What would happen if you traveled back in time and killed your mother before she gave birth to you? That would mean you could never be born, in which case, how could you have traveled back in time?
This riddle of cause-and-effect, while fun to spend a few hours scratching your head over, has never had much relevance in the real world. But it's been in the headlines in the last few weeks, as particle physicists have gathered evidence that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos may travel faster than light. Why is this such a big deal? Well, a direct result of faster-than-light travel, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, is time-travel: A light signal, and therefore information, could arrive at its destination before it had even been sent! Such nonsensical, "causality violating" situations, in which an effect occurs before the thing that caused it, would send the edifice of science crashing down. As Alvaro De Rújula, a theorist at CERN, the group that conducted the experiment, said, "If it is true, then we truly haven't understood anything about anything."
The finite, physical universe is a different thing altogether from the infinite, eternal backdrop of which the universe is merely a part. They may be related, but we do not know how, nor can we: Science and math, both useful systems of understanding, are finite, so they can never describe the infinite. There is a real chance that the longed-for union of the physical with the metaphysical will never come to be. The finite and the infinite may very well remain irreconcilable by the materialistic theories of science. If they do, we should hardly be surprised. Indeed, at the sub-atomic level of science, the more we know, the less we know -- quite literally, as progress depends on our ability to measure particles at ever decreasing scales. In this theoretical realm, in which evanescent, miniscule flashes of energy are interpreted as the signatures of ultimate reality, the line between belief and science is easily smudged. And while there are undoubtedly benefits to understanding the sub-microscopic world, there are also costs: A society that believes that the ultimate source of reality can be apprehended through the cold tools of science risks losing a valuable part of its humanity.
Where knowledge enhances and improves life, there should we apply our intellects. But when the pursuit of knowledge begins to resemble speculation, science has crossed a border into a different field altogether -- that of philosophy. Those who read the headlines and naively champion the methods of science remain unaware of these branch points. They are fooled by the subterfuge of the quasi-scientific, and take comfort from the apparent ability of science to discern the universe's infinite origin. But perhaps now that we have seen hints that the laws of physics break down, and that the universe might not enforce Einstein's cosmic speed limit all that strictly, how will we react? Will we once again launch into obsessive, metaphysical speculation that takes us further and further from reality? Or will we shore up the little we do know and apply it to the actual conditions of our lives?
Just as, in our day, scientists publish evidence-based papers in scientific journals, the philosophers, religious scholars, sages and prophets who came before us recorded their voyages into the metaphysical. Jewish mysticism offers a vast system for contemplating ultimate reality. Over many millennia, despite obscurity, persecution and deprivation, Jewish scholars continued to investigate this reality, the one we all live in, in works that offer profound insights even in the current age. But the headlines distract us from our heritage. "Subterfuge science" too often convinces people that the modern metaphysics of quantum speculation are better informed than religious traditions as old as history, and have something more meaningful to offer. When trying to comprehend the blurred no-man's-land between physics and metaphysics, in which the frontier of science operates, it is all too easy for modern people to close their minds to tradition and cite the newest, most preliminary of scientific results as proof that science provides a more comprehensive point of view than religion.
Sometimes it is the very profligacy of science that is the problem. We see enormous amounts of new information every day: data amplification, comparative analyses and pattern detection, all suggesting new directions for investigating reality. We struggle to make sense of the world, but the glut of information that is an inescapable fact of life in the Internet age can make this harder, not easier. Our heads are swimming with information. And so we make snap decisions, and any decision that is not fully and carefully considered will inevitably impact our lives in a negative way.
For example, as children we are taught that the earth revolves around the sun. But this isn't strictly true: The sun and earth rotate around their shared central point of mass like dancing bodies in space, sensitively poised to affect each other. This small, but significant, mistake, introduced in childhood, leaves the adult with a misperception about the world that gets repeated and passed down the generations.
Despite the great strides that man has made in the past few hundred years, we still can say what Socrates said long ago: that the wisest man is the man who is most aware of his own ignorance. And science, as useful and impressive as it is, nonetheless must remain a finite system. At its edge, indeed, is ignorance. So do we rely on the incomplete approximations of science, rejecting religion? Do we assume that the great minds of the prophets and sages of centuries past, who devoted their lives to the study of the metaphysics that science is just now beginning to brush up against, were less sophisticated than we are? That the intellects that defined the world's major religious paradigms were deficient?
Time is strange. It is the one dimension in which we can only travel forward -- we could not, even if we wanted to, journey to the past to murder a parent. Nor can we halt the stream of time, even for a moment. It is always passing us by. As Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote,
Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.
Before the tune ends -- before it is too late -- we should have the courage and humility to realize that, for all our vanity and the vaunting ambitions of science, our highest goal should remain to leave the world, when we depart it, better, brighter and more worthy for those who come after.
Follow Kevin Bermeister on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kevberm
The irony of Bermiester's article is that the potential discovery he would use to subsume science to mysticism was conceptualized and realized by scientists using scientific apparatus and methodology, NOT by Jewish mystics mumbling mantras.
"And science... At its edge, indeed, is ignorance. So do we rely on the incomplete approximations of science, rejecting religion?"
A race of super intelligent aliens constructed a machine and pressed the button creating the universe as we know it, in addition to completely eliminating all traces of the alien race. Can you prove this didn't happen instead of a supernatural being? Appeal to ignorance represses inquiry, adding nothing to the store of human knowledge.
Despite the sanctimonious tirade against science, why is there NOT one example, in this article, of the "profound insights" from Jewish mystic scholars applicable to the current age?
Non-overlapping magisteria - Science should not intrude on matters of religion; BUT, by the same token, religion should not interfere in the sphere of science. And yet, religionists can't seem to restrain themselves grabbing at any and all straws, even the findings of science if there's the remote chance to prop up their belief in supernatural beings. (Galileo, genetic research, stem cell research, high energy particle accelerators,...)
The discoveries of science have naturally intruded on what was considered religious territory (religion claimed all knowledge) to the point now religion must abstract itself to utter meaninglessness or deny the evidence just to survive.
"...scientific philosophies may be better served by... Judaism offers the oldest... tradition..."
Scientific philosophies? Like the theory of gravity, evolution, biology, physics, astrophysics,...?
Appeal to tradition gives no privileged position - "religion’s claims of either unique authority or even particularly superior insight into moral, spiritual, and metaphysical issues is entirely unjustified, presumptuous, and, even, offensive. These are domains accessible [AND accountable] to reason..." - D. Fincke
Also scientific research never begins to enter into the world of speculation. It starts from the very beginning as speculation. Science is at its very core a method for determining which speculation is true and which is false. Which can be proven and which can be discarded, which seems most likely, which seems least likely, using trial, experimentation, peer review to reach its conclusions. There is nothing philosophical about scientific speculation. You seem to have a rather flawed understanding of what science is.
And, that the earth and the sun are involved in other motions, that does not make the fact that the sun revolves around the earth in any way less true. In fact its truth, so often taught to children is necessary to combat the falseness of the easily arrived at notion that the sun revolves around the earth which religion championed for so many centuries, despite claiming to be in touch with the creator of the universe.
You seem to have a rather flawed understanding of what religion is. I'm not a believer, but I think it's like this. God is an artifact of our conscious experience and points to something real. It's not rational and can't be known by logic or reason. It can only be known by being present to it; like the color blue (the experience of which only exists between our ears although, in our experience, it's totally out there.) From the outside it looks like the living intention of the human species. From the inside it's God. You can take issue with stories like God created everything and God is all powerful and God is on our side, not because it matter that that exists or not in the scientific sense, but because you experience God differently and its your experience. Maybe you don't even call it God, but the neuroscience sure says that the self in your mind isn't doing it alone, so there is something beyond the self and it matters.
So you are a believer who has just displayed a complete lack of knowledge about cognitive science.
Also, how is teaching young children that the earth revolves around the sun dogmatic? Its not the whole story but it is undeniably true, and the education doesn't end there. Are we to teach advanced astrophysics to preschoolers? The earth revolving around the sun is merely part of the first lesson in an introduction to astronomy and more importantly an introduction to young minds that things are not always as they seem. And introduction into rejecting the easy and obvious answer, into rejecting dogma.
http://unchartedterritory.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/analysis-of-fibre-delay-calibration-error-in-cern-opera-neutrino-speed-experiment/
We may be a clever species, unlimited in aspiration but all too limited in potential. "we should have the courage and humility to realize that, for all our vanity and the vaunting ambitions" humanity has failed to comprehend values that are sustainable, spiritual and moral. Unable to leave a "better, brighter and more worthy for those who come after." The human 'voyage' is on the rocks, with no lifeboat insight! http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
The average life expectancy of someone diagnosed with HIV in a wealthy country with access to modern medicine is 20-50 years! We have made progress and it goes to show that all that donating hasn't gone to waste, there is much left to do and this progress is not yet reason to sit back and be proud of ourselves, but is is sometimes helpful to take a step back and realize that we can make things better for people suffering with the disease.
Again, not saying we're done, or that unequal access to the drugs isn't a problem, just that only stating that we don't have a vaccine without pointing out how much we have been able to do is a little disingenuous as it might lead people to believe there is no hope when in reality there is.
Sources
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2007.03520.x/abstract;jsessionid=7F6C920D108CF92A4CAF1E1B2C8990F4.d01t04
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61113-7/fulltext
There will always be advances in the sciences. Some will appear to shake the foundations of accepted theories and the laws of nature which we have agreed upon as being written in stone. However, will the study of all things physical allow us to bridge that chasm which separates us from the mind of God? No, it will not. At best we will always be second guessing.
Just as traveling back in time is impossible, so it too is impossible to travel ahead into the future. Mankind is limited to only his present time, and man is sharing this present time with all of the universe.
You are wrong about traveling forward in time. Its quite possible and in fact in a very small way you do it every time you get on a plane or even into a car. Einstein showed that time slows down as velocity increases. On earth scales we never notice because the speeds we travel at are so slow compared to the speed of light. But its a well established fact that if you had a person flying in a space ship at close to the speed of light when a year had passed for them ten years would have passed for people on earth. I.e., when they returned they would have travelled nine years forward into the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
This isn't theory or speculation its well established fact and its been measured with highly accurate clocks. The effect also has to be taken into consideration for sattelites to keep their clocks in alignment with earth clocks.
Maybe not. I find room in my philosophy of the universe for both ideas. The more I learn of physics, the more I believe in the "eternal backdrop." I got all excited when I read about this possible discovery. The implications are mind-boggling and fascinating.
However, on the unlikely event that this isn't experimental error the implications could be incredible. The most common possible explanation I've heard is that this could offer proof of additional dimensions beyond our normal four. If that is the explanation then Einstein's limit is still in effect. Its just that the neutrinos are taking short cuts through additional dimensions. Lisa Randall had an interesting article on that here on Huffpo a while ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-randall/cern-speed-of-light-einstein_b_979883.html
Science may never be able to analyse such 'metaphysical' phenomena as semantics, qualia, consciousness and intention because these 'things' do not have any structure, either static or procedural - they do not have any conceptual 'nuts and bolts' for the dismantling tools of science to get a grip on... http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com/2009/10/non-algorithmic-phenomena.html
The whole foundation for the fields of linguistics and computer science are based on analysis of abstract structures totally devoid of any concept of realization in the real world.
New-age/religious critics such as this author often say nonsensical things such as that science can't really comprehend the infinite. People who have taken a course in advanced logic and set theory know how ridiculous that is. Not only can the infinite be formally defined but the difference between various kinds of infinities such as the natural numbers vs. the rational numbers can be defined and various characteristics about both can be rigorously proven.
"Any concepts or words which have been formed in the past through the interplay between the world and ourselves are not really sharply defined with respect to their meaning: that is to say, we do not know exactly how far they will help us in finding our way in the world. We often know that they can be applied to a wide range of inner or outer experience, but we practically never know precisely the limits of their applicability. This is true even of the simplest and most general concepts like "existence" and "space and time". Therefore, it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth."
And I also think very highly of this by him...
"Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word "understanding." [Epistemic issues are not well understood by most, by Heisenberg certainly gets the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge; Yoga and Buddhism certainly get it]
"There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality."
It's fun to believe, I mean I would hate a world without mystery, and there's are things I believe that have no provable basis as of yet, but at the end of the day, when it really comes down to it, when you need a heart, when you need to get across the country in 5 hours, when you need to call someone on the other side of the globe, when you take a picture of your kids, when you tear up seeing a woman who was born deaf hearing for the first time because of a new technology, when you witness someone stepping on the moon, you're gonna run to science.
Its incredibly ironic that when some potentially new discovery in science is announced the new agers and the religious will jump on it and say "Ha! This just shows how bad science is, its always changing, its never certain" not realizing that in reality is one of the core strengths of science.
"Such nonsensical, "causality violating" situations, in which an effect occurs before the thing that caused it, would send the edifice of science crashing down." Nope, wouldn't happen. Science and scientists LOVE having everything tipped on its ear. It's utterly ridiculous to believe that science would come crashing down because of a new, even when it is mindblowing, discovery. Science has been making such discoveries for centuries and the only result has ever been to strenghten science, not destroy it.
"The finite, physical universe is a different thing altogether from the infinite, eternal backdrop of which the universe is merely a part." Hello, you are making a rather huge assumption here. There is no proof that your 'eternal backdrop' exists.
"A society that believes that the ultimate source of reality can be apprehended through the cold tools of science risks losing a valuable part of its humanity." Sorry, but this is just another rephrasing of the old morality is contingent on god/religion meme. Not true, not even a little bit.
If you excuse me, I'll just go throw away my PhDs and be back in a minute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
Rubbd!