...perhaps the implied claim that miracles violate or supercede the laws of nature is not necessarily correct. Miracles like those recorded in the Gospels could actually be an expression of the laws of nature and still be miraculous all the same.I would add one... point... though: A programmer could also easily allow "user input" to the program.
Imagine an engineer who designs and builds a computer (the universe). Along the way he programs that computer to produce certain images (living things) on the screen. Suppose that upon some of these images the engineer bestows the gift of consciousness. The software program is information (laws of nature) that governs how everything in the computer functions. When the computer is booted up the software causes the computer to produce screen images which behave in accord with the constraints imposed by the information contained in the software program.
Now suppose that integrated into that program are certain if/then commands which only express themselves under certain highly specific conditions. They might have the form: If P then Q unless R. If R never occurs, P > Q would seem to all observers in the screen to be the algorithm that governs the functioning of the computer. If R never occurs then whenever P happens Q happens.
If, however, R does on one occasion occur then in that instance Q would not follow upon P and everyone who witnessed the "breakdown" would be astonished. It would appear to the conscious screen images that the program had spontaneously been altered or violated even though it was not. It would appear to them that a miracle had occurred...
It could well be that the laws of nature are like information or software that the Cosmic Engineer has designed to run the universe in the fashion described above. If so, it could also be that at least some miracles would not be exceptions to physical laws, but rather expressions of the way the laws manifest themselves in certain very extraordinary circumstances.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
on physics and miracles
Viewpoint has an interesting... view... of how miracles may not automatically contradict the "laws of nature". Using a computer programming analogy:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how you look at/justify it, any observed phenomena must, ipso facto, operate within the constraints of the "program." As a logical utility, of course, science can only concern itself with laws that produce repeatably observable effects; however, strictly speaking, no event is repeatable, as the universe does not (over any known scale) re-iterate itself, and hence, science cannot treat specific events, but only by certain assumptions proceed to other assumptions which, however much we like to believe otherwise, are without any rigorous justification.
But from the context of what is and is not permissible in our modern hypothesized system of reality, there is not very much that is strictly forbade--only that which is probabilistically unlikely. It is entirely possible, according to our accepted rules of physics, for all of the subatomic particles in your body to spontaneously recombinate into something more resembling chocolate pudding, but of course, it is not widely known to be frequent a occurrence. :p
I guess my take on this article is not so much that it actually explains "life, the universe, and everything", it's more that men are no more capable of comprehending the true laws of the universe "than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Tea Company", and that the presumption (of science, not your comment) of using words such as "laws", "must", "rules", "cannot", and "permissible" in describing those true laws is absurd.
Science is a tool, not a rule.
See also Isaiah 55:8-9 --- ""For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.""
Post a Comment