The non-Godness of the “God-particle”

LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE DOG PARTICLE!

There’s been much sturm und drang about CERN’s report of finding a Higgs-like boson, the so-called “God-particle”.    I’m currently writing up an abbreviated history of the scientific route to this experimental result, as an attempt to place all this in a context of how science works and what it can and cannot tell us about our universe.   In the meantime, here are three links that do give a balanced perspective:

“All Things Visible and Invisible” (note the phrase taken from the Credo)

“Vatican Astronomer: ‘God Particle’ is Exciting but Has No Theological Bearing.”

“The God Particle and God”

The last article has a particularly relevant sub-title: “Without God scientific discoveries have no meaning”.     Those who have proclaimed that creation is explained by the “discovery” of the Higgs Boson (i.e. finding the spoor of a Higgs-like boson), are not familiar with the philosophic Principle of Sufficient Reason–you need to know the answers to questions about things, to explain where and how they came to be, in order to understand them–that’s how the human mind works.    And a theory or a particle (i.e what one infers from observed phenomena,  is a particle) or a field (i.e. what we propose as a mechanism for observed natural phenomena) does not explain itself.   The only entity that does explain itself, that is the uncaused cause, is, by definition, God.

An addendum to this post, or perhaps a separate post, will summarize the relevant history of particle physics leading to evidence for the Higgs boson, and how this history embodies a development of  symmetry considerations that do themselves “Declare the Glory of God”.  (That is to say, I will do the best I can as such a guide–somewhat like Gollum leading Frodo and Sam through the Swamps of the Dead).

"Let Our Lives Be Good  

I've been procrastinating on getting out posts for this blog, trying to get a coherent, booklike narration for belief, knowledge, and faith and, in doing so, have been seduced into all sorts of philosophic bordellos. That's not the way a blog should go, but more as a journal (a la Pensees), so that is how we'll do it from now on. In that mode, I was doing my daily bedtime reading of "Augustine Day by Day" (John E. Rotelle, O.S.A.) and found one particularly apt for the current times: The picture is of St. Augustine of Hippo. The Quote is from his Sermon 30.

"Bad times! Troublesome times! This is what people are saying. Let our lives be good and the times will be good. For we make our own times. Such as we are, such are the times. What can we do? Maybe we cannot convert masses of people to a good life. But let the few who hear live well. Let the few who live well endure the many who live badly."
Sermon 30, 8

The next blog will explore the scientific history of the Higgs field/boson and its relevance and irrelevance to our faith. Until then there's a fine piece by the Jesuit Vatican Astronomer, Br. Guy Consolmagno on the non-godness of the so-called God particle

Till then...

Mathematics the Handmaiden of Theology: Augustine and Cantor

Golly, I had thought I could proceed in a nice orderly sequence about belief, knowledge, the limits of science, but articles keep appearing that I have to discuss.   Here's one by Adam Drozdek (Associate Professor of Computer Science at Duquesne University) that has great insights on mathematics and its relation to theology: Beyond Infinity: Augustine and Cantor.   Although I'll try to summarize the main points of his article, I urge the reader to go to the original article for a detailed exegis.
First, here is  Drozdek's summary of St. Augustine's (Hippo) ideas about mathematics, infinity and God.

"To summarize, there are three important aspects of Augustine's discussion of the problem of infinity. First, infinity is an inborn concept which enables any knowledge. Second, infinity can be found in the purest form in mathematics, and thus mathematics is the best tool of acquiring knowledge about God. Third, God is neither finite nor infinite and his greatness surpasses even the infinite. Augustine is original in combining these three aspects in his philosophy ; some of them can be found in other philosophers and theologians, but also in mathematicians."

Augustine anticipates later developments in mathematics, the mathematics of infinity put forth in set theory:

"God's infinity would still be of a higher magnitude, an infinity of different kind. His infinity is above all possible temporal (and spatial) infinity ; it is an infinity of infinities, whose magnitude can be dimly imagined by means of mathematical infinity. It is an infinity of infinities also in that "all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God," since no infinity is incomprehensible to God (De civ. Dei), he can count numbers without succession of thought. God is even able to count without numbers, which assumes that there is no number equal to the quantity of all numbers, that is, no number, to use modern parlance, expressing cardinality of integers (which is aleph zero). This is no hindrance to God who is able to see the entire sequence of numbers without looking at these numbers one by one.  Infinity of these numbers can be grasped in one act of comprehension."

Drozdek points out that Augustine's view on God's infinitude differs from that of later Catholic theologians and philsophers--Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus--who emphasized the infinite nature of God.

"Augustine is an exception to this rule. To him, God encompasses infinity, himself not being infinite."

However, Augustine does have a worth successor, Georg Cantor (1845-1918) who proposed new ideas about infinity as a mathematically rigorous subject, by use of set theory.   Cantor's motivation was theological and philosophical:

"mathematical statements are not divorced from reality, and, for instance, set theory makes certain pronouncements about things in themselves, about 'true being,' and 'the general set theory [...] belongs entirely to metaphysics' and is its servant."

Like Augustine, Cantor believes that knowledge of infinity is innate:

"...abstract knowledge is already in us, implanted and dormant, enlivened by our quest for it. In particular, infinity cannot be recognized unless it is inborn, since infinity "even inhabits our mind (Geiste)".21 Therefore, mathematics has not only a purely theoretical interest, but it is also of philosophical and theological bearing."

God, according to Cantor is the Absolute (what in modern mathematics is designated by the Greek upper-case omega):

"But whereas different transfinite levels can be known (erkanni), the Absolute can only be recognized (anerkannt), not known, not even approximately ; however, an 'absolutely infinite sequence of numbers,' i.e., sequence of all infinities, can be considered 'a suitable symbol of the Absolute'.25 Set theory shows that there is no set encompassing all sets, and yet God is able to comprehend all these infinities, hence he is above infinity, he is the Absolute. The transfinite, unlike the Absolute, 'clearly appears to us as limited, capable ofbeing augmented and thus related to the finite'.  With this statement Cantor returnsto Augustine's conviction that 'all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God.' "

Like Augustine, Cantor believed that the concept of infinity is put within us, as a Divine implant:

"The transfinite numbers are not pure creations of our mind, they are only discovered in the mind and in the world. They cannot be our creations since they precede our very existence and the existence of the world. As Augustine, whom he quotes, Cantor believes that God utilized numbers to create the world."

My wife, who is NOT a mathematician, in reading all the above, recognized that there is at  the basis a Platonic philosophy, that is to say, an assumption that there is a reality to mathematical ideas that is different from the reality of concrete things, the world of sensation.   Other mathematicians (not all of whom are theists) are also Platonists, for example Roger Penrose, who proposes three worlds, the platonic (ideas), the physical, and the mental. (see The Emperor's New Mind )
If Drozdek's article stirs you up, you can also go to Rudy Rucker's fine book on the same subject, "Infinity and the Mind", which gives more mathematical detail than Drozdek's article.