Extra Dimensions and the Supernatural

K. Straughen

(Investigator 159, 2014 November)

In "Balaam and Induction" (No 158, page 51) Anonymous suggests the topic to explore is "extra dimensions that harbour superior forms of life," and so I'll oblige after I comment on his references to induction and the Bible.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Anonymous has succeeded in proving "X" instances of the Bible being true. Can he then argue that those parts of the Bible that are yet to be proven true have a high probability of being true?

In my opinion he can't. Each claim in the Bible has to be treated separately. For example if we were to throw a thousand reindeer off a cliff to test whether they could fly and observed all of them plummeting to the ground we could use induction to arrive at the conclusion that the next reindeer we threw off the cliff would in all probability plummet to the ground as well.

However, we cannot on the basis of these observations conclude that because reindeer are vertebrates and that birds are vertebrates that birds cannot fly because reindeer cannot fly. Both reindeer and birds are within the set of vertebrates, but this fact does not allow us to draw this conclusion, and similarly with the Bible.

For example, in the Bible it is claimed Methuselah's age was 969 years when he died (Gen. 5:27), and in Revelation that the twelve gates of holy Jerusalem are literal pearls and its streets pure gold (Rev. 21:21). Now if we could prove Methuselah lived as long as it is claimed would this mean that the City of God has pearls for gates and streets of gold? Both passages are within the set of scripture, but each is a different and unrelated claim not causally connected.

I also think there are serious problems with the methodology Anonymous uses in his attempts to prove the Bible.

In the case of hares chewing the cud he convolutedly construes scripture in an attempt to make it say something it clearly does not say, and in my opinion this is akin to shaving wood off a square peg in an effort to make it fit a round hole. Occam's razor states that the least speculative theory that best fits the known facts is the one most likely to be true, and in this case the most logical explanation is that the author of scripture was mistaken when he described hares as chewing the cud.

That said, I'm not going to restart the debate on this topic, so I'll pass on to the extra dimensions Anonymous mentions, and when Anonymous refers to extra dimensions he probably has in mind the concept of String Theory, which briefly is as follows:

String theory proposes that the fundamental constituents of the universe are one-dimensional "strings" rather than point-like particles. What we perceive as particles are actually vibrations in loops of string, each with its own characteristic frequency.

String theory originated as an attempt to describe the interactions of particles such as protons. It has since developed into something much more ambitious: an approach to the construction of a complete unified theory of all fundamental particles and forces.

Previous attempts to unify physics have had trouble incorporating gravity with the other forces. String theory not only embraces gravity but requires it. String theory also requires six or seven extra dimensions of space, and it contains ways of relating large extra dimensions to small ones. The study of string theory has also led to the concept of supersymmetry, which would double the number of elementary particles.

Practitioners are optimistic that string theory will eventually make predictions that can be experimentally tested. String theory has already had a big impact on pure mathematics, cosmology (the study of the universe), and the way particle physicists interpret experiments, by suggesting new approaches and possibilities to explore. (1)

If these extra dimensions exist, then how large would they be? Would they be large enough to contain realities comparable in size to our own, one in which could be fitted God, his angles, the heavenly city and all the souls of the saved? It seems the answer is no:

If extra dimensions of space exist, they must be smaller than about half the width of a human hair, according to new measurements of the strength of gravity at short distances. Researchers found that the same law governing the gravitational pull between planets continues to work when objects are separated by as little as 56 micrometers. The finding rules out extra dimensions of 44 micrometers or larger, they report in this week's Physical Review Letters.

Discovering extra dimensions with the relatively huge size of a few micrometers would offer spectacular confirmation for string theory, the still unproved body of equations that may unify gravity with the normally incompatible realm of quantum physics. (2)

Given the extremely small size of String Theory's dimensions it seems unlikely that they are inhabited by intelligent beings. Furthermore, these dimensions are part of our reality rather than being a separate transcendental realm. Intelligent beings arise from complexity — subatomic particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, complex molecules form cells, cells form even more complex organs which eventually lead to a thinking brain. It's difficult to see how all of this can be packed into a space smaller than the thickness of a human hair.

What about dimensions other than those of String Theory? If world-size extra dimensions exist what might life be like in such a reality? Our universe has three dimensions of space and one of time. What about a reality of four dimensions of space and one of time, with our dimension being a kind of shadow of that higher universe: Could life exist in such a four dimensional cosmos?

All the fundamental particles should still exist, but how they interact would be pretty different. Which elements are stable, and the nature of chemical bonds between them, would be completely rearranged. Some things would stay the same, like electrons would still have two spins (up or down). But atomic orbitals, which are determined by spherical harmonics (which in turn are more complicated in higher dimensions), would generally be able to hold more electrons. As just one example (for our chemistry-nerd readers), you'll always have 1 S orbital in every energy level, but in 4 dimensions you'll have 4 P orbitals in each energy level, instead of the paltry 3 that we're used to. This messes up a lot of things. For example, in 4 dimensions Magnesium would be a noble gas instead of a metal. Every element after helium would adopt weird new properties, and the periodic table would be longer left-right and shorter up-down.

So, while the laws of physics are actually the same, if you lived on a four-dimensional Earth in a four-dimensional universe you'd find that (among other things): your bar stool may need an extra leg, Earth wouldn't be able to orbit anything, you'd never be able to hear anything crisply, and the periodic table of the elements would be seriously rearranged. (3)

It's difficult to see how life and therefore intelligence could exist in a reality where the laws of physics do not permit planetary orbits. Of course one could always argue that life exists, but not as we know it, but I don't see how this helps Anonymous' argument.


Bibliography:

(1) Explain it in 60 seconds: String theory
 www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2007/explain-¬it-in-60-seconds-string-theory

(2) String Theory's Extra Dimensions Must Be Less Than Half the Width of a Human Hair
www.scientificamerican.com/article/string-theorys-extra-dime/

(3) What would life be like in higher dimensions?
 www.askamathematician.com/2012/05/q-what-would-life-be-like-in-higher-dimensions/

Extra Dimensions and the Supernatural

Anonymous

(Investigator 160, 2015 January)

INDUCTION

Mr Straughen (Investigator 159) says that if we have "X instances of the Bible proving true" we cannot argue that "parts of the Bible that are yet to be proven true have a high probability of being true."

However, that is the logic everyone relies on elsewhere because there is no other way.

An employer judging a job-applicant, bases his decision on the applicant's past performance in studies, jobs and hobbies, and anticipates future performance to be similar. Without this anticipation there would never be any basis for hiring anyone. It is impossible without time-travel to treat each future task in the office or factory separately and prove in advance that the applicant will do everything properly.

Everyone uses inductive reasoning all the time, extrapolating from past to future or from known to unknown. People with more knowledge do it better. The fact that we must by default employ induction is called "The Pragmatic Justification of Induction".

Straughen thinks he can refute induction because reindeer going over a cliff fall but birds going over a cliff fly. No way. Our background knowledge about things that fall and things that fly predicts the reindeer will fall and the birds will fly.

Over 40 years ago atheists said to me: "Prove the Bible and I'll believe." Several atheists cited passages that they felt would never be confirmed such as "fire and brimstone" from the sky. Ever afterwards I've watched for scientific discoveries helpful in assessing the Bible. This is how reasonable people find out what is true or reliable — they consult science, and generalize.

Jesus said that to find the Kingdom of God people must become as "little children". Children trust people who they experience as reliable, truthful and helpful. Straughen should ask some children, "If one man speaks the truth and another man tells lies, which man should you believe?"

That the Bible corresponds to the "man who speaks the truth" is seen because hundreds of specific confirmations of its content have refuted billions of people.

The truth is that easy. The obscurity comes when adults have sins they idolize, which become their substitute for God, which they defend with every sort of rationalization.



Straughen re-raised the question of cud-chewing hares, claiming again "scripture was mistaken".

I'll explain once more:

Most cud chewing animals are "ruminants" and have four-chambered stomachs such as cattle and sheep. Camels too are "ruminants" but have three stomach compartments. Let us suppose that future biologists decide to acknowledge this difference by coining a new word — camels are no longer ruminants but henceforth "ruminints" with an "i". What's the effect when we read a 20th century textbook and see camels called "ruminants" instead of "ruminints"? Is the older reference erroneous? No. There is no difference in biological knowledge. It is merely a case of one word "ruminant" doing the job of two words "ruminant" and "ruminint". In the 20th century there was no other way, since the word "ruminint" was not in use.

The situation with the hare is similar. Today the words "refection" and "caecotrophy" describe the eating behaviour of hares. These words were unavailable to Moses who grouped hares with cud chewers. For the term "cud-chewer" to be erroneous there must be no possibility that one word is doing the job of two words. There must, forever, be no plausible biological explanation.

But in 1940 science discovered a plausible explanation — Hares re-eat their fecal pellets. (See #145) Ruminants have in common with hares that most of the food is swallowed twice, goes twice through much of the digestive system, and the process is necessary for life.

This discovery refuted critics who claimed Moses was wrong. Moses merely used one word "chewer-of-cud" where biologists today use two words.

In University science, students learned how to find information using various "Abstracts" and I applied this to the Bible. I went to the Zoological Abstracts and found the 1940 reference. Finding the reports of others' research is part of scientific method. I did this to check the Bible on lions, hyraxes, crocodiles and other animals. Go additionally to textbooks, journals, and newspapers and hundreds of Bible statements can be confirmed.

We all trust or don't trust other people and authorities by judging their past performance. Straughen does this too. But he makes the Bible the exception and seeks support from agenda-driven Bible critics who rely on gaps in scientific knowledge. That is what Young-Earth-Creationists do to defend their "young Earth" belief — they cite agenda-driven critics of geology and gaps in scientific knowledge.

Since the Bible is being confirmed over a period of millennia there will be critics and gaps far into the future. Our life-spans, however, are limited and we must decide in that timeframe whom to trust.



I made a case for identifying the biblical "supernatural" with other dimensions in:

#125 Mary and Gabriel Evidence Sufficient
#126 Gravity and the Supernatural.

Straughen says the other dimensions of String Theory are too tiny to be "inhabited by intelligent beings".

However, whether String Theory is correct is not yet established, and either way there are physicists who argue for "infinitely large" extra dimensions.

Marcus Chown writes that cosmic anomalies, including gravity working differently at different scales, could be:

…our first glimpse of spatial dimensions beyond our familiar three — dimensions infinitely large, but which remain forever closed off to us. (New Scientist, 14 March, 2009, pp 38-41)

Boyle (2001) writes:

…two or more of string theory’s extra dimensions might be far larger—just so long as these dimensions are barred to every force except gravity. They could even be infinitely large.

Harvard physicist Lisa Randall says:

…there’s stuff we don’t understand if there are only three dimensions of space, and some of those questions seem to have answers if there are extra dimensions. Also, no fundamental physical theory singles out three dimensions of space. The theory of gravity allows any number… you could have an infinite extra dimension if space-time is warped… even more dramatic [is] that we could live in a pocket of three dimensions in a higher-dimensional universe. (Discover, July 2006    pp 8-9)

Quoting a website Straughen says that if other dimensions exist the laws of physics would be different and not permit planetary orbits and neither life, brains nor intelligence.

Firstly, it is not my business to answer every objection Straughen finds. I usually wait for experts in their specific fields to supply the answers.

In a previous debate Straughen claimed: "there are only four known forces … which … together govern the behaviour of our cosmos." (#77) By arguing for a deterministic Universe he hoped to leave no room for influence by God. I cited Quantum Physics to show that "The future is flexible, not closed by laws that give predetermined results…", and "Chaos Theory" to show that "Tiny differences in input could quickly become overwhelming differences in output … any prediction deteriorates rapidly." There is therefore ample scope for God to act without noticeably violating the "four known forces".

The point is that I did not discover Quantum Physics or Chaos Theory, just as I did not do the research in archaeology or astronomy or other sciences that support the Bible. I merely cite discoveries after scientists make them and they come to my attention.

Secondly, consider a 1st century Roman who might have argued: "Every river, sea and ocean that our traders and legions have crossed was of finite width and led to encounters with new tribes on the other side. Therefore the Atlantic Ocean is also of limited width and people live on the other side."  

To oppose this argument another Roman might have asked: "What do they eat?" "Who rules them?" "What gods put them there?"

The point here is that induction can give true conclusions despite leaving much unanswered.

Thirdly, consciousness need not be limited to nervous systems, brains and biology. New Scientist says "Europe's … Human brain project is an attempt to recreate a human brain in a computer…" (14 June, 2014, p. 7) and "As we unravel the brain's structure, some believe we will be able to simulate its function in silicon." (25 October, 2014, p. 38)

Henbist (1993) writing about alien intelligence says:

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has envisaged life in the near vacuum of outer space. He suggests that the molecules of matter in a dark cloud of gas and dust could develop a form of intelligence. Instead of the electrical signals that run around our brain cells, the thoughts of a black cloud creature are carried by radio waves across its multi-billion-kilometre extent…

Another possible identification of the supernatural is "dark matter":

Scientists are increasingly considering the possibility that dark matter…is…a hidden side of the universe with a rich inner life. It may consist of a veritable zoo of particles interacting silently through novel forces of nature — an entire universe interwoven silently with our own. (Feng & Trodden 2010)

Also I quote myself from #158:

Space — empty space without planets, matter, atoms or anything physical, just plain nothingness — can bend, twist, expand and ripple. But what does Space bend, expand, twist and ripple with respect to? It is as if space is embedded in some other medium that science cannot yet study. Could that other medium be the "supernatural" realm?

Ancient idolaters, modern racists, Communists, immoral people, and deniers of cud-chewing hares and of destructive asteroid impacts, were all deniers of Scripture and all were wrong. The lesson is obvious.



REFERENCES:

Anonymous: Demonic Powers And Science, Investigator 102; More On Demons, Investigator 104; Straughen’s Nature Of God, Investigator 77

Boyle, A 2001 Beyond Time and Space, New Scientist 2001, September 29, pp 23-29

Feng, J. & Trodden, M. Dark Worlds, Scientific American, November 2010, pp 21-27

Henbist, N. Would the real ET please stand up, Focus, May 1993, pp 6-11.

Extra Dimensions and the Supernatural
Final Reply

Kirk Straughen

(Investigator 161, 2015 March)

In issue 160, page 47 Anonymous suggests that inductive reasoning can be used to demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible. Broadly speaking, inductive reasoning is the method whereby the extrapolation of general or universal truths is derived from particular experiences or observations.

For example, suppose for the past year Smith has arrived at work at 8:30 AM every day. From this observation we could deduce that Smith will arrive at work tomorrow at 8:30 AM. However, this conclusion based on inductive reasoning has no guarantee of truth. Smith may be away sick that day, he may be delayed by a traffic accident, or not arrive at 8:30 AM for any number of other reasons.

The primary weakness of inductive reasoning is its incompleteness, based as it is on a set of particular observations, which make conclusions derived from these observations vulnerable to unknown factors.

In my article in issue 159, page 14, I attempted to illustrate this in relation to the Bible using the example of reindeer and birds — both are in the set of vertebrates, but it is a mistake to assume that because reindeer are in the set of vertebrates and cannot fly that birds cannot fly because they are within the same set. All parts of the Bible are within the set of Scripture, but we cannot assume that if one part is right that all parts are right.

Whether parts of the Bible are true or false depends to a degree on what the author of Scripture meant when they wrote what they did. For example 1 Chron. 16:30 (Revised Standard Version) says in part "the world stands firm, never to be moved."

Now this statement is clearly false if it is meant literally — the world rotates about its axis and it also orbits the Sun. Clearly it moves. But did the author of this passage intend this statement to be taken literally or figuratively? If they meant it literally then it is clearly wrong. If they meant it figuratively then it may not be wrong.

This is an example of an unknown factor I mentioned above — a factor that deductive reasoning cannot take into account because the author of 1 Chron. 16:30 is long dead and we cannot seek clarification from him or her as to the intended meaning.

Again, I make the point that just because one part of the Bible may be true that we can't deduce that other parts are true, especially when the proofs offered are (in my opinion) as convoluted and contrived as the ones presented, no disrespect to Anonymous intended.

On page 48 of issue 160 Anonymous implies my criticisms of the Bible are based on agenda-driven Bible critics. With all due respect to Anonymous someone may say of him that his defence of the Bible is based on an agenda-driven religiosity.

But would this accusation be fair? Personally, I don't think it would. Anonymous holds the views he does because he has a genuine concern for what he perceives to be the truth and wishes to share that truth with others.

I, too, have similar values. We simply disagree on what the nature of that truth is. To ascribe questionable motives or values to those with whom one disagrees does, in my opinion, nothing to enhance these discussions.

Finally, concerning the extra dimensions discussed previously:

Anonymous is strong on speculation but weak on evidence — as far as I can see he has presented nothing new that would lead to a reasonable conclusion there is a God existing in some other reality.

Belief in God must be based on faith, for faith is what you have when there is no evidence. I don't have a problem with people laving faith. What I do object to though is when people imply they have proof when they don't.

INDUCTION

Anonymous

(Investigator 162, 2015 May)

He refers to "Smith" who has arrived at work every day at 8.30 AM and whether Smith will therefore arrive at 8.30 tomorrow: "this conclusion based on inductive reasoning has no guarantee of truth. Smith may be away sick…"

Everyone uses inductive reasoning all the time, extrapolating from past to future or from known to unknown. People with more knowledge do it better. The fact that we must by default employ induction is called "The Pragmatic Justification of Induction".

"People with more knowledge do it better." When the boss discovers that Smith stays home when sick, this becomes an item of knowledge and should influence his expectation.

Straughen says: "All parts of the Bible are within the set of Scripture, but we cannot assume that if one part is right that all parts are right."

However, that is what we do whenever we trust someone who has a track record of being trustworthy. The best fellow to trust is the trustworthy one, not the one known for unpredictable backstabs.

In addition I don't argue "if one part is right then all parts are right". What I've demonstrated is that hundreds of statements in the Bible have turned out correct, even statements that millions of people thought wrong. This trend has gone on for thousands of years.

In the 1st century, for example, Jesus taught peace but Jewish zealots promoted war. They rejected the Scriptures and the Jews lost their nation for 18 centuries. In the 20th century German intellectuals by thousands supported racism, which the Bible opposes, and Germany fought a world war in the name of racism. Scripture was rejected and 7-8 million Germans died, 10 million became refugees, and ¼ of Germany's area was confiscated.

Straughen has read numerous other examples of Bible accuracy in previous editions of Investigator and needs to acknowledge the implications.

However, he is worried about I Chronicles 16:30 "The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved" because he thinks of planet Earth rotating and orbiting. "World" refers to the people, the same as "earth" in verses 30-31. The KJV uses the word "stable" rather than "not be moved" and context suggests that human society is stable when God rules.

Straughen complains that "the proofs offered are … convoluted". This is sometimes true since when people resist plain evidence with every objection they can imagine then "convolution" can result. The Bible says that the "heart" is devious above everything. (Jeremiah 17:9) The "devious heart" makes it difficult to reason paedophiles out of their paedophilia, gamblers out of gambling, adulterers out of adultery, idolaters out of idolatry, or whatever else motivates people to reject the “Word of God”.

However, the "proofs" include many proofs that are simple, where also Straughen's own "heart" is not threatened, and he could judge by these. He should consider the impression science itself gives if we bring up only those questions in which experts disagree and ignore all questions that are settled — an impression of confusion and convolution.

Straughen suggests that my defending the Bible is based on "agenda-driven religiosity." Actually my investigations are based on finding whatever statements in the Bible are testable and going to the scientific literature to test them. Note "scientific literature" not religious literature. When I studied how lions kill prey (#87) or how hares eat cud, I did not consult "religiosity" but 20th-century research.

Straughen says "Belief in God must be based on faith…" It can be. But belief can also be based on scientific facts, or on an experience of God, or on two of these (faith and facts), or on all three (faith, facts and experience). This was debated in previous Investigator Magazines which Straughen may like to re-read.

https://ed5015.tripod.com/

https://investigatormagazine.net