Love and Spiritual Bio-Complexity

The science of complexity theory is in its infancy. It deals with nature’s incessant behavior and drive towards creating complicated and organized systems. Nature—whether you believe it drives itself towards this trajectory or is driven by a Divine Creator—has nevertheless produced elements that endeavor to combine into coherent structures, like galaxies and the human body, including the human brain.

So both atheists and the faithful must at least agree that the universe is profoundly fine-tuned to allow for such possibilities. Therefore, we need to explore whether the fundamental principle behind this finely tuned orchestration is from chance or intentional design.

When we examine the operations and functions within the human anatomical design we observe a marvelous harmony, cooperation and unanimity of functions. One cell, tissue and organ supports the others. Nothing singular comes into existence within new, more complicated systems that does not promote the whole in some exalted and novel way.

Scientists know that the universe is unified. Time and evolution has made it more so—through the exalted ecological relationships between the various organisms and their environment. What seems missing in the science vs. God debate is that religion is a logical extension of nature’s drive to self-organize.

Allow me to explain.

In spite of doctrinal differences, at the heart of all religions is LOVE (whether or not they succeed or fail to manifest this noble principle). When people adopt the spiritual principle of mutual love into their hearts and minds, the human spirit self-organizes the ideas in a person’s memory into a belief system or worldview. In other words, the human mind, like physical structure, can also be organized into greater complexity (with tangible results). It is self-evident that the level of a person’s reasoning powers and understanding comes from how well he or she can organize the thoughts of their minds into some coherent order. This higher order structure of the human mind represents one’s spiritual bio-complexity, which allows humans to survive physical death.

And guess what else? When the human race adopts the principle of mutual love into their hearts and minds, people self-organize into beneficial societies and supportive relationships with real ecological and lifestyle improvements. This is the top-down result of humans adopting God’s true tenets into their psyche (spiritual reality) and worldly pursuits.

It is in a Creator God’s best interests that unity in the universe continues its trajectory within the hearts and minds of the human race—who enjoy the highest expression of complexity in the universe.

So theology fits like a glove into the scientific framework of complexity theory!

http://www.provinggod.com

Advertisements

About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, Inner growth, love, psychology, Reality, religion, science, spirituality, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Love and Spiritual Bio-Complexity

  1. Thor Odhner says:

    So both atheists and the faithful must at least agree that the universe is profoundly fine-tuned to allow for such possibilities. Therefore, we need to explore whether the fundamental principle behind this finely tuned orchestration is from chance or intentional design.

    I encounter this claim so frequently, and I somewhat amazed that it’s tossed around as “science” rather than an incredibly unfounded interpretation of science. Using numbers to describe forces and the ratios that exist between them can make it very tempting to assume that just by changing the number, we could change the force, and therefore all numbers and arrangements are or were possible. But the physical constants we observe have not been shown to be “tuned” at all. They are what they are. We do not know that they came to be, and certainly not that they came to be as result of a statistical event. For this reason, speaking about the “likelihood” of such a configuration, or calling these values “fine-tuned” is utterly irresponsible. Probability calculations are based on known statistical events with known possible outcomes and a probability assigned to each outcome. If you don’t know how something comes to be (if it comes to be) then you cannot say anything about its likelihood.

    Let’s assume for a moment that there is one god. Now tell me what the probability was that there would have been 4 gods instead. The physical constants are a partial description of reality. We don’t get to talk about how likely reality is vs. theoretical non-realities.

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear Thor,

    I cannot respond to your comments because it is not clear to me whether you are taking the atheist or the faithful position. Please clarify.

    Also, my 500-word blog does not represent the full scope of what I have to offer concerning the topic of fine-tuning in the universe and the issues of complexity. The blog merely serves as a tool for sparking interest in my new book “Proving God” which demonstrates that the mathematics and ratios we find in the universe ultimately comes from the non-material measurements of LOVE. Complexity in the universe emerges from theistic principles.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  3. Glenn says:

    Oh, come now–the truth (or lack thereof) of what Thor says hasn’t anything to do with which position he’s taking (if he is taking a postion), be it an atheistic or faithful position. His position, if he is taking one, may have influenced what he said, his decision to say it, and how he said. But the truth or lack thereof of it hasn’t anything to do with that position.

    Glenn

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    Huh? This is a conversation about what drives bio-complexity in nature. I do not know what position Thor is taking. His statements (position) about fine-tuning not only challenges a theistic model but that of many of today’s scientists.

    I would prefer that you focus on the topic of this blog and not some “hair-splitting” side issue.

    Your spiritual brother,
    TheGodGuy

  5. Glenn says:

    GG,

    Permit me to clarify.

    Thor responded to your having written that “both atheists and the faithful must at least agree…”

    Thor disagreed with what you said he must agree with. It doesn’t matter whether he’s an atheist or amongst the faithful. He disagreed, and gave the reasons for his disagreement.

    If you don’t want to respond to either his disagreement or the reasons offered for it, that’s one thing. But there is no need to claim that it isn’t possible to understand what he said without first knowing whether he’s an atheist or a faithful. That is patently false, and whether he likes onions (so to speak) is irrelevant to the truth, falsity or merit of what he said.

    Glenn

  6. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    I can always count on you to take an opposing stance (and forever stand firm). However, if I feel that I need clarification from a reader, who are you to say that I don’t? This is an important topic and all my readers are important. I don’t want to misread things.

    If someone likes onions (and tells me) I have something tangible to work from. I simply want to know more about onions.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  7. Glenn says:

    who are you

    Good question. I’ll answer it in a moment.

    to say that I don’t? (feel that I need clarification from a reader)

    I didn’t say that you don’t feel a need for clarification from a reader. I said that the reasons offered by Thor’s for his disagreement are perfectly understandable without knowing whether he’s an atheist or a ‘faithful’. However much you feel a subjective need for clarification as to whether Thor is an atheist or a ‘faithful’, understanding the truth or falsity of Thor’s reasons for his disagreement is not objectively dependent upon fulfillment of that need.

    As to who I am, suffice it to say that I a reader privy to at least a few instances of your having informed your readers that you have studied Swedenborg for 35 years (or so). With this in mind, I have assigned a high probability to the likelihood that during your 35 years of studying Swedenborg, you have learned that truth is more clearly seen when abstracted from person. (This is why, for example, even kings who are/were evil, immoral and corrupt can serve to adequately represent the Lord.) I’m offering a reminder of this.

    If you want scientists, who attempt to arrive at an objective understanding of things, to meet you at least halfway, intractably holding to subjective positions is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. That is, it undermines what you (claim to) hope to accomplish.

    I simply want to know more about onions.

    That is precisely the idea that many of your readers get. But readers who comment not infrequently welcome more that the substance of their comments be responded to, and less that they’re instead polled on hair-splitting matters unrelated to that substance.

    In “assign[ing] a high probability to the likelihood that…”, I have probably made the kind of mistake that annoys Thor. But I shall refrain from gauging how likely this probability is.

    Also, if the universe is ‘finely tuned’, then whatever is wrong with attempts to fine-tune hyperbole (a dearth of which the universe does not suffer from)? Is it that the less finely-tuned the hyperbole, the less effective its value as a marketing tool? If so, I stand corrected.

    Glenn

  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    Thor seems to claim that the idea of a fine-tuned universe is unfounded in science. At the very least he believes that there is another way to interpret the data. Fine and dandy. I have put forth the notion that nature’s trajectory of increased complexity is from the non-material dynamics of spiritual love – stating that love seeks to unify.

    I think Thor is smart enough to defend himself.

    However, I don’t believe that he offered additional ways to interpret the data of complexity – other than that other ways may exist that are scientifically valid. How am I to respond to that? I do not even know if Thor believes the universe is unified. There are many, many scientists who believe that the universe is fine-tuned, and, that theologians would welcome such news. I indeed welcome the subjective positions of others – but please throw me some meat!

    Much deeper discussions can take place concerning the Constants of nature. Swedenborg himself would challenge the notion that the speed of light represents the limiting velocity for the propagation of matter and information. Modern science now believes the universe is structured in layers of existence. So too Swedenborg – except that his layers of existence straddled the material and non-material realms.

    And if you believe that I may be an evil king then that is certainly a legitimate topic for discussion – for a blog post other than this one.

    Your evil twin brother,
    TheGodGuy

  9. Glenn says:

    > I indeed welcome the subjective positions of others – but please throw me some meat!

    Using numbers to describe forces and the ratios that exist between them can make it very tempting to assume that just by changing the number, we could change the force, and therefore all numbers and arrangements are or were possible. But the physical constants we observe have not been shown to be “tuned” at all. They are what they are. We do not know that they came to be, and certainly not that they came to be as result of a statistical event. For this reason, speaking about the “likelihood” of such a configuration, or calling these values “fine-tuned” is utterly irresponsible. Probability calculations are based on known statistical events with known possible outcomes and a probability assigned to each outcome. If you don’t know how something comes to be (if it comes to be) then you cannot say anything about its likelihood.

    Makes sense to me.

    If you are evil, then you’re not my twin!
    At least I hope this is true. 🙂

    Kidding’ aside, I do get the message. And, believe it or not, you do get a fair shake from me. In fact, I have elsewhere even been accused of defending you! 🙂

    Glenn

  10. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    I am sorry that you have taken the “heat” for me elsewhere – really! Thor’s last name “Odhner” is similar with that of a well-known Swedenborgian family. Oliver and Rachel Odhner endorsed my book. So it was only natural for me to be curious about what his worldview was. Anyone else would not have mattered.

    Anyhow, if you are inclined to believe in Swedenborg’s idea of correspondences then there must be a fine-tuning between (a priori) spiritual events and the measurement outcomes of physical events. Even with quantum probabilities, if all the states of quantum superposition endure, the collapse of the wavefunction into a measurement outcome could be a result of self-organization. As Swedenborg states, “For new things to come into existence, previous things must coexist.”

    Some physicists believe that it is only from the perspective of our worldly minds that quantum events seem indeterminate.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  11. Glenn says:

    GG,

    Some physicists believe that it is only from the perspective of our worldly minds that quantum events seem indeterminate.

    There has been a hankering for a return to a billard ball-like universe, even if on a deeper level. We humans like things with knowable inputs and predictable outcomes. Less messy and more orderly if it can be had.

    Re taking “heat” on your behalf, thank you for the kind words and the compassionate feeling. (I thought ‘pastoral care’ was anathema to you! :-)) Not to worry, however, as whenever there’s flack to contend with for opening my mouth, it’s mine to deal with.

    My apologies for stepping on your natural curiosity.

    Glenn

  12. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    Pastoral care does not usually focus on the idea that our selfhood is a false appearance. This blog is more concerned with regeneration than with hugging. That requires popping some balloons! Sorry.

    With respect (and hugs),
    TheGodGuy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s