of the fundamental disagreement between Einstein and Bohr. See the author’s forthcoming book: “Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Played Dice”.

[30] Quantum physics can be seen as a limit of free will where the choices are random, just as classical physics in in some sense a limit of quantum physics where the number of possibilities is reduced to one.

[31]  [ Conversation and correspondence with physicists Wheeler, Bohm, Christodoulou, Hawking, Komar, Finkelstein, Davies and others indicate that there is as yet wide disagreement on this entire issue.] 

[32] As a quantum field theory of brains may prove to be inadequate to explain human brains, and a thought may be beyond probing - as proposed by Bohr - it may be that eventually quantum physics will prove inadequate to the task of describing consciousness. It might therefore be that non-brain events are truly random at the individual level rather than in the aggregate (if this has meaning), whereas brain events corresponding to thoughts are governed by a more fundamental theory than quantum physics, and are not random - neither at the individual level nor in the aggregate - but rather are free at both levels.

[33]    Ignoring problems of light cones and Cauchy conditions.

[34] When the weather prediction states that there is a 40% chance of rain, it does not mean that it will rain only 40% of the day or that it will rain at a strength of 40% of some maximum, or that 40% of the people will think it rained. Instead they are saying that weather conditions are such that in 40% of the times that such conditions were previously observed, it rained. Equivalently, they are stating that if one keeps a record of their predictions, they will see that 40% of the times they said that there was a 40% chance of rain, it did indeed rain.  In an analogous manner, quantum physics allows the prediction of the possible future states (for weather prediction these would be rain, snow, sunshine etc.), and the probabilities of each. However, only one future is actualized, and the choice is random, but the pattern of choices fits the predicted pattern.

That is, in an ensemble of universes at a given state, the distribution of the resulting states follows the probability distribution determined by the unique prior state. Similarly, for one universe and an ensemble of universe states in it. 

[35] Some phenomena may however involve noncomputable processes etc.

[36] This is an arbitrary number, chosen because it is very large - for example if everything in the universe were split into its most basic components, the total amount of particles in the known universe would be far far far less than this.

[37] According to the principles of quantum physics, a big bang universe could develop along very many (perhaps a countably infinite number of) paths. Each path would lead to a different universe, some differing only minutely from each other, some differing vastly and fundamentally from each other.  

If the entire universe is founded on the basis of quantum physics and no free will exists, then after creating the big bang, all the possible paths of development of the universe are inherent in the initial state, and in theory  a complete picture of the entire history of each possible universe can be obtained by extrapolation.

If  a specific big bang were created a countably infinite amount of times, and each universe was filmed as it developed, then  after a countably infinite amount of time, a complete film library would be obtained containing a complete description of every possible universe which could result from that big bang.  We could then number the films sequentially and refer to them by their number.  

If we had committed to memory the complete film library, we could conjure up a complete description of any of the possible universes by referring to it by its assigned number.

We could then construct the analogy of a "die" with a countably infinite amount of sides, (for example, a random number generator) with each side having a number on it such that each film number appeared exactly once on the die.  If we associate one universe-film to each side, and the flipping of the die is random, then the universe-films are summoned at random.  If we will consider this scenario, we will see that flipping this die is exactly analogous to watching a big bang develop naturally : both procedures lead to the playing of a randomly chosen universe-film. 

       We can now apply this analogy to the creator of a big bang. Even before actually creating it , there can be obtained - via mental extrapolation - a complete description of each state of each possible resultant universe.  To go ahead and actually create the big bang and let it develop, is exactly the same  as  for us to toss our  film-library die.

[38] Actually, quantum physics speaks only of ensembles, and not of individual events. Therefore, if the brain operates according to quantum physics, then one cannot make statements about individual choices made by the brain, just that an ensemble of the choices it makes should fit some probability distribution. Therefore, one can always claim that the individual decisions were freely chosen, just that this leaves as a great mystery how it is that the individual freely chosen choices somehow conspires to form a pattern in the aggregate which is identical to that made by an ensemble of random choices.

        It would seem more intuitive that if there is free will the idividual choices would not form the same pattern as an aggregate of random choices, and therefore that free will violates the laws of quantum physics.

          It can be that free will is a theory of individual events rather than just one of ensembles of events - we feel intuitively that an individual choice was a freely chosen one, that we have knowledge of individual events. However, it may be that since one can determine that there is free will only by comparing an ensemble of free choices to an ensemble of quantum events and noting the disparity, that perhaps free will can be defined only in reference to aggregates, just as is the case with quantum physics.

[39]  From this point on, 'free will' will mean exclusively what we have termed an 'inherently free' will.

[40] during conversation

[41] Conversation and correspondence with physicists Wheeler, Bohm, Christodoulou, Hawking, Komar, Finkelstein, Davies and others indicate that although there is a widespread belief in the existence of a meaningful type of free will among physicists, there is as yet wide disagreement on the entire issue of its nature. A more in depth analysis of the issues surrounding the concept of free will, and a record of the conversations mentioned above, will be included in the author's book on free will, meaning and purpose, presently in early version manuscript form.

[42]p46-47: “Science and Religion”: from a symposium in 1941. I&O p44: and same title, in “Out of My Later Years” , p26 bot - p27 top/middle:

[43]This problem is similar to that encountered in consideration of the mind/body interaction, nevertheless we will attempt to procede as far as we canintuitively  in defining an outsider perspective. See the discussion of the 'mind body problem' in a later chapter.

[44] Even in regard to a minimal intervention deity, creation itself is a quintessential interaction.

[45] See Appendix: Quantum Cosmology and Outsiders.

[46] For further more technical discussion of how a universe emerges see Appendix 1.

[47]Since all the futures of all the possible universes resulting from a big bang can  in principle known when the characteristics of the big bang are chosen, it adds nothing to knowledge about the universe to actually create the big bang and allow it to develop.  If a creator wishes to know simply which one of the possible universes will eventually win out - by chance -  all that has to be dome is construct a random die with as many sides as there are possible futures, and  spin the die.  This is far simpler and far more elegant and intelligent than actually creating the big bang and "waiting around" billions of years for it to develop.

     Thus, if the universe does run according to the principles of quantum physics, there would be no sense in creating a universe at all - it would merely be a boring game  equivalent to one in which one die was thrown once, with the one throw lasting many billions of years

[48] There is no necessity for us to say that such emotions would be impossible in such a universe. 

   That is, we cannot assume that only in a universe in which there really is free will would conscious beings in it believe that they have free will, so that the belief in free will is certainly not a proof that it exists. 

   Also, the feeling that one's life has meaning is a feeling which may or may not be dependent on one's belief as to the existence of a God or any other belief, and need  not necessarily be dependent on whether or not there actually does exist a God or afterlife or the like. Not enough is known about neurophysiology to rule out the possibility that there exists  a person who feels that their life has meaning event though their beliefs or their goals in life - or lack thereof - might lead some other people to feel that that person's life could not possibly be meaningful, or find it difficult to understand how it can be that that person feels his life to be meaningful.  In fact, experience with people, with human psychology seems to indicate that this is indeed the case.

[49] For further discussion see Appendix II at the end of this chapter.

 The possibility of free-willed decisions is a necessary condition for events to be imbued with an objective type of meaning and purpose, however is it a sufficient condition? Is it necessarily true that if there is free will there is purpose even in a universe created for no purpose? Does the existence of free will imply that  there is meaning and purpose, moral responsibility even if there is none from the creator's perspective? In a universe which evolved on its own, but which contained free will, could there be true moral responsibility? For further discussion of these question see the author's upcoming work on free will

[50]  Possibly an inherently-free will is the only possible non-random non-deterministic element involving intelligent  activity.

[51] In the next sections of the book, we shall investigate what is the fundamental property of true free will that endows it with this non-simulatability, and what are the cosmological and philosophical ramifications of the existence of free will.

[52]     One can construct a 'film library' as discussed in a previous note even if free will does exist:  

        At any juncture where free will comes into play, there are a countable infinity of options available from which to choose freely, and similarly each of the resulting possible universe-states has a countable infinity of options available at the next decision point, etc.  A universe-film can be made portraying each and every possible combination of moral free-willed choices in the universe,  so that one can construct a film library of all the possible total histories of the universe.

As in the case with quantum probability, one could number the films and bring each universe to existence (or to mind) by pressing the corresponding  number of its film on the universe-generator.

However, the crucial point is that it is impossible to simulate an actual created universe in this way: the decision of which film number to choose cannot simulate the free willed decisions of   moral beings. 

 The whole point of free will is that there is no way for free willed decisions to be predicted or simulated on a computer since free will is beyond determinism or probability.  Thus, there is an absolute significance to which precise decision is made at each juncture.

[53] The relevance of the question as to whether or not there are other free willed species of beings in the universe is dealt with  elsewhere.

[54]    See however Gosse  "Life",  and Griffin; see also discussion inlater chapters.

[55]   "The Descent of Man",  Chapter 4.

[56]   That Gd can freely choose which one of the films to actually create merely reflects Gd's choice, not man's.  As we can see from Rambam ["Guide" III:20] there is no way that Gd can "know" which film will correspond to the actual universe , without going ahead and creating that universe:

 "Gd's knowledge extends to things not in existence, and includes also the infinite...we may attribute to Gd the knowledge of a thing which does  not yet exist,  but which will exist, and which can be affected by Gd when it exists.  However, that which never exists cannot be an object of Gd's knowledge."

     That is, Gd knows the future choices only of a created universe. However, if the universe is never actually created, Gd does not know what the choices would have been had the universe been created. Of course even a totally deterministic and/or random universe is an enigma to Gd if it is not actually created. However, despite the fact that the result is unknown, the universe would not be created since the unknown result is inherently uninteresting since it is either determined or random. On the other hand, free willed choice is Purposeful, and the occurrences in such a universe are therefore not only unknown, they are of interest. [According to the 'Shlah HaKadosh' (see his "Bet Habchirah") all prophecy of the future - including that of Moses regarding the future misbehaviour of the People of Israel - is based on extrapolation of the present trends to the future, rather than predetermination.] Thus, since it is not possible to know the results of  such a type of Purposeful universe without actually creating, it is reasonable that the universe would be created. 

       The universe has the potential for being be an interesting spectacle to watch, even a drama which could contain within it some special Purpose, only if there was introduced into the big bang (the potential to produce)  an element not of chance but rather of "free choice", so that the universe could develop in a way unpredictable to Gd, in a non-random way, so that the actual free-willed-choices of the intelligent beings in the universe were not amenable to simulation, extrapolation, or models based on random throws of a die however complicated.

An interesting approach to this question was suggested about a thousand years ago by Rav Hai Gaon. According to Rav Hai Gaon, events have to actually occur in the universe in order for God to have known them in advance. Therefore, God does not know the outcomes of future free-willed choices because they are predictable, but rather these future choices are known only because God is beyond time. Free willed events are truly free and are unpredictable to God, but those free willed choices which occur at any time during the existence of the universe are known to God at any other time, including a prior time. However it is only known because it has been injected into the stream of reality via the free willed choice of the individual at some point in the existence of time. [See Responsa of R. Hai Gaon. reference in Guttman p.87.]

[57] The relevance of the question as to whether or not there are other free willed species of beings in the universe is dealt with  elsewhere.

[58] In addition, the space we inhabit is three-dimensional, and it is this which is curved, while in regard to the earth it is only the two-dimensional surface which is curved.

[59] Perhaps a complete knowledge of the initial state of such a universe can suffice to provide a complete knowledge of all the future states of such a universe, and this can serve as the best form of information. Indeed, if two universes know all there is to know of each other's initial state, this may suffice to establish an elaborate from of communication based purely on extrapolation from the other's initial state if knowing all there is to know about the other's state may mean that one can predict the answer they would supply to any question, or their reply to any comment.

[60] Although one may speculate about the possible existence of a totally different universe about which we cannot know, there is by definition no way to know whether or not such a universe exists, and therefore any statements about such a universe remain pure speculation. Indeed,  if 'universe' by definition means 'all that there is', the concept 'a different universe' is meaningless. Therefore, the judgements of beings in a universe that their lives are meaningful and purposive are not subjective but objective - there is no more objective perspective than their perspective.

[61] The first few pages of a book often contains claims about the authorship and publication of the book - we tend to believe these claims generally because we know that bookstores generally buy from reputable publishers, and the laws of the country would penalize false claims, and so on. This information is what we call 'the cultural context' of the book. 

        The information we have about the book, about the language it is written in, the author, the publishing company, and so on - information from sources other than this book itself - is also part of the cultural context, or what we call the 'oral tradition' accompanying the book.

[62] See eg the now classic writings of Umberto Cassuto, and of Yeheskel Kaufman, and the more recent book by Nachum Sarna “Understanding Genesis”.

[63] Created "in the image of God",  which according to various traditional interpretations refers to free will [e.g. Sforno and S.R. Hirsch] 

[64] It is due to the infusion of the divine 'breath' that the being thus formed (humanity) is considered to be 'in the image of God', (which according to various traditional interpretations refers specifically to the fact that this being - as distinct from the other created beings - possesses a free-willed consciousness).. 

[65] "The Nature of Physical Theory" p12.

[66] A later chapter discusses this in depth.

[67] A later chapter discusses this in depth.

[68] Even if consciousness requires an additional physical organ, it would not be the physical organ itself which introduces the significant factor, but rather the consciousness which employs the organ. Further, even if the existence of a conscious thought itself had an effect on the physical universe, for example if the energy content of the thought had a gravitational effect on the surrounding matter-energy, it would not be this effect which was significant, but rather the significant effect results from the conscious decision and its implementation.

[69] Particularly conservation laws such as that of the conservation of energy.

[70]  It is also not clear why consciousness, which is non-physical, should be dependent on the complexity of the brain, which is physical; that is, how a physical - albeit higher-level - property such as complexity of interactions can motivate the emergence of a non-physical phenomenon. In addition, if consciousness is a non-physical property, it may be expected that consciousness should transcend physical, spatial, or even temporal separation, so that various consciousnesses should not necessarily be seen as separate just because they are located in distant locations or far apart in time. Another ramification would be to question the necessity that a consciousness be associated specifically with a group of neurons physically interconnected in one brain - their physical proximity and interconnection might be seen as irrelevant to non-physical phenomena such as consciousness, and it might be other criteria which might be more relevant. One could then perhaps associate a particular consciousness with a grouping of certain neurons in various brains at different times and locations which share some property, thereby linking them to form a unique consciousness.

[71] Actually, to be more precise, we mean that without free will there is  no intelligent effect of consciousness on the physical universe - consciousness may have an energy content which would affect the curvature of space-time as would any other energy source, and so on, but this effect would not be 'intelligent' in the way that conscious decisions are, and consciousness would not have the potential to change the course of events as it would if it were free willed. 

[72]      ibid.

[73]      ibid.

[74] The fact that a decision process is non-computable does not make it more free or less free. Even in a non-computable process, components which are not random can be computed by a real-time simulation, and the fact that they cannot be predicted simply means that one can not determine the result of the simulation any faster than the events will themselves unfold. If  by performing a simulation of a choice one can know the result of the choice, then even if the simulation is slower than, or as slow as, the choice mechanism itself, there is clearly no free will involved.

[75] Hedging, we could write instead: We will show why we feel that the known laws of nature are insufficient(ly 'rich' or 'deep') to provide for the existence of what we consider to be true free will.

[76] Cosmogony = a history of the origin and development of the cosmos.

[77]  This is meant in a doubly figurative sense since the universe itself has no control over its own course.

[78]  and even then, only to the extent necessary to ensure moral responsibility for  one's actions.

[79]   All other activity not involving moral choice may therefore be considered as determined, or random. Nevertheless, any choice made by the human consciousness is a choice made by a quantum-randomness-transcending entity, and thus even choices relating to observations of quantum systems can collapse the wave function.

[80]    As we stated at the outset we are assuming that such anthropomorphic-type reasoning and conclusions are correct at least as analog y .

[81]     For a more comprehensive discussion of the issue of free will, see  Rabinowitz in B'ohr Hatorah #6, and in  "Free Will and Purpose" (in preparation).

[82]  Fichte attempted a metaphysical interpretation of the world operating under the teleological viewpoint that the universe should become conscious of itself. As Weyl states (p.214) "for the idealist, this telos of the world is posited by its essence itself."

[83]  This is so under the assumption of locality.

[84] "collapses the wave packet".

[85]      or: collapse or reduction of the wave function; actualization of potentials; rotation of the state vector. 

[86] EXPLAIN rreversibility….

[87]         See Herbert and Jammer. For a review and further references, see Greenberger.    

[88]      See Von Neumann, and Jammer "Conceptual.." Section 9.2, for discussion of this matter and for further references.

[89] In the final chapters of his book he presents what he feels is a rigorous proof of this conclusion.(Check to see what aspect of consciousness i s crucial - and if any connection to fw.)

[90]      Wheeler has wavered between full acceptance of this fundamental difference and a more cautious approach. He has expressed some hesitation in accepting consciousness as a qualitatively  unique phenomenon, and has carefully phrased some of his writings:

 "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon". ["Beyond the Black Hole" [Page 359] "The Central Lesson of the Quantum]  This summary of the central lesson of the quantum takes its two key words from Bohr.  "Registered" as Bohr uses is means "brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplification" and "communicable in plain language".  This adjective, equivalent in most respects to "observed", has a special feature as compared to that more frequently seen word.  It explicitly denies the view that quantum theory rests in any way whatsoever on "consciousness".  The critical word, "phenomenon", Bohr found himself forced to introduce in his discussions with Einstein to stress how different "reality" is from Einstein's "any reasonable conception of reality". 

[Page 356]  "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a  recorded phenomenon" [note 91 refers to this statement] .  [Note #91 in text] "[the word] Phenomenon:  [was] Introduced by N. Bohr to meet and overcome the objections of Einstein, op. cit. in N. 7, p.230.  For a preliminary account of stages in Bohr's evolution of this term see Petersen.  "No phenomenon is ... until it is ... " [used by J. A. Wheeler in Varenna lectures of 1977] revised [in printed version, Frontiers of Time, op.cit. in N. 8] to read "No elementary phenomenon ..." to exclude macroscopic phenomena.  The ending used there, "until it is an observed phenomenon" is revised here to "until is a registered phenomenon" to exclude any suggestion that quantum mechanics has anything whatsoever directly to do with "consciousness" and to recall Bohr's point  that an irreversible act of amplification is required to bring an elementary phenomenon to a close." 

[91] "We make a last-minute choice, after the photon has already   traversed the doubly slit screen, whether to open this blind or close it. Closed, as shown, it registers on a blackened grain of silver halide emulsion the arrival of that photon "through both   slits." Opened, it allows the light to be focused by the second, or L.F Bartell lens on the two photon counters. There being only one photon, only one counter goes off. It tells "through which   slit" the photon came. In this sense we decide, after the photon  has passed   through the screen, whether it shall   have passed through only one slit or both." Then he states.....

[92]      At the big bang, the entire space-time-matter-anergy of our universe was concentrated at a point smaller than the elementary particles of today's universe. The microscopic size mandates the use of quantum physics, while the large concentration of  mass-energy (all the mass-energy of the universe is concentrated in a tiny area) mandates the use of general relativity considerations. Relativity theory and quantum theory have been convincingly experimentally verified, and both have shown the limitations of human intuition regarding the nature of the physical universe, of space-time, and of causality.

[93]        Wheeler, p.27, "Genesis and Observership" [Wheeler used "Genesis" to mean "origin of the universe".  However, we will make the connection here between Genesis - i.e. the Biblical creation account - and observership.].

[94]     Wheeler "Genesis and Observership": "there is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not then exist."  Or, as the cosmologist  P. C. W. Davies paraphrases this,  [making the clear assumption that measurement need be made by a conscious observer]:  "The precise nature of reality has to await the participation of a conscious observer.  In this way, mind can be made responsible for the retroactive creation of reality - even a reality that existed before there were people"!! (Davies: "Gd and the New Physics" Page 111). [note: creation is also perhaps the quintessential 'irreversible act of amplification'.]

[95] [a]  See  Wigner 

[b] See D'espagnat and Herbert.

[c] "The Ghost in the Atom" p.47 ed. P. C. Davies.

[d] "Beyond the Black Hole" p.356-358.

[e] "Stephen Hawking's Universe" p121, and p173

[f] "Superforce", Paul Davies: Simon and Schuster, 1984: p.243.

[g] P.362, "Beyond the Black Hole".

[h] Wheeler, "Genesis and Oberservership", p.21.

[i] Wheeler, "Genesis and Observership", p.27.

[j]  J. McCabe:  "The Existence of Gd"

[k]"Guide" I:2.  

[l] Gen. R. 11:7

[m] Gen. 2:4

[n] Rambam:"Guide" II:26 ;  Ramban:   Genesis 1:1.

[o] Zohar: Pekudeh: 222a:["and Betzalel..."].

[p] T.Yer. Shkalim 13b, Rashi: Deut. 33:2

[q] 'Guide' II:30

[r] See 'Guide' II:26 and Ramban Introduction, and beginning of Breisheet

[96] Actually, since physics is a description that our mind forms of the universe as it is perceived by us, and since it is only via our consciousness that we know the universe and can be aware of measurements of its properties, and it is our consciousness which causes the perception of our otherness from the rest of the universe, it may be that at some deep leel it is necessarily true that our physical theories will indicate that our consciousness must have an effect on our measurements of what we consider to be 'the outside universe'.

[97] Unless a quirk which arose deterministically from a previous mental state decides otherwise, or a random event will trigger the 'choice'.

[98]  See Griffin, and  Gosse's  "Life".

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

[100]        if they are inside each other's "light cone" etc.

[101]        This not to say that free-willed choice is necessary on the part of the observer in deciding to observe.  Rather, the very fact of observation - whether voluntary or involuntary - causes emergence into reality, since whether or not it willed to do so, it is  a free-willed consciousness which does the observing.

[102]  As opposed to the existential anguish of many philosophers caused by their belief that the universe was meaningless and 'uncaring', Einstein, felt secure and comforted in the knowledge that there existed an Absolute, Objectively existent universe. [See Schilpp's "Einstein".] To Einstein, whose beliefs were of the Spinozistic pantheistic variety, such a universe was an acceptable substitute for the Biblical Gd he had rejected. However, the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum physics - which postulates that particles can be said to exist in the classical sense only when their properties are being measured - must certainly have threatened this picture of an Absolute and Objectively existent universe, and we can thus perhaps infer that it therefore threatened the very existence of Einstein's "god" as well.  We can therefore speculate that this is perhaps why Einstein fought so hard against the Copenhagen interpretation. [See Schilpp.] [Note: A soon-to-appear book by the present author entitled “Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice” explores the moral philosophy of Albert Einstein, and the connection between moral responsibility and free will.]

[103]      Even if the electrons have flown apart so that they are separated by thousands of miles, as soon as one is measured, we know for sure that the other electron has the opposite spin value. If we arrange for the two to be measured simultaneously by two people, then each one knows from the local result exactly what is the result of the other measurement. Thus we can have some information about a particle's state without anyone sending the information to us. In fact, this "information" is "transmitted instantaneously", that is, faster than the speed of light - which is the maximum transmission speed of information allowed by the special theory of relativity. There is no paradox here because this " information" is not really information; one cannot set up any system which can use this effect to enable one to transmit - faster than light - information about anything else [see D'Espagnat and Herbert].

[104] Unmeasured particles can be said to have real [macroscopic-type] properties only if one allows nonlocality, the existence of 'action-at-a-distance' [such as does not violate relativistic physics]. See  D.Bohm.

[105]        Questions of simultaneity, light cones and so on are irrelevant here.

[106]    In conversation with Wheeler, he indicated that he had a different approach, but that he did find this approach intriguing.

[107]The philosopher David Hume taught that there is nothing that exists whose non-existence would involve a logical contradiction.  In the present context: it does not seem to us that existence is logically neccessary, or in other words that non-existence of the universe would have been logically impossible.

[108]   We speak here only of physical existence,where by definition here 'God' is not a physical being. 

[109] The basic property of consciousness - or of self-consciousness - is self-reference, and the basic property of free will is self-causation. 

[110] Although the initial words of the account relate the initial creation of heaven and earth, the next passages seem to imply that the waters were prior. A similar problem concerns the temporal relationship of the  events in the first and second passages (see the classical Biblical commentaries). The paradox of time beginning is inherent in the account, and it may be that the creation account hints at this by calling the day of creation of heaven and earth 'yom echad' - 'day one' or 'one day' - rather than 'first day' (the rest of the days are indeed termed: 'second day', 'third day' etc.).

[111] "Perfect Symmetry": p252-253.

[112] "This event is called 'hadronization'". Hadran alakh.

[113] From the perspective of the divine, all life procedes from God, all existence is of God, and there is no independent existence or will - the fragmentation is apparent only from the perspective of physical beings. However the fact that there are consciousnesses which feel this illusion of separation is itself an indication of the reality of this separation - this itself is a paradox. 

[114]   In the Kabbalistic perspective, it is the purpose of man to return the cosmos to its former state: To restore the exclusivity of the Divine Will  by  developing  one's own will to conform to the Divine Will - thus  realizing fully one's status of a being 'in the image of Gd'; to restore the Divine unity  by "cleaving unto Gd" "with all one's heart, with all one's soul, and with all one's might", by "walking in My ways"and by "being Holy as I [Gd] am Holy". [Note parallel between: "ve'dovak be'ishto': 've'atem ha'dvekim b'hashem..': 'vehayu lebasar ekhad', 'hashem echad']

[115] The emergence of the universe into existence from nonexistence involves a violation of causality, for if there is nothing, then there is nothing to cause the universe to exist;  the existence of free will involves a similar violation of causality.

[116] It was Gd's will that a universe be created. The universe emerged into existence. As soon as the universe existed, there would probably not also exist the Divine Will to create the universe. Similarly, as long as it was the Divine Will to create a universe, it must have been that the universe was not existent. Thus, the Divine Will to create the universe does not coexist with the universe itself. One can then perhaps say that it was the Divine Will itself which was transformed into the existence of the universe: thus, the universe is an 'emanation' of Gd.

[117]Or, after the end of the inflationary phase.

[118] See Davies: "The Accidental Universe". However  in the "inflation" scenario, the initial big-bang conditions are smoothed out. According to Pagels:"One of the beautiful features of this scenario is that inflation can take almost any hypothetical initial conditions for the universe to the right beginning state for the standard big-bang model; "fine tuning" of the initial conditions is not needed.["Perfect Symmetry "p.352]. According to Hawking: "Stephen Hawking's Universe..":p134-135 :" The anthropic principle....But there does not seem any necessity for other galaxies to exist ..". See however Scientific American .......XXX.

[119]   See Davies: "The Accidental Universe". However  in the "inflation" scenario, the initial big-bang conditions are smoothed out. According to Pagels:"One of the beautiful features of this scenario is that inflation can take almost any hypothetical initial conditions for the universe to the right beginning state for the standard big-bang model; "fine tuning" of the initial conditions is not needed.["Perfect Symmetry "p.352]. According to Hawking: "Stephen Hawking's Universe..":p134-135 :" The anthropic principle....But there does not seem any necessity for other galaxies to exist ..".

[120]         This is especially true in the "many universes" interpretation, since every type of possible universe develops - inevitably including very many with the highly improbable conditions necessary for the emergence of life.

           In the "strong anthropic principle" approach [see below], since the universe cannot emerge into existence in the absence of life, the fact that the universe contains life is tautological.

[121]      This  is similar to the "argument from design" controversy in philosophy/theology.

[122]        In the many-universes theory, this argument loses its force. Also, according to the strong anthropic principle - see next section - the universe cannot emerge unless there is life, and thus it is not a coincidence that our universe contains life.

[123]        Of course the universe did not 'have to' be this way, did not 'have to' contain life at all. Indeed, had some of the constants of nature been slightly different, the universe would  have been vastly and fundamentally different than it actually is.

[124] According to a theory of modern cosmology, the neighborhood of a black holes can develop a space-time curvature which causes that part of the universe to break off into a totally separate 'baby universe' which could then develop on its own in a different space-time than the 'parent universe' (see Linde). Those baby universes which do not immediately deflate and self-destruct, may grow larger and may eventually develop stars within them. Such baby universes can perhaps eventually develop life as well. The more likely a baby universe is to develop stars, the more likely it is that there will be black holes in that universe since black holes develop from stars. Therefore the more that a universe is of the type that it develops stars, the more 'baby universes' it will itself eventually spawn. Those universes which do not produce stars die out quickly, whereas those that do are those that live long. Therefore eventually most universes will be such as produce stars. 

        If as some claim there is a correlation between star-production and the production of life-forms living on planets near those stars, then eventually most universes will be not only star forming but life bearing. Therefore, life is not improbable but the reverse(see Smolin).

[125] See Farrington p.98

[126] The belief that life could arise via natural processes in a created universe is not contrary to religious belief at all: for example, many religious leaders believed in spontaneous generation without this seeming to them to be counter to their religious beliefs. Thus the religionist believes that Gd created the universe, and studies the laws of nature  as reflections of how the Divine Will operates.

[127] The universe 'began' as a 'point' - a singularity - and exploded in a 'big bang' to form the universe as we know it.

[128] Even if free-willed consciousness is a holistic emergent phenomenon, science would still assume that such a phenomenon would arise only under very specific conditions, and that these conditions would themselves arise as a result of a chain of cuause-effect stretching from the the initial conditions of the universe.

[129] Problems raised by quantum indeterminacy are dealt with elsewhere.

[130] Ramban states that Gd gave the waters the power to bring forth "a living soul" - that is, life. See also Midrash Gen.R. 8:1 on Gen. 1:26 ['let us make man'] and see ref. to Midrash Thilim "and the spirit of Gd hovered" , this is the spirit of Adam. Also see Gen. R. 17:1 which states that 'the spirit of Gd hovered' represents one of the ten ma'amarim (essential creative acts).

 We can thus understand the passage "and Gd breathed into man  'nishmas khayim' " as implying a potentiality placed in the creation [see e.g. the midrash regarding the creations created at dusk on the sixth day] which would be activated when a potential moral being emerged, or we can understand it as meaning a special Divine intervention at the time of the emergence of such a being.

 Therefore for those who might insist that free willed consciouusness can be achieved only via Divine bestowal,  in the text above read instead: "Gd could certainly ensure the emergence of  a being capable of serving as a vessel for the Divine gift of free willed consciousness."  

According to Rambam ["Guide" II:6], any act of Gd - any means by which Gd's Will is carried out in the physical universe - is termed an 'angel'. Since the laws of nature were created by Gd, according to Rambam the category 'angel' includes natural forces such as the elements, and the formative power in a seed. Thus, when it is said that Gd Willed a certain event or process to take place, what is meant is that it occurred via an angel -  for example by the action of 'the laws of nature'.

Therefore, to say that Gd Willed that Man possess a consciousness, or a free-willed consciousness, is to say that Gd gave these properties to Man via an angel, or equivalently, via the workings of 'natural law'.

[131] Consciousness can be a property of all fundamental particles, since all is derived from God. It can be inherent in the universe to be activated by a compex brain, or it can evolve at a certain point, corresponding to "and God breathed into man the soul of life".

[132]        Problems raised by quantum indeterminacy are dealt with later.

[133] Consciousness can be a property of all fundamental particles, since all is derived from God. It can be inherent in the universe to be activated by a compex brain, or it can evolve at a certain point, corresponding to "and God breathed into man the soul of life".

[134] The Genesis-Science Conflict for the Biblical Religionist

The actual conflict between religion and the scientific origin theories actually arise only when the religious beliefs involve belief in specific mechanisms and dates for the creation of the universe and the emergence of life.  The Biblical creation account describes creation as taking place in six days, in a specific manner, culminating in the special creation of man - and all this about 6,000 years ago.  This of course seems to violently clash with the details and overall mechanism of both the theory of the big bang, and the theory of evolution.    

The Biblical religionist can - like the non-biblical religionist - legitimately reject the philosophical interpretation of the origin theory.  He can also accept some of the basic scientific ideas of the origin theory as valid. However, it would seem that  the Biblical religionist - unlike the non-biblical religionist - cannot accept the specifics and details, and must  therefore reject the theory as a whole. 

[135] p11 bottom, of Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers 1954. based on Albert Einstein "Mein Weltbild" Amsterdam 1934.

[136] The great majority of philosophers and scientists would likely agree that neither atheism nor religion can be proved or disproved.

[137] If so, then free willed consciousness is not only the basis for the design of the universe, but as discussed elsewhere in this book, free-willed consciousness may be that unique factor which allows the universe to maintain its growth into complexity, to defeat the randomness of entropy, and also that ingredient which allows the universe to achieve physical reality.

[138] It is not inappropriate therefore that the anthropic principle can see in the design for a human being a complete specification for the design of the rest of the universe.

[139] See for example the discussion of Bell's inequality and its ramifications for wholism, and Bohm's ideas regarding the instantaneous interconnection of all the universe.

According to Rambam, the universe as a whole is an organism, and all parts are interconnected. ["Guide"I:72]  .

[140]For our purpose however, the mechanism whereby consciousness arises - whether it is an emergent phenomenon or otherwise, and so on -  is irrelevant.

[141]  Huxley and Huxley [Romanes Lectures] p126.

[142]     "To Have or To Be" Erich Fromm         

[143]     Victor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning"

[144] [See p. 372-top p373 re: Entropy , in Jammer "Conceptual..."]

[145] See e.g. the writings of DuNuouy, DeChardin, Tipler and Barrow.

[146] The being itself is part of the incomplete creation it must bring to completion, thus it possesses the ability to complete itself.

[147] On the words "which God created to do".

[148] In an infinite universe though, we may never know that it is infinitely repetitive without exploring an infinite amount, which is impossible for us as finite beings. 

[149] Can insert from Ch A. re: INFINITY, TIME, ETC.

[150] It may be that consciousness will not appear unequivocally in science until there is a theory which correctly describes the entire human brain

[151] INSERT Watson source

[152]  "Mind and Nature",  pp. 19-20.

[153]   Heisenberg: "Physics and Beyond" p114.

[154]  Heisenberg: "Physics and Beyond" p114.  

[155]  "The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on the Scientific Themes of Kepler" in C.G. Jung and W. Pauli [p. 210?).

[156] Possibly, verbal expressions can be an indication of the effect of consciousness on the physical realm. For example, it seems theoretically possible that non-conscious intelligence could evolve, and perhaps we may encounter such in future space exploration. Would conversation with non-conscious entities immediately reveal them to be such - or is there no way of telling unequivocally?

        Would the language of such entities naturally evolve words equivalent to "I', or to "I feel", or "I am happy" - or is it only conscious bengs which would express themselves in this manner? If one would say that only conscious beings use these concepts, then the use of such concepts by an entity would indicate that it was either conscious itself or had been programmed by conscious beings. 

        [Of course there may be no way for us to determine what the meaning of such words are - we know that "I feel" indicates consciousness in humans because we are conscious ourselves and use these expressions ourselves, and therefore are willing to assume that similar beings - other humans - when using the same words are also conscious. If we learn a foreign language, we recognize words which correspond to "I feel" and do not require others to use the same language as we do in order to conclude that they are conscious. However with an alien entity whose consciousness in contention, there may be no way for us to determine if its language reflects the existence of consciousness.]

        If however the existence of consciousness manifests itself via expressions such as "I feel", then we must necessarily conclude that the existence of consciousness has an effect on the physical universe, namely on the sounds produced by conscious beings. Therefore there is a mind/body interaction in the mind to body direction.

        If we wish to avoid this conclusion, we must assume that even non-conscious entities would evolve epressions such as "I feel" in their language. Therefore, the fact that we hear other humans employing such expressions is no indication that they are conscious.

        In any case, those who assume that there exists a physical universe which is the source of their sensory perceptions must admit that the mental and physical interact in the physical to mental direction. In such a case, it should not be so radical a conclusion that there is also a mind/body interaction in the reverse direction - from the mind to the body, for example in the operation of free will.

[157]         Rucker, p. 178.

[158][Rucker, pages 175-176 referring to Gödel's "What is Cantor's Number"] 

[159]        ibid. p. 176.  see also p. 301-302

[160] Belief about a factual matter can be clarified via greater familiarity with the subject, and therefore this belief is subject to changes. Belief regarding the existence of God is often not dependent on factual information, and is often not subject to changes. Such belief would not be considered by the believer to be 'wishful thinking', emotion, a statement of knowledge, or any other mental category. Belief to the believer is in a category of its own, independent of the rational world, and seemingly therefore derives from some connection of the mind to a higher realm, an intutition of a Truth. Rather than seeing belief as determined by irrational impulses, rational deliberation or environmental influence, the believer can then attribute belief to a free willed choice: free will, being beyond the rational and a connector to higher realmsis appropriate as an arbiter of 'whether or not to believe', whether or not to connect to the realm of Truth and develop the intution for the truth which is experienced by the mind as 'belief'.

[161] Science and Logic vs. Religion and Intuition

                When one considers that man is able to intuitively recognize mathematical truths which are unprovable in any given mathematical system, it becomes much easier to claim that man can intuitively recognize other unprovable truths as well:, e.g., free will, the existence of Gd, Gd's omniscience, the existence of an Absolute Objective morality, etc.

                Similarly, even when some of one's intuitive beliefs seem to be conceptually conflicting, such as the idea of man's free will and Gd's omniscience, since both of these ideas belong to the extra-physical realm, one could postulate that the system of "physical universe plus logic" is not strong enough to prove their compatibility, but that in the higher realm, their consistency would be obvious. Within the more limited system, truths appear to the intuition which are troublesome to rational inquiry:  however, when a more comprehensive system is employed,  the conflict disappears.

                It is thus consistent with one of the deepest ideas of mathematics to say that Man's logic and understanding, and Nature, form a logical self-consistent system within which the existence of 'higher-level phenomena' such as 'spirituality', 'Gd', etc. are not provable, yet the conviction that they exist is generated within the system.

                The statement "Gd exists, but His existence is not provable" takes on a new meaning in this context.

[162] See Leibnitz and Giordano Bruno; and recently, D. Finkelstein (private communication).

[163] Some have claimed that particles cannot be conscious because it has been shown that they are identical in all respects, and if they were conscious their varying experiences or thoughts would destroy this identity. However it is possible that this identity does not apply to particle consciousness since their consciousness is inaccessible to us.

[164] In the Traditional context, this can be effected via events programmed by the creator to occur at specific moments, as the miracles created ‘bayn hashmoshot’ were programmed to appear at the appropriate times without causal connection to the events in the physical universe which preceded them 

[165] As opposed to the philosophy behind the Turing test for example.

[166] J B Watson "Behaviorism" W W Norton and Co. Inc. Pub. NY 1925, 1926, first paragraph of the book.

[167] Alfred A Knopf NY 1972, p19, p205 (208?).

[168]        Russel: "Human Knowledge":  p194.

[169] All of spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold - there is no dynamic on it in the sense of time 'flowing' along the time line - this would imply the existence of a 'supertime'  regulating or measuring 'the rate of passage of time'. 

 Godel showed that a universe could esist (consistent with relativity theory) which would have a closed time line, so that time had no beginnig or end, but simply repaeated itself so to speak. In such a universe all events would also be their own causes in a sense, since the order of events is arbitrary in that any event' future becomes its past when seen from the other side of the time line. In such a universe events are in a sense 'self-causative', and therefore perhaps the entire universe in a sense could arise from a bootstrap self-causation. If the matter-energy of the universe causes space-time to close in this way it can emerge into existence in a self-causative manner(?).

[170]  Christodoulou holds ..... These ....can be taken as more fundamental than the postulation of the existence of an external universe  XXX.

[171] Placed in other section with "inst un" type material: Conclusion:The question of whether other minds exist is unanswerable as there are no observable consequences of either possibility, and therefore the issue is irrelevant to science. Similarly for the question of whether the universe was created, whether there exists a creator.The question of when actually the universe emerged into existence in not truly a scientific question, as it is clear that the universe could have emerged into existence right now or at any previous time. Similarly the universe could have been manipulated by a sufficiently advanced being in such a manner as to have left no trace of these manipulations accessible to human scientific investigation. What is instead of relevance, what is a meaningful question, is what the evidence available to scientific inquiry implies as to the origin and development of the universe, and the elapsed time since this origin. Science has found that all the evidence available to scientific investigation - as opposed to evidence gained via other possible means such as revelation - reveals that the universe emerged from a big bang billions of years ago, and has evolved into the universe as we now know it in the intervening time.Accounts of the origin and development of the universe as related from the understandings of other perspectives, relying on knowledge obtained from other sources than scientific investigation - as for example is the case with the Biblical creation and Eden accounts - are of no relevance to science, and neither conflict nor support science, as they relate to a different realm of discourse.

[172]  It can be noted that "laws of Nature" are probably more correctly conceived of as ideas formulated by humans to describe the universe as they see it, rather than as objectively existent entities.

[173]  Assigning temporal order to processes 'before' time 'began' involves one in paradox. 

[174]  [1475-1550] Commenting on the passage "In the day that Hashem Elokim [Gd] made earth and heaven"                [Gen. 2:4] 

[175]    "De Opithe ficio Mundi" VII:29 . This idea Philo may have adapted from Platonic Idealism. See commentary by Dei Rossi.  (See also the Clearchus quote in Contra Apion I:22)

[176] “These are the generations ... in the day God created ...” [Eleh toldos shamayim ...]

[177]   [Asarah Ma'amarot = 9 Ma'amarot + 'bereisheet'.]

[178]   An 'angel' is the way  the manifestation of an act of Gd's Will  is perceived by humans [see Rambam "Guide"].

[179] See previous note re: the Zohar - all interpretations offered here are based simply on the text rather than on orally transmitted ësecret' true Tradition.

[180] A link in this chain of tradition can be been taken as sixty years based on the model of a grandparent of seventy-five teaching a grandchild. Or, as often occurs in the great centers of religious learning, a brilliant sage of seventy-five teaching a select few young star pupils, budding scholars already showing  brilliance at fifteen. 

  In such a case, only sixty links connect between us and the time of the patriarchs, sixty links of transmission from sage to future sage, from the sages of ancient times to those of today. 

[181]  In the introduction to his commentary on the Torah [very beginning] Ramban makes a similar point: he notes that Moshe (Moses) wrote the Torah anonymously rather than saying at the beginning of Genesis something like "these are the words which I Moses have written...". According to Ramban, this was because the words he wrote in the Torah had already been written before [since the Torah preceded the creation] and therefore Moshe was "like a scribe who copies from an old book".

[182] including the commandments contained in it

[183] Even if one accepts that every word in the Bible originates with God, is it necessarily true that God would only tell the truth in the Bible? Is it possible that God would include material in the Bible which God knew was not true? Or that God would allow the original recipients of the Bible to mistakenly believe that what was actually a poem was instead a factual statement? If we do not know what God would or would not allow to be included in a document, we cannot set standards for a decision as to whether a document did or did not originate with God even based on its veracity.

[184] A book itself is an inanimate object and therefore cannot conflict with anything That which can in theory conflict are the beliefs of  people, eg beliefs they hold about the book (or regarding the claims in the book, or regarding the truth of the claims in the book, or beliefs which people may hold as a result of reading the book) and other beliefs eg re science.. Thus, the Bible does not conflict with science, nor do the words of the Bible represent a conflict, but rather the beliefs of some people about the bible and what it says and means can be in conflict with what others believe as a result of scientific theories. Many people however do not find that the bible and science lead to contradictory beliefs, and this position is supported by tradition. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that the Bible and science conflict. 

[185]        "Guide"  III:14.   

[186]  "Guide" I:71 (referring to the discussion in I:70).

[187]   "Guide" II:11.

[188]  "A Critique of Religion and Science":

[189]in the creation account itself, and especially between the creation account and the Garden of Eden account. If we interpret both strictly literally, they contradict each other as to the order of creation of man, woman, and animals; as to the purpose and role of the animals; and as to the days on which all was created. Of course Tradition contains many approaches to resolving these inconsistencies - and when understood within the context of these interpretations no inconsistencies remain. 

[190]   "Guide" II:29.

[191]  Rav Khisdai Crescas (1340-1415). See "Challenge" p127. 

[192]      From Rabinovitch, p.129 "Source Material".

[193]  "Guide" II: 25: 

[194] After exhaustively analyzing Aristotle's ideas on the matter, Rambam concludes that there is no proof against creation. However, he states that if conclusive scientific/philosophical proofs were offered against the idea of creation ex-nihilo, he would see no difficulty in accepting that it was meant allegorically.

[195] See p.2-5 of Schilpp.

[196] See Gillespie        See Gillespie p. XX

[197] This composite was constructed by the present author by combining bits and pieces from various Jewish traditional sources, and therefore in its present form it in no way reflects any actual Jewish traditional source.

[198]  According to Maharal ["Gevurot Hashem"], all midrashim are meant on a different level than that of 'pshat' [purely literal interpretation]. See Maharal  regarding the maidservants of the daughter of Pharao and regarding the famous statement in the midrash that "the patriarch Ya'akov never died".{ See on this Ta'anit tzad i by R. Tzadok, Takanat Ha Shavim p 24].

      Interpretations of the Zohar must take into account that it is a mystical text, not written to be understood by the non-expertly trained reader, perhaps deliberately obscure and therefore potentially misleading as to its intent to those not steeped in the oral tradition accompanying the text.

[199] "The surface meaning of the creation and Eden accounts" as we employ the phrase here means something different than 'the pshat'. The 'surface meaning' as we mean it could be arrived at in the following manner: present the two accounts to two Hebrew speakers who have never read them, and don't know what they are, and have them translate them independently into English. Then present these two translated sections to an English speaker who never heard of the Bible or read these accounts. 

        Due to the apparent discrepancies between the two accounts, e.g. in the duration of creation - six days vs. one ; the order of creation of woman and the animals; the method of creation of man and woman and so on, it is quite certain that the reader of the surface meaning translation would make the assumption that the two accounts contradict each other, and that if they are true accounts, then they are not referring to the same events. 

        We can therefore conclude that since tradition teaches that the creation and Eden accounts do refer to the same events, then it is clear that tradition did not understand the accounts in accordance witht the 'surface meaning' as we have defined it. 

[200] For example, the very idea expressed by the creation account that the universe was created in six days is seemingly directly contradicted by the following Eden account which relates the creation as having occurred in one day, "on the day when heaven and earth were created". Rather than trying to determine which of the two is 'correct', this juxtaposition of the two accounts with differing durations for creation can be seen to point to the non-literal meaning of the word 'day' in the creation account. That is, the contents and juxtaposition of the creation and Eden accounts in themselves militate against understanding these accounts as suggesting that the universe was created in 6 days. By juxtaposing the two accounts the Bible is indicating that the meaning of the accounts lies not at the level of the surface meaning, nor of the technical aspects such as  such as the duration of creation, but at a deeper level of meaning of the accounts.

[201] According to Ramban (Nachmanides) one of Judaism's leading mystics (11xx-12xx), the creation is beyond human comprehension and the literal meaning of the account in Genesis is meant essentially to provide the introduction to the rest of the Bible, motivating the commandments by explaining that the God who commands is the God who created the entire universe.

[202] For a very brief explanation, see appendix.

[203] For a discussion of the theological aspects of this issue - specifically the relevance to the creator of the limitations imposed by the laws of quantum physics - see further in this chapter.

[204] See Appendix: Quantum physics and random development at the end of this chapter.

[205]       [This is similar to the Midrashic idea that "God created and destroyed universes"  prior to creating our own universe.] 

[206] Alternatively,  a random big bang can be created, from its development learn from its deficiencies, improve upon it, create a new big bang again ... etc.  Alternatively, a universe-creating algorithm can be created to do this.

[207]   This is called the "many worlds" interpretation, attributed to Hugh Everett (See Herbert). And perhaps a 'super-super universe' containing all  possible big  bangs with all their possible future states etc. 

[208]  That is, to force the quantum events always to occur along the most probable path, or to intervene only at critical moments and cause highly improbable but possible choices, etc.

[209] Or  alternatively, extrapolate to obtain all the possible universe-paths which could arise from this big bang.  Then choose that path which fulfils the desired criteria.

[210]    Just as was performed the backwards mental extrapolation which allowed the teleoderivation of the big bang  in the first place, one can perform a forwards mental extrapolation from this teleoderived big bang, to obtain the moral stage.   

[211]The issue of whether or not Gd can predict quantum events is then irrelevant to our thesis, since in any event the universe is created only at the moral stage rather than at the big bang .

[212] In such a case, at any stage in its development the universe would really be only as old as the first moral being in it to emerge.

[213]    See next chapter [see Herbert for reference to Bell and Aspect: but c.f. Bohm].

[214]  To Einstein, who did not believe in a Gd outside the universe, a Creator of the universe, any god which did  exist must needs be of the "pantheistic" variety.  As such, this god is a "created" entity rather than a creator, and is thus bound by the laws of physics just as we are.  Thus, if Einstein wished to believe that there was an inherent order to nature, rather than randomness, it was necessary for him to believe that the universe itself must be non-random.  Then, since Einstein believed that god is the universe and the universe is god, he expressed his belief that the universe is non-random by saying that "god doesn't play dice with the universe".

However, if we believe that a Gd, Creator-of-the-universe exists, then this Gd is necessarily "outside" the universe . It is not at all necessary to assume that  Gd is bound by the laws of nature  since it was Gd who designed the universe and its laws, and Gd is thus necessarily "other" than the universe .

  Thus, as opposed to Einstein, and in the line with the belief of most present day physicists, we can accept that for man, or for all beings "inside" the universe, the basic laws of physics are indeterminate and that processes are random at their most fundamental level [excluding free will,  Divine providence ('hashgakha pratit'), etc.].  Nevertheless, we can at the same time agree  with Einstein, that Gd indeed "does not  play dice with the universe" - that is , Gd transcends the indeterminacy of quantum physics.

Therefore it is possible to say that the universe is meaningful even if, from the perspective of man, it is random. 

[215] For example, to "square the circle" i.e. , to  construct a square  and a circle with  exactly equal  area. [i.e. to find a pi*r2 equal to some a2.i.e. pi = [r/a]2 i.e. pi is a ratio of two numbers, i.e. a rational number, which is untrue. See Rambam "Guide" I:75, III:15. See also Bab. Tal. Sanh.

    However, as is the case with seeming conflict of free will and the foreknowledge of God, we can not always easily judge what is or is not logically impossible, and therefore not applicable even to God (see "Guide").

[216]  That is, once a universe is created, its entire future is clear to Gd, even in a quantum universe. And, the fact that Gd knows the future of a quantum event does not transform this event into a determined one. As Rambam says [Guide III:20]:

        "the fact that Gd knows things which are in a state of possibility, when their existence belongs to the future, does not change the nature of the possible in any way; that nature remains unchanged: and the knowledge of which one of several possibilities will be actualized, does not affect that actualization." 

          However, without actually creating a universe, it is impossible for it to be known what its future would be. [See related discussion in other chapters, and in the 'Guide' III:20]

[217]      We shall drop this assumption later, since it turns out that  the issue of whether Gd can or cannot predict  quantum events  is actually  irrelevant to our  topic .

        Also, to say that Gd cannot predict a quantum event is not to say that Gd does not know the future [see Rambam quote in note above.]

[218]        The fact of prediction implies the existence of a temporal order - that is, before the time of occurrence of an event, its outcome is nevertheless known. However, of course Gd is above time, and therefore it is not technically correct to apply the concept of prediction to Gd. Furthermore, the concepts 'randomness' and 'cause-effect' all are temporally referent terms and are not applicable to events as seen by Gd since Gd is above time, etc. These are perhaps other reasons not to say 'Gd predicts the outcome of quantum events'.

[219]For example:  Quantum formulas applied to process X show that there are five ways for it to occur; ways A  B  C  D  and  E;  the formulas show further that way number A has a 10% probability, B a 5% probability, C has 35% probability, D a 27%, and E a 23% chance.  Speaking very figuratively, nature constructs the following table in its mind:

Way type        Relative Probability        Code Numbers Assigned

       ________________________________________________

A        10%        1 - 10

B        5%        11 - 15

C        35%        16 - 50

D        27%        51 - 77

E        23%        78 - 100

________________________________________________

Imagine a hundred 100-sided die: each number from one through one hundred has an equal chance in each throw. Nature then decides how an event should occur as follows: it rolls a one hundred-sided die, and then consults the table. If the number on the die is for example between 1 and 10, then since code numbers 1 - 10 have been assigned to way A, event X occurs in way A.  If the number is for example between 51 - 77, it occurs in way D, etc.

[220] Quantum physics employs an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. However it may be that in actuality there are only a finite amount of realizable possibilities, for example if the universe is temporally/spatially finite.

[221]The dates given below are rough approximations - new discoveries often cause significant revisions. They are only meant to give an idea of the progression - the exact timing is of no relevance here.

[222]The time-spans for geological and astronomical events are in the billions and millions of years and therefore because of the evolutionary theory and the theory of the big bang, many people tend to think in terms of billions of years. As a result it is surprising to them that our species, homo-sapiens-sapiens, evolved "only" 100,000 years ago, when life had begun already billions of years previously.

[223]   Intended only as a sample - no intent is made to compare the value of any one development to any other.

[224]    on cave walls in what are today Spain and France.

[225]The name of the ancient lawgiver Hammurabi can be related 'midrashically' to that of Abraham: HAM|UR|AB = AB|RA|HAM.      Indeed according to the midrash Abraham's name is an acronym for AV HAMon Goyim  ('father of many nations), leaving out an explanation for the 'r' part of his name. This 'r' in the name  can perhaps be a reference to Abraham's birth place, Ur: his name then deriving from: AV HAM of UR  = Av'r'ham = Avraham = HAM UR AV  = Hammurabi.

[226]The hypothesis that the emergence of  moral humanity took place only 6,000 years ago is quite plausible.  In fact, the development of homo sapiens sapiens to  moral humanity in only 70,000  years (approximately) was a remarkably quick process compared to the development during the millions of years before then.  It is almost miraculous that  moral humanity is already 6,000 years old: one might have expected him to appear much later, not much earlier.

[227] The  amount of time which has passed since creation is of no importance to Jewish law, and is not of crucial importance to Biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, since the traditional age of 6,000 years agrees so well with our tracing of the cultural and moral development of man, we will make no attempt to justify a different age.

[228]Paganism is not always conducive to the idea of morality.  As far back as 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the introduction of the first monotheistic religion - humanity probably had only a potential for conceiving of the concept of "morality".  

The early pagan belief was essentially that many gods ruled the world and were themselves bound by their limited powers and by the constant strife between gods.  These gods were believed to be dependent on man's gifts and sacrifices, which could occasionally persuade them to perform favors to individual men or groups of men.

According to the early pagan conception of 5,500 years ago, the  gods ruled arbitrarily and were not bound by any rules of fair conduct, justice, kindness, etc. to man.  There were no rules given to man whereby he might achieve the immortality of life after death - no code of ethics to follow in his man-to-man dealings and no set code for man-to-god interaction. The idea that all men are equal, that one should love one's fellow man, that life has meaning, and that therefore the taking of life is bad, that there is some reason that man should be what we call "moral" - all these did not exist and thus neither did "moral" man. Man's body was formed millions of years ago, and his brain 100,000 years ago,  but his "soul" is only 6,000 years old.

[229]6,000 years does not seem like a long time for  moral humanity to have been in existence. However, this is an illusion created by the overwhelming scientific and cultural stores of knowledge available today.  It surprises us to see how much we have achieved in so short a time.

[230] Monogenesis:  the doctrine that only one individual was created, and that the entire human race  descends from this one individual.

[231]  Weyl p299.

[232]   [Such mutations are exceedingly rare and would not occur twice in exactly the same way and thus it is quite certain that there was only one such mutation, and we are all descended from that one mutant.

      See also Appendix: "All Men are Brothers".]

[233]     See "In Search of Eve" by  Rebecca L. Cann  in "The Sciences":  Sept/Oct. 1987 and  "The Search for Adam and  Eve" "Newsweek" Jan 11, 1988. See also Appendix  at the end of this chapter.

[234]The creation and destruction is not necessarily total.  'Creation of worlds' may refer to major changes in existing entities, rather than creation where nothing was before, and 'destruction of worlds' may refer to major surgery rather than to total annihilation. See for example Rambam (“Guide”) regarding the hyperbolic language occaisionally employed by the prophets.

[235] [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in  "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.

[236] See discussion in next chapter.

[237]     All humanity, and perhaps to a certain degree all living beings since they, as man, are called "ruakh" and "nefesh" in the Bible.

[238] Quote Sperry? :

[239]   August Comte, founder of sociology, considered a human society as an organism, and saw the society rather than the individual man as the basic unit of Humanity. Some scientists studying 'emergent properties' such as mind and consciousness also consider the possibility thnat a new emergent level can arise when a sufficient number of individuals combine to form a society.[See section XX re Nouy etc.] Thus, it is possible that a moral being might only be possible as part of a race of moral beings. Alternatively, it might be that although one moral being could be created, a race of moral beings was created in order that there exist a higher level than that possible with one moral being alone.

[240]        Ibn Ezra  on Genesis 2:8

[241]  See the "Avi Ezer".

[242] in comenting on the words "na'aseh adam"[Gen. I:26]

[243] Translation and commentary by Rabbi R. Pelcovitz.

[244]  Adam = 'of earth'  = Man(kind)           Eve = Khava =  mother of life

[245]             Tosefta Sanhedrin 8 (See Kasher: Torah Shelema.1,765[p64])

[246] as a result  Adam names this son "Sheth" ("appointed" or "sent"  {by Gd}) [[4:25].

[247]This would of course be a permissible act since there was no other way to fulfil Gd's express command to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth".  The daughter of Lot committed incest in the same spirit, not knowing that humanity had survived.

[248]        R. Yokhanan: Nida 61a.

[249]  According to the Talmud, even when prophesying via Divine inspiration, the prophets spoke in their own words so that two prophets receiving the identical prophecy would formulate it in different ways.

 Rambam explains that when the prophets speak, they do so  in their own  vocabulary and style: 

"It must be borne in mind that every prophet has his own peculiar diction, which is, as it were, his language, and it is in that language that the prophecy addressed to him is communicated to those who understand it".

 Rambam continues and notes that it may be the style of a particular prophet to greatly exagerate the level of destruction which  has occurred, and to  use metaphors which translate a local catastrophe to cosmic scale:

 "...every prophet has his own peculiar diction...After this preliminary remark you will understand the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah, and less frequently by other prophets, when they describe the ruin of a kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the following; - "The stars have fallen," "The heavens are overthrown", "The sun is darkened", "the earth is waste, and trembles", and similar metaphors.

According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Humanity" when  "a nation" is what is actually meant. In Rambam's words:

"Sometimes the prophet uses the term 'Humanity' instead of 'the people of a certain place', whose destruction they predict; for example, Isaiah, speaking of the destruction of Israel says, "and the Lord will remove Man far away" [Isaiah 6:12]. So also Zephania [I:3:4], "and I will cut off Man from off the earth". "

In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation.In Rambam's words:

"..[as in the passage] 'Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger'[Isaiah13:23]. I do not think that any person is so foolish and blind, and so much in favour of the the literal sense of figurative and oratorical phrases, as to assume that at the fall of Babylonian kingdom a change took place in the nature of the stars of the heaven, or in the light of the sun and moon, or that the earth moved away from its center. For all this is merely the description of a country that has been defeated."

   Based on the approach of Rambam outlined above, one can perhaps interpret a prophet's description of the complete annihilation of Humanity as actually referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation . 

[250]    Tiferet yisrael 32

[251] Malbim on Gen.6:2 regarding "the sons of elohim"

[252]        Since they are not moral beings, they are not responsible for their actions, and cannot be punished by Gd.  Therefore, they were not destroyed by the flood, and they have to be defeated in battle by the Jewish people:  in the desert, by Shaul, and in the time of Mordecai and Esther -- and  perhaps in later times as well.

[253] Referring to the doctrine that only one individual was created, and that the entire human race  descends from this one individual, Adam.

[254]  According to Ibn Ezra, 'via the energy of the sun'. That is, via natural processes.

[255]            Guide III:50.

[256]        Roman Catholics are permitted to believe in the theory of evolution, but as at best an incomplete theory, since it cannot - or does not 'wish' to - account for the origin of the soul in man.  In addition, it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church that only one man was created -  in order to provide support for  their  doctrine of the "Fall of Man" which had to encompass all humanity. Thus, they believe in evolution, but only as a partially correct incomplete theory. See the "monogenist theory of human evolution" in the encyclical of Pius XII "Humani Generis":1950.

[257]        "Guide" I:7

[258]        Chava was not a full free willed moral being?  Is that why she gave Adam the "fruit"?

[259]The predecessors and contemporaries of Adam were not H. Voluntas, and were thus not moral beings, were not the being 'created in the image of Gd' who was imbued with "the breath of Gd"; only Adam, the first H. Voluntas, was a being "in the image of Gd" and thus creation begins with his emergence, and he is considered the first man.

[260]     According to the Rambam, anyone with the proper intellectual attainments can become a prophet if Gd decides to allow him to be one [  SOURCE ] . However, according to Rabi Yehuda HaLevi - the Kuzari - the inherent ability to receive prophecy, to be part of 'segulah',  is genetic . That is, not only proper intellectual attainments are necessary, but also a  certain genetic endowment  is a prerequisite  for the  capability to receive that transmission from the Divine which we term prophecy....[Kuzari 1:95]

[261]      However some of Noakh's genes and of his wife's genes, were of the non-moral line and therefore his children were representative of both types. Shem the moral being, Yafet the creative artist  and Kham the the warrior.

[262]  Indeed the Midrash  uses this account to derive various moral homilies.[See Mishna Sanhedrin quoted below.]

[263] That males have nipples  can be an indication of a common origin as part of a combination male-female, since the male nipples are  not used for nursing, and therefore it would almost seem that the separation into male and female ocurred after the development of mammals..

[264]      The plain sense of the passages seem to imply that the original undivided state of the "Adam" was the optimal state, but due to its inability to function as is, alone, it was split into two. 

cf. See Midrash re: Adam endeavouring to mate with the animals: this implies that Adam possessed one or both  genders.

[265]  These words are in quotations because they are not scientific [genetic] terms - they are more defined in terms of sociology than genetics.

[266] Even if the purpose of the entire universe were not necessarily tied into the moral activity of man, at least the relevant beginning from the point of view of humanity could be seen as the point of emergence of the first moral human.

[267] In the next chapter we shall consider a different opinion (that an entire race of humans was created).

[268] This  equation of the age of the universe with the amount of time that moral beings have existed is not only in line with the emphasis in Genesis on moral history, but also stands in analogy to the possible implication in Genesis that the first moral being, and the universe, emerged only a few thousand years ago: Calculations of the chronologies provided in Genesis, when interpreted literally, and in conjunction with certain interpretations of the connection between the creation and Eden accounts, and of the creation account itself, have led to a figure of approximately 6,000 years for the elapsed time since the emergence of the universe and of the first moral being. 

[269] See Joe Rosen  American Journal of Physics  INSERT SOURCE, quote.

[270] There are actually a few different types of 'time' defined in this context. 

[271]  The whole point of free will is that there is no way for free willed decisions to be predicted or simulated (e.g. on a computer) since free will is beyond determinism or probability.  As a result, there is an absolute significance to the decision made at each juncture.

[272] According to our speculations, it is only free will which can bring forth the physical universe from the potentiality of the universe of the spiritual forms. Thus the universe cannot emerge into physical reality until the emergence of a moral being, just as is the case of quantum physics, as discussed earlier.

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

[273] and so we call the design of the moral stage the 'primary' rather than the 'initial' stage of creation..

[274] The first creation account can be e.g. related to  the construction of the blueprint, the Eden account related to the emergence of moral beings, and the 'second creation account' [Gen. 5: x - x]  related to the actual creation of the universe from the blueprint and the onset of full physical existence with the emergence of the first moral being.

[275] This is a type of 'uncertainty principle' which spreads the origin of the universe over all possible points of origin.

[276] The next 4 paragraphs were the "Conclusion" section of Ch:'Solipsism...Occam'. They were replaced by a different conclusion, to make the chapter fit in with the Mind/Body theme of that section rather than the inst un theme more appropriate in this section.

[277]      Technical caveat: Unless they were outside each other's light cone at creation. 

[278]      Whether or not one can define a universal wave-function is a matter of debate.

[279]      Midrash Rabbah Gen. 1:2

[280] these words appear fter the conclusion of creation, and before the story of the onset of free-willed consciousness.

[281]       Zohar on "khokhma" 

[282]          See Rambam Yesodei Torah 2:10 [last line]. "rceid-ed" dxez iceqi zekld 

'HU HAYODEA...'ETC. = THOUGHT = KNOWLEDGE = COLLAPSE OF WAVE PACKET]. 

[283]      Ramban on Gen. 1:3

[284] In Ramban's words: ".. the bringing forth of things into actual existence is called 'amirah' [saying]. Thus: And Gd said 'let there be light'...The word 'saying' here indicates Will...And the permanence of things called forth is called 're'iyah'....The purport of the word "seeing" ["and Gd saw that it was good"] is thus to indicate that their continuing existence is at His Will .."

[285] The final act of bringing the universe into physical reality was the act of observation, and free willed choice of Gd. [Ramban: "it was good" - implying that otherwise, Gd would not have let it remain in existence. That is, Gd decided freely to have it continue to exist - with the concept of free willed choice related here to the concept of 'good'.]

[286](that is why dkld (edut) can change ze`ivn(metziut)) INSERT HEBREW SOURCE

[287] `le mlerd `xapy mcew ze`xaidl ehnewy zexec rax`e miraye ze`n."e`xapmcew mlerd on xiardy zexec (974) c"rwzz lr :ehnew xy` lr :i"yx crl iphnwze" oeyl ,ze`xaidl exfbp ;ze`xaidl ehnew ;o`xa `le dxez ozn .(fh aei`) "did dn miiwl ,dxez ozn mcew zeidl ze`xaidl mdil` xfbp :mlerd `xapy mcew seql ozpdl dxez dzid diie`x ,(dw milidz) "xec sl`l dev xac" xn`py  seql dpzpe ,ocxhe cnr ,dxez `la miiwzn mlerd oi`y d`xyke - xec sl` 1000-n 974 exqgy ixd)  .epax dyn cr oey`xd mc`n = zexec e"k

([:gt zay i"yx]i"yx] A reference to the idea of an instant universe in classical Jewish sources is the idea that 974 generations of men preceded Adam (Gr 10:10) but that these generations were created only in thought [ (Chagiga 13B. Rashi's commentary).  (see Note #3).R. Bakhya[Bekhayeh] on Gen I:3 (very end) says they were wiped out in thought  ,which means they had been created  in thought.

[288]self knowledge= self referential:  knowledge = observing = collapse of wave packe:"Mekhadesh ha'briya.." = by constant observation, Gd collapses the universal wave packet [if such can be defined].

[289]   Zohar: Exodus 20a :#359: commentary on: "and Moses shepherded Yithro's sheep". 

[290]    See Ramkhal [Luzatto] "The Way of Gd" ["Derekh Hashem"].

[291]  In the word of R. Aryeh Kaplan:  "Man's thoughts and the information in his mind are therefore considered part of the physical world, see Yad, T'shuvah 8:3.  The universe ..... of the Forces is Beriyah (Creation).  Besides meaning Force, the word Koach also means "potential".....Concepts are conceived potentially among the Forces, and then translated into action..... The Kabbalists therefore speak of the world of the Forces as the universe of thought....."

[292] The creation of the physical realm itself is related in the passages after the Garden of Eden account - which form essentially the third creation account.

[293]      Genesis Rabbah 19:6,

[294]  Commentary on Genesis I:1. (?)

[295]  "Guide" : II:26

[296]      Ramban on Gen. 1:3

[297]       Zohar: Bereisheet 29a [p.111 eng.], and 29b [p112 english].

[298]And according to the Zohar, Gd created the universe from thought:

"having decided to create the universe, Gd traced and built, but the aim was not attained until Gd enfolded Himself in a covering of a supernal radiance of thought and created therefrom a universe.

"in the beginning Gd created" = "bereisheet Gd created", but "bereisheet " = "bekhokhma", that is, "in Wisdom". Therefore, one reads "In Wisdom Gd created.."

[299]  Ohr and Shefa: 'Ohr' is the term used for the 'shefa' - sustaining abundance, plenitude - which comes down to the universe from Gd. It is the Will of Gd as it manifests itself in the physical universe. [therefore it is  also Nature] Therefore "vayehi ohr" [according to Gra] = retroactive expression of Will of Gd.

[300]This is yet another connection between the creation, free will, consciousness, self-reference, and self-causation.  [and reflexivity]

[301]    [ "ve'dovak be'ishto' : 've'atem ha'dvekim b'hashem..' : 'vehayu lebasar ekhad'?

[302] It was Gd's will that a universe be created. The universe emerged into existence. As soon as the universe existed, there would probably not also exist the Divine Will to create the universe. Similarly, as long as it was the Divine Will to create a universe, it must have been that the universe was not existent. Thus, the Divine Will to create the universe does not coexist with the universe itself. One can then perhaps say that it was the Divine Will itself which was transformed into the existence of the universe: thus, the universe is an 'emanation' of Gd.

[303][Rucker, pages 175-176 referring to Gödel's "What is Cantor's Number"] 

[304]        ibid, p. 177

[305]        ibid. p. 176.  see also p. 301-302

[306]   Zohar: Exodus 20a :#359: commentary on: "and Moses shepherded Yithro's sheep". 

[307]    See Ramkhal [Luzatto] "The Way of Gd" ["Derekh Hashem"].

[308]  In the word of R. Aryeh Kaplan:  "Man's thoughts and the information in his mind are therefore considered part of the physical world, see Yad, T'shuvah 8:3.  The universe ..... of the Forces is Beriyah (Creation).  Besides meaning Force, the word Koach also means "potential".....Concepts are conceived potentially among the Forces, and then translated into action..... The Kabbalists therefore speak of the world of the Forces as the universe of thought....."

[309] Mishnah Avot: "Da ma lema'ala mimcha" (Know  what is above {of} you) = "Da, ma shelema'ala, mimcha (hu)" (Know, that which is above, from you [it is]".

[310] Of course a shadow can only be defined in reference to the lit portion around it.

[311]    Ironically , today  many have the reverse belief - that nothing was created to serve man, and that in fact man is a product of chance development.  

[312] A universe which upon scientific analysis is found to follow logically from a big bang state.

[313]"the great chain of being".

[314]  On the connection betweeen good and existence: in the Torah Gd says: “I have laid before you the good and the bad, life and death - choose life!” ["Hinei na'tati lachem et hatov ve'et ha'ra et ha'chaim ve'et ha'mavet ubacharta bechaim."] That is, choosing good is equated with choosing existence.

   Further, as we have seen, man's awareness of the distinction between good and evil brought existence from non-existence. In addition, according to Rambam:

       "All the great evil which men cause to each other ... are ... due to non-existence; because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom",  Guide III:XI. That is, all evil is nonexistence:  and all existence is good: [ Guide: III:X]

[315]     "Guide" III:10, III:12, III:25.  See also R. Sa'adya Gaon, "Emunot Ve'de'ot" [very beginning of Part III]. According to Ramban (Nachmanides), the  phrase "and Gd saw that it was good", means "and Gd gave permanent existence to that which was created according to the Divine Will, because this existence was good". [Ramban  Gen.1:4. See also 2:18 (very end), and 1:10 (beginning of "Vayar Ki Tov")].

[316]The apparent lack of necessity for the existence of much of creation was used as a point against the emanation theory of creation, and likely supported the contention that they were created because of the intrinsic good of existence. However this loses force in the light of the origin theory and anthropic principle. Our application therefore reinvests this approach with meaning.

[317]"Guide" III:25. A drash on Rambam, applying his translated words to the context of our thesis here.

[318]    Hebrew version: "Teva ha'havayah veha'hefsed"

[319]   See also "Guide" III:10 - III:13

[320] Consistency with the laws of nature may have caused some species to have disappeared leaving less than the maximum amount of existent species.

[321] One of the most difficult part in formulating such a statement is in recognizing all the assumptions that are inherent in the situation. For example it was clear to the ancient Greeks and later mathematicians that parallel lines never meet. However, two thousand years later it was realized that this assumed that space is flat rather than curved - the fact that space could be curved was not realized until then.

[322] For an explanation of how this can be possible, see a text on molecular biology.

[323] From this point on we shall use the term 'eternal' to mean both that it has existed already for an infinite amount of time and that it will exist in the future to infinity.

[324] Ramabam felt that God could be described only using 'negative attributes', that is, saying that 'God is not unmerciful' rather than positive ones such as 'God is merciful' or "God had a reason'.

[325] III:25 (last lines).

[326]  See "Guide" (III:13)

[327]    [ERASE?] That is, the universe had to exist, since God exists, but although it thus had no real purpose in existing, nevertheless once it is already existent, events in the universe occurred in a teleological manner 

[328]Thus, postulating that the universe exists of necessity obviated the troubling  question of the "Purpose" of the universe, and this was a good reason to suppose that indeed the universe was created via Wisdom rather than via Will. This was a polemic advantage to the Aristoteleans because the creationists still had to come up with some reason for why  God created the universe .

[329] As we have seen above, Rambam rejected Aristotle's conclusions regarding the necessary existence and eternity of the universe, because they were based on human logic as applied to God's Wisdom or Will, and this is not a valid form of reasoning.

Rambam says God cannot do that which is logically impossible, such as making a circle which is square, so he does apply logic to God at leas tin this negative sense. Also (Rambam says:?) intuition developed by analyzing events in one context cannot be applied to another; eg intuition developed by analyzing events in th euniverse cannot be applied to God.

[330]    See J. Guttman page 196-198

[331] The doctrine of the eternity of the universe had earlier been taught by Aristotle's teacher, Plato.

[332]  According to Crescas, the traditional Biblical belief in creation is compatible with the idea that rather than being crreator, God is instead the ground of being of an eternal universe in which was created our world and man.

[333] According to tradition - as recorded in the Talmud - the esoteric doctrines of Judaism are contained in two parts of the Torah - the creation account and the account of the chariot in Ezekiel. [In the Hebrew original one can see also many linguistic/terminological parallels between the account of the chariot and the Eden account, indicating that they refer to each other and/or both refer to similar matters.]

   The creation account is traditionally accepted as being the repository of deep secrets. [see for example Ramban.(Nachmanides)], but in addition to its inner secret meanings, it has a surface meaning (pshat). The inner meaning is partially recorded in the works of the.Kabbalah. However according to traditional belief these are written in a type of code, and are accessible only to those who have received the 'key' via oral transmission from a master. The one thing one knows upn reading a coded message is that the meaning of the message is not the surface one, but rather the surface message may be entirely false, deliberately misleading, or just totally irrelevant in that it is designed not to provide a message but rather to encode the true message.

[334]    See R. Kapakh's introduction to his Hebrew translation of the "Guide" (p.29). Kapach provides cross-referenced notes, but states that he does not explain the matter any further out of respect for Rambam's wishes that these matters remain unexplained.

[335]    III:13 and III:25 . See e.g. Kapakh's note # 18 on Rambam's statement in the introduction . 

[336]      According to the Aristotelian belief that the universe is a necessary side effect of the existence of God, the universe is not a creation of Gd's Will. As a result there can be no ultimate purpose to the creation  and to  the universe as a whole. In addition , even if the events within the universe had a purpose which the universe  as a whole did not have, since the universe is eternal, this would have been already reached and thus events occurring now could not be considered purposive .

[337] Rambam says that it is not true that all things were created for man's use, because for example  most of the stars serve no human purpose, therefore it is clear that they exist for their own sake, and do so because  existence is  good in of  itself.

[338] Indeed, one of the secrets of existence is that happiness is dependent not on external circumstances, but is rather a state of mind - although the realization of the fact may depend on self-development, it is a truth that existence by itself is good.

[339]         MERGE WITH ABOVE: Free will transcends both determinism and randomness : it involves decisions which are rational yet non-determined  , free yet non-random. Free will is essentially a self-causative phenomenon , as is the universe - the universe exists , yet could not have been caused .[Time is coexistent with the universe, and there could be no 'time' when the universe did not exist. (see Rambam) - since 'cause' implies temporal order , therefore 'cause' is impossible when the universe did not exist  , and therefore the universe could not have emerged from non-existence to existence via 'cause'.Therefore the universe is acausal , or self-caused.] 

  A close parallel exists between this reasoning and Rambam's view on the issue of God's reason/motive for creating the universe. 

        That is, reasons involve infinite regress , i.e. causal deterministic chains of reasons, whereas the lack of reasons implies the randomness of caprice.

        To circumvent this difficulty, Rambam employs a concept related to self-causation: the way to avoid infinite regress is via acausality : existence is the reason for existence - existence is an intrinsic good , and therefore God gave the universe existence.

[340]*   see Guttmann p. 196 for references.

[341] This theory has been tested and verified many times for elementary particles moving at high speeds, and also for macroscopic objects at slow speeds. The theory of special relativity is therefore accepted as fact, not merely as a speculative theory. However, travel to the future in this way is not yet possible as today's rockets are not capable of moving anywhere near the speed of light, and to do so would require vast amount of fuel - perhaps necessitating the equivalent of burning entire stars as fuel. 

[342] The mathematical structure of relativity theory as understood today allows the existence of wormholes - whether they are actually physically possible is under contention.

[343] 'Godel universes' contain closed time-lines which may give rise to similar paradoxes. However, clearly if spacetime is a four dimensional manifold, and there is no additional super-time along which the time direction develops, the four-manifold cannot change, and therefore the past and future are fixed. (speculation: leaves, branches, windings etc. of manifold about another, fiber of times above each space point.)

[344] This idea as explained here was described in a footnote earlier in the book.

[345] As the passage states (Gen.3:22) "man has become as one of it [mimenu]" - where now one can understand "it" [mimenu] as referring to the tree, as it does elsewhere in that chapter.

[346]  According to tradition, the creation and Eden accounts refer to the same essential process. Humanity was created on the sixth day, and the Eden account tells of the events which occured on that day, so that the eating of the tree of knowledge and its aftermath took place prior to the conclusion of the creation process at the end of the sixth day, when the universe became a self-consistent physical entity operating according to 'natural law'. Thus the reference to "Adam" is to the essence of humanity at a point prior to the end of creation and the institution of natural physical law. 

        Since the essense of a human being is the soul ("and God breathed into man the spirit of life'), the pre-natural law "Adam" or humanity refers to the collective soul of humanity, so that in the present context the Eden account tells us that prior to the creation of the physical universe and the laws of nature, the collective soul of humanity accepted upon itself the burden of moral obligation. (This is similar to the traditional belief that all the souls of the Jewish people ever to be born were present at Sinai and accepted the Torah, making it binding on all future generations.) The Eden account is then an allegorical reference to this event. 

[347] See the discussions in the midrash and classical commentaries.

[348] This was in text here, but seems like a non-sequitar :  The big questions of why the universe exists, what is God, how can spirit and body coexist, what is free will, are beyond us - at least at present. Thematically however,  there is an interelationship between meaning purpose and free will, and existence creation mind/body and spirit/body, so that the accounts of the creation and the Garden of Eden take on a new light individually, and in juxtaposition to each other.

[349] See the Midrash "Fathers of R. Natan" chapter 1, where R. Shimon ben Elazar and R. Shimon bar Yochai may be making a similar point about Adam and his situation.

[350] "der alter fon Slabodka", in the opening chapter of his "Madregat Ha'adam".

[351] Thus not only are the creation and Eden accounts related, but even the form of these accounts are appropriate to the self-referential and circular nature of their contentSee Ch. "Existence,Free Will and Self-Causation".

[352] Even such a consultation would be 'unfair' since to be consulted one has to be created, and once one exists, one might not wish to be terminated, leaving no real choice. 

[353] an allegorical adaptation and interpretation of the phrase "Let us make man in our image".

[354] Before and after are not defined where time is non-existent (outside the physical universe) and therefore one can substitute ‘beyond’, or ‘logically prior’ for these terms. 

[355] Halachically one does not erect doubly-removed protections around God’s prohibitions.

[356]  "which God created to do".

[357] Of course the full expression of condemnation for murder follows shortly in the next account, that of Cain and Abel. And, it is there that the Torah introduces clearly the doctrine of free willed choice, and the ability to overcome inner inclinations to evil.

          The remaining commandments of the ten are also hinted at in the creation and Eden accounts. "Therefore shalt man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife" hints at an obligation to help them until setting up one's own family, and therefore implies the need for a certain respect for, and obedience to, one's parents.

        Adam bears possible false witness against his wife, blaming her for the eating of the fruit, and the snake does so as well by deliberately quoting God in an incorrect fashion when speaking to Eve. This is also a false usage of the name of God, and it is therefore taking God's name in vain.

        In this way, all of the ten commandments are presaged, or alluded to, in the creation and Eden accounts.