Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Sun Sep 14 2008 - 12:39:18 EDT

I dont know about the word "predict", but would it "support" the existence
of those who created the theory? Possibly it might. The cosmological
argument for design would seem to include the notion that "consciousness,
life and rationality" derive from broken symmetry (See Stephen M Barr's
book on faith and physics). But where do the symmetries of (a hypothetical)
TOE come from? That question is not answered by the theory. Do the
symmetries have a natural origin or a non-natural origin? I don't think the
scientific materialists have an adequate answer to that question. So, I
don't think a TOE challenges any traditional theists faith. In fact...given
that TOE may be naturalistic, and given that Christianity invented
naturalism, it may possibly do the opposite. Just because naturalism is
distorted today to be in opposition to theism does not mean it necessariliy
is intrinsically in tension with theism.
The primary source of the tension between theism and some naturalists comes
from religionists, not from atheists (ref, Cornelius Hunter, Science's Blind

Lisa Randall has said that brane theory has theological consequences.
Good thing she already has tenure or they might expell her.

Best Regards,
David Clounch

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Alexanian, Moorad <>wrote:

> It seems to me that the aspiring TOE would be written down in mathematical
> language. How would one then derive notions of consciousness, life and
> rationality from it? Would the theory predict the existence of those who
> created the theory? Could there ever be such a powerful bootstrap? I doubt
> it!
> Moorad
> -----Original Message-----
> From: on behalf of Don Winterstein
> Sent: Sun 9/14/2008 2:45 AM
> To: Iain Strachan
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge
> A true TOE would apply at all possible ranges of space-time and energy. We
> certainly would never be able to test it at all those ranges, so our faith
> that it is a TOE would need to come from other indicators. If in some
> formalism we were to suddenly see clearly how all known physical phenomena
> were interrelated--the role of dark matter/energy, how QM is compatible with
> gravity, etc., we would be tempted to call that formalism the TOE; and if it
> seemed to make believable predictions about what goes on in the inaccessible
> ranges, and if we could find nothing wrong with it over a respectable
> period, we'd call it the TOE.
> Having the TOE in our possession would not mean God does not exist.
> Perhaps it was always God's intent that humans discover the key to the
> physical universe. Who can say that's not a big reason why he made us?
> Nevertheless such divine intent would fit uncomfortably with much of
> traditional Christian teaching and emphasis. Where is it written that
> Christians are supposed to make progress in understanding the physical
> world? The Christian emphasis instead is on loving God and one's neighbor,
> setting the mind on things above, all the while living in expectation of
> ultimate fulfillment at the Second Coming. Fulfillment that the TOE would
> bring is wholly other.
> So while TOE does not imply God does not exist, the very idea generates a
> certain amount of dissonance with traditional Christianity.
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Clounch<>
> To: Iain Strachan<>
> Cc: ASA<>
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge
> Iain,
> Lisa Randall, in her book on brane theory (Warped Passages) discusses at
> the end her paper, the RS2 paper (written with ??Sundstrom??). The RS2
> paper apparently proposes some tests which can possibly actually be tested
> by the LHC. This would give us an indication of which string theory may be
> correct. (Hope I'm not mischaracterizing this Randy).
> Its got to do with why we need a collider that has at least 10^16 times
> higher energy than (the LHC? than the Higgs boson? I don't remember) in
> order to be able to test string theory. But Lisa found a possible way
> around that.
> I cannot claim I understand everything in the book, and its over 500
> pages, but I'd say its well worth wading through. I especially enjoyed what
> Lisa said about the theory of scientific theories and the limits of
> knowledge. It jived with my engineering and physics background. Which is
> something the ASA discussion on such theories usually doesn't jive with
> hardly at all.
> Best Regards,
> Dave Clounch
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Iain Strachan <
> <>> wrote:
> It's possible my physics is too rusty to make the following speculations
> valid, but I'd be interested to hear what folks think.
> Physicists have for a long time talked about the TOE (Theory Of
> Everything), and I wonder if the belief that we are somehow close to a TOE
> is based on atheistic precepts.
> Thinking about the LHC and what it hopes to achieve made me think about
> this - and I think it shows possibly that we are always going to run up
> against limits that we'll never be able to explore.
> What started me thinking was all the headline stuff about the Big Bang
> and that the LHC is the "Big Bang" experiment; and that it will create
> conditions and energies that were present in the first trillionth of a
> second after the Big Bang. That may seem an incredibly small time, but it
> occurs to me that in physics that is actually an incredibly long time.
> So we're talking about the first 10^-12 of a second of a universe that
> has lasted 10^18 seconds - around 30 orders of magnitude longer than this
> period of time.
> However, the smallest possible unit of time, as I recall, is the Planck
> time of 10^-43 seconds, which is an even more impressive 31 orders of
> magnitude shorter than a trillionth of a second. So, on a logarithmic scale
> of digging back to the Big Bang, we're not even half-way there!
> It's my understanding that Physics changes radically when scales change
> by many orders of magnitude (e.g. 8 orders of magnitude in velocity is
> required for Newton's laws to break down and relativistic effects to come
> into play).
> Hence it seems to me that the next step will likely only peel the next
> layer off the onion - and we have no way of knowing what unanswered
> questions are present in the layers below, or what complex and rich physics
> that we know nothing about took place hidden in those 31 orders of
> magnitude. We would only be able to theorise based on what we know of what
> happened after them.
> Since higher energies could only be produced by larger and larger
> accelerators, it seems to me that such knowledge, in the sense of empirical
> verification, will be forever out of our reach. We might build an
> accelerator the size of a country; hardly one the size of the planet, and
> impossible to build one the size of the Solar System, or the galaxy.
> Now, perhaps I'm missing some vital piece of modern physics that makes
> us sure that we're near the last layer of the onion and that we WILL have a
> TOE in the near future, but I feel sceptical about this - laws tend to break
> down when velocities, energies are pushed to previously unknown limits.
> Iain
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
> -----------
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 14 12:39:41 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 14 2008 - 12:39:41 EDT