Meaning of life...

Recently I read an interesting article in the New Scientist about recent developments in physics. An interesting discovery of physicists today is more and more it appears as though the Universe was not just designed for life - but consciousness. Although that of course strays into the realm of metaphysics.

See - particles (such as light) can exist in two forms. A wave form or a particle. However these two different forms produce different reactions if say we pass them through a Young's double slit. A wave can pass through both simultaneously, whereas a particle can only pass through one. And this is where things get fishy. If you just study the pattern produced - it acts as a wave producing the banded pattern. If you placed photon detectors on the slits - it acts like a particle and no wave pattern is produced.

What does this mean? Well it means that our observation of the particle determines its form. Of course this is a very simplistic overview but the conclusion that could be drawn is almost that reality seems to also react to our perception.

More mathematics and models have been made to this date - and it seems more and more that the Universe was set to create life and consciousness . Just short of claiming that someone created everything, but it appears less like random chance and more like inevitable sequences. Of course, due to the fact that most scientists these days are Atheist since 'apparently' Science and God are now different things, everyone has been deign to say the word - Creator. However, the word "super-intelligence" has been bantered around by said scientists (being the sci-fi fans they are)

I think we are looking at the same thing. The universe is god is the universe is god. The physics and mathematics are beginning to point that way - although we are of course having to tread cautiously in this area. Allow me to now divulge what I call "The Santa Claus Theory"

Let us now consider the existence of Santa - scientifically. We must first then define Santa. Santa in modern day perception a fat man with a woolly white beard, he has a sleigh, a house and a factory in the north pole, likes wearing red, has a penchant for milk and cookies, gets down chimneys at night and delivers presents to all kids in the world on Christmas Eve (provided you still believe!)

However, we have found no evidence of Santa's dwelling in the North Pole - although our nuclear missiles by now can hit an ant. We also realise that not every kid in the world gets presents whether they believe or not. And no one has reported of a fat man breaking entry on Christmas Eve by way of the fireplace (I think).

One conclude scientifically - Santa does not exist.

Wait - readjust that. This concept of Santa is wrong.

Instead if I told you that once upon a time, in the cold forests of Norway and Russia, during the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year some people used to be in fear of something. And that a man appeared and removed this fear.

Or that once there was a Catholic Saint who did one thing or other to be commemorated on Christmas day and his name was Saint Nicholas.

These two new definitions of Santa are then not destroyed by the scientific discoveries. Indeed the original stories of Santa are close to the first one (the fear being related as demons or imps - now translated into the happy toy making elves - talk about irony). And St Nicholas did indeed exist.

Science did not destroy Santa. Merely refined our understanding of Santa.

Now let us take this concept and apply it to God.
Let us take for sake of argument that evolution is correct. And we scientifically proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was so. Then we would have proven that the idea God magically created all living things at once ought to be abandoned. But that does not disprove God. God could very well have used evolution.

We have to define what things we take as fact and what things we take as faith. So here we are - physics today is pointing more and more at some form of 'super intelligence'. Maybe it is God. If physics start to produce an actual volition to the universe - that might be interesting. But beyond that religions are still safe - physics have not yet crept into the realm of morality. Atheists though should really stop taking the science line. It's cheating :P