ichthyoid

I was listening to this discussion the other day on a Youtube channel called Unbelievable. In it, the topic of the origins of the universe was debated between Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig.

I admire both men greatly, as they have both contributed some amazing work in their respective fields. Sir Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist who has done tremendous work in astrophysics, including the famous Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, which substantiated the Big Bang singularity at the beginning of the known universe. William Lane Craig, on the other hand, is a Christian philosopher who is known for his apologetic and philosophical work on the existence of God. While I have no idea if the two men have actually met prior to the video event, Craig often cites Penrose in his arguments, despite Penrose being an atheist.

So it was a no-brainer for me to immediately click and watch the inevitably fascinating discussion between the two on the topic. As I listened though, something odd became apparent to me that I had never noticed before while listening to debates in general. It seemed to me that, while both men are intellectual athletes who are highly respected in their fields, as they discussed their perspectives on the issue, they seemed to have missed that they were really answering two different questions.

Upon realizing this, I thought it would be interesting to explore this a little in a blog post, and why I think in many cases, debates can often derail because the two sides are answering two different facets of a singular topic, and thus miss the mark on bringing a solution to the actual problem.

The Topic at Hand

As I watched the discussion, something Roger Penrose said stood out to me. After some personal introductions, the discussion started to center around what they believe was the cause of the origin of the universe. Penrose offered that there seems to be three different categories of reality: the reality of matter (i.e. physical objects), the reality of mind (or consciousness), and the reality of abstract objects (like mathematics). He refers to these as mysteries, since it's difficult for him to pinpoint a singular origin for all three of them.

Craig then offers that these three categories of reality can be coalesced with the mental reality being the source of origin behind both physical and abstract realities. The reasoning is that it seems that mental reality has causal properties which affect physical and mathematical reality. Thus, the postulate of a mind which is infinite in its scope and properties would seem to be sufficient to bring about the other three realities.

Penrose, then, at around the 22:44 minute mark, says this:

“I tend to put [universal origin] in the platonic mathematical world...I don't quite see why...a mental thing...I don't quite see why it helps.”

I won't go much into detail of the rest of the discussion, as I think listening to the actual video would probably be more helpful than me trying to summarize it. But I found it fascinating that Penrose fixated on abstract realities, while Craig focused on conscious realities. While some may be more inclined to agree with one side or the other, to me, it seems that these two men are actually answering different parts of the origins question. Penrose is answering how our origins came to be. Craig is focused on why.

The Difference Between How and ***Why
***Let me illustrate this.

I was vacuuming my house the other day, both because of COVID-19 and because it's spring, and that's typically when many people do an annual house cleaning. And since my mind tends to wander when I'm doing menial tasks, I began to apply the two different postulates to my vacuuming task.

From Penrose's point of view (this will be a bit reductionist, but simple examples are often easier to understand), the mechanism behind my vacuuming the house would be due to the fundamental physical principles behind the mechanisms of my body interacting with my vacuum interacting with the floor. These mechanics are undeniable. After all, the vacuuming could not happen if my vacuum did not hit the floor while turned on while also being in my hands as I slowly and methodically walked around my house. That is certainly how my house was being vacuumed.

But that doesn't answer the fundamental question of why. The vacuuming around the house was being done because of a mentally conscious person (me) making the decision to maintain and keep the house clean (a concept that is mental, since clean cannot be an objective, abstract idea), as well as keeping my wife happy.

And in this case, the why is just as important as the how. Of course it's important to understand how a vacuum works, how the laws of thermodynamics cause floors to become dirty over time, and whether my body has the minimal strength necessary to get the job done. But it's important to know why because, at least in this case, it tells us what the purpose of vacuuming is.

How and Why the “Whys” and Hows” are Important
I wish I had a better title for this section, but it's fun to see those juxtaposed. It's grammatically correct, but still uncomfortable to read out loud.

Many scientists and mathematicians would ask the same (inferred) question Penrose does, and having a background in psychology, I sympathize with their quandary. Because scientists and mathematicians thrive on precision and predictability, it's appropriate to understand that Penrose is actually asking about whether postulating an infinite mind could lead to predictable results. This is the essence of the scientific method—testable and falsifiable hypotheses which lead to definite conclusions.

Postulating an infinite mind brings such an incalculable number of variables that it would be as unpredictable as a real person randomly picked from some unknown part of the world. Which, to the scientific mind, is not a good way to find out falsifiable truths in the universe.

But postulating an infinite mind isn't always a bygone or unscientific conclusion. After all, even human beings tend to follow trends. And the scientific fields of psychology and sociology are meant to study how human beings behave and think, both in groups and as individuals. And by doing so, we can use the tendencies of human behavior to create better societies.

In the same way, from a scientific perspective, an infinite mind responsible for all categories of reality certainly can exist, but the question would be how to go about hypothesizing and testing such an existence. By doing so, we can come to understand the attributes of such a mind (i.e. whether benevolent or maleficent), and therefore come to see purpose in the universe in a better way. And purpose, as Penrose stated at the beginning of the discussion, is definitely evidential when we look at the cosmos today.

Bringing Unity in a Debate
Not all topics of debate have sides which can brought together this way. Many exist with perspectives that are mutually exclusive or inherently conflict with each other. But there are certainly many cases where the two sides can meet in the middle, if both were able to approach the topic with the right mindset.

In this day and age, debates seem to exist everywhere, and in every area of life. From religion to philosophy to science to politics. They even exist in popular and entertainment culture. And many grapple with the important questions in life.

But I think the idea of only one side winning a debate often defeats the purpose of having the debate at all. If only one side can be a victor, both sides are always battling and becoming more and more entrenched in their ideologies, rather than creating a positive and useful exchange of ideas.

In this way, I've recently found that discussions and conversations to be better than formal debate. When we have conversations where multiple parties are willing to be wrong, while still presenting the best of their ideas, it can become a healthier competition for the betterment of everyone.

Header Image credit to Pixabay.