Tags
Alister McGrath, beleifs, Big Bang, Cycles of Time, fine-tuned universe, God, Justin Brierley, M theory, Multi-verse, Physics, Quantum mechanics, quantum physics, Roger Penrose, scientific inquiry, single subatomic particle, Stephen Hawking, String theory, The Grand Design
.
Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years on furthering the developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking’s ‘no-God-needed’ theory of the universe as “hardly science” and “not even a theory” on Premier Christian Radio.
Speaking on the station’s weekly faith debate program Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking’s new book The Grand Design as “misleading” adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was “not even a theory” and “hardly science” but instead “a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations.”
Penrose was in dialogue on the program with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking’s new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.
Criticizing M-theory, Penrose said: “It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it’s nothing of the sort. It’s not even a theory.”
Our Universe has not been shown to “create itself from nothing.”
.
.
Asked whether science shows that the universe could “create itself from nothing” as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the ‘string’ theory that lies behind Hawking’s statement: “It’s certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It’s not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas.” He added that such ideas are “very far from any testability. They are hardly science.”
As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking’s views.
“Multi-verse” has not superseded God
He also responded to the so-called “multi-verse” hypothesis that Hawking’s theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly “fine-tuned” for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking’s “multi-verse” hypothesis is a form of the ‘anthropic principle’: since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct ‘settings’ that support conscious life.
Responding to the ‘multi-verse’ hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having “no religious beliefs,” said: “Its overused, and this is a place where its overused. It’s an excuse for not having a good theory.” [These ideas are not supportive of ‘no God is needed’ ideas either — although sometimes put forth in such a manner as to shed doubt on the God idea.]
Premier presenter Justin Brierley said: “What’s interesting is that Penrose’s criticisms of Hawking are not driven by any faith position. Instead he simply recognizes that the science does not justify making statements about God’s non-existence, which is a much more honest position than other well-known scientists, such as Dawkins, who want to equate science with atheism.”
Penrose’s own alternative view of the universe is detailed in his new book “Cycles of Time” published by The Bodley Head. As for myself, I am convinced that matter is connected together — every single subatomic particle of it — with its source — by a directedness energy that the source is — some call it love; I do.
source: http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16815
More Big Bang Knowledge
.
.
Need help or want to collaborate with me?
Just e-mail me at thehunt4truth@yahoo.com
Thanks for visiting.
Eric
.
Related articles
Hawking: ‘Heaven is a place for people afraid to die’
How the Universe Works (in 25 minutes)
Einstein’s nightmares… part one
Einstein’s nightmares… part two
Einstein’s nightmares… part three
jiggled – warping and curved space-time
are we living inside a black hole?
what is quantum uncertainty?
is consciousness physics?
is the brain spirituality wired?
perfect wisdom nestled in every cell
what is your heartfelt belief?
Religion for Atheists?
.
May 5, 2014.
.
the Hunt for Truth 
Excellent post, this old debate about God VS a materialistic self created Universe(s) or better said individuals who prefer an atheist model versus a Creator on my opinion can get pretty much out of line, when insisting on ideological grounds, so common to choosing a particular belief, our scientist are not an exception.
What is ignored most of the times are Ontological, Metaphysical, and Theological arguments considered now days by many a scientist as non valid and somewhat a relic of an obscurantist past.
And i will be the first to accept there is a problem with a definition of the word God, a very big word to try to define, to everyone’s satisfaction.
Many philosophers, and no doubt some scientists themselves now day try not to contradict a majority of scientist in their atheistic outbursts afraid to be ridiculed, and be the object of scorn in academic circles, and remain quietly on the sidelines despite having their own ideas on the subject.
So it’s refreshing to see someone of the category of Sir Roger Penrose to be candid about the subject.
Some years ago after reading Mr Hawking book declaring boldly Philosophy’s death brought me to read his book, just to see what he had to say on this subject my disappointment was not surprising, like that of many others, out of all that, I wrote a small post on my blog : http://goo.gl/5kIgGw
Philosophy’s death?
Hubris!
Philosophy lives…
we pass and so do our perceptions…
God is permanent and we are eternally His creations.
.
You were a big bang
Alan Watts
.
“Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you’re a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off and don’t feel that we’re still the big bang, but you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually—if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning—you’re not something that’s a result of the big bang. You’re not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you I see not just what you define yourself as…I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I’m that too, but we’ve learned to define ourselves as separate from it.”
.
Excellent post! I too don’t need any convincing 🙂 For me the self-defined intelligence that manages the entire universe/s from the functioning of the smallest amoeba to the creation of stars – in such a precise manner – is enough and the existence of love above all. 🙂
Maybe if you have to keep telling yourself; everything is love, everything is love, everything is love…maybe everything is not love!
Reblogged this on theperfectprescription2014 and commented:
Reblogging from The Hunt For Truth.
I hope the reader will read this carefully. With atheists postulating science as the default intellectual position, Christians need to know what they are talking about.
I am reblogging this one, Eric. We need to get such messages out. Science is not the default intellectual position.
I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this
post was good. I do not know who you are but definitely
you’re going to a famous blogger if you are not already 😉 Cheers!
The multiverse theory is fraught with significant problems. For example, the existence of the other universes cannot be verified or falsified, even in principle, so its status as a scientific theory is questionable. But even if there was a mutliverse I concur with Christian de Duve, a Nobel Prize-winning Belgian cytologist and biochemist, who claims that “However many universes one postulates, ours can never be rendered insignificant by the magnitude of this number…What appears to be supremely significant is that a [fine-tuned] combination capable of giving rise to life and mind as we know it should exist at all.”
As such, the multiverse argument does not in fact weaken the design argument at all. If anything, it strengthens it.
Thank you, Eric, for this indepth information.
yes, the universe is complicated and yet made exactly so that our world can sustain life–For me, that points to Abba. Hawkins is just putting theories ‘out there’…and ones that can’t be proven at all.
Good way of explaining, and nice article to take information concerning my presentation focus,
which i am going to present in university.
I’m guessing you are referring to the main part of this post; not comments. I may take credit for finding this story and posting it against the chatter. Penrose was a guest on a Catholic radio program and the Independent Catholic News Website provided the text and video – I just copied loaded the video from YouTube.
The second video was an add on that I provided not to address Hawking’s point directly really. I added it because it helps to bring this into a perspective that the complexity of what life that is not discussed directly is just so huge. I do not ever debate that evolution isn’t a viable theory; I only like to point out that those of us that choose to believe that intelligent design creation is the basis for life are not doing so as dim-wits or just because our parents shipped us to Sunday Schools.
The experience of the creation as being a masterful design of supernatural intelligence is for this believer quite real and extraordinary. Eyes wide open, I see plainly by my extensive research over many decades now that higher intelligence finely tunes (still) this universe so that life is able to begin and then sustain itself by an extraordinary ease that just really isn’t apparent as blooming out of a singularity of quantum energy that popped up one day from nothing; all on its own.
If Hawking wants to claim that one universe spawns another via a black hole is a viable solution; go ahead — what he did though is poke in ridicule at believers as though they are dim-wits that fear death and so read and believe in fairy tales. His assumption is far from the reality that he claims to be describing. He was out for headlines and self-aggrandizement is how this looks to me.
I like it that Penrose – Mr. do the math – is able to unequivocally reduce Hawking basis for the ‘no-God-needed’ statements. The math that Hawking points out isn’t useful because it cannot be demonstrated in the real world. According to Penrose, he even claims scientific status that is unwarranted — I’m not able to judge that really. Einstein had similar debate for years with Bohr in the early 1900s about quantum physics.
Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate 2014/02/04
Bill Nye And Ken Ham
debate at the Creation Museum of Petersburg, Ky
(PBS notes included – reverse order)
Update at 9:30 p.m. ET: Question Time
The debate enters a Q&A session with audience-submitted questions at around the 1:50 mark in the video (that’s one hour, 50 minutes). We’ll break away from the action now, but the video’s here for you to watch.
An early moment from that part of the program might be our favorite of the night. It came as Nye responded to a question about how the atoms that created the Big Bang came to be there. He illustrated the Bang with his hands and an explosive sound — before correcting himself.
“Except it’s in outer space; there’s no air,” he said, going on to mime the same explosion again, in silence.
As for his answer, Nye said, “This is the great mystery; you’ve hit the nail on the head. What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us, this is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking, let’s keep searching.”
Feel free to take up issues from the rest of the Q&A portion in the comment section.
Update at 9:15 p.m. ET: Nye’s Counter-Rebuttal
“Thank you, Mr. Ham. But I am completely unsatisfied. You did not, in my view, address this fundamental question: 680,000 years of snow-ice layers, which require winter-summer cycle.”
There simply hasn’t been enough time to generate the species on Earth, Nye says.
“Then, as far as Noah being an extraordinary shipwright, I’m extraordinarily skeptical,” Nye says. He cites his own family’s background in New England, where people spent their lives learning how to build ships.
“It’s very reasonable, perhaps, to you that Noah had super-powers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members,” Nye says. “But to me, this is just not reasonable.”
When scientists make assumptions, Nye says, “they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth. So, next time you have a chance to speak, I encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago – completely – and there’s no record of it.
“You know, there are pyramids that are older than that. There are human populations that are far older than that – with traditions that go back farther than that. And it’s just not reasonable to me that everything changed 4,000 years ago.”
Nye also asks Ham to discuss the billions of people on Earth, including Christians, who don’t agree with Ham’s point of view about the planet’s age.
“So, what is to become of them, in your view?” Nye asks.
Update at 9 p.m. ET: Ham’s Counter-Rebuttal
Ham clarifies that the wood he discussed was encased in the basalt.
“I would also say that natural laws haven’t changed,” he says. “As I talked about, we have the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature – and that only makes sense within a Biblical world-view anyway.”
Ham also says the views he’s putting forth aren’t just his own – and he notes that there are “lots of creation scientists who agree with exactly what we’re saying.”
And Ham takes issue with Nye’s earlier point — that animals such as lions have long sharp teeth, meaning they cannot have sailed in the Ark as vegetarians — by referencing several animals, from pandas to bats, that have sharp teeth but don’t eat meat.
Ham defends Noah’s ship-building ability, saying he hasn’t met him — and neither has Nye.
He goes on to say it seems Nye has confused the terms “species” and “kind” – the latter a word creationists use to describe groups of animals.
“We’re not saying species got on the Ark” Ham says. “We’re saying kinds.”
He goes on to discuss “the horizon problem,” that has to do with the speed of light and background radiation in the universe.
“Everyone has a problem concerning the light issue,” he says.
Update at 8:48 p.m. ET: Nye’s 5-Minute Rebuttal.
“Let me start with the beginning,” Nye says. “If you find 45 million year-old rock on top of 45-thousand-year-old trees, maybe the rock slid on top. Maybe that’s it,” he says. He flattens his palms one on the other, for emphasis.
“That seems a much more reasonable explanation than, ‘It’s impossible.'”
Nye goes on to discuss dating rocks, saying one question he and his peers think of as a mystery, or an “interesting” fact: why asteroids all “seem to be so close to the same date – in age, 4.5, 4.6 billion years.”
He says Ham takes the Bible – “as written in English” and translated many times, is more accurate and reasonable than “what I and everybody in here can observe.”
“That, to me, is unsettling. Troubling,” Nye says.
“As far as, ‘You can’t observe the past,’ I have to stop you right there,” Nye says. “That’s what we do in astronomy. All we can do in astronomy is look at the past.
“By the way, you’re looking at the past right now,” he tells the audience, “because the speed of light bounces off of me and then gets to your eyes. And I’m delighted to see that the people in the back appear just that much younger than the people in the front.”
Nye tells Ham that in terms of their views, “This idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now, I think, is at the heart of our disagreement.
I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s… for lack of a better word, it’s magical.”
Update at 8:30 p.m. ET: Ham’s 5-Minute Rebuttal
“Bill, if I was to answer all of the points that you brought up, the moderator would think I’m going on for millions of years. So I can only deal with some of them,” Ham says.
He decides to discuss the age of the Earth.
“The Bible says God created in six days,” Ham says. He describes how the genealogies in the Bible are added up, with the help of a slide.
“From Adam to Abraham – you’ve got 2,000 years from Abraham to Christ, 2,000 years from Christ to the present, 2,000 years,” Ham says, “that’s how we reach 6,000 years,” he says.
But to people who say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Ham says despite the fact that “we certainly observe radioactive decay,” but “when you’re talking about the past, we have a problem.
He cites a basalt layer found in Australia in which wood was found to have been a wildly different age from the basalt it had been in.
“My point is, all these dating methods give all sorts of different dates,” Ham says.
Update at 8:25 p.m. ET: Nye on… Well, Science
According to YouTube, more than 530,000 people are watching the live debate toward its end.
Nye takes up the wealth of species and stars. He notes that there are billions of stars – too many to have arrived in the past 4,000 years, he says. And he notes how astronomers puzzled over why stars are seen to be moving apart.
Then he relays how researchers found “cosmic background sound” in space that astronomers had predicted would be the remnants of the Big Bang.
“Astronomers running the numbers, doing the math,” predicted it exactly, he says. He later adds, “You’ve got to respect that. It’s a wonderful thing.”
Update at 8:10 p.m. ET: Nye on Grand Canyon And Fossils
Nye discusses layers of ancient stone and sediment in places such as the Grand Canyon, and the various animals you’ll see there. He says there is no evidence of intense churning and bubbling that an epic flood would bring.
“This is what geologists on the outside do,” he says, “studying the rate at which soil is deposited” and turns to stone.
“And by the way, if this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon, wouldn’t there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?” Nye asks.
He then discusses the layers of animal fossils in the layers – from rudimentary sea animals to “the famous trilobites” and clams, oysters, mammals.
“You never, ever, find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one,” he says. “You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one.”
Update at 8 p.m. ET: Nye’s Presenation
Nye begins his portion by saying, “Thank you very much. And Mr. Ham, I learned something. Thank you.”
Then he displays a rock he found that day in Kentucky, saying many in the area contain coral fossils.
“We are standing on millions of layers of ancient life,” Nye says. “How could those animals have lived their entire life, and formed these layers, in just 4,000 years? There isn’t enough time since Mr. Ham’s flood for this limestone, that we’re standing on, to have come into existence.”
Nye then describes how scientists go to the Earth’s poles to drill ice cores of snow ice.
“Snow ice forms over the winter,” he notes, adding that “We find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers – 680,000 snow winter/summer cycles.
“How could it be that just 4,000 years ago, all of this ice formed?” Nye asks.
He then illustrates his point, saying that to make sense, there would need to be 170 winter-summer cycles each year.
“Wouldn’t someone have noticed that?” he asks with a laugh. “Wow.”
Earlier, as moderator Tom Foreman bridged between the two presentations, he referred to one of Ham’s slides: “When you had my old friend Larry King up there – you could’ve just asked him. He’s been around a long time, and he’s a smart guy. He could probably answer for all of us.”
Update at 7:40 p.m. ET: Ham Cites ‘Civic Biology’
Ham cites what he calls a widely used U.S. schoolbook from “the 1900s” that said there were five species of men. It’s A Civic Biology, first published in 1914 — the book that sparked the Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee.
Those ideas “were based on Darwin’s ideas that were wrong,” Ham says.
He contrasts that with the Bible, which says that biologically, there’s only one race of humans.
Ham says that while you can observe that the Earth isn’t round, “you can’t observe the age of the Earth.”
Update at 7:30 p.m. ET: Ham’s Presentation
Instead of a prolonged back-and-forth, both men will deliver 30-minute presentations putting forth their viewpoints.
Ham once again notes scientists can also be creationists. And he says the evidence they see and interpret is the same as other scientists.
In the case of the Grand Canyon, Ham says, “None of us saw the sandstone or the shale being laid down.”
“Bill Nye and I have the same Grand Canyon,” Ham says.
“It’s not the evidences that are different,” he says. He calls it a “battle” over viewpoints.
Then he talks about Charles Darwin.
“Darwin wasn’t just thinking about species,” Ham says. “Darwin had a much bigger picture in mind.”
Ham says his views as a creationist conform with Darwin’s views, noting cases of finches and dogs in which researchers see a single origin for the animals.
“The word ‘evolution’ has been hijacked,” Ham says – being used for both observable changes and unobservable changes. The result, he says, is that it indoctrinates students in evolutionary belief.
Update at 7:20 p.m. ET: Nye’s Opening Statement
Bill Nye begins with a family anecdote about a bow tie. Then he mentions the TV franchise CSI.
“On CSI, there is no distinction between observational and experimental science,” Nye says. He says the show does not rely on “historical science” and presents actual situations.
He then mentions the Grand Canyon, and notes that fossils show animals don’t mingle between eras.
“What makes the United States a world leader is our technology,” Nye says.
If the U.S. focuses on science other than that accepted around the world, “we are not going to move forward” and make discoveries and innovations, Nye says.
Update at 7:10 p.m. ET: Ham’s Opening Statement
After introductions and a warm welcome, Ken Ham tells the audience that he knows many of them might not agree with his point of view. But he notes that some people find his Aussie accent to be charming.
“I hope you enjoy hearing me say it, anyway,” Ham says.
Ham says it’s wrong to assume scientists can’t also believe in creationism.
“I believe science has been hijacked by secularists,” he says, who seek to indoctrinate “the religion of naturalism.”
He mentions several scientists whom he says believe in creationism, including genetics pioneer Craig Venter and medical inventor Raymond Damadian.
source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham
A great post Eric…and it certainly supports the reason why science and religion severed their relationship centuries ago. Perhaps scientists should either attempt to debunk or prove the theory of faith – sometimes it comes down to that. Hmmm I wonder if this has been attempted in the past??
Hey, that is something I can do — what is the history of these debates is a cool new series. I’m nearly done with my Einstein’s nightmares project. There is only two or maybe three more of them to post… so, I can begin the new series with debates and progress one against the other – like an adventure show maybe.
THANKS Bev! :-).
Oh I can’t wait to read this debate – should be interesting!
I haven’t read Hawking’s book, so I can’t assess his claims, however I suspect that he is making controversial claims in order to boost sales of his book and Penrose is probably aiding him with his public criticism!
String theory / M-theory is a long way from being accepted by physicists, so to build anything on top of it is pure speculation.
As for Penrose, he pushes some pretty far-out ideas himself, such as his theory of quantum consciousness, views on free will, and very curious ideas about an infinite series of Big Bangs.
It’s all good stuff, but none of it is fact!
Thank you Steve. I appreciate that you took some time to post some thought about this. I like it that there is contrast; its only bothersome to me when someone calls the other one out – like a childish thing (as it seems to me) that Hawking said: https://hunt4truth.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/stephen-hawking-heaven-is-a-place-for-people-afraid-to-die/
It reminds me of first graders all grown up but still acting like the first grader trying to be an adult.
I knew you’d make a point and be conscious of it that people can believe what they want here… as that goes, it’s all good and I think its part of the destiny of an age of awareness that this Internet even came to be. To me its a natural occurrence too – just I happen to think that it is coming about by design.
Thanks for posting this, this is great!
progress is good
I like how he said “a bit misleading”; can anything be a bit anything so devastating as misleading? :))
Yes, M-Theory is a misleading name and possibly parts of it are actually very wrong. Penrose has been known to say he does not believe in the new ideas – and – he does not understand the new ideas – and then chuckle. He refers to M-Theory, D-branes, Braneworld cosmology or Membrane theories and the like of origin from the competing string theories that previously supplied mathematical questions that field theories of consciousness and so on that interest him could not answer.
As Penrose points out, there may never be proof of the actual interaction between atoms since the component parts of this interactions neither are matter nor energy always – currently, we only have good clues that these interactions occur and mathematics that predicts this.
In the debunking of the ‘no-God-needed’ theory, in the radio program, McGrath is a theologian and primarily follows Penrose’s development of field theory and quantum consciousness – interested in “the fusion of individual consciousness or mind” and so on from work by Penrose and Hammerhoff and others — descriptions of what they term “quantum mind” or “quantum consciousness” — a present hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness and that quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may play a strong role in brain functions — functions related to processing thought and interpreting possible messages (data) from outside the brain. This is not much understood either and the mathematics that may predict these interactions are all but non-existent.
Penrose is a leading figure in what little science is available for understanding possible quantum actions that may occur with brain cells… and possibly within the Cardiac plexus, the solar plexus and abdominal areas. The ideas are collectively also known as Quantum mysticism (and the pushers of ‘no-God-needed’ call this woo-woo).
The collection of debates and sharing of ideas go back to Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm / Jiddu Krishnamurti, — a Western mystical tradition developed from what some of them termed Wu Li Masters — of which we may place Penrose in the later mix of things.
Even Einstein got into this (yes, the debates were raging then as well) and this is the point of the past in my progress so far on this blog — coming to at the point where Einstein is about to be debating/discussing mysticism with Rabindranath Tagore.
I cannot prove the creation is of God nor that the universe is created by God. I can however debunk the statements that these are not the case. Neither do I approve of statements from religious — unless qualified as partial (incomplete) revelations — that God is somehow limited to outside/before the creation in heaven nor that God has qualities or characteristics (because that is to say He has limitations) as anything remotely similar to how we perceive characteristics — nor in nor maker of dualistic mind as though this is a choice or is actually even real in any fashion except as in there being a missing completeness in aspects of physical realities that bring to light the complexness as simple and divine.
Collecting together the cohesive works that exist from the founding fathers of physics, I know they sought to understand the universe and didn’t care to prove that God did or did not create it — mostly “knowing” that the facts of this are so elusive as to probably be impossible to determine — ever — in space-time.
I do the same and collect theological and philosophical works.
It’s become more than a hobby and surprisingly its become far more understood in me than I am able to describe… its very much like faith now and revelation. We are what we practice.
Assigning mind in a role to play at the material level of reality is very much one reason that Universities (science programs) tend to foster atheism — or — probably more accurately shun religious students from science programs — the top paying science grants and draws to the schools of money is influencing out in the studies the pursuit of the mystical connections of science and philosophy. This is what it is and I am not deterred and thereby, I foster discussion and interest in faith that what I do may be in service. Religious scientists tend to confront the issues of disagreement as though there must be an agreement. I’m not sure this is a good enough pursuit to warrant the separation of science into believers and non-believers – it is likely though to increase as the second law in physics predicts. I am none-the-less thankful for Eugene Wigner since he really was the source for introducing a science that consciousness plays a role in quantum processes that was attractive to new age mystics and theological students. His work and Paul Dirac expand on what Neils Bohr began.
Interestingly the views begin in a similar place: All things are from one single source; an atom sized particle. In that tiny particle was the energy to source an entire vast universe. All of that energy became all of the matter and the beings of the entire universe. There is no other natural way for anything to come into existence.
The young idealist I was is awakened. It began a few decades ago when I read the first books about consciousness and quantum mind and so on.
It is very kind that you and a few others give me opportunities to write these long comments.
Thanks.
~ Eric
🙂 not a problem.
Sir Roger Penrose, Aeons before the Big Bang