Sunday, December 28, 2008

Science Discovered God?

This material comes from Ervin Laszlo’s “Science and the Akashic Field”.
Yes, I’m going THERE again. Hang onto your hat.
The standard model of cosmic evolution states that the universe was kicked off by the Big Bang, twelve to fifteen billion earth years ago. After that assertion was made, empirical evidence showed that the universe is, indeed, about 13.7 billion years old.

The Big Bang came from an explosion in an unstable portion of the ‘pre-space’ of our universe—a fluctuating sea of virtual energies. This entity was labeled, inaccurately, as a vacuum. It isn’t. A vacuum, that is. It has energy—apparently a lot of energy.

Anyhow, part of it exploded. It created a fireball of “staggering heat and density,” according to Laszlo. Furthermore, in the first milliseconds of its existence, it synthesized all the matter that now populates cosmic space. In fact, it seems it brought into being much MORE than the matter that currently inhabits the universe. Space [what little of it there was] was filled with particle/antiparticle pairs which collided and obliterated each other. What was left was the one-billionth of the originally created particles [the tiny fraction of particles that outnumbered the antiparticles.] That’s what we’re left with.

About 200,000 years later the particles decoupled themselves from the radiation field of the original fireball. Space became transparent for the first time and clumps of matter became distinct elements of the cosmos. Matter in these clumps condensed as they were acted upon by gravity. The first stars turned on about 2 million years later. And, within one billion years, the first galaxies formed.

Until recently, this scenario seemed well established—now, not so much.
For one thing, there is no reasonable explanation in the Big Bang theory for the flatness of the universe [I’m not sure I understand the meaning of the word ‘flatness’ here—so I’m going to table that for the time being]; the missing mass in the universe [that I do have a nodding acquaintance with] for the accelerating expansion of the galaxies [I know about that, too].
I’ll skip over the stuff Laszlo mentioned about the coherence of cosmic ratios, the ‘horizon problem’, the uniformity of macrostructures and the ‘tuning of the constant’ for the simple reason that I have no idea what he’s talking about here. If anyone else understands these matters, would you comment please? We can take our discussion over to email so we won’t bother everybody else—unless of course, they’d like to be included in the conversation.

The next statement Laszlo made DID make sense to me—at least as much as anything on this blog does: he said that all those puzzles raise the possibility that this universe did not arise from some sort of random fluctuation of the quantum vacuum.
He suggested the concept of a ‘meta-universe’. The term ‘meta’ comes from the Greek, ‘behind’ or ‘beyond’. Laszlo is talking about a vaster, more fundamental universe that is beyond the universe we inhabit.

The possibility of a vaster, possibly infinite universe is brought home more deeply by the astounding finding that no matter how far our telescopes probe, even in places that we had been certain no matter existed, we just keep finding galaxies. They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere!
This fact is especially astonishing when we reflect that, as recently as the 1920’s, science believed that our Milky Way Galaxy was the universe! We believed that where the Milky Way ended - space ended. Today we know that the Milky Way is one of billions upon billions of galaxies—many of them far vaster than ours. How’s THAT for a kick in the head?
And let’s venture even further: We are now beginning to understand that the boundaries of our universe are not the boundaries of the universe.
The universe that we thought we knew isn’t the universe that is. It just isn’t.

Today several explanations are in the making [and who knows how they will shake out over time?] about the idea that our universe sprang, like Athena from Zeus’ forehead, from a far vaster meta-universe.
These emerging cosmologies may explain the puzzles of coherence of this universe including the astounding serendipity that the universe is so extraordinarily fine-tuned that we are here to ask the questions at all. According to Laszlo, there is no credible explanation in a one-shot, single-cycle universe for US or anything like us. A one-time universe which arose from random selection should not have allowed the development of living organisms to arise and evolve.

Well, Seth and Michael said it ages ago: This universe is #3 that we have, collectively, created. And, once again, Science agrees with them — even though it doesn't 'believe' in them.

Laszlo again: “The fluctuations that led to our amazingly coherent universe may not have been selected at random. Traces of prior universes could have been present in the pre-space from which our universe arose. . . . Do we come across here the footprint of a cosmic ‘Akashic Field’ that conveyed the trace of a precursor universe to the birth of our universe—and has been connecting and correlating the stars and galaxies of this universe ever since?”

And, yes, Michael has specifically stated that the Akashic Record of the previous universe hands off its blueprint to the universe-in-the-making at its birth.
First—I’ve said it before and I say it again: of all the hard scientists, astronomers and quantum physicists are the only ones I’ve encountered who, as a group, seem to believe in God. Maybe the stuff they deal with on a daily basis draws them to look at the bigger picture in ways biologists and chemists don’t. Or – maybe they don’t believe in God but can’t talk about the stuff they are investigating without sounding as if they do.
And, after reading Laszlo’s work [the small portion I've read so far], I have to wonder whether he has studied Seth and Michael. Just sayin.

And, second—while reading these two pages my conception of ‘God’ changed again.
When I was a child I took the view of my parents and Sunday school teachers: A bearded, Caucasian man sitting on a throne. Simple and straightforward? Certainly. Accurate? Certainly not.

When I discovered the idea of reincarnation I began rethinking my viewpoint. The closest visualization I could come up with was that of the universe itself.

Over the last couple of days I’ve come to the conclusion that I was thinking way too small. Now my visualization is that of the “fluctuating sea of virtual energies,” or the “vaster, more fundamental universe that is beyond the universe we inhabit.”
Any closer to the Truth? Who knows? But, somehow, it seems to me that it might be.

And third—all this information about the Akashic Field [especially the fact that science is closing in on it] strikes especially home for me. After all, I'm a scholar. The Akashic Field or Record or whatever you want to call it, is something I'm going to have more than a nodding acquaintance with when I dump all the knowledge I've picked up along the way into it in the not-too-distant future.
As a matter of fact, I've done it before. This is my third outing as a scholar. I guess I like this essence. I've chosen it more often than any of the other roles.


Matthew | Polaris Rising said...

Brings to mind ancient Taoism:

"There is a beginning. There is no beginning of that beginning. There is no beginning of that no beginning of beginning. There is something. There is nothing. There is something before the beginning of something and nothing, and something before that. Suddenly there is something and nothing, I still don't really know which is something and which is nothing. Now, I've just said something, but I don't really know whether I've said anything or not."


two crows said...

hi Matthew--
wow. whether you just said anything or not, you just said a mouthful there. I'm going to post that one over my computer to just contemplate. next to my picture of snow (a reminder that it does exist) and the pics of Hitler, Kim Jung Il and Bush (to remind me that we are all exactly where we need to be).

I've been thinking more about this post and I'm almost ready to add an addendum. Hope you'll come back and take a look when it's posted.