Prophetic Voices

ART09051601 -- 16 May 2009 - © Jan A. A. van der Wulp - courlisius@skynet.be
This article may be distributed freely only if complete and unabridged -- PDF version locked
Authorised translation from the original Dutch
PHILOSOPHICAL DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCING
THE MODEL OF ORIGIN
By Jan A.A. van der Wulp, B.Eng, M.Sc.

INTRODUCTION
1. It is quite remarkable, that precisely at the present time -- by and large - three more or less new natural-scientific theories are beginning to have a great influence on the philosophical elements of the Model of the Origin. Under the Model of Origin one should in this respect understand the clarification and the explanation of the genesis of plants, animals and mankind. Whether the philosopher happens to be a creationist, or an evolutionist, he will not be able to ignore the data of the natural sciences and the philosphical consequences, if his Model of Origin is to retain the necessary connection with reality. Here the teachings of Physical Information Science, the United Field Theory and the Alternate Universal Cosmology are concerned. These theories are discussed in turn, where the philosophical questions arising are indicated. The following text should be regarded as a contribution to the discussions held in the year Darwin is remembered.

THE PHYSICAL INFORMATION SCIENCE
A law of Nature grounded in reality
2. Some philosophers are of the opinion that the information of the (genetic) code is laid down in the material, and does not therefore require a separate statute arising above it. The information theories of Shannon and Von Neumann are usually mentioned in this connection. From this position it is clear, however, that these people do not know the Physical Information Theory of Dr. Werner Gitt. Which is a pity. Because the theory of Gitt is not just one of the many information theories which can be placed next to those of the others, like Shannon. For Shannon's theory only concerns itself with the statistical level, while Gitt's, which differentiates five layers, is far above that, as it includes Shannon's as its lowest level.

3. It has become clear in the twentieth century only how important the concept information is. A completely new information theory has had to be built up. Its application is found in all computer systems; it is impossible to imagine life today without the computer. This theory is applied in the techniques of telecommunication, of real languages and artificial ones, and in all biological systems. The American Shannon was the first to attempt to make a package of information measurable. Shannon's theory is concerned with the statistical aspects of the order of characters, e.g. a long series of letters. But this theory does not take the meaning of the information into account. It is therefore not suitable to catch all aspects of the concept 'information'.

4. The German Dr. Werner Gitt has formulated the Physical Information Theory or Information Science. Like every law of nature this theory has also been deduced from observations of reality. Firm boundaries can be noted to the definition of the concept information. All laws of nature known to us only relate to matter and to energy changes. The Physical Information Theory goes beyond that, and has also to be called a law of nature. All laws of nature may be used for predictions. That also applies to this law of information. The Laws of Nature apply universally. This also applies to the Law of Information Theory. These laws are valid both for living systems and for non-living ones.

5. Apart from the statistical aspects of the information, the Physical Information Science also contains syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. The transfer of information goes from the sender to the receiver. These terms, sender and receiver should be taken in a wide sense. They may be people, or technical artefacts, devices, or proteins, elements of DNA, well, anything. From high to low level one first distinguishes apobetics. The sender wants a certain occurrence to happen, and wants a given target to be reached. One step below this there is pragmatics. This contains the action expected by the sender, and carried out by the receiver. Below that again is semantics. This contains the thoughts of the sender, which are communicated and the meaning of the information. Below this is syntax. This contains the code in which the information is hidden. The statistics one finds at the lowest level. The signal transmitted by the sender, must be understood by the receiver.

6. Apobetics concerns the purpose of the transfer of the information or of the event. Pragmatics contains the thought or proposed action and the action executed to realise the purpose. Semantics concerns the meaning of the transfer of the data. The one but last step, the syntax covers the coding of the natural or artificial language and its decoding. Finally, statistics, the technical design and the technical transfer method with the statistical aspects connected thereto. The five aspects are closely connected with each other. Both the sender and the recipient are interested in specific elements. The purpose of the transfer of information is not achieved when a breach occurs in any of the five layers.

Information is a spiritual quantity
7. Well, this relatively young idea of the concept information rests on the important and fundamental fact that this quantity called information is in essence NO material quantity, but a SPIRITUAL one. It is true that information can be recorded and kept by attaching it to material, that one is able to transfer information by physical and technical means, but information certainly does NOT originate in or through a material process. Information only originates through or by an idea, by consideration, through somebody gifted with spirit, through the application of intelligence (brains) and willpower.

8. In materialistic theories however, this fact is neglected, and information is simply regarded as a purely physical or technical phenomenon, which does NOT agree with observations and reality. It should be firmly imprinted in one's memory: information is NO physical quantity of matter, such as pressure or temperature, it is a SPIRITUAL quantity, which, it is true, is carried by the matter or the substance, it is bound to the substance, always in coded form, but which NEVER finds its causation in material things.

The laws governing information
9. When investigating unknown cases, it is always possible to determine whether one is inside the defined area of information or outside it. The most important laws of nature regarding information are:
• All information is coded. Uncoded information does not exist.
• There are no codes without code-agreements (code-tables). All codes are based on free and intended agreement between sender and recipient.
• All information comes from a sender. Information without a sender does not exist.
• At the beginning of each chain of information-transfer is a spiritual (intel-ligent) source.
• Information always has a willing source. The sender 'wills' something.
• All information is characterized by five hierarchical layers, from low to high: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, apobetics.
• Information cannot originate in statistical processes.

10. And, note carefully, the physical information theory is a universal law of nature (like Newton's gravity law) which is based on experience, on experiments. All technical systems, without exception, follow this law. And living systems as well. This physical information theory, here rendered very concisely, enables far-reaching conclusions to be drawn.

11. The information science may also be asked about the origin of life. All building bricks of life, and certainly those of the higher ordened mammals and man, are to a high degree laid down in the DNA of the species. By reason of the physical information science must this information have a spiritual origin. The evolutionary idea that the genetic information (only) originates from and through matter, is, according to the physical information science, false.

12. Dr. Gitt has written several books of differing levels of science. At first, he received many criticisms on his teachings, which were unusual and new, afterwards he spent many years visiting universities, where he could always convince critici of the correctness of his theory. That is because all systems follow his theory -- which may now be called a true science, because a science is certain. Not one single practical case is known that does not follow this information science.

13. Nowadays, Gitt's theory is completely accepted by natural-scientists. Perhaps (not) yet by some philosophers, possibly because they do not understand the essence of his teaching in its most essential form. The professional philosopher, however, will have to accept, that every more materialistic or naturalistic philosophy cannot escape the unavoidable demand that a spiritual source of the genetic information must exist. At least, if one wishes to maintain a connection with reality. What, then, may be possible in whatever philosophy? The Cosmic Conscience, The Universal Spirit, or, after all, a Creator-God? Or does one take an agnostic point of view, because one does not know the source of the spiritual quantity ? Professional philosophers still have thinking to be done.

ABOUT RELATIVISM AND DETERMINISM
14. Now the second item of much philosophical interest. In the beginning of the 20th century the quantummechanics and the theory of relativity, connected with the names of the physical scientists Niels Bohr, Planck, and Einstein, caused a further problem. This problem of the relativity theory was summarised by the priest-theologian-physicist Mgr. Georges Lemaître as follows: There is no causality in the laws of nature. The physical world would be "uncertain", at most "stochastically determined", which roughly means: it follows the laws of statistical analysis.This uncertainty suits the evolutionist theories about the origin of the universe, like the Big-Bang-theory. More about this in the third part of this article.

15. Of course, causality is a philosophical founding principle in natural sciences and engi-neering. There is no engineering science without causality. All domestic appliances and in-dustrial systems and equipment work, and are seen to work, through the principle of causality. According to the relativity theory this causality, however, would not always operate. Einstein in his time had the necessary doubts when basing phenomena on stochastic fields. He once made the following, now famous, remark: "In any case I am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice".

16. Well then, to the satisfaction of the classical philosophy, it can be said that the Ameri-can Physicist Dr. Randell L. Mills has formulated an entirely new quantum theory, called The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics. This new theory unifies Maxwell's Equations, the Laws of Newton, and the General and Special Relativity Theory of Einstein in one grand concept. The central distinguishing mark is that ALL physical laws are valid on EVERY scale, from the sub-atomic particles to the celestial bodies of the cosmos.

17. The consequences of this new physics are enormous. Philosophically it means the world is not stochastic, not uncertain, because it is governed by simple, unchanging, causal, physical laws. The causality of the atomic level, and below that of the sub-atomic level, both were saved. In other words: The new Unified Field Theory brings determinism back into physics.

18. No further talk of uncertainties, of quantum leaps, of probability equations.With his field theory Mills has shown, that all classical laws valid in the classical parts of natural science, are also valid on the atomic and sub-atomic levels. The principle of cause and effect clearly is an absolute basic principle in natural sciences and engineering. Probabilities and chance can still have a role in throwing dice and in casinos, but no longer in the natural-scientific laboratories.

19. Of course, this new (and in fact very old) philosophy is of enormous importance for every evolutionary thinking, thinking, that has to do with the supposed evolution. Because the fundamental idea of evolution, i.e. the self-development, the unfolding, the growing by itself, the self-becoming, the changing (into a higher species, whatever that may mean), appears to be very difficult to reconcile with the determinism of the nature-sciences. As far as the model of evolution relies on (forensic) natural-scientific assumptions and data, it will not be able to escape from the re-introduction of determinism and causality. Everyting, that in the model of evolution smells of chance, of lack of purpose, of arbitrariness, of spontaneity, will have to go.

AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSAL COSMOLOGY
20.This new theory, which does not admit the Big Bang happened, is still quite recent. The doubts of the older theory of the Big Bang were caused by the unexplained spectral red shift, especially noted with quasars. The Hubble telescope also supplied all sorts of observations, which could not be reconciled with the Big Bang theory. The American Astrophysicus Halton Arp writes in his boek Seeing Red; Redshifts, Cosmology and the Academic Science that the majority of extra-galactic objects show an intrinsic red shift. But that means that the hypothesis of the fixed red shifts, on which the theory of the Big Bang rests, has to be rejected. De astrophysicus Jayant Narlikar has explained these intrinsic shifts on the theoretical level. Consequently the observations with the Hubble telescope, which so far did not fit in the Big Bang theory, can be explained.

21. The theory of the cold dark matter could never properly be explained with the theory of the Big Bang. Neither was it clear how the law of the Conservation of Matter and Energy could be understood if the Big Bang was in operation. When inflating, the universe would have had to expand with a speed greater than that of light. But the existence of a speed like that had never been measured. The Big Bang theory has never been able to give an explanation of all scientific facts observed. The result is that the new cosmological theory, which replaces the Big Bang theory, does justice to all observed facts.

Summarising: The universe is not an expanding cosmos. And it did not originate in a singular beginning fact (like an explosion). There never has been a Big Bang.

22. A group of advanced and well-known scientists (among them Fred Hoyle) has announced the end of the Big Bang theory. The magazine Nature even published an editorial titled "Down with the Big Bang". But among scientists there is much opposition. In September 2008 there was a large congress of cosmologists in Seattle, Washington State, U.S.A., to discuss this problem. Several astrophysicists (Van Flandern, David Dilworth) stated emphatically that the origin of the universe by a Big Bang is a myth. A better explanation of observations made has to be found. Many astrologists (at least 300) are now looking for an Alternate Cosmology.

23. The philosophical consequences of the failure of the Big bang theory cannot yet be fully surveyed. The non-professional philosopher suspects that, by not admitting the expanding or cyclical character of the universe, the philosophical concept infinity will have to be reviewed. Matter and the cosmos cannot be infinite, and therefore they have to be finite, consequently there has to be a beginning and there has to be a cause, a source of the cosmos. What, which, how, are things the philosopher will have to work out. And where there is a beginning, there will have to be an end. What sort of end ? Another question for the philosopher.

A FEW MORE SCIENTIFIC ITEMS
24. The disclosure of the inheritable complex - the genome - has led to the understanding that mutation and selection, the most important biological mechanisms, do not suffice to generate new organs and new building plans for new beings. An unbelievable quantity of useful information is present in the genome, the origin of which, according to the physical information theory can only be explained by an intelligent source outside the material. Some further natural-scientific facts exist, which also cannot be explained by the evolution model.

25. It is impossible that mankind and apes would have original parents in common. It is true that both genomes differ by only a few percentage points in their composition, which one regards as an argument in favour of evolution, but to accomplish such a change at least 30 millions of necessary and positive mutations are required. Not a single biological mechanism, neither physical or chemical mechanisms, are known, capable of realising such a large number of significant mutations in a limited time.

26. Like all creatures and materials on earth, the genome is also subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the natural law of increasing entropy. The genome of the species is subject to a systematic deterioration. During the course of succeeding generations the genome is observed regularly to become worse, until eventually the species dies out. The dying out of always more kinds of species may today be clearly observed. It confirms the entropy law.

27. The System Theory or System Science is a reasonably modern profession, which traces how technical and other systems are built up, and eventually originated, or perhaps may be constructed. Well then, most organs and systems of living beings have to be classified as non-reducible complex systems. That is to say, that they cannot be built up from small parts, nor in small steps. E.g. a car may be taken apart into pieces and parts, and then again be re-built. The device will then run. The human eye is the clearest example of an non-reducible complex system. The numerous properties all have to be present simultaneously and in a co-ordinated fashion. Such systems therefore must have originated at once and complete. How, that is yet another question for the philosopher.

THREE NEW THEORIES
28. It is amazing that - right in our days - three completely new natural-scientific theories - the Physical Information Theory, the United Field Theory and the Alternate Universal Cosmology - have taken away the ground under several philosophical elements of materialistic and naturalistic philosophy which form the groundwork of all evolutionary thinking.

29. The present day philosopher will be forced to re-think his ideas (about evolution) and to re-think his (evolutionistic) theories, because he will have to search for a new basis, which keeps account of the firmly fixed natural-scientific data given above. How interesting our time is !

INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND DESIGNER
30. When somebody in everyday life looks at the design of a dead object - be it a car, a computer, a painting, a house -- then he knows for certain that there must be a designer, an inventor, a discoverer. This also applies to abstract systems, such as e.g. a total of laws and rules of conduct, or a computer program. And that a certain amount of brains or intelligence is necessary to design something is equally a universal human experience. All this speaks for itself. And it is essential that design and designer are separate, separate entities, to be differentiated from each other. The painting does not design itself, neither does the car. And the designer gets the recognition he deserves. The painter, the mathematician and the architect are each celebrated as a famous person. Intelligent Design and Designer are two sides of the same subject.

31. In analogy with dead matter, and the abstract systems, designed and made by mankind, it should not be difficult to assume that living beings like a sheep, a worm, a goose, and a man, were designed by a designer. Because the coming into being of the Design, present everywhere in the living creatures, cannot be explained with known biological mechanisms, like selection and mutation, nor with other mechanisms. And the sheep did not design itself, neither did the worm, and mankind certainly not.

32. However, now it suddenly appears to become difficult to accept, yes, to know, that living beings have been designed, and that therefore a designer must exist. How illogical this is! What is the difference in principle between dead materials and living beings where Design and Designer are concerned ? There is no difference! Usually, living systems are far more complex than dead systems, and usually they are non-reducible, which even more clearly indicates a designer than the reducible systems do. The medical world, for example is still daily amazed about the complexity of the hormonal and immunity systems of the human body.

33. The designer of these complex and irreducible systems frequently does not receive the recognition that he, in view of his beautiful living designs, deserves. The question of the designer is by preference left open by many people. Or they avoid it. When contemplating living beings there is talk about Intelligent Design but the question of who made the design is left unanswered. The existence of the genetic design (in the DNA) cannot be gainsaid, it is too clearly visible. Also, the existence and working of living, complex, mostly non-redu-cible, systems has to be acknowledged. But many people want to withhold the recognition deserved by the designer. How illogical !