Abstract. I respond to Ervin Laszlo's suggestions and criticism regarding my essay in this issue of Zygon. Virtual atomic orbitals are used as a model to illustrate the existence of a general realm of potentiality in physical reality from which the actual world emanates. Laszlo's suggestions for “paradigm repair” are supported and accepted as essentially being in agreement with my intentions and as offering highly useful clarifications. I compare virtual states to historic ideas of forms as metaphysical principles of being that inspire thoughts regarding the actions of a Cosmic Consciousness in the processes of the universe. Metaphysical and theological interpretations of the results of scientific research are defended, provided that they are not used to interfere a priori with the technical program of scientific research.
Abstract. I respond to Ervin Laszlo's suggestions and criticism regarding my essay in this issue of Zygon. Virtual atomic orbitals are used as a model to illustrate the existence of a general realm of potentiality in physical reality from which the actual world emanates. Laszlo's suggestions for “paradigm repair” are supported and accepted as essentially being in agreement with my intentions and as offering highly useful clarifications. I compare virtual states to historic ideas of forms as metaphysical principles of being that inspire thoughts regarding the actions of a Cosmic Consciousness in the processes of the universe. Metaphysical and theological interpretations of the results of scientific research are defended, provided that they are not used to interfere a priori with the technical program of scientific research.
Abstract. I respond to Stanley Klein's critique of my essay “Quantum Reality, the Emergence of Complex Order from Virtual States, and the Importance of Consciousness in the Universe,” arguing in support of the necessity to derive a quantum perspective of evolution rather than adhering to an essentially classical view. In response to Klein's criticism of my concept of a cosmic morality, the origins of that concept are traced back to Zeno of Citium. I wholeheartedly embrace Klein's suggestion that the new science inspires views of the human condition that can help us make the world a better place.
Abstract. I respond to Carl Helrich's criticism of my proposition that the emergence of complex order in the universe is from Virtual State Actualization (VSA). The question is discussed as to whether quantum theory is able to afford any kind of quantum ontology or whether it merely allows an epistemological view. I point out that, even though many contradictory interpretations of quantum theory are currently possible, the concept of VSA is based on molecular properties that are so simple and factual that they are beyond interpretation. Helrich's appeal for caution in proceeding from physical reality to Divine Reality is wholeheartedly supported and a detailed discussion is given.
Although the title of this focus issue is ‘The Possibility of Metaphysics’ the first part has as its focus not only metaphysics in general but Buddhist metaphysics in particular. This is because the motivation for this focus issue was sparked by an email from a colleague who asked for my opinion of a book written by Robert Ellis. The aspect of the ‘experimental metaphysics’ of quantum theory is examined in detail in the first article "The Matter of Mindnature" The Buddhist metaphysical viewpoint tells as the nature of ultimate reality is best understood as a fundamentally interrelated and interpenetrating field of Mind-like energy, or Mindnature, and such a view is clearly supported by the quantum violation of Bell’s inequalities. In this article I examine Ellis’s notion of the impossibility of metaphysics in the light of both philosophical considerations and the implications of the quantum evidence. The next article "Taking the‘Meta’ Out of Physics" is Ellis’s response to my criticisms of his work. I leave it to readers to come to conclusions without further comment from me. It is my hope that there will be feedback concerning the issues raised as I am personally convinced that Ellis’s position is untenable but am curious to know whether my viewpoint is widely held. Certainly the last two articles from James Kowall, ‘What is Reality in a Holographic World?’, and Brian Whitworth, ‘Introducing The Virtual Reality Conjecture’, seem to support my position.
Abstract. Two fundamental issues raised by Lothar Schäfer are considered: (1) the question of a suitable paradigm within which the findings of quantum physics can be optimally interpreted and (2) the question of the assessment of the presence and importance of mind and consciousness in the universe. In regard to the former, I contend that the ideal of science is to interpret its findings in an optimally consistent and minimally speculative framework. In this context Schäfer's assertion that certain findings in quantum physics (those that relate to virtual states) indicate the presence of mind at the quantum level implies a dualistic and hence unnecessarily speculative assumption. In regard to the assessment of mind and consciousness, a consistent and parsimonious paradigm suggests that mind and consciousness are not part of a chain of events consisting of an admixture of physical and mental events but that physical events form a single, coherent set of events, and mental events another set, with the two sets related, as Teilhard (and a number of other philosophers, including White head) affirmed, as the “within” and the “without” (or the “mental pole” and the “physical pole”) of one and the same fundamental reality. This panpsychist as contrasted with Schäfer's dualist paradigm provides a single self‐consistent framework for the interpretation of quantum (and all natural) events while recognizing the presence of mind in the universe as the least speculative realist implication of our immediate experience of consciousness.
I describe characteristic phenomena of quantum physics that suggest that reality appears to us in two domains: the open and well‐known domain of empirical, material things—the realm of actuality—and a hidden and invisible domain of nonempirical, non‐material forms—the realm of potentiality. The nonempirical forms are part of physical reality because they contain the empirical possibilities of the universe and can manifest themselves in the empirical world. Two classes of nonempirical states are discussed: the superposition states of microphysical entities, which are nonempirical because observation destroys them, and the virtual states of material systems, which are nonempirical because they are empty. The non‐empirical part to physical reality represents a predetermined and hidden order that exists before it is empirical, and the visible world is an emanation out of it. I discuss consequences for our understanding of human nature, the origin of life, and human values. Reality is an indivisible wholeness that is aware of its processes, like a Cosmic Spirit, and it reveals its awareness in the mindlike properties of elementary processes as well as in the human consciousness. Thus, one is led to G. W. F. Hegel's thesis that the Cosmic Spirit is thinking in us.
This issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science offers a podium for deep reflection on the state-of-play in “quantum theology”: theological reflection that is related to the physical theory of quantum mechanics. The thematic section has been guest edited by Mark Harris. His opening article—which in its introductory section also refers to all the other articles in the section—highlights that theological engagement with quantum physics has been dominated by the so-called “Copenhagen interpretation”; he argues for a commitment to “quantum fundamentalism,” which resolves some enduring ontological problems and takes quantum theology “beyond Copenhagen.” Shaun Henson, in dealing with Everett's “Many-Worlds Interpretation,” focuses on the status of scientific terms; he shows that the extent to which belief in Many-Worlds (which is metaphysically challenging) is believable depends on several dynamic socially oriented categories. Emily Qureshi-Hurst addresses some implications of the Many-Worlds Interpretation that are particularly relevant to theism; she argues that taking seriously the radical consequences of this interpretation means facing at least three major worries for theism pertaining to personal identity, the problem of evil, and salvation. Elise Crull offers what she calls an “interpretation-neutral yet realist” stance towards quantum mechanics; she illustrates how her interpretation-neutral take on quantum mechanics that includes the notion of “decoherence” can helpfully reframe accounts of divine action. Wilson Poon and Tom McLeish warn that one should be cautious in claiming distinctiveness for quantum theologizing (versus, for instance, theologizing classical statistical mechanics); they posit that both quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics point to “theology of science in which scientists participate in the divine gaze on creation as imago Dei.” And Ernest Simmons utilizes the concept of quantum decoherence, augmented by the novel theory of quantum Darwinism, to understand the transition from the quantum to the classical worlds; from his reading of quantum biology, he distills some theological metaphors for articulating divine presence at the level of life in theistic evolution. This issue also contains four articles from the 67th Annual Summer Conference of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS), entitled “‘We’ & ‘They’: Cross-Cultural Conversations on Identity,” which was held at Star Island, NH, USA from June 26 to July 3, 2022. Anindita Balslev highlights in her article why cross-cultural conversation is important; that conversation has the potential to give a new direction to the dynamics between “the self and the other.” CJ Love argues in her article that unraveling the complex notion of “self” and “other” necessitates a layered approach that explores genetics, phenomenology, and religion; she emphasizes the need for forming a holistic picture of body, mind, event, memory, and morality. Andrew Newberg expands in his article on the role of the brain and the biological basis of the self; he argues that the self and self-consciousness is one of the most mysterious aspects of the human being, but also that to some degree we are trapped within our brain and our consciousness, which represent our own identity. And Calvin Chatlos, in his article, applies his “Framework of Spirituality” to the identity of adolescents; he makes clear that an alternative approach to adolescent development is needed that does not reinforce a fundamental experiential separateness of “me” and “other,” but that instead promotes a spiritual transformation process that is inclusive of the “other.” The Articles section contains four articles. In the first article, Gabriel Fernandez-Borsot contributes to philosophical reflection on the role of technology in society, particularly on the intersections between spirituality and technology; in his analysis, spirituality appears as an essential dimension to cultivate in technological societies, while he argues that technology might actually reveal spirituality as richer and deeper than has been apparent in traditional settings. In the second article, Yong Sup Song and Robert Geraci study the interactions between spirituality and technology in the specific context of Korea; they consider the themes of marginalization and transcendence in transhumanism and minjung theology and reflect on the exclusion of some from the benefits of technological society and on living in the context of multiple dimensions of oppression. In the third article, Kevin Ndereba addresses the nonreligious identity formation among male Kenyan Youth, which is increasingly common; he shows how youth social groups provide spaces for wrestling with the intellectual questions raised by religious faiths and argues that nonreligious communities could benefit from moving beyond the usual caricature of strong incompatibilism that is part of popular atheist literature. Finally, in the fourth article, Eugenia Torrance revisits Newton's theology by questioning whether he promulgated a “God of the gaps” argument; she thinks that he did not and uses some of his letters and drafts to suggest that any gaps in mechanical were filled by Newton with nonmechanical natural causes and argues that Newton wanted readers to marvel at humans’ inability to fully understand his scientific system. The Articles section is followed by a reflection from Josh Reeves on Peter Harrison's “After Science and Religion” project, to which Peter Harrison offers a response. The issue ends with a book review. Ron Cole-Turner reviews Victoria Lorrimar's Human Technological Enhancement and Theological Anthropology.