Can we excuse the physicists for supposing that since God is a mathematician she cannot also be a dramatist? How can they be so parochial?

Even more extreme is the view that because the universe exhibits a deep mathematical harmony we can let the mathematics be a substitute for God. Is this idolatry any less crude than the worshipping of a golden calf?

Would we be more worshipful if God had left her autograph on the moon? Because mathematics is objective and impersonal we suppose that the universe is also.

But why, then, would a personal God use an impersonal tool? Possibly for the same reason that we might use a shovel. It gets the job done. But this is much too crude for an explanation.

Notice also that we identify arbitrariness with the personal, and lawfulness with nature. We view our free will as unlawful and unnatural. The laws of nature are enforced by mathematical logic, so we do not need a lawgiver. Natural phenomena are mathematically determined so there is no room for divine intervention. There are some concerned physicists who generously suppose that the quantum loopholes in classical mechanics are sufficient to allow for the intervention of human and divine will, but they are barking up the wrong tree.

There is another hidden assumption in the views of most scientists which is that mathematical constructs supposedly help to reify the processes that instantiate them. Atoms are more real because they are independently lawful. The atomic realm is objectified by the fact that all natural laws are thereby instantiated. That is the necessary bedrock of physics.

But now let us consider the design of a virtual reality. Into that reality we will have to design regulating principles if there is going to be any cognitive coherence. These principles do not have to be anything physical or mathematical, but by lending coherence they will enhance the sense of reality, but in no way alter its virtualness. But I am not suggesting that God works for Atari or that we ought to be placing our quarters into some coin slot.

Rather I am suggesting how the tree on the Berkley campus continues to stand when no one is watching it. Or more to the point, how it might fall when no one is there to push it over, with or without a sound.

We suppose that it falls down because of gravity and an industrious beaver in the night, ignoring any possible coed involvement. We can calculate exactly how it should fall, and we could program a very realistic simulation using those calculations. But again I am not suggesting that God is a programmer or even a mathematician. It is we who are that. In effect, God was so lazy that instead of creating a universe, she created us to create the universe. This is not to cast aspersions on the almighty, but merely to illustrate a point.

Our dream worlds are often quite coherent and law abiding, but less so than the 'real' world. All that God has to do is figure some way to allow our dreams to constructively interact with each other so as to enhance their collective coherence and lawfulness and voi-la we have a 'real' world, at least one that can sure fool us! The true mystic would hasten to point out that our individuality is only another aspect of the dream and so there is only one dream anyway. That might be just a bit of a cheat!

Do we need to specify the dream mechanism? We can have dreams in which gravity is completely optional and so are the beavers. And they can have dreams in which we are optional. But in our all-together dream, these things once given, cannot so easily be ignored. Gravity will be gravity, beavers will be beavers. The furniture of the world takes on a life of its own. We may be the sorcerers, but the world is our apprentice, and won't let us forget it.

The beaver has its own innate repertoire of lawful behavior and so does the tree. When they are not in their natural setting of being on the ground, then gravity intervenes, as it is wont to do. But how is that intervention mediated or meditated? One possibility is the avoidance of surprise. If we got up in the morning and saw that the beaver chewed tree was still upright, we would suppose it was a dream and attempt to wake ourselves up. The beaver would be puzzled too. Not wanting to cause us alarm, the tree assumes a supine position. But what does the tree care? Unfortunately, the invocation of spin-2 gravitons and 11-dimensional string theory, helps very little in trying to sort out the problem of who does what to whom and why. All that the physicists really accomplish is to put our most critical faculties to sleep with their fantastic mathematics. History shows that they are much more accomplished at this than best magicians.

.

rev. 5/28/98