i thought this little piece could spark a nice discussion on what reality is:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... prize.html

Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize

Today the John Templeton Foundation announced the winner of the annual Templeton Prize of a colossal £1 million ($1.4 million), the largest annual prize in the world.

This year it goes to French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat for his "studies into the concept of reality". D'Espagnat, 87, is a professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the University of Paris-Sud, and is known for his work on quantum mechanics. The award will be presented to him by the Duke of Edinburgh at Buckingham Palace on 5 May.

D'Espagnat boasts an impressive scientific pedigree, having worked with Nobel laureates Louis de Broglie, Enrico Fermi and Niels Bohr. De Broglie was his thesis advisor; he served as a research assistant to Fermi; and he worked at CERN when it was still in Copenhagen under the direction of Bohr. He also served as a visiting professor at the University of Texas, Austin, at the invitation of the legendary physicist John Wheeler. But what has he done that's worth £1 million?

The thrust of d'Espagnat's work was on experimental tests of Bell's theorem. The theorem states that either quantum mechanics is a complete description of the world or that if there is some reality beneath quantum mechanics, it must be nonlocal – that is, things can influence one another instantaneously regardless of how much space stretches between them, violating Einstein's insistence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But what d'Espagnat was really interested in was what all of this meant for discerning the true nature of ultimate reality. Unlike most of his contemporaries, d'Espagnat was one of the brave ones unafraid to tackle the thorny and profound philosophical questions posed by quantum physics.

Third view

Unlike classical physics, d'Espagnat explained, quantum mechanics cannot describe the world as it really is, it can merely make predictions for the outcomes of our observations. If we want to believe, as Einstein did, that there is a reality independent of our observations, then this reality can either be knowable, unknowable or veiled. D'Espagnat subscribes to the third view. Through science, he says, we can glimpse some basic structures of the reality beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery.

Looking back at d'Espagnat's work, I couldn't help but wonder what the Templeton Foundation – an organisation dedicated to reconciling science and religion – saw in it that they thought was worth a £1 million. Then, scanning the press release, I found it:

"There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments."

But even if there is a partially unknowable reality beneath reality, I'm not sure how that implies that spirituality is a viable means to access it. I have a suspicion that this still comes down to good old-fashioned faith.

Unconventional 'God'

So what is it, really, that is veiled? At times d'Espagnat calls it a Being or Independent Reality or even "a great, hypercosmic God". It is a holistic, non-material realm that lies outside of space and time, but upon which we impose the categories of space and time and localisation via the mysterious Kantian categories of our minds.

"Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God – or 'Substance' – of Spinoza," d'Espagnat writes. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, which he equated with nature itself, but he always held this "God" to be entirely knowable. D'Espagnat's veiled God, on the other hand, is partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable. And for precisely this reason, it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments.

The "veiled reality", then, can in no way help Christians or Muslims or Jews rationalise their beliefs. The Templeton Foundation – despite being headed up by John Templeton Jr, an evangelical Christian – claims to afford no bias to any particular religion, and by awarding their prize to d'Espagnat, I think they've proven that to be true.

I happen to believe that drawing any spiritual conclusions from quantum mechanics is an unfounded leap in logic – but if someone out there in the world is willing to pay someone £1 million for pondering the nature of reality, that's a world I'm happy to live in.

"Through science, he says, we can glimpse some basic structures of the reality beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery."

This is the very definition of what we know about "ghosts", or "telepathy" as of right now. And who knows where it might lead to in the future.

i don't buy it.

people have claimed certain things are unknowable ever since they were capable of thinking. time and again veils keep being removed. just because we're not capable of understanding something today, doesn't mean we never will.

worst case scenario, it can't be figured out by the current highest form of intelligence known to us, i.e. ourselves. doesn't mean some other type of intelligence can't figure it out.

looks to me like the guys at templeton are desperately hanging on to anything that remotely resembles respectable endorsement or validation of spirituality and such. the statements that earned the prize for the guy seem to be nothing but personal opinion, which of course, he is entitled to. but his resume and actual achievements by themselves do nothing to back up said opinion. the article says the foundation refuses to bias for or against any religion, and should've probably continued to say "as long as there is some room for a religious/spiritual component to sneak in"

What do you base this belief on?

dude, is that sarcasm? i didn't state any belief.

What are you talking about? He said it clearly. That "belief" is based on the entirety of scientific history.

According to tyler, anything you think or say is your own personal belief. A belief that is no different than the belief in God.

my bad. i didn't know leaving yourself open to the possibilities of the future was a belief, as opposed to closing the curtain right now and just saying "it's an eternal mystery, might as well give up".

I wasn't clear or I misunderstood you. I took "just because we're not capable of understanding something today, doesn't mean we never will" that you think/believe that we will have the answers to everything at some point and that it's all knowable. If you do believe this, what do you base this belief on?

this broad concept is essentially one of my major rationalizations for my belief in a god.

like bh put it, history suggests that everytime we hit a wall, we have come up with a way to go around or through it. so, even if/when we hit the hugest motherfucking wall imaginable, maybe we just need to find a big fucking badass hammer to pound it down with. and even if we fail at that, it doesn't mean the wall can't come down, or that nobody can get through it, it just means WE failed to bring it down/go around it.

in other words, i believe that if we fail to get to fully know the universe, it won't be because it can't be known, but because our own inherent limitations prevent us from doing so.

Basically this concept is known as The God of the Gaps, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Thats fuckin great

this is the general idea i thought of when i read this story. the author of this piece writes:



i would substitute spirituality with something like "any religious belief or enterprise."

Would you say this is a rational or irrational belief that you possess?

i do not hold belief that it is absolutely all knowable, and that we will or can one day know it all (certainty is a bitch), but i do not see how this belief conflicts with my confidence in science (and more) to continue to remove layers and batter ignorance to the fringe of our societies. and why? because science has done a pretty damn good job in a short amount of time. the statement that "just because we're not capable of understanding something today, doesn't (neccessarily) mean we never will," is absolutely right, and is backed by centuries of scientific discoveries.

this is getting tiring, i don't know what you're trying to get at. and it's kind of useless too because, even if/when we hit a dead end, how can we be certain it is actually THE dead end? how do we know there's no way around it? the only answer is to keep looking.

is it irrational to believe that we should continue looking for actual answers instead of just sitting back and making up stories in our heads or puting "belongs to god" and "belongs to the spiritual realm" stickers on whatever we don't currently understand?

maybe you could enlighten us with your own take on the subject.