Catholic and Loving it!

So, where were we? It's been a while... oh yeah, I remember:

Part One

Some things are better than others.

Part Two

The more you know about things, the better you can make things.
There are some things you have to find out for yourself.
The Scientific Method is a good way of finding things out.

Part Three

Science requires certain assumptions to be true.
- Things don't just happen for no reason.
- Things have no choice.
- Things are not right or wrong, they just are.

I think it's worth pressing home the point about how obvious these scientific assumptions are. Nobody seriously considers the "it happened for no reason" option. Ever. If you were on your way home and you got smacked in the head by a flying piano you wouldn't wake up in hospital saying "A trebuchet? That's ridiculous. It's far more likely the piano simply appeared in the sky for no reason".

We sometimes talk as if inanimate objects had minds. "I think my computer hates me", "I hope my car decides to work this morning" but we don't mean it. Not really. We don't watch Knight Rider and think "Yawn, happens all the time". Thomas the Tank Engine? Ivor the Engine? Just pop down to Kings Cross and have a chat with any train you like... No.

If my vacuum cleaner breaks down just before the queen comes to visit (happens all the time) I don't blame my vacuum cleaner. I don't send my vacuum cleaner to it's room to think about what it's done. If the queen's vacuum cleaner breaks down just before I come to visit the queen doesn't have her vacuum cleaner sent to the Tower of London to have it's head chopped off. A vacuum cleaner isn't broken because it is immoral, it is broken because the physical arrangement of it's parts doesn't result in dirt being lifted off the floor when it is turned on. It is just how it is.

Things don't happen for no reason. Things don't choose to do things. Things are just how they are.

I have three problems for you...

The "Why? why? why? why? why?" Problem...

The "Why? why? why? why? why?" problem (also known as the "But why?" problem) is simple enough to understand but very difficult one to solve. It is a problem you can easily try at home, all you need is an irritating child. The child asks questions and you try to answer them...

Why do birds sing? Why do I have to go to bed? Why do I have to get up? Which came first the chicken or the egg? Where do babies come from? Why can't penguins fly? Why can puffins fly? Can I have a puppy? Why are trees green? Why is the sky blue?

Sooner or later you hit a question where the answer is either "I don't know" or "It just is".

Let us pay a visit to Issac Newton under his apple tree. I haven't the foggiest idea if Newton ever had any kids, but I am going to stick my neck out and assume there were kids in those days and that he might even have met one. Newton has observed that thing's don't speed up or slow down unless a force pushes or pulls them. You'd be amazed how long it took somebody to work that out. Yet here is an apple plummeting towards the earth and nothing is pushing it at all.

Annoying little kid: "Why does the apple fall?"
Hmm, says Newton: "The apple falls because there is a force pulling it towards the ground."
Annoying little kid: "But why is there a force pulling it towards the ground?"
Hmm, says Newton: "The apple has mass and the earth has mass (not that kind of mass) and I have noticed that there is an invisible force pulling anything that has a mass is towards anything else that has a mass. This is why the moon goes around the earth instead of flying away in to space."
Annoying little kid: "But why does anything that has a mass attract anything else that has a mass?"

This is the part where I need to slow everything down, bullet time, like on the Matrix. You need to watch carefully here because Science is about to do some slight of hand and most people are going to fall for it...

Hmm, says Newton: "Because of Gravity."
Annoying little kid: "What is Gravity?"
Hmm, says Newton: "Gravity is the invisible force that pulls anything that has a mass towards anything else that has a mass."

Did you spot it? Newton has reached a dead end and turned it around in to a circle. He explained the invisible force by calling it "Gravity", he explained "Gravity" by describing the invisible force. In short: Newton hasn't explained anything. He discovered a force that happens for no reason, he came up with equations to describe this force and he gave it a name.

The name is the trick. The important thing is to give it a Capital Letter and say it with Confidence.

Now, when someone asks "Why is there an attractive force between any two objects that have mass?" Science no longer has to embarrass itself saying things like "Hmm I don't know, there just is.." Science can confidently proclaim: "Ah ha! You are talking about Gravity. Issac Newton discovered it. We know all about Gravity."

This trick is repeated throughout Science. Why do two pieces of iron attract (or repel) one another? Magnetism. As if that is anything but a name for "The force that makes two pieces of iron attract (or repel) one another". The word "Magnetism" is no explanation at all and neither is an equation for how the strength of the force varies with distance. Why do cups and plates stay on the table when the trickster pulls the tablecloth out from under them? Inertia. As if that is anything but a name for "The way things resist the motion of tablecloths".

The ultimate version of this trick is one of the most well known. Why is there anything at all? Science is clever enough to realise that nothing happens for no reason, which means that everything happens for a reason. So what is the reason for everything?

Science looks to the past and observes that somewhere in the region of 13 billion years ago there was nothing and then there was something. Run that past me again. You serious Science types seriously want me to believe that nothing turned in to something. How can that happen?

Easy, they say (confidently and with Capital Letters): The Big Bang.

The phrase "The Big Bang" is a description of what happened. It is not an explanation. It does not explain anything. I am saying to Science "How does nothing turn in to something?" and Science is saying "The Big Bang". Well, Professor dork-house. What caused The Big Bang.

If nothing turned in to something there was nothing to cause it. If something caused it, what caused the something? Things don't happen for no reason, everything has a cause. But what caused the first thing? What came first? What whas the first cause?

Science requires certain assumptions to be true...

These assumptions are not always true.
- Somehow, somewhere, something happened for no reason.

If the "Why why why why why?" problem was one of the first problems I encountered, the "Concious Free Mind" problem was definitely the second.

The "Concious Free Mind" Problem...

Science requires that protons, neutrons and electrons do not have any choice in what they are doing. They simply do it.

This is pretty obvious, if the magnetic field says jump, they don't say how high because exactly how high and how far and what direction the move in is defined by the field. They simply follow the rules. If they didn't your computer would stop working. Aeroplanes, helicopters, pens, coffee machines, calculators, pulmonary arteries, dogs and ducks (not to mention Trebuchets) would all stop working. There would be chaos. If fundamental physical particles didn't follow the rules we would all be dead.

Now when we put protons and neutrons and electrons together to form atoms. Do they still follow the rules? Yes. That's useful, because it means we get helium which makes your voice go high pitched. When atoms come together to form molecules we get all manner of fantastical things. You don't need to be a chemist to be grateful when the molecules in your beer do, well, what they do. Simply combining fundamental physical particles to form complex systems doesn't create any kind of free choice.

So let's put the molecules together, let's form pieces of metal, lego bricks and blocks of wood. Any rebellion yet? Any fundamental particles getting fed up with their lot in life and going off on one? No? I didn't think so. Let's complicate matters... lets pump electrons down copper wires. Let's build a computer. Let's use a load of electrons in a wire to mean 1 and very few electrons to mean 0. Is anything thinking for itself yet. Testing, Testing, 0001, 0010, Testing. No. The electrons are whizzing wherever they whizz.

So what's my problem...?

My problem is simply this, that there is at least one complex system of fundamental particles in the world that breaks this rule. This complex system has a name: James Preece. I have the amazing ability to break the laws of physics by making free choices. My component electrons cannot choose, but I can. How does that work exactly?

I'm not entirely sure... I spent a lot of time thinking about this when I was a teenager. I know that many of my choices are not particularly free. When Leona moves as if to poke me in the eye, I do not choose to flinch, its an automatic reaction. When I am hungry, I find myself wandering in to the kitchen and looking for food. Ella doesn't make enough cakes...

So it looks like I am just a machine following the laws of physics... When I am tired I sleep. When I am hungry I eat. Only I can do something a machine shouldn't be able to do. I can choose not to eat.

- Some things have a choice.

People have written entire books about free will, the mind and counciousness. There is lots more to say and many potential arguments, but my opinion is simply this: The material world cannot account for the existence of a concious, free mind.

The "Right and Wrong" problem...

Like the Concious Free Mind problem, people have written entire books on the Right and Wrong problem and this has got long enough already. So I'll keep it short...

In science, if you get a load of particles in a jar and leave them to follow the laws of physics and do whatever they do, they can't do anything wrong. They can blow up or stick together or shine a bright light in your face or form a solar system or whatever, but they are just doing what they do.

If you leave the physical particles in a person's head to do what they do, they can decide to murder somebody. That's wrong.

- Some things are right and wrong.

But how can the particles in my head be right but the particles in a jar can do no wrong?

So, to sum up...

Things that should be keeping Richard Dorkhouse awake at night...

Science requires certain assumptions to be true.
- Things don't just happen for no reason.
- Things have no choice.
- Things are not right or wrong, they just are.
These assumptions are not always true.
- Somehow, somewhere, something happened for no reason.
- Some things have a choice.
- Some things are right and wrong.

Houston, we have a riddle...