Tag Archives: louis del monte

A wooden hourglass with sand flowing through, casting a shadow on a beige surface.

Is Time a Measure of Change? No!

Categories, Physics, , , ,

As humans, we measure time via change. For example, the second hand of a clock changes positions in a predictable manner that allows us to determine how many seconds have elapsed. However, imagine if the second hand stopped. Has time stopped? Of course not. We know that time is still continuing, even though our clock has stopped. As trivial as this example is, it points out one important aspect of time. It is not connected to change. Even if we were in a totally dark isolated room, our minds would still be aware that time is continuing. However, some may argue our minds are changing from one state of consciousness to another, and that is why we are aware of the passage of time. So let us remove all minds and consciousnesses from the universe. Does time still exist? To address this question, let us understand entropy. Entropy may be defined as a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.Some physicists would argue that the entropy of the universe is always increasing, thus always changing. Therefore, the logic proceeds, time exists because entropy is continually changing (i.e., increasing). However, at some point, the entropy of the entire universe will reach its maximum value. This means all energy has degraded to heat. I have termed this the “entropy apocalypse.” Some physicists refer to it as “heat death.” At this point, has time stopped? I would argue it has not stopped. Why? Because the heat of the universe continues to exist, even when entropy has ceased to increase. This brings us to an important point. If time is not a measure of change, then what is it?

I argue that time is actually a measure of existence, not change. To understand this, let us consider a mass’ movement in time. Essentially, we can define a mass’ movement in time as existence. Let us take a simple example to illustrate this definition. Pretend we are viewing a mass and recording its position, which is at rest. The mass is not moving in any of the spatial dimensions. However, at a later interval (let us pretend our wristwatch records an hour to have passed), we again view the mass and record its position. We observe the mass still exists, and the coordinates are identical to the first set of measurements. In effect, the mass has moved in time along with us. Since the mass and we are in the same frame of reference, we have every reason to believe the rate of the movement of the mass in time is equivalent to our rate of movement in time. If the mass did not move in time—for example, stopped moving in time—it would not be there at the recorded coordinates for the second measurement. We would say it ceased to exist. On this basis, we can assert existence equates to movement in time. In this case, both the mass and we, the observers, moved in time at the same rate.

If you think this is far fetched, consider what occurs when a clock moves close to the speed of light. A clock moving close to the speed of light will appear to run slower to an observer at rest (one frame of reference) relative to the moving clock (another frame of reference). In simple terms, time is not an absolute, but is dependent on the relative motion of the event and observer. It may sound like science fiction that a clock moving at high velocity runs slower, but it is a widely verified science fact. Even the clock on a jet plane flying over an airport will run slightly slower than the clock at rest in the airport terminal. Einstein predicted this time dilation effect in his special theory of relativity, and he derived an equation to calculate the time difference. If we apply this to elementary particles with a short decay time, they will actually exist longer (i.e., not decay) if they are accelerated close to the speed of light. Once again, we (the observers) continue to measure the existence of the elementary particle in the future. From our frame of reference it has not changed (i.e., decayed), but continued to exist. For completeness, I will also mention that time dilation occurs in the presence of a strong gravitational field. Therefore, a clock close to the Sun would run slower than a clock on Earth, because the Sun has a much greater gravitational field than the Earth.

Scientifically speaking, there is no consensus on the definition of time. Even though we humans typically use change to measure time in our everyday world, time dilation experiments suggest this is only a convenience. It works because we are not typically measuring entities traveling at the speed of light or in vastly different gravitational fields. However, to my mind, some of the simple examples presented above, along with time dilation experiments, suggest time is more closely aligned with existence, not change.

Close-up of an antique clock face showing the time at 11:55 with Roman numerals and a warm, golden glow.

Is Time Real Or Just a Construct of Our Mind?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , ,

Philosophers have debated the nature of time for over 2500 years, and have left us with three principal theories, listed below in no particular order:

1) Presentists Theory of Time—The “presentists” philosophers argue that present objects and experiences are real. The past and future do not exist. This would argue that time is an emerging concept, and exists in our minds.

2) Growing-Universe Theory of Time—The “growing-universe” philosophers argue that the past and present are real, but the future is not. Their reasoning is the future has not occurred. Therefore, they reason the future is indeterminate, and not real.

3) Eternalism Theory of Time—The “eternalism” philosophers believe that there are no significant differences among present, past, and future because the differences are purely subjective. Observers at vastly different distances from an event would observe it differently because the speed of light is finite and constant. The farthest-away observer may be seeing the birth of a star while the closest observer may be seeing the death of the same star. In effect, the closest observer is seeing what will be the future for the farthest-away observer.

Now let us ask what does science have to say about time and start by discussing the “arrow of time.” The flow of time, sometimes referred to as the “arrow of time,” is a source of debate, especially among physicists. Most physicists argue that time can only move in one direction based on “causality” (i.e., the relationship between cause and effect). The causality argument goes something like this: every event in the future is the result of some cause, another event, in the past. This appears to make perfect sense, and it squares with our everyday experience. However, experiments within the last several years appear to argue reverse causality is possible. Reverse causality means the future can and does influence the past. For example, in reverse causality, the outcome of an experiment is determined by something that occurs after the experiment is done. The future is somehow able to reach into the past and affect it. Are you skeptical? Skepticism is healthy, especially in science. Let us discuss this reverse causality experiment.

In 2009, physicist John Howell of the University of Rochester and his colleagues devised an experiment that involved passing a laser beam through a prism. The experiment also involved a mirror that moved in extremely small increments via its attachment to a motor. When the laser beam was turned on, part of the beam passed through the prism, and part of the beam bounced off the mirror. After the beam was reflected by the mirror, the Howell team used “weak measurements” (i.e., measurement where the measured system is weakly affected by the measurement device) to measure the angle of deflection. With these measurements, the team was able to determine how much the mirror had moved. This part of the experiment is normal, and in no way suggests reverse causality. However, the Howell team took it to the next level, and this changed history, literally. Here is what they did. They set up two gates to make the reflected mirror measurements. After passing the beam through the first gate, the experimenters always made a measurement. After passing it through the second gate, the experimenters measured the beam only a portion of the time. If they chose not to make the measurement at the second gate, the amplitude of the deflected angle initially measured at the first gate was extremely small. If they chose to make the measurement at the second gate, the deflected angle initially measured at the first gate was amplified by a factor of 100. Somehow, the future measurement influenced the amplitude of the initial measurement. Your first instinct may be to consider this an experimental fluke, but it is not. Physicists Onur Hosten and Paul Kwiat, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, using a beam of polarized light, repeated the experiment. Their results indicated an even larger amplification factor, in the order of 10,000.

Although the above experimental results are relatively new, the classic double slit experiment implies exactly the same conclusion, namely future measurements can influence past behavior. For those of you not familiar with the double slit experiment, a brief synopsis is provided below.

There are numerous versions of the double-slit experiment. In its classic version, a coherent light source, for example a laser, illuminates a thin plate containing two open parallel slits. The light passing through the slits causes a series of light and dark bands on a screen behind the thin plate. The brightest bands are at the center, and the bands become dimmer the farther they are from the center. The series of light and dark bands on the screen would not occur if light were only a particle. If light consisted of only particles, we would expect to see only two slits of light on the screen, and the two slits of light would replicate the slits in the thin plate. Instead, we see a series of light and dark patterns, with the brightest band of light in the center, and tapering to the dimmest bands of light at either side of the center. This is an interference pattern and suggests that light exhibits the properties of a wave. We know from other experiments, for example the photoelectric effect, that light also exhibits the properties of a particle. Thus, light exhibits both particle- and wavelike properties. This is termed the dual nature of light. This portion of the double-slit experiment simply exhibits the wave nature of light. Perhaps a number of readers have seen this experiment firsthand in a high school science class.

The above double-slit experiment demonstrates only one element of the paradoxical nature of light, the wave properties. The next part of the double-slit experiment continues to puzzle scientists. There are five aspects to the next part.

1. Both individual photons of light and individual atoms have been projected at the slits one at a time. This means that one photon or one atom is projected, like a bullet from a gun, toward the slits. Surely, our judgment would suggest that we would only get two slits of light or atoms at the screen behind the slits. However, we still get an interference pattern, a series of light and dark lines, similar to the interference pattern described above. Two inferences are possible:

a. The individual photon light acted as a wave and went through both slits, interfering with itself to cause an interference pattern.
b. Atoms also exhibit a wave-particle duality, similar to light, and act similarly to the behavior of an individual photon light described (in part a) above.

2. Scientists have placed detectors in close proximity to the screen to observe what is happening, and they find something even stranger occurs. The interference pattern disappears, and only two slits of light or atoms appear on the screen. What causes this? Quantum physicists argue that as soon as we attempt to observe the wavefunction of the photon or atom, it collapses. Please note, in quantum mechanics, the wavefunction describes the propagation of the wave associated with any particle or group of particles. When the wavefunction collapses, the photon acts only as a particle.

3. If the detector (in number 2 immediately above) stays in place but is turned off (i.e., no observation or recording of data occurs), the interference pattern returns and is observed on the screen. We have no way of explaining how the photons or atoms know the detector is off, but somehow they know. This is part of the puzzling aspect of the double-slit experiment. This also appears to support the arguments of quantum physicists, namely, that observing the wavefunction will cause it to collapse.

4. The quantum eraser experiment—Quantum physicists argue the double-slit experiment demonstrates another unusual property of quantum mechanics, namely, an effect termed the quantum eraser experiment. Essentially, it has two parts:

a. Detectors record the path of a photon regarding which slit it goes through. As described above, the act of measuring “which path” destroys the interference pattern.
b. If the “which path” information is erased, the interference pattern returns. It does not matter in which order the “which path” information is erased. It can be erased before or after the detection of the photons.

This appears to support the wavefunction collapse theory, namely, observing the photon causes its wavefunction to collapse and assume a single value.

5. If the detector replaces the screen and only views the atoms or photons after they have passed through the slits, once again, the interference pattern vanishes and we get only two slits of light or atoms. How can we explain this? In 1978, American theoretical physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) proposed that observing the photon or atom after it passes through the slit would ultimately determine if the photon or atom acts like a wave or particle. If you attempt to observe the photon or atom, or in any way collect data regarding either one’s behavior, the interference pattern vanishes, and you only get two slits of photons or atoms. In 1984, Carroll Alley, Oleg Jakubowicz, and William Wickes proved this experimentally at the University of Maryland. This is the “delayed-choice experiment.” Somehow, in measuring the future state of the photon, the results were able to influence their behavior at the slits. In effect, we are twisting the arrow of time, causing the future to influence the past. Numerous additional experiments confirm this result.

Let us pause here and be perfectly clear. Measuring the future state of the photon after it has gone through the slits causes the interference pattern to vanish. Somehow, a measurement in the future is able to reach back into the past and cause the photons to behave differently. In this case, the measurement of the photon causes its wave nature to vanish (i.e., collapse) even after it has gone through the slit. The photon now acts like a particle, not a wave. This paradox is clear evidence that a future action can reach back and change the past.

To date, no quantum mechanical or other explanation has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. We are dealing with a time travel paradox that illustrates reverse causality (i.e., effect precedes cause), where the effect of measuring a photon affects its past behavior. This simple high-school-level experiment continues to baffle modern science. Although quantum physicists explain it as wavefunction collapse, the explanation tends not to satisfy many in the scientific community. Irrefutably, the delayed-choice experiments suggest the arrow of time is reversible and the future can influence the past.

The above experimental results raise questions about the “arrow of time.” It appears that under certain circumstances, the arrow of time can point in either direction, and time can flow in either direction, forward or backward. If that is true, we can argue time has a physical reality. In other words, it is not a construct of our mind. The reality of time implies that actions in the past can influence the future and actions in the future can influence the past. If time were simply a mental construct, it would not be possible for future events to influence the past.

One last point, none of the above negates Einstein’s view of reality consisting of four-dimensional space-time. All aspects of relativity continue to apply. The above article is intended to substantiate that nature of time itself is a physical reality and not a mental or mathematical construct.

Nature of Light

Can Anything Travel Faster Than the Speed of Light?

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Can anything travel faster than the speed of light? To answer this question, let us understand the nature of light. Here are three salient facts about light:

1. First, light can exhibit both the properties of a wave and a particle. For all of the Nineteenth Century, and for the early part of the Twentieth Century, most scientists considered light “a wave,” and most of the experimental data supported that “theory.” However, classical physics could not explain black-body radiation (the emission of light due to an object’s heat). A light bulb is a perfect example of black-body radiation. The wave theory of light failed to describe the energy (frequency) of light emitted from a black body. The energy of light is directly proportional to its frequency. To understand the concept of frequency, consider the number of ocean waves that reach the shore in a given length of time. The number of ocean waves than reach the shore, divided by the length of time you measure them, is their frequency. If we consider the wave nature of light, the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.

In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized that the energy (frequency) of light emitted by the black body, depended on the temperature of the black body. When the black body was heated to a given temperature, it emitted a “quantum” of light (light with a specific frequency). This was the beginning of Quantum Mechanics. Max Planck had intentionally proposed a quantum theory to deal with black-body radiation. To Planck’s dismay, this implied that light was a particle (the quantum of light later became known as the photon in 1925). Planck rejected the particle theory of light, and dismissed his own theory as a limited approximation that did not represent the reality of light. At the time, most of the scientific community agreed with him.

If not for Albert Einstein, the wave theory of light would have prevailed. In 1905, Einstein used Max Planck’s black-body model to solve a scientific problem known as the photoelectric effect. In 1905, the photoelectric effect was one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. First discovered in 1887 by Heinrich Hertz, the photoelectric effect referred to the phenomena that electrons are emitted from metals and non-metallic solids, as well as liquids or gases, when they absorb energy from light. The mystery was that the energy of the ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the light, but on its frequency. If a small amount of low-frequency light shines on a metal, the metal ejects a few low-energy electrons. If an intense beam of low-frequency light shines on the same metal, the metal ejects even more electrons. However, although there are more of them, they possess the same low energy. To get high-energy electrons, we need to shine high-frequency light on the metal. Einstein used Max Planck’s black-body model of energy, and postulated that light, at a given frequency, could solely transfer energy to matter in integer (discrete number) multiples of energy. In other words, light transferred energy to matter in discrete packets of energy. The energy of the packet determines the energy of the electron that the metal emits. This revolutionary suggestion of quantized light solved the photoelectric mystery, and won Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. You may be surprised to learn that Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantizing light—and not on his more famous theory of relativity.

2. Second, the speed of light in a vacuum sets the speed limit in the universe. Nothing with a (rest) mass travels faster than light in a vacuum. In addition, this is a constant, independent of the speed of the source emitting the light. This means that the light source can be at rest or moving, and the speed of light will always be the same in a vacuum. This is counterintuitive. If you are in an open-top convertible car speeding down the highway, and your hat flies off, it begins to move at the same speed as the car. It typically will fall behind the car due to wind resistance that slows down its speed. If you are in the same car, and throw a ball ahead of the car, its velocity will be equal to the speed of the car, plus the velocity at which you throw it. For example, if you can throw a ball sixty miles per hour and the car is going sixty miles per hour, the velocity of the ball will be one hundred twenty miles per hour. This is faster than any major league pitcher can throw a fastball. Next, imagine you are in the same car and have a flashlight. Whether the car is speeding down the highway or parked, the speed of light from the flashlight remains constant (if we pretend the car is in a vacuum). The most elegant theory of all time, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, uses this property of light as a fundamental pillar in its formulation.

3. Third, the quanta of light have no rest mass. This last property of light may explain why light in a vacuum sets the upper limit of speed in the universe. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, any object with (rest) mass becomes infinitely massive as it approaches the speed of light. By inference we can argue that it would take infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light.

However, there are other physical entities that have speeds that may equal or even exceed the speed of light. For example, the universe is considered to be expanding faster than the speed of light by numerous cosmologists. Another physical process known as quantum entanglement may also take place at or even faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement refers to two particles (photons, for example) which interact and become entangled, such that even when separated the quantum state of one particle will dictate the quantum state of the other particle. For example, if one photon has an angular momentum defined as spin up, the other particle will have an angular momentum of spin down, to conserve spin. If you change the angular momentum of either particle, the other particle appears to instantaneously change, such that they continue to conserve spin. The effects of gravity also appear to propagate at the speed of light. Today, science still questions the nature of gravity. In classic physics, gravity was thought of as an invisible field between two or more masses. However, some physicists speculate the existence of a particle called a graviton, which is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation. If gravitons exist, physicists speculate that they travel at the speed of light.

What does all this mean? Basically, it means that light (photons) may not be the only entities that travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Digital representation of a human head with numbers and data streams symbolizing artificial intelligence and data processing.

Will Science Make Us Immortal?

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Technology, Threats to Humankind, , , , , , ,

Several futurists, including myself, have predicted that by 2099 most humans will have strong-artificially intelligent brain implants and artificially intelligent organ/body part replacements. In my book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution, I term these beings SAH (i.e., strong artificially intelligent human) cyborgs. It is also predicted that SAH cyborgs will interface telepathically with strong artificially intelligent machines (SAMs). When this occurs, the distinction between SAMs and SAHs will blur.

Why will the majority of the human race opt to become SAH cyborgs? There are two significant benefits:

  1. Enhanced intelligence: Imagine knowing all that is known and being able to think and communicate at the speed of SAMs. Imagine a life of leisure, where robots do “work,” and you spend your time interfacing telepathically with other SAHs and SAMs.
  2. Immortality: Imagine becoming immortal, with every part of your physical existence fortified, replaced, or augmented by strong-AI artificial parts, or having yourself (your human brain) uploaded to a SAM. Imagine being able to manifest yourself physically at will via foglets (tiny robots that are able to assemble themselves to replicate physical structures). According to noted author Ray Kurzweil, in the 2040s, humans will develop “the means to instantly create new portions of ourselves, either biological or non-biological” so that people can have “a biological body at one time and not at another, then have it again, then change it, and so on” (The Singularity Is Near, 2005).

Based on the above prediction, the answer to the title question is yes. Science will eventually make us immortal. However, how realistic is it to predict it will occur by 2099? To date, it appears the 2099 prediction regarding most of humankind becoming SAH cyborgs is on track. Here are two interesting articles that demonstrate it is already happening:

  1. In 2011 author Pagan Kennedy wrote an insightful article in The New York Times Magazine, “The Cyborg in Us All” that states: “Thousands of people have become cyborgs, of a sort, for medical reasons: cochlear implants augment hearing and deep-brain stimulators treat Parkinson’s. But within the next decade, we are likely to see a new kind of implant, designed for healthy people who want to merge with machines.”
  2. A 2013 article by Bryan Nelson, “7 Real-Life Human Cyborgs” (www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/7-real-life-human-cyborgs), also demonstrates this point. The article provides seven examples of living people with significant strong-AI enhancements to their bodies who are legitimately categorized as cyborgs.

Based on all available information, the question is not whether humans will become cyborgs but rather when a significant number of humans will become SAH cyborgs. Again, based on all available information, I project this will occur on or around 2040. I am not saying that in 2040 all humans will become SAH cyborgs, but that a significant number will qualify as SAH cyborgs.

In other posts, I’ve discussed the existential threat artificial intelligence poses, namely the loss of our humanity and, in the worst case, human extinction. However, if ignore those threats, the upside to becoming a SAH cyborg is enormous. To illustrate this, I took an informal straw poll of friends and colleagues, asking if they would like to have the attributes of enhanced intelligence and immortality. I left out the potential threats to their humanity. The answers to my biased poll highly favored the above attributes. In other words, the organic humans I polled liked the idea of being a SAH cyborg. In reality if you do not consider the potential loss of your humanity, being a SAH cyborg is highly attractive.

Given that I was able to make being a SAH cyborg attractive to my friends and colleagues, imagine the persuasive powers of SAMs in 2099. In addition, it is entirely possible, even probable, that numerous SAH cyborgs will be world leaders by 2099. Literally, organic humans will not be able to compete on an intellectual or physical basis. With the governments of the world in the hands of SAH cyborgs, it is reasonable to project that all efforts will be made to convert the remaining organic humans to SAH cyborgs.

The quest for immortality appears to be an innate human longing and may be the strongest motivation for becoming a SAH cyborg. In 2010 cyborg activist and artist Neil Harbisson and his longtime partner, choreographer Moon Ribas, established the Cyborg Foundation, the world’s first international organization to help humans become cyborgs. They state they formed the Cyborg Foundation in response to letters and e-mails from people around the world who were interested in becoming a cyborg. In 2011 the vice president of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, announced that the Ecuadorian government would collaborate with the Cyborg Foundation to create sensory extensions and electronic eyes. In 2012 Spanish film director Rafel Duran Torrent made a short documentary about the Cyborg Foundation. In 2013 the documentary won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival’s Focus Forward Filmmakers Competition and was awarded $100,000.

At this point you may think that being a SAH cyborg makes logical sense and is the next step in humankind’s evolution. This may be the case, but humankind has no idea how taking that step may affect what is best in humanity, for example, love, courage, and sacrifice. My view, based on how quickly new life-extending medical technology is accepted, is that humankind will take that step. Will it serve us? I have concerns that in the long term it will not serve us, if we do not learn to control the evolution of SAMs, or what is commonly called the “intelligence explosion.” However,  I leave the final judgement to you.

A Holy Bible placed next to a microscope on a wooden surface, symbolizing the intersection of science and faith.

Can Science Replace Religion?

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, ,

Stephen Hawking, the world’s most famous scientist, made a startling statement on September 2, 2010, one week prior to the release of his new book, The Grand Design. He declared the “Almighty” irrelevant. Dr. Hawking believes that M-theory may hold the ultimate key to understanding everything, even the birth of the universe. Therefore, the need for religion becomes unnecessary. Of course, critics ask where M-theory came from. This is surprising since Dr. Hawking is on record saying, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” To my mind, this is the right question.

Dr. Hawking is just one scientist, albeit highly famous. In general, what do scientists believe? Numerous studies, regarding scientists in the United States, indicate about a third are atheists, a third agnostic, and a third believe in God or a higher power. Similar studies of the general population suggest that three-fourths of the population believes in God or a higher power. (Survey 2005-2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York). What does this mean? A majority in the scientific community no longer look to religion for answers, but to their science.

The elegance and orderliness of scientific theories and mathematics becomes seductive and, in effect, replaces a need for a higher deity. However, this is not to say there is any unified conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to replace religion with science. In fact, without intention, science and religious ethics appear to have much in common. Einstein wrote in “Essays in Physics” (1950), “However, all scientific statements and laws have one characteristic in common: they are “true or false” (adequate or inadequate). Roughly speaking, our reaction to them is “yes” or “no.” The scientific way of thinking has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the scientist, there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal. As long as we remain within the realm of science proper, we can never meet with a sentence of the type: “Thou shalt not lie.” There is something like a Puritan’s restraint in the scientist who seeks truth: he keeps away from everything voluntaristic or emotional.”

However, regardless of the inherent ethics, shared by science and religion, one thing that stands in the center of this passionate debate is the existence of miracles. For something to be a true miracle, it must be outside the natural laws of science. In effect, natural law is suspended, and a miracle happens. A majority of scientists have difficulty believing this. Einstein summed this up in the following statement, “Development of Western science is based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility to find out causal relationships by systematic experiment (during the Renaissance).” To illustrate the difficulty of suspending natural laws, consider this example. If I told you apples fall up instead of down, would you believe me? Probably not. You probably would not even argue with me. My guess is that you would likely be dismissive, and ignore me. Yet, at the heart of various religions is the belief in miracles.

Is it possible to suspend natural laws? I suspect most scientists would answer a resounding “No!” However,what may have been considered a miracle just a hundred years ago is easily explained by today’s science. Television would be an example. In 1914, it would have appeared miraculous to watch television. It involved principles of science and engineering that were not understood at that time. I point this out because I don’t think that miracles can be used to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Consider this example: Advanced aliens may have a science that appears to suspend natural laws. Perhaps they know how to create “worm holes” and travel vast distances, faster than the speed of light. To our observations, they may be violating another pillar of modern physics, namely the speed of light in a vacuum is the upper limit of velocity in the universe. However, simply because we do not understand their science does not mean that they have suspended natural law. They simply have learned secrets about nature we have not discovered. They know how to harness more energy than we do, which allows them to apparently violate nature laws and create miracles. This may make them appear god-like, but they are not the deity worshiped by the major religions of the world.

I judge that many in the scientific community believe that science will ultimately be able to answer all questions, and they are willing to replace religion with science. I do not share this view. Often, it appears that every significant scientific breakthrough results in an equally profound mystery. I have termed this irony of scientific discovery the Del Monte Paradox, namely:

Each significant scientific discovery results in at least one profound scientific mystery.

Here is an example to illustrate this paradox. Consider the discovery of the Big Bang theory. For this discussion, please view it as a scientific framework of how the universe evolved from a highly dense energy point to the universe we experience today. While the scientific community generally accepts the Big Bang theory, it is widely acknowledged that it does not explain the origin of the energy that was required to create the universe. Therefore, the discovery of the Big Bang theory left science with a profound mystery. Where did the energy originate to create a Big Bang? This is arguably the greatest mystery in science, and currently an area of high scientific focus.

In the final analysis, I don’t think it will come down to science proving or disproving a deity exists. I don’t think it will come down to science discovering a theory of everything. I think it will come down to what it has always come down to over the centuries, namely, faith. To answer the title question, can science replace religion, I offer these thoughts. If you believe that science will ultimately be able to answer every question and enable humans to become god-like, then it is logical to assume science can replace religion. If you believe that science will never be able to answer all questions and ultimately we will   be left with a profound mysteries, then I think its possible to make a case that science will not be able to replace religion. Whatever your believe, I respect your right to formulate your own beliefs.