The Psalmist asked: What is Man that Thou art mindful of him? This volume contains a series of papers exploring not only a number of by-issues of Mormon doctrine which have occupied the author s interests over the years, but some speculations regarding the applicability of Chaos Theory, Fractal Theory, and certain other modern scientific, linguistic, and social theories to Mormon thinking. Paul Davies, a Cambridge-trained physicist, now teaching at Adelaide University in Australia, has written a fascinating Book called The Mind of God (Thouchstone Books, Simon & Schuster: New York. 1992) expanding on the notions expressed in my Chaos Theory and Big Bang papers and containing any number of additional intriguing thoughts lending backing to LDS theology. First of all, Davies asserts (with all the authority of modern physics he can bring to bear) that the universe (and all possible parallel universes conceived of in some models of the cosmos) were in its (there) initial stages chaotic. The extraordinary order which now obtains is owing to organizing principles arising from the "initial conditions" prevailing in the first stages of creation. Indeed, Davies joins Stephen Hawking and Fred Hoyle in arguing for a "steady state", but expanding universe without
any specific moment of "creation", but which has in all probability "just always existed". (op. cit. p. 43) All three argue that what has traditionally been called "creation" was in fact nothing more than "organization" (a concept precisely paralleling Mormon teachings). To quote Davies, "Though accepting that the organization of nature can be explained by the laws of physics, together with suitable cosmic initial conditions, some scientists recognize that many of the complex structures and systems in the universe depend for their existence on the particular form of these laws and initial conditions.
Furthermore the existence of complexity in nature seems to be very finely balanced, so that even small changes in any form of the laws would apparently prevent this complexity from arising. A careful study suggests that the laws of the universe are remarkably felicitous for the
emergence of richness and variety -- indeed that it is almost "too good to be true" (op, cit. p 195).
The Doctrine & Covenants indeed informs us that the Lord, viewing his creation, expressed satisfaction at the "variety" He had achieved, calling it "good". Continuing with Davies' view of matters, he asserts that in the case of living organisms, their existence
seems to depend on a number of fortuitous coincidences that some scientists and philosophers have hailed as nothing short of astonishing. He continues, "Far from exposing human
beings as incidental products of blind physical forces, science suggests that the existence of
conscious organisms is a fundamental (original emphasis) feature of the universe. We have been written into the laws of nature in a deep, and i believe, meaningful way. Nor do I regard science as an alienating activity. Far from it,
S cience is a noble and enriching quest that helps us make sense of the world in an objective and methodical manner. It does not deny a meaning behind existence. On the contrary. . . the fact that science works, and works so well, points to something profoundly significant about the organization of the cosmos. Any attempt to understand the nature of reality and the place of human beings in the universe must proceed [from this base. But] science is not . . . the only
scheme of thought to command out attention. Religion flourishes even in our scientific age. But as Einstein once remarked, religion without science is lame. (op. cit. p.21) Here one must insert the observation that leading LDS scientists from Orson Pratt, founder of the University of Deseret (now the University of Utah) to John A. Widtsoe, President of Utah State University, have said much the same thing..
As for the type of God, or organizing principle, operating within the universe, Davies notes that "a number of scientists have proposed [an intelligence] who evolves within the
universe, eventually becoming so powerful he resembles Plato's Demiurge. One can envisage . intelligent life . . . gradually becoming more advanced and spreading throughout the cosmos, gaining control over larger and larger portions until its manipulation f matter and energy is so refined that this intelligence would be indistinguishable from nature itself. Such a Godlike intelligence could develop from our descendants or even have developed already from some extraterrestrial community or communities. . . . The God in these schemes is clearly less than the universe, and though immensely powerful is not omnipotent, and cannot be regarded as creator of the universe as a whole, only of part of the organized content". (op. cit. p. 43) It would be difficult to find a description closer to standard LDS teachings. Commenting on the complexity of the word, Davies directs attention to the fact that this complexity is not of the ordinary variety, it is its "organized complexity" that defines it. The universe has not only
complexity, but "depth" -- a technical concept attributable to Charles Bennett, which focusses less on the quantity of information needed to specify a system, and more on its quality or "value" This depth was not built into the universe at its origin. It has emerged from primeval chaos in a sequence of processes which have progressively enriched the evolving universe. Davies proposes that it is easy to imagine a world that, though ordered, does not possess the right sort of forces or conditions for the emergence of significant "depth". He invites his reader to imagine a limitless variety of galaxies in which matter is distributed at random. Chaos prevails. But here and there, he says, in oases of order arise permitting life to form. (op. cit. p. 195-96)
Russian physicists Andrei Linde has considered this scenario as a sub-set of the inflationary-universe model. He suggests that although these quiescent oases of order would be rare, one should not be surprised to find ourselves inhabiting one, any more than we are to find ourselves located on the surface of a planet -- when an overwhelming proportion of the universe consists of empty space.
In another of his books, The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies introduces the concept of a God having no need to interfere directly with the course of evolution. Having "loaded the dice", to use Einstein's well-worm phrase, (the "sensitive dependence" of my own Chaos Theory paper) he can therefore leave the process to the timeless laws of nature's organization and information flow. p. 192) The present author ees no need, however, to alienate God from the process at critical points of volution, and considers it ore probable to assume that he introduces additional elements of "sensitive dependence" at critical moments of history (see also review of Andrew Greeley's novel The God Game formore thought on this issue). In this connection Astronomer Fred Hoyle notes that the element carbon, whose particular chemical nature makes it crucial to terrestrial life, is manufactured from helium inside large stars.
Carbon (and other heavy elements) are expelled in super-novae explosions. Hoyle was struck by the fact that this key reaction is made possible only by a lucky fluke. The creation of carbon molecules involves the simultaneous encounter of three high speed helium nuclei. Because of the rarity of triple nucleus encounters, this reaction can take place in significant numbers only at certain well-defined energy resonances. By good fortune, one of these resonances corresponds to the energy helium happens to have inside large stars. Hoyle didn't know this at the time, but predicted it must be so. Experiment proved him right. And detailed studies also revealed that the process of car bon creation involved what Hoyle has called, "a monstrous series of accidents". This is important because carbon is the basis of all life we know of. Indeed, Man is made of "stardust". And without these "monstrous accidents" we could not be here to contemplate this miracle of existence. Hoyle has observed, "it is as if
the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to [the production of car bon which is a requisite of life] -- as though somebody had been "monkeying" with the laws of physics".
Davies, for his part, comments, "If we could play God and select values for these quantities . . . by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all the setting would
render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases . . . the knobs have to be fin-tuned to enormousprecision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish." And, while not dismissing the so-called anthropic principle (the notion that we would not be here to comment were our own universe not just right), Davies asserts: "the fact that even slight changes in the way things are would render the universe unobservable is sure a fact of deep significance"
Back to the notion of "sensitive dependence" -- or "loading the dice" -- the basis for my comment in my Chaos paper about the multiplied power of God to create and to determine the
course of His creation "by the Word of His Power", Davies contributes the thought that "Even the process of thinking involves the disturbance of electrons. . . . These disturbances, though minute, nevertheless alter the fate of other electrons and atoms in the universe". He quotes Hartle and Hawking as concluding, "In view of this, there must be many theories of initial conditions rendered indistinguishable by our act of constructing them. This could be a major factor on a macroscopic scale. A single subatomic encounter can induce a iological mutation that may alter the course of evolution" (p. 168-69) Davies goes on to say, "I believe there is a fifth type of contingency (beyond the four generally accepted by physics) . . . found in the
higher level laws associated with the organizational properties of complex systems (see again the present author's paper on Chaos Theory and the notion of chaos emerging into new order at higher levels of complexity). . . . [For example] Mendel's laws of genetics, though perfectly consistent with the underlying laws of physics, could not [have been] derived solely from them. Likewise various laws and regularities are found in chaotic systems . . .[which] depend not only on the laws of physics, but also on the specific nature of the system concerned. In many cases the precise forms of the pattern . . . adopted by these systems depend upon some accidental microscopic fluctuation . . . .
These higher-level laws and regularities possess contingent feat- ures over and above the usual laws of physics. . . . My conclusion is, that the physical universe is not compelled to exist as it is; it could have been otherwise. [And] we are thus returned to the problem off why it is as it is". (p. 170)
Having expressed his preference for following "science" as far as it will take us (him), Davies concedes that there will always remain a mystery at the end of the universe. Science
can help us understand the 'WHAT" and "HOW", but does not involve itself with "WHYS". He lists however an impressive number of leading scientists who have sought the "why" of the universe in what he (Davies) defines as "mysticism": Eddington, Jeans, Schrodinger, Heisenberg. He even quotes several contemporary giants of science Feynstein, Hoyle, and Penrose as having openly described some of their own "mystical" experiences in their attempts to unravel the mystery of the universe. He cites Hoyle, in particular, as believing that the wonderful organization of the cosmos is controlled by a "superintelligence" who guides both physical and biological evolution through a quantum process -- a teleological God (some
what like that of Aristotle or Teilhard de Chardin), directing the world towards a final state in an infinite future (Chardin's "Omega Point"). Hoyle further believes that this superintelligence can implant thoughts or ideas for the future, ready-made, into the human brain. This, he considers, is the origin of both mathematical and musical inspiration -- and recounts having had the experience himself -- as does Penrose.
Davies joins the other great minds he has cited, as himself searching for another form of understanding (beyond science) to satisfy his inquiring mind regarding the "WHY" of existence. He asks, "What is Man that we might be a party to such privilege. I cannot believe our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is to intimate. This physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-consciousness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor bi-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." (p, 232)
One has only to add: "Yes, and the purpose has been revealed by the superintelligence of the universe -- whether taken to be the highly evolved product of another "community" in a
distant galaxy, as postulated by Davies earlier in his scientific speculation, or the collective
wisdom of the Council of such intelligences (or Council of Gods, as taught by Mormonism)." The Doctrine & Covenants -- the revelations accompanying the Restoration of the Fullness of the Gospel, tell us that "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. Man also (in the form of unembodied intelligence) was in the beginning with God". And the highly evolved Gods of a previous generation of existence, just as speculated upon by Davies (and Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan), acting as catalysts of evolution, brought Man into existence from his background state as unorganized intelligences, making him a Being of Spirit -- his First Estate. Man, is now living in his probationary, or Second Estate,
to see whether he has the wisdom, judgment, and self-control (or nner-directedness) to be worthy of being elevated to his Third Estate, becoming a "partaker of the divine nature"
-- "an heir and joint heir" of his Heavenly Father. (To answer the title question of this essay, and Davies', Hoyle's, and Hawkings' question about the role of Man in the universe, "Man is that he might have joy" -- of questing, exploring, and coming to understand at least somewhat of all that he is and may become, what is about him --: in the heavens, in the earth, and under the earth. All that is and ever was and is to be. And all that he cares to know of the languages, history, and cultures of his wonderful world so full of stimulating variety. And, through these new (and hard won) powers, proceeding like the Father of this generation of creation to create by The Word of Power (sensitive dependence?) new worlds to be peopled by new generations of creation.
Summing up: can it be that what we have is neither a Steady State nor a Big Bang universe, but rather -- drawing on the imagery of what has come to be called "punctuated evolution" -- a process of "Punctuated Creation", effectuated by succeeding generations of "celestial graduates"?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |