The Basic Construct
the scientific view vs the religious view

F   
or most scientists (and for myself as well), the universe is the primary construct. That is, it has no logical antecedent. If this is correct it must be possible to formulate its logic without appeal to anything else upon which it is conditioned, i.e. it need not apply elsewhere for a logical "permit" to exist.

For religionists, the universe is a secondary construct. This means that it exists on "condition" of God's favor or will. In their view, God is the primary or "base" construct.

This would not seem to be much of an observation except that it has some relationship to a couple of pages I made about the universe as an advanced computer game (Playing God) in which I conjectured (fancifully) that we might be in the first level of such a sim and that after death we might go on the the next level ;o)

Violations of conservation and symmetry principles ...

constitute a breach of the universe as the base construct. Such violations, unless derivable from a more general theory of existence, indicate that some kind of pre-primary information conditions the universe ... and hence ... it cannot be the primary construct. This is anathema to science because it requires the multiplication of postulates (concerning which it must be that "the fewer, the better").

To postulate something as complex as a self-aware God would mock any set of logical postulates imaginable. Hence, no real scientist believes in such an entity.

This leaves the scientist with little room to maneuver if, for instance, an object seemed to appear out of nowhere. If such an event occurred he would be forced to say that the apparition was "false" or the reporters misidentified something or ... that we live in a much wider universe with "other dimensions" or "parallel universes" which somehow intersected to produce the impossible phenomena. This is the path taken by many scientists when confronted with phenomena which do not comport with present understanding ... they just widen the universe to accommodate whatever is without explanation in the context of the present model.

They have presently widened it to an infinite panoply of universes that can accommodate anything whatsoever ... except a self-aware God.

Let us widen it still further ...

Suppose that the base construct (wherever and whatever it may be) is much older than any age supposed for our universe. After all, we have no knowledge of where or when we exist in the postulated unknowable context - the infinite plenum). Then there might be an advanced realm of beings who exercise their identities by manipulating a "secondary construct", i.e. our universe. Now, the religionists can have their God who can pop into and out of existence with total disregard for the laws of physics ... performing miracles of faith and 'fizzics'. The scientist can now embrace his erstwhile enemy and come to a new "understanding" of existence free and unfettered by the bounds of rationality.

And that is what rationality really means ... accurately identifying the boundary between fact and fancy.

That is why my personal preference is for only one universe ... having no "choice" about its existence. We exist in an amorphous sea of potential consciousness which takes the shape of self-awareness ... only ... when matter becomes sufficiently complex, well-ordered and insulated from random destructive influences. Only then do we get actual, focused attention, i.e. our consciousness.



Ebtx Home Page