Holistic Universe

HOLISTIC UNIVERSE

by

TJ McLaughlin

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2013 TJ McLaughlin

License Notes: This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this ebook with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Ebook formatting by www.ebooklaunch.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 KNOWLEDGE

1.2 ATTRACTIVE AND REPULSIVE IDEAS

1.3 EVIDENCE AND TRUTH

1.4 PRECISION AND INEVITABILITY

1.5 SOMETHING AND NOTHING

1.6 CONCEPTS OF INFINITY

1.7 MANIFESTATIONS OF EXISTENCE

1.8 THRESHOLDS AND THE ATTRACT/REPEL DYNAMIC

2.1 A THEORY OF EVERYTHING

2.2 NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE

3.1 A THEORY OF EVERYTHING ELSE

3.2 SCIENCE AND RELIGION

3.3 ATTRACTION AND REPULSION

3.4 EVOLUTION OF RELIGION

3.5 EVOLUTION AND MORALITY

3.6 OBJECTIVE ORDERING IN NATURE

3.7 NATURE VS NURTURE

3.8 SOCIAL ORGANISMS

3.9 THE ELECTORATE AND THE ELECTED

3.10 EXTREMES OF A POWER ELITE

3.11 FAITH, REASON AND WORLDVIEWS

3.12 SOCIAL AND ANATOMICAL BODIES

3.13 IMMUNE SYSTEMS COMPROMISED

3.14 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

3.15 SOCIAL ORDER

4.1 GOD AND THE NATURE OF THINGS

5.1 ENVISIONING A FUTURE

5.2 VALUES

PREFACE

Holistic Universe as you might imagine covers a lot of territory. Or, perhaps I should say, a lot of spacetime. It spans the entire universe from the so-called big bang to the present, from the quantum world of miniscule particles to the classical world of massive objects, from the formation of galaxies to the formation of living cells, from prehistoric groups and tribes to the overly complex societies of today.

The book is primarily concerned with a naturalistic vision of things that encompasses philosophy, science, government, social systems and religion. It connects all the dots to form a consistent synergistic universal holism that posits a universe wherein life is an integral part of its narrative. In all aspects, Holistic Universe, is a revolutionary work.

Revolution is the order of the day. Government and religion are archaic bureaucratized dinosaurs that are in desperate denial of their obsolescence. Politics is dominated by ideological politicians who retreat from a world they cannot comprehend and seek refuge in the monolithic structures of prefabricated belief systems that provide them and their devoted constituencies with an illusive certainty. Traditional religion has been thoroughly gutted by science, while, Norman Bates-like, religious fundamentalists truss up the corpse and put her on display as if she were still alive and kicking. In the realm of philosophy, genuinely relevant philosophical thought is nowhere to be found. Science has been politicized and bastardized by a cadre of pseudo-scientists and anti-intellectuals to the point where it has become a joke in the popular mind, while bona fide scientists have failed to present a coherent worldview that people are able to appreciate and adopt.

Holistic Universe is a radical departure from the norm. Some may find that troubling. But the norm at present is a polarized fractured world driven by ignorance, superstition, greed and extremists of all stripes. The norm is represented by corrupt regimes, greedy banks and corporations and that is a norm that demands radical revolutionary vision.

There is a great universal reluctance on the part of governments and other institutions to accept and adapt to how the world has changed in recent decades. In their desperation to hold on to their vested interests and the status quo they ignore and/or misrepresent real world knowledge and misuse and abuse the technology of the electronic/information age. Technology has provided the hardware, software and light speed avenues of communication that allow individuals to regard themselves as centers of power and to act as such. The Arab Spring happened with the aid of this technology and the computer age has also brought about the era of the whistleblower. Thus, there is great tension between the state and the individual over control of information. The likes of individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden from their perspective as centers of power have leveled the playing field between government and citizen. And government seeks to prosecute them for exposing its shenanigans to the world.

So, as we see, governments must be held accountable and it is for citizens to decide the scope and range of that accountability. Holistic Universe calls for radical systemic change for our social systems whereby government will serve at the behest of the people. Welcoming as that may seem, the vision herein will be extremely challenging for most people to readily accept for its foundation is not that of any ideology. I don't expect it to be immediately or enthusiastically embraced but, at the very least, it can serve to extricate us from the notion that we are necessarily stuck with what we have and have no choice but to remain helpless victims of systems that are clearly floundering and incapable of charting a sensible productive course for establishing the best of all possible worlds.

INTRODUCTION

So far the twenty-first century has generally been one of enormous turmoil. We have seen and continue to see horrendous natural and environmental disasters, societies in revolt, dictators being ousted while others refused to yield, nations overburdened with debt, financial institutions behaving recklessly and extreme ideological fanaticism all wreaking havoc around the world in their own ways.

Given such a convoluted series of events this century has not, as yet, lent itself to one overall characterization. It's difficult to sort out one overall aspect that would be likely to hold sway as it unfolds. Perhaps it's too soon. But even before its inception there were some attempts to forecast this century's determinant factor.

Samuel Huntington gave it a shot. In 1999 the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University spoke at Armstrong Theatre and had this to say, "The twentieth century was the century of ideology, of the competition of socialism, communism, liberalism, authoritarianism, fascism, democracy. Now, while we have not had the end of history, we have arrived, at least for the moment, at the end of ideology. The twenty-first century is at least beginning as the century of culture, with the differences, interactions, and conflicts among cultures taking center stage. This has become manifest, among other ways, in the extent to which scholars, politicians, economic development officials, soldiers, and strategists are all turning to culture as a central factor in explaining human social, political, and economic behavior. In short, culture counts, with consequences for both good and evil.

"Two central elements of culture are language and religion, and these obviously differ greatly among societies. Scholars have also measured societies along a number of other cultural dimensions and classified them in terms of individualism and collectivism, egalitarianism and hierarchy, pluralism and monism, activism and fatalism, tolerance and intolerance, trust and suspicion, shame and guilt, instrumental and consummatory, and a variety of other ways.

In recent years, however, many people have argued that we are seeing the emergence of a universal worldwide culture. They may have various things in mind. First, global culture can refer to a set of economic, social and political ideas, assumptions, and values now widely held among elites throughout the world. This is what I have called the Davos Culture, after the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum that brings together hundreds of government officials, bankers, businessmen, politicians, academics, intellectuals, and journalists from all over the world. Almost all these people hold university degrees in the physical sciences, social sciences, business, or law; work with words and/or numbers; speak reasonably fluent English; are employed by governments, corporations, and academic institutions with extensive international involvements; and travel frequently outside their own country. They generally share beliefs in individualism, market economies, and political democracy, which are also common among people in Western civilization. Davos people control virtually all international institutions, many of the world's governments, and the bulk of the world's economic and military capabilities. The Davos Culture hence is tremendously important. Worldwide, however, only a small portion of the world's population shares in this culture. It is far from a universal culture, and the leaders who share in it do not necessarily have a secure grip on power in their own societies. It is nonetheless one immensely significant consequence of the globalization of economic activity that has occurred in recent decades.

So, in other words, this hardly makes the case for a universal worldwide culture.

What we should be after is not a universal culture but a universal worldview. One that takes into account the whole picture, connects all the dots, puts everything in place and is all inclusive. A universally accepted worldview might result in a universal culture or it might just serve to create the means by which various cultures can coexist and cooperate to promote and foster the one universal priority - survival, on a planetary basis.

A universal worldview, it should be noted, is not unprecedented.

Before the ideologically driven twentieth century there was the nineteenth century that was anything but ideologically driven. Nations of the nineteenth century were concerned with such things as striking a balance of power. This might be characterized as a rational, orderly approach to world affairs.

Could it be that statesmen of that era were operating under the influence of the widely accepted Newtonian worldview that depicted the universe as rational and orderly?

All that changed with the start of the twentieth century when a new view of the universe was introduced. It was an irrational, chaotic view and the rationale for a balance of power gave way to the concept of mutually assured destruction. Without the rational umbrella of the Newtonian worldview, under which everyone could operate from one common perspective, a variety of seemingly incompatible ideologies took over along with an irrational, chaotic competition for ideological dominance.

Such is still the case both between and within cultures. To think that some culturally contrived worldview could somehow come to the fore and provide a worldwide unifying influence is just not realistic. No particular culture is ever going to have universal acceptance.

A knowledge-based worldview, however, could provide the framework whereby different cultures could see a way to coexist and be more concerned about balance than domination, about working together rather than seeking their own advantage at the expense of others. This is not a utopian dream. It was an emerging reality during the nineteenth century.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century we live in a world that is fraught with intractable warring factions as ideologically based quasi-worldviews vie for domination. What is needed is a genuine worldview that puts everything in perspective. And such will be presented here.

Particular ideologies such as communism and capitalism, Islam and Christianity, liberalism and conservatism, try as they might cannot qualify as genuine worldviews because none are in and of themselves all-inclusive. They are merely specialized views of the world that include their adherents to the exclusion of everyone else.

Also, the ideologues who promote these ideologies eschew knowledge of the nature of things. Real world knowledge is anathema to them because the real world cannot reflect the image that they seek to impose on it. Ideologues seek to create a secure and special place for their pet isms in defiance of the nature of things. They ignore and reject the knowledge that science has to offer. That is, they ignore and reject the real world that we all live in and a genuine worldview cannot do that.

The idea that nature is antithetical to human culture and values is one that ideologues of whatever stripe embrace. However, it is an idea that needs to be re-examined. As it will be here. A genuine worldview must take everything into account, and it must, like gravity, hold everything together and apply to everyone. It must incorporate the whole body of knowledge about the nature of things and human nature from particle physics to star systems, from genes to social systems and present a cohesive coherent worldview that is relevant to one and all.

1.1 KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is generally deemed a good thing. But what it tells us is not always welcome. Knowledge can sometimes provide us with information that we do not like. A knowledgeable prescription for a healthful diet, for instance, does not always comply with how we like to eat. Knowledge can also provide us with basic concepts of ourselves that do not comply with how we like to see ourselves. As with food, knowledge tells us that we cannot always pick and choose our self-images merely by what we like. Knowledge tells us that our self-perceptions need to be amended with respect to its findings. However, giving up our favorite concepts of ourselves is just as difficult as it is to give up our favorite foods, if not more so.

This analogy breaks down when we try to assess which foods and which concepts might be better for us. With food it is relatively easy to determine what really is good for us and what is not. Fruit and vegetables are better than Twinkies and puddings. As for images of ourselves it is somewhat trickier. Traditional self-perceptions are replete with deep and abiding interests that can make knowledge seem like an enemy to all that is human when it contradicts those self-perceptions - special creations of God versus just another product of evolution, for instance.

Knowledge is certainly vital and valuable to us in a material sense but we find it lacking the wherewithal to fulfill our psychic needs. This has created a divide between Science and the Humanities that seems to be ever widening. It cannot be closed by knowledge alone or by stubbornly adhering to those self-images we find to be so alluring. It is not a matter of one side winning over the other but of finding a resolution that can dissolve the differences. That's a tall order but one that should be possible, unless, perhaps, the people comprising the two sides represent an unbridgeable division between an old and emergent species of human being.

To begin with we examine two opposing ideas of ourselves. One is generally attractive, the other repellent. We will see that neither is totally destructive to the other and there can even be a meeting of the ways between the two. We will also see how the forces of attraction and repulsion factor into the very fabric of all that exists. They are the prime movers in the material universe as well as the universe of ideas.

1.2 ATTRACTIVE AND REPULSIVE IDEAS

That the existence of human beings has been eternally ordained as absolutely necessary is an attractive idea. That human beings merely came about as an unplanned coincidence of random natural events is a repulsive idea.

The former idea is attractive because it gives us a sense that we are, were and will always be necessary. The universe exists for the sole purpose of producing human beings. We are exalted by the attractive idea. It bestows on us membership in a higher supernatural world. The specific events of the natural world, the births and deaths, triumphs and defeats, joys and sufferings are trivial matters compared to the overall condition of our immortal souls. The divine realm is our true reality and one in which we can exist happily ever after.

The latter idea is repulsive because it gives to the human species no more importance than that of bacteria. It suggests that there is no greater meaning or purpose to the lives of human beings than that of mere survival here on Earth. We are completely defined by our biological systems and when they fail, our death is an eternal finality. The natural world is our only world.

In the main, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the repulsive idea. But, in the court of popular opinion evidence is of questionable value. The attractive idea does not rely on evidence for it to be fully embraced by those attracted to it. All that matters is its attraction. People can become slaves to the seductive power of a belief system and be willing to accept any fabricated evidence in support of it.

As for the repulsive idea, there really is no reason to accept it except for the preponderance of evidence in its favor. Evidence that supporters of the attractive idea take pains to distort. Some have even claimed that the repulsive idea is a manufactured concoction created by atheist scientists who want to undermine belief. To think that anyone would make up such a thing as evolution is preposterous. That anyone would accept it out of ignorance or on faith alone is even more so. The repulsive idea is the result of an attraction toward knowledge. The attractive idea came about through lack of knowledge.

1.3 EVIDENCE AND TRUTH

Of course, the evidence for the repulsive idea can only go so far. It cannot offer proof that human beings are entirely subject to the chance occurrences of the natural world. Although the case for evolution is solid we have not been able to account for the origin of life itself. There is, as yet, no cogent description of how replicating cells could have come about in the first place, since proteins are needed in order for DNA to code for proteins that are essential in the replication process.

The seductive power of the attractive idea can shine through such shortcomings with a blinding light, severely compromising the vision of those it seduces. That human beings are eternally, supernaturally ordained wins the beauty pageant of ideas. Whether it is wise to judge ideas based on appearance alone is something to ponder. Without clear and convincing proof of our utter contingency upon the nature of things, however, one cannot marvel at the domination of the attractive idea. Even if such clear and convincing proof was to be revealed it still might not be enough to outshine the attractive brilliance of traditional concepts that can be so irresistibly seductive.

The attractive idea also purports to have ultimate truth on its side no matter what amount of evidence might favor the repulsive idea. Ultimate truth by definition is immune to evidence one way or the other. We can only have evidence of things pertaining to this world. So, when it comes to ideas about our ultimate origins and fate, relying on what we find attractive is really all there is.

The debate rages on with varying degrees of intensity. The most vociferous proponents of attractive ideas rely heavily on people's lack of in-depth knowledge with respect to the unattractive, repulsive facts of life. Defenders of the attractive idea know all the weak spots in the body of knowledge and exploit them to the fullest. Obfuscation, distortion and outright lies are tactics they regularly and unabashedly employ. Proponents of the repulsive facts of life, on the other hand, find it difficult to fully explain their perspective to people who are generally less and less educated.

There are also those who throw up their hands and try to sidestep the debate, suggesting that both sides are right in their respective arenas and the two should remain separate with no discourse between them. The attractive ideas have to do with conventional metaphysical concepts that are associated with wisdom, while ugly facts of life have to do with a knowledge-based science. These are just different realms that have distinct purposes, they say, and any traffic between them merely serves to create a cultural gridlock.

That hardly seems a tenable position. Knowledge about the nature of things, unattractive as it might be, can directly contradict some attractive ideas and, so, like it or not, such knowledge cannot be kept sealed off from beliefs only to be used in laboratory experiments, pharmaceutical development, creating new gadgets, etc. Knowledge permeates throughout the whole picture. There is a vital connection between wisdom and knowledge that cannot be ignored and must be kept vital. Wisdom depends on knowledge to guide its concepts. Knowledge depends on wisdom to put it into perspective.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to get wisdom and knowledge working together when they are posing as combatants in an intellectual blood sport. The challenges that knowledge inadvertently levels at certain attractive ideas are taken, by defenders of those ideas, to be threats against the very notion of ultimate truth. If one merely questions the veracity of a particular belief of a particular religion one is accused of attacking God, of demeaning the very idea of God. This hardly creates a suitable atmosphere for informed dialogue.

The argument, however, is not between knowledge and ultimate truth. Rather, it is between knowledge and specific beliefs which, when proven to be erroneous, must go the way of other such obsolete beliefs, like the geocentric solar system, for instance. Knowledge does, of course, have some bearing on our notion of ultimate truth, but if such truth exists, nothing could possibly be a threat to it.

Some might consider this argument to be between the institutions of science and religion. An all out, no-holds-barred, winner-take-all warfare of the one against the other. That is an extremely myopic and wrongheaded view. Again, the argument is between particular facts presented in scientific findings and how they inadvertently have an impact on particular religious beliefs. Science and religion are here to stay and we must strive toward visions that bring them together, or at least assign them there proper roles, rather than promote misrepresentations that catastrophically drive them apart.

It's interesting that some religious figures find it necessary to employ scientific methodology in an attempt to prove their particular beliefs. From some of the religiously inspired diatribes against the evils of science one might suppose that those religious figures who pose as scientists to prove matters of faith, such as Creation, Intelligent Design or the existence of God, are tinkering in Satan's workshop. Attempting to use science to validate one's beliefs demeans one's faith. Isn't it enough that one knows in one's heart that God exists? Faith in God would seem to be all that is required for religious purposes. But no, there are those who feel the need to scientifically prove that God exists. This is, of course, as foolhardy as trying to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

Faith is the destroyer of faith, not science.

1.4 PRECISION AND INEVITABILITY

One arguing point in proving the existence of God is the precision found in certain microscopic life forms. This was latched onto by the Intelligent Design camp, claiming that such precision belies chance and posits a Creator. The precision found in micro-organisms must be the result of an intelligent design, they say, and that must be evidence of an ultimate designer. Intelligent Design, however, is nothing more than a byproduct of the pseudoscientific and thoroughly debunked Creation Science, and is just as bogus.

Michael Behe, a microbiologist and one of the original proponents of intelligent design, wrote a book, Darwin's Black Box, which attempted to make the case for God as intelligent designer by illustrating the meticulous workmanship on the molecular scale of life. All the tiny components that fit so well together and display such exquisite functionality could not have come about all by themselves. They just had to have been the work of a divine designer.

That Behe lacked scientific integrity and wrote Darwin's Black Box with a biased perspective was evident in the absence of any mention in his book of the spontaneous construction on the molecular level, that physicist, turned microbiologist, Jacques Monod, writes about in his book, Chance and Necessity. Monod illustrates how molecular structures take shape with respect to their specific chemical properties alone and are in no way in need of a designer. He explains how it is possible to take a molecular structure apart, a protein, for instance, without damaging it. In this state, he goes on to say, the protein will in general have lost all its functional properties, catalytic or regulatory. However - and this is the important point - if the initial normal conditions are restored (by eliminating the dissociating agent), the subunits will ordinarily reassemble spontaneously, reforming the original 'native' state of the aggregate: The same number of protomers in the same geometrical arrangement, accompanied by the same functional properties as before. Furthermore, "...ribosomes which are the essential components of the mechanism that translates the genetic code, that is, of the protein-synthesizing machinery. These particles, whose molecular weight attains 10,000,000, are made up by the assembly of some thirty thousand distinct proteins plus three different types of nucleic acids (See graphic below)...it has been found that, in vitro, the dissociated constituents of ribosomes spontaneously reassemble themselves into particles having the same composition, the same molecular weight, the same functional activity as the original 'native' material.

Illustration 1: RIBOSOME Does it look like intelligent design?

"However, the most spectacular example...of the spontaneous construction of complex molecular edifices is without doubt that of certain bacteriophages (viruses that attack bacteria). The complicated and very precise structure of the T4 bacteriophage corresponds to this particle's function, which is not only to protect the genome of the virus, but also to attach itself to the wall of the host cell in order to inject into it, syringe-like, its DNA content. The different parts of this microscopic precision machinery can be obtained separately from different mutants of the virus. Mixed together in vitro they assemble themselves spontaneously to reconstitute particles identical to normal ones and fully capable of exercising their DNA-injecting function."

So, ...complex structures possessing functional properties develop from the stereospecific, spontaneous assembling of their protein constituents. Order, structural differentiation, acquisition of functions - all these appear out of a random mixture of molecules individually devoid of any activity, any intrinsic functional capacity other than that of recognizing the partners with which they will build the structure. The structure of the assembled molecules itself constitutes the source of 'information' for the construction of the whole.

To omit these findings from a book about molecular biology is, at best, disingenuous. Behe purports to be a microbiologist but does not engage us with authentic discourse in his writings on the subject. He is trafficking in dogma, a cleric in scientific clothing.

Another such masquerading cleric is intelligent design proponent, George Gilder, who says things like, Just as quantum theory overthrew Newtonian theory the theory of information is going to overthrow biology. Now, to begin with, there was no overthrowing by quantum theory with respect to Newtonian theory. It was Einstein's theory of relativity that showed Newtonian physics was not relevant to the cosmos on a large scale. However, Newton's formulas were discovered in reference to our little corner of the universe and they are just as viable in that respect today as they were when an apple first fell to the ground. Furthermore, Newtonian physics has to do with what physicists call the classical world, the familiar world of objects that we live in, while the physics of quantum world particles is entirely different. To state that the latter overthrew the other is like saying apples overthrew oranges. Also, even if the one theory did overthrow the other theory how does that equate with a particular theory, information theory, overthrowing a whole body of knowledge, biology? That statement by Gilder is nonsensical however one may care to parse it.

Another ridiculous statement this self-proclaimed scientist came up with was, Assume a book...Finding life in traces of protein is like trying to find the contents of a book by a chemical and physical analysis of the paper and ink on which it's produced.

I find that whole statement to be absolute gobbledegook. But, okay, let's assume a book, a cook book to be precise. The book's recipes printed on its pages do not produce the food stuffs they refer to. However, DNA, the letters that make up the book of life, does produce the stuff of life. So, to compare a book to protein biosynthesis seems, at best, a bit clumsy.

The book metaphor is shaky and the confused language indicates, perhaps, the shaky ground Gilder felt himself to be on. For example, Finding life in traces of protein is like trying to find the contents of a book..., doesn't make sense. How does Finding something relate to trying to find something. He doesn't say - trying to find life in traces of protein is like trying to find... Also there's the phrase Finding life? What is that supposed to mean? What life is he referring to?

DNA is the language of life. It is all physical, there is no content, no information that needs to preexist the physical material. As Monod noted above, The structure of the assembled molecules itself constitutes the source of information....

So, there is no need for a designer. There is no need for an idea to precede the process. We can posit that need, we can posit a designer if we so desire, but the self-contained process does not necessitate one.

George Gilder, like the Intelligent Design proponent he is, desperately wants things to be the way he thinks they should be according to his religious beliefs. He does not rigorously examine what he is actually saying but merely judges whether it appears to conform to his ideology, and whether or not it will sound convincing enough to those who don't know any better. His perverse think tank is called The Discovery Institute; its mission is to employ chop logic, obfuscation and misinformation in order to distort scientific knowledge and sell a specious concept to the public as the genuine article. Gilder wants his baloney to be thought of as prime rib. For that he needed to hire a public relations firm, CRC, to assist in his deceptive campaign.

Gilder and his ilk are exactly who Monod is talking about when he says, They owe their...moral weakness to those value systems, devastated by knowledge itself, to which they still try to refer.

In pointing to the complexity found in living organisms Gilder and Behe claim that that is proof of