Kalam Cosmological Arguments of Huduth and Imkan in light of Modern Scientific Discoveries

Humankind has grappled with the questions surrounding God, life, and creation for as long as we can remember (Gülen 2006, 3-4). Historically, philosophers and theologians have sought to produce systematic and rigorous arguments to rationally prove the existence of the Divine through the means of logical deduction (Gök 2018, 10). One such argument that has been synthesized is that of the kalam (the Islamic theology), a cosmological argument which has provided a historical and modern basis for those seeking to validate the existence of God (Gök 2018, 10-13). This argument has come under particular examination in contemporary circles where modern scientific discoveries are seen to both challenge, and support, the existence of God and hence establish a valid basis upon which to argue either case. This essay will thus seek to discuss the validity of the kalam cosmological argument, and its subsets, in relation to two modern scientific discoveries: the Big Bang theory, and the concept of virtual particles.

The kalam cosmological argument consists of two subset arguments: the huduth (cosmological) argument and the imkan (contingency) argument (Craig & Moreland 2009, 101-102). Historically, notable Muslim theologians, such as Imam Al-Ghazali, utilized this argument as a testament to the proof of God’s existence (Copan & Craig 2017, 5-7). Within the modern Western philosophical and theological context, this theory has been refined by the works of William Lane Craig (Waters 2015). Regarding the huduth (cosmological) argument, Craig summarised the premise of the argument as follows: the universe either had, or did not have, a beginning; if the universe had a beginning then it was either caused or not caused; if there was a cause then this was because of an external and powerful being (Doko 2018). As can be inferred, the argument is based on a question of origins, causality, and in regard to the two preceding arguments, validating that the cause of the universe is external.

In assessing the validity of the huduth argument, the Big Bang theory can be utilized. In modern science, the Big Bang theory has been established as the leading paradigm for the origins of the universe (Paulson et al, 2015). The theory purports that the universe, and all that is contained within it, had a singular starting point whereby from this singularity, the universe has been inflating for what has been calculated as 13.8 billion years (Gonzalo 2008, 207-240). The first premise of the huduth argument is one of origins. The Big Bang postulates that the universe was derived from a singular starting point, with the key being that it indeed had a starting point. Scientists have been able to calculate the age of the universe through utilising data obtained through calculation and observation (Paulson et al, 2-3). In knowing that the universe has an age, and therefore a beginning, one can thus logically deduce that it must have had a point of origin. This complies with the first component of the huduth argument in that the universe indeed must have had a “beginning,” thus validating the first premise.

The Big Bang theory also complies with the second premise of causality. It is accepted by scientists and philosophers alike that in order for an effect to manifest itself within the natural world, there must be a cause to bring about the effect (Rabins 2013, 6-25). Upon accepting the first premise that the universe had a beginning, the universe itself must, therefore, be the manifestation or effect of a preceding cause. Though models such as Stephen Hawking’s “no-boundary-proposal” have been theorized to provide contradictory explanations for the causation of the universe, these have been later disproven by physicists (Wolchover 2019). In this regard, the notion that the universe came into existence without a cause is not logical, thus validating the second premise of the huduth argument.

The last premise argues that once it is accepted that the universe has a cause then this cause must be an external, all-powerful being. Studies into the observed universe are based largely on natural laws and observations that are measurable (Paulson et al, 2-3). Any cause beyond these natural laws of the known universe would thus be “unnatural” and potentially Divine (Ergi 2015). Though the multiverse theory has been proposed as an alternative to a transcendent, external being, the fact still remains that there logically must have been a first universe with an external cause that would then cause the proceeding universes that follow. As such, the third premise of the huduth argument proves itself to be valid, thus validating the argument as a whole.

In addition to the Big Bang, the theory of virtual particles can be used to attest to the validity of the huduth argument. Virtual particles are quantum fluctuations that shift between observed existence and non-existence (Daywitt 2009, 27-28). Historically thought to be empty and full of “nothing,” the vacuum of space has been theorised to contain these finite particles [16]. Through calculation, virtual particles come into existence with a measurable beginning and not out of what appears to be nothing (Jaeger 2009, 144). Physicists have conceived that the particles themselves are in fact not independent, rather that they rely on other quantum interactions and certain laws of physics in order to manifest (Falkenburg 2007, 258-260). In this regard, they have a beginning point of origin. As such, they can be seen to comply with the first premise of the huduth argument. Though virtual particles do appear to come in-and-out of existence there are a number of causal factors that must provide the right conditions for their appearance such as the vacuum-like conditions of interstellar space, the interactions of surrounding “real” particles as well as the mass of these “real” particles (Falkenburg 2007, 58). It is thus perceivable that the particles are caused by several factors and do not come into existence out of non-existence without a cause which adheres to the second premise. The third premise of the huduth argument points to an external cause or creator. As was argued above, virtual particles have a cause and this cause is external to themselves. They cannot create themselves from nothingness and manifest due to the interactions of the real particles around them, which give rise to conditions that are conducive to their appearance. As such, this complies with the logic of the third premise of the huduth argument, as virtual particles require external causes in order to come into existence. Thus, the validity of the huduth argument holds firm when applied to this concept.  

The example of the Big Bang Theory and the concept of virtual particles can also be used when assessing the validity of the imkan (contingency) argument. This argument posits that everything that exists is either necessary or contingent (Ergi, 9). When classified as contingent, it is postulated that something can either exist or not exist, and that if it does exist then this existence is dependent upon factors that are external to it (Gülen 2006, 3-4). The idea that creations within the known universe are contingent is logical, as it can be deemed that nothing exists without a cause (Doko 3-4). In this regard, it is possible to say that contingent items within the universe, including the universe itself, are dependent upon that which is “necessary” and outside of themselves (Yaran 2003, 181-187). The Big Bang Theory provides a solid basis on which to assess the validity of the imkan argument. Everything within the universe originated from that moment, thus the universe is perceivable as having temporal existence (Walles 2016). In being a temporal entity, it is thus contingent on a cause that is external to itself. It would seem illogical that time, space, energy, and matter created themselves as they are contingent elements devoid of consciousness and reliant on physical laws hence would not have been able to exist beyond the Big Bang prior to it occurring. As such, the universe, being contingent and unable to necessitate its own existence, must have been created by a necessary agent. Though this necessary agent has been speculated to be a preceding universe, such as in the multiverse theory, this would propel reality into an infinite regress, a chain of causes contingent on the one before it, a notion deemed to be implausible (Yaran, 181-183). Accordingly, these multiverses would also have to be temporal in disposition and hence the same issue of an eventual point of origin manifests. The logical conclusion is thus that the necessary agent must exist beyond what is known, namely a transcendent being that is beyond temporality and materiality, and thus the logic of the imkan argument is valid.

This principle is similarly seen within the example of virtual particles. These particles are observed to come in-an-out of existence within the vacuum of space (Jaeger, 144). However, this activity is contingent upon necessary conditions, such as the existence of the vacuum itself, quantum interactions based upon the uncertainty principle, as well as surrounding real particles (Greene, 424-425). If any of the aforementioned factors were not present then the existence of virtual particle would only be a probable outcome and not a necessary outcome, similar to that of the universe, in a way that these particles do not necessitate their own existence and are dependent on an external and necessary cause. In this regard, the concept of virtual particles demonstrates the validity in the logic of the imkan argument thus demonstrating the validity of the kalam cosmological argument.

The success of whether an argument is logically valid can be assessed based on the plausibility of the premise presented by the argument (Doko, 4). As is evident, the kalam cosmological argument has been examined with a discussion of its two subset arguments. These arguments have been contrasted against the two scientific discoveries of the Big Bang Theory as well as the concept of virtual particles. Evidently, by its very nature, the kalam cosmological argument is based on sound deductive logic where both its branches contain premises that reach their respective conclusions using logic and rationality. As such, the kalam cosmological argument proves itself to be valid and this has been exemplified by superimposing the matrix of this argument onto real, modern-day scientific discoveries.

REFERENCES

• Copan, Paul and Craig, William Lane. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Arguments for the Finitude of the Past. New York: Bloomsbury, 2017. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LtI2DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Kalam+Cosmological+Argument:+Philosophical+Arguments+for+the+Finitude+of+the+Past&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuxfDOt5fpAhU4lEsFHePeBNIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Craig, William Lane and Moreland, James Porter. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/William_Lane_Craig__J._P._Moreland_The_BlackwellBookZZ.org_.pdf
• Daywitt, William. “The Source of the Quantum Vacuum.” Progress in Physics 2, 1 (2009): 27-28, http://www.ptep-online.com/.
• Doko, Enis. “Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Modern Science.” Kader 16, 1 (2018): 3, doi: 10.18317/kaderdergi.417640.
• Ergi, Omer Atilla. 2015. Is it Possible to Conclusively Prove the Existence of God? Melbourne: Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilization Charles Stuart University
• Falkenburg, Birgitte. Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality. Berlin: Springer, 2007.https://books.google.com.au/books?id=EbOz5I9RNrYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Particle+Metaphysics:+A+Critical+Account+of+Subatomic+Reality&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7lt3f8JbpAhWKc30KHbIcDNwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Gok, Hakan. Atheism or Theism? The Perspective of Said Nursi. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2018.
• Gonzalo, Julio. The intelligible universe: an overview of the last thirteen billion years. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2008. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/reader.action?docID=1193384&ppg=222
• Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory Surrey: Vintage, 2000.
• Gulen, Fethullah. The Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Sommerset, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2006.
• Jaeger, Gregg. “Are Virtual Particles Less Real?. ” Entropy 21, 2 (2009): 144, doi: 10.3390/e2102014.
• Paulson, Steve., Albert, David., Holt, Jim and Turok, Neil. “The origins of the universe: why there is something rather than nothing?,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 13611, 1 (December 2015): 2-17, doi: 10.1111/nyas.12859.
• Rabins, Peter. The Why of Things: Causality in Science, Medicine and Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/reader.action?docID=1103422
• Walles, Mathew. “The Existence of God- According to Muslim Theologians and Thinkers.” Fountain Magazine, 1 May, 2016. https://fountainmagazine.com/2016/issue-111-may-june-2016/the-existence-of-god-according-to-muslim-theologians-and-thinker
• Waters, Benjamin Victor. “Toward a new kalam cosmological argument.” Cogent Arts and Humanities 2, 1 (2015): 2, doi: 10.1080/23311983.2015.1062461.
• Wolchover, Natalie. “Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning.” Quantamagazine, Jun 6, 2019. https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/.
• Yaran, Cafer S. Islamic Thought on the Existence of God. Washington: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2003. https://fountainmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/IIA-16-Contents-4f8.pdf

All human beings have similar organs, but each organ has qualities unique to itself and to the person it belongs to. Research has revealed that even some of the genes of monozygotic twins are different [1]. As opposed to the previous assumption that “when it comes to DNA, every cell in the body is essentially identical to every other cell,” it has been found that each cell has a DNA of its own [2]. This uniqueness originates from the fact that the order and number of molecules and proteins are different, which is valid for atoms and sub-atom particles as well. Having spent countless hours on microscopes and spectroscopes, a university professor of mine once said, “I witnessed different structures of iron atom each time I observed one. We even need to produce a separate periodic table for the iron element alone.”

We also witness that particles have been created uniquely, just like human beings are. From the micro universe (one millionth of a meter) down to femto universe (one quadrillionth of a meter), each particle is called a boson or fermion. When particles are examined to find out in what conditions they resemble each other in the femto universe, doors of a new world will be opened in terms of knowledge and contemplation. According to this new perspective, while the things and events are sometimes explained through mathematical equations and formulations, they are sometimes explained through experiments of thought trying to attain the truth behind them. Pauli exclusion principle is one such experiment.

Pauli Principle

There are around 380 sub-atomic particles [3]. In atomic and subatomic dimensions, two fermions (e.g. two electrons) of an atom cannot have the same set of quantum numbers. Wolfgang Pauli first explained this principle in 1925 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945 after experiments proved that the theory was correct. This theory has gone down in history as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The motion equations of subatomic particles are expressed by their magnetic states. Pauli said that none of the electrons of an atom can share the same quantum state at the same time. In other words, two electrons in the same atom cannot share the physical features such as magnetism, motion, position and velocity in the same state [2].

In addition to the three quantum numbers (principal, subordinate, and magnetic quantum numbers) described so far, Pauli defined a quantum number for the spin of a fermion (e.g. electron). The spin quantum number is related to the rotation of the electron around its axis because an electron rotates around its own axis as it rotates around the atomic nucleus. According to the Pauli Principle, if an orbit has an electron with a spin of 1/2, an electron with a spin of -1/2 can be placed in the same orbit. If we assume that the spin of an electron rotating clockwise is 1/2 the spin of an electron rotating counterclockwise will be -1/2. Thus, with Pauli’s contribution, four quantum numbers were defined for subatomic particles and it was stated that even if the other three quantum numbers were the same, electrons with different spin quantum numbers could circulate in the same orbit.

The Pauli Principle shows that atoms are not identical. This principle also applies to solid crystals, that is, the materials we use daily. The Principle is also able to explain the fact that the ores that make up the element are different, and the fact that there are different elements in the periodic table. With this principle, important properties of superconductors have been discovered.

In 1927, based on the Pauli Principle, German physicist Karl Werner Heisenberg showed that it is not possible to measure the physical properties of a particle, such as the position and momentum, at the same time and that these results can only be expressed with uncertain probability and statistics [5].

This uniqueness also manifests itself in the space we call the macro world. Stars consisting of only neutrons are called neutron stars. A neutron star is very dense: its mass is 2–3 times that of the Sun, but only about 10 km in diameter. A neutron star should theoretically collapse into a black hole, but this does not happen. The reason for this, it has been discovered, is that neutrons that cannot share the same position prevent collapse and that neutron stars remain in balance [6].

The universe has been created with balance, and everything, from the minutest particles to the stars in the outer space, follows their particular courses to maintain the order.

References

1. scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-exhibit-d/
2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715131449.htm
3. lbl.gov/2017/listings/contents_listings.html
4. wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli
5. phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
6. phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html

Radiation, which refers to emissions of light or particles, is a type of energy transfer. Radiation takes place at any given moment in the environment or the body. Among sources of radiation to which humans are exposed daily are sun rays, radio waves coming from devices such as mobile phones and TV sets, appliances such as ovens or irons that emit heat, and medical machines such as ultrasounds. The radiation emitted from devices and machines do not cause ionization. Ionizing radiation is made up of high-energy wavelengths or particles, and this is the kind of radiation we get from x-ray, CT, and nuclear imaging. This is used to penetrate tissue to reveal the body’s internal organs and structures. Ionizing radiation can damage DNA, and when our cells cannot fully repair the damage, this may result in DNA mutations.[1] The radiation which poses real danger to humans and has the power to ionize is when radioactive—or unstable—atoms decay and emit alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) rays.

The earth, air, water, and all living things are more or less radioactive because radioactive atoms are everywhere. The average person is annually exposed to radiation levels of 2.6 – 10 mSv (millisievert), which is not that alarming. The maximum limit recommended for people exposed to radiation for occupational reasons is 100 mSv. The lungs of a person who smokes one pack of cigarettes a day are exposed to an annual radiation of 106 mSv.

How can we protect ourselves?

It is recommended by the World Health Organization that children younger than 16 should not use mobile phones; when they do, their calls should not exceed 10 minutes. When purchasing devices, you should also take into account its SAR (Specific Absorption Rate). Prefer devices with a SAR<1 W/kg. It is also recommended to unplug electrical devices when you are not using them, to keep electrical appliances as far away from your head as possible, use the hairdryer for short periods and in intervals, and to avoid using mobile phones for long conversations (or use headphones!).

It’s also worth reconsidering whether using radiation-emitting devices such as mammography, x-rays, or ultrasounds are absolutely necessary. In 2010, the British Department of Health and Social Care banned using tomography for screening purposes. Another study in the US found that one in ten people are exposed to high levels of radiation because of medical tests.

The average radiation rates (mSv) a person was exposed to during use of certain imaging devices is as follows:

Researchers also found that employees in nuclear power plants were exposed to amounts of radiation that far exceeded allowable amounts.

Beware of radon

The natural radiation humans are exposed to most is the gas radon. Some matter with radioactive atoms such as uranium and thorium – both present in the earth since its birth – emit radon, which seeps through the earth and into the walls of houses and through gaps in plumbing. It is recommended to air houses at least 15 minutes every 24 hours as the only way to be protected from radon.

The resistance of living things

Creatures have been created with different forms of resistance to the elements, including radiation. For example, dogs have a lower resistance than humans, while many other creatures such as rabbits, tortoises, and fruit flies have a higher resistance. And then there is the cockroach, which can survive even a nuclear attack. The lethal radiation dose for cockroaches is an incredible 670- 1000 Sv, whereas it is 6-8 Sv for humans.

Scorpions are also much more radiation-resistant than humans. They can withstand up to 1500 Sv, an amount that is 250 times the maximum dose humans can take. Studies have found a correlation between the strength of a scorpion’s venom and their resistance to radiation. The greater the amount of venom, the greater the resistance they have. The presence of the neural transmitter serotonin supports this view.

Are humans radioactive too?

Humans contain trace amounts of radioactive atoms, namely uranium (²³⁸U), potassium (⁴⁰K), and carbon (¹⁴C). An 80 kg human has natural radiation of 8000 becquerel every second, which is equal to 100Bq per kilogram. This amount is not high enough to cause any worry. The human body has 40 trillion cells on average, and every cell has about 100 trillion atoms. The proportion of the radiating atoms in the body is about 8000/4×10²¹.

Precision protection

The radioactive atoms in the body with the highest probability for carcinogenic effects are potassium (⁴⁰K) and carbon (¹⁴C) atoms. The decomposition that leads to cancer stems from mutations in genes, but the molecules that are the building blocks of genes do not have potassium atoms. The likelihood that a cell gets harmed is very low: it is necessary that the particles emitted from the radioactive potassium atom crash into the DNA molecule and harm it, which is as unlikely as threading a needle when blindfolded. The DNA is precisely protected inside the nucleus located at the center of the cell. If we consider the fact that the average diameter of a cell is about 10 microns (1 micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter), we can better appreciate how little space DNA occupies.

Radiocarbon atoms (¹⁴C), on the other hand, might be present in DNA molecules, and they are more dangerous because the emitted particles are more likely to find the target despite having weaker radioactive properties than potassium. A radioactive carbon atom turns into a nitrogen (¹⁴N) atom and may thus cause a chemical change in the DNA. In other words, the carbon atom is possibly to blame for the unexpected development of cancer.

The likelihood of harmful radioactive particles hitting a person’s DNA is low, and the protective system provided for it lowers the likelihood of developing cancer even more. New DNA molecules that form during DNA coupling are repeatedly checked by inspector enzymes. If there is an error, it is detected and then corrected. The broken code is taken out to be replaced with the correct version. Meanwhile, all these steps are checked by other enzymes assigned to the task. More errors might be made in the newly produced DNA molecule because of external factors. Yet ribosomes in the cell start to produce repair enzymes, as per the instructions from the DNA.

When thinking about all the protective factors that have been coded into the DNA for our survival against the 8000 radioactive activities that occur in our body every second, one cannot help but feel awe for the infinite mercy and wisdom that operate in our lives.

References

• http://time.com/5069317/california-mobile-phone-radiation/
• https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging
• Choppin, G. et al., Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology, 1995.
• www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging

However, none of these movies properly – or accurately – explains radiation. Regardless of what you do and where you are on a typical day, you are being exposed to millions of particle showers – another term for radiation – at all times. Radiation is all around us, but we are not turning into monsters, giants, or any other kind of creature. We do not even sense most of the radiation unless the harmful effects reach the detectable level. In fact, radioactive isotopes (the sources of radiation) found in water, air, soil, and most places in the environment have been emitting radiation since the Big Bang ^[1], which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago.

Radiation can be emitted by both natural and man-made sources ^{[2, 3]}. There are generally two main types of natural radiation: radiation from natural sources, such as elements in the ground, is terrestrial, and radiation from outer space, such as charged particles and gamma rays, is cosmic. For example, at this very moment you are being bombarded with cosmic rays every few seconds. On the other hand, the main human-made source of radiation exposure is from medical sources like nuclear medicine, x-rays, computed tomography (CT) scans, etc.

There are various types of radiation emitted by the sun. The most widely recognized forms are visible light, infrared, ultraviolet (UV), x-ray, and gamma radiation. We can only see the visible light, which is defined as having a wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum between 400-700 nm (a nanometer, or nm, is approximately 10-9 meter). Some of the other kinds of light have greater wavelengths, and some have smaller. In short, visible light’s region is a very narrow part of the wide EM spectrum.

Why can our eyes see only within this limited range? There are several reasons ^[4]: solar emissions, low absorption in the atmosphere, the energy of chemical bonds, the optical properties of matter, black-body emissions, and so on. Unless all these reasons align into a specific rhythm, we cannot see the kind of light. There are many laws determining light, and the fact that we can see even some light is quite remarkable, and a sign of how perfectly calibrated the universe is.

Misfits of the standard model: Neutrinos

Following our discussion of radiation, I would like to focus on one particular type of radiation: neutrinos. Neutrinos are created in certain types of radioactive decay and nuclear reactions, such as those occurring in the sun. They are one of the most abundant particles in the universe; billions of them pass harmlessly through your body, unnoticed. David Griffiths, a physicist at Reed College, describes neutrinos in his book on particle physics ^[5]:

“…neutrinos interact extraordinarily weakly with matter; a neutrino of moderate energy could easily penetrate a thousand light years of lead. That’s a comforting realization when you learn that hundreds of billions of neutrinos per second pass through every square inch of your body, night and day, coming from the sun.”

In total, there are three kinds of neutrino flavors, as they are called. These are electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, and tau neutrinos. Each kind has a tiny mass. According to the Standard Model, there are three kinds of particles in the universe: “light-weight” leptons, “mid-weight” mesons, and “heavy-weight” baryons, such as protons and neutrons. Neutrinos are in the lepton family, which, in total, has only six particles; they have weak interactions within the universe. Neutrinos are neutral leptons since they are chargeless. Other leptons, electron, muon, and tau are called as charged leptons.

The Standard Model is one of the fundamental models in experimental high-energy physics explaining how the universe came into being. Well-known scientists are still improving the model to categorize particles properly in the universe with the aim of finding missing particles. The model explains very well the fundamental forces governing the world: strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, gravitational force, and electroweak force. There were, frankly, two contradictions challenging the Standard Model until today: the Higgs mechanism ^[6] and the mass of neutrinos. The model predicted that Higgs boson ^[6] is the particle responsible for all the mass in the universe. CERN, the biggest particle accelerator^[7] on earth, announced in July 2012 that they had found a particle that behaves like the Standard Model predicted Higgs boson would. Scientists at CERN are still striving to understand the identity and features of this discovered particle. If they achieve that, they can unravel the mystery and origins of the universe a little bit more. At the end, only the mass of neutrinos will remain a controversial topic within the model.

The Standard Model predicted that neutrinos were chargeless and massless particles. However, cosmic, reactor, and accelerator neutrino experiments, which are the main three experiment types to track neutrinos, confirmed each other on the subject of neutrino oscillation. Neutrino oscillation, in short, means that they can change their flavors. For example, a tau neutrino can convert to an electron neutrino, and vice versa. This discovery shows that these particles can be chargeless but not massless. Each of them has to have small, different masses to be able to perform flavor conversions, according to the laws of physics. That is why these particles are usually called the misfits^[8] of the Standard Model.

Since each particle was produced with its antiparticle, according to Dirac’s theory of pairs^[9], neutrinos also have their antiparticles, so there are actually six types of neutrinos in the universe. Each antiparticle has exactly the same properties as the original particle, just with the opposite charge. What about the chargeless neutrinos? The difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos is their spin behavior, not their charge. They both have zero charge; however, antineutrinos have a right-handed spin and neutrinos have a left-handed spin.

If each particle has its own antiparticle in theory, there should be the same amount of particles and antiparticles in the universe. However, experimental results show that there are more particles than antiparticles. There are a lot of scientists explaining this dilemma by accepting a parallel universe in which there are more antiparticles than particles, so the total would still be the same. In return, some others are trying to clarify this contradiction by accepting that more particles were created at the beginning of the universe, approximately 14 billion years ago.

Acknowledgment: This article is produced at Mergeous ^[10], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and religion.

References

[1] Kaya, A. 2009. “The Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang: A Qur’anic Perspective,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 68.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
[3] http://www.chem.duke.edu/jds/cruise_chem/nuclear/exposure.html
[4] Why can we see visible light? 2007. Physics Education, 42(1), pp. 37-40.
[5] David Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles.
[6] Kara, Cihan. 2013. “Will CERN Reveal the Origin of the Universe or Cause the End,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 92.
[7] http://home.web.cern.ch/
[8] Symmetry Magazine, A Joint Fermilab/SLAC Publication, Spring 2013.
[9] Mahmood B. S. 2009. “The Holy Qur’an and Dirac’s Theory of Pairs,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 68.
[10] Mergeous, Online article and project development platform, http://www.mergeous.com

Observing Majorana fermions in the ferromagnetic atomic chains on a superconductor. Nadj-Perge et al. Science, October 2014.

In the universe, matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, they destroy each other in a flash of energy. In 1937, an Italian theoretical physicist named Ettore Majorana had proposed that there can be unique exceptions to this rule: a stable particle could exist in nature that is both matter and antimatter. Scientists have been looking for that indefinable particle, also known as the “Majorana fermion,” for seventy years. A group of researchers recently reported that they were able to detect the Majorana particle which behaves simultaneously like matter and antimatter. Researchers designed an experimental system allowing them to observe an emergent particle inside a material. They first generated an extended chain of pre magnetic iron atoms on a superconductor made of lead. Then, they cooled the material to -272 C, just about one point above absolute zero, and monitored it using a giant two-story-tall scanning-tunneling microscope, which can track electrical signal changes with very high precision. Finally, they were able to capture a glowing image of an electrically neutral particle at the ends of atomically thin iron wires. The Majorana particle was surprisingly stable and the opposing properties make the particle neutral so that it interacts very weakly with its environment. The discovery of the Majorana particle has exciting implications for several areas of modern physics, engineering, and astrophysics. For example, Majorana particles are very similar to neutrinos, as they both have very weak interactions with the matter. Neutrinos are thought to make up most of the dark matter that fill the Cosmos. Perhaps, neutrinos are simply Majorana-like particles and Majorana particles are also a candidate for what dark matter is. As an industrial application, Majorana particles can be utilized in quantum computing which aims to create computers to handle incalculable systems. The current quantum computing technology uses electrons, but they are known to be very unstable due to high interaction rates with surrounding materials. However, since Majorana particles are neutral and highly stable, they can be engineered into a variety of materials to produce more reliable and powerful quantum computing applications.

The Bitter Side of Artificial Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut’s microbiota. Suez J. et al. Nature, September 2014.

There have been conflicting and confusing findings about the health effects of artificial sweeteners over the past several decades. Some studies found that they cause weight loss and others found the exact opposite. Some studies linked them to diabetes and other studies argued otherwise. A recent study provided a series of experimental evidences that artificial sweeteners disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, and thus may cause metabolic diseases and diabetes. Researchers, using animal models and human studies, found that sweeteners significantly alter the gut’s microbiome – the collective name of bacterial colonies living in our intestines. The composition of our gut microflora plays a critical role protecting us from pathogenic bacteria, the metabolism of indigestible components of our diet, and modulating development and regulation of the immune system. Sweeteners – in the form of saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame – are found to alter the mix of microbes in our intestines and consequently change how our bodies metabolize glucose. Constant use of sweeteners in mice and human test groups caused typical glucose intolerance symptoms in which glucose levels rose higher after eating and declined more slowly than expected. Glucose intolerance can ultimately lead to serious illnesses like metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes. Although this study will cause a lot of discussions and headaches in the food industry, the link identified between microbiome and glucose intolerance will definitely inspire novel therapeutic approaches to metabolic disorders such as diabetes.

Brainy Fingertips

Edge-orientation processing in first-order tactile neurons. Pruszynski JA and Johansson RS. Nature Neuroscience, August 2014

A new study found that neurons in human skin are able to perform advanced calculations that scientists thought only the brain was capable of performing. A group of sensory neurons that extend into the skin and record touch are called first-order neurons in the tactile system. Each nerve ending branches in the skin to form about 5mm2 elliptical receptive field, with up to 8 highly sensitive zones that are unevenly distributed within the field. It turns out that these neurons not only transmit information about when and how intensely an object is touched to the brain, but they also send complex information about the touched object’s shape. Researchers found that the sensitivity of individual neurons to the shape of an object depends on the layout of the neuron’s highly-sensitive zones in the skin. Computations that require untangling geometric shape information are classified as feature extraction computations in neuroscience and are typically attributed to the immensely complex circuits of the cerebral cortex. This study showed that neuronal populations localized outside of the brain, such as first-order tactile neurons, can have advanced processing capacity similar to brain neurons. These results can also potentially improve treatments for nerve injury and rehabilitation, as scientists previously assumed that the cerebral cortex was doing all the work.

In his book, Flew states, “I should point out, moreover, that this is not the first time I changed my mind on a fundamental issue. Among other things, readers who are familiar with my vigorous defense of free markets may be surprised to learn that I was once a Marxist …” Flew in fact consistently mentions throughout his book that it is not actually the first time he changed his mind. These statements may disappoint those readers who want to hear more reliable arguments on the question of God. However, as a philosopher, Flew is confident in his decision and leaves it to readers to decide how to deal with his reasons for changing his mind. Given the possibility of progress in philosophy, Flew considers it a principle to follow the argument wherever it may lead him. Therefore, before reading this book, one should keep in mind that the book has a philosophical perspective rather than a religious one. Philosophical thought is inherently unbiased (or unguided) and quite evolutionary as opposed to any given religion (say Christianity, Islam or Judaism), which usually has its own well-defined and self-consistent structure.

It is not possible in this short article to summarize all of the reasons which led Flew to believe in God in the later stage of his life. Below, we mainly discuss how Flew’s decision was influenced by the origin of the laws of physics. We also show how his final thoughts compare with modern Muslim scholars Nursi and Gülen, who have roots in revelations rather than philosophy. Then we explain why we believe Flew’s methodology is not safe as long as it stays within the territories of traditional philosophy.

Laws of physics and “mind of God”

When Flew discusses the origin of the laws of physics (or undeniable design in the universe), he gives statements from the founders of quantum physics, all of whom connect the laws of nature with the “Mind of God,” as described by Einstein. He refers to Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac. Below, we only quote Schrodinger’s statement:

“The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow. It knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity of which we somehow form a part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God, with a capital ‘G.’ Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we have said this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow, if personally cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to the human mind?”

Nursi and Gülen, two great scholars of our modern times, have the following views on this. According to Nursi [2,3], only through the light of faith in God and His Divine Revelation, can humans understand their true essence, the universe that they reside within, their past, present, and their future. Otherwise, things and events surrounding them would be highly difficult to comprehend, because the only mechanism that would remain to interpret the purpose behind would be the ego equipped with limited knowledge and experience, which is too subjective to rely on and far from being convincing. Most of the time, the ego misguides people into the darkness and heedlessness. However, with the light of faith, believers do not fall into such catastrophes. Believers better understand and appreciate the universe and do not suffer as unbelievers do; rather they enjoy the whispering galleries in the universe and beyond.

Gülen’s perspective [2,4,5] is similar to Nursi. Although it might be possible for some brilliant scientists to discover how things work at the most fundamental levels of particles, it is impossible to fully comprehend how these particles actually constitute the whole in such a perfect harmony. This is because there is infinite knowledge of the Omniscient behind the scenes. Those who deny the existence of the Omniscient are shocked by the incredible harmony in nature and yet attribute it all to the creatures themselves. These limited, shortsighted perspectives and prejudices leave so many gaps in the quest for existence that the systems developed based on them cannot convince anyone, but rather open up greater questions in the heart, mind, and soul, all waiting to be answered. However, a person equipped with the former perspective can reach more conclusive results in very short times with much less efforts compared to those unbelievers who consume their lives to understand existence. Believers feel the signs of God in everything they explore and live their days as if in the avenues of Paradise. If the reason is integrated with the revelation, only then can it elevate us to the realms of the unreachable. It opens the doors to the true universe, which is otherwise hidden in darkness and chaos. With revelation, the universe turns into a great book of existence, telling about its Creator on every page. Then those struggling in emptiness and tyranny are awakened to humanistic ideals and the truth.

On the different pages of his book, Flew reminds the reader that scientists like Paul Davies and John Barrow have received the Templeton Prize for further developing the insights of Einstein, Heisenberg, and other scientists into theories of the relationship between the rationality of nature and the Mind of God. Flew draws attention to the existence of natural laws and cites Paul Davies, who says, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us.” The critical question Flew asks is, “whose laws?”

Flew thinks, no matter what, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. He says, “the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” Once the physical laws are set correctly, one can think of our resultant universe; however, the question that needs to be answered is ‘who set the laws and why did they set them this way?'”

Flew also reminds the reader of the following question related to the origin of life, a question that has not been answered: “How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and coded chemistry?” He quotes from Paul Davies again, “The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.” Flew makes an important distinction between this question and what is being addressed by “evolution.” He says that the latter is dealing with the interaction of chemicals, whereas the above question is interrogating how something (chemicals) can be intrinsically purpose driven.

Nursi explains this as follows [6]:

“If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance. To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato’s to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle’s worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over!”

Here Nursi argues that the intelligence and consciousness that are exhibited in the universe can only be understood by the existence of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One. He guides these mindless particles toward a Divine Determining and in accordance with the law. Nursi also draws attention to a subtle point which is missing in the philosophers’ question above. The particles and the law they are bound to are created so intelligently and consciously that they do not only give rise to the sustenance of the current universe, but we can tailor them for our future sustenance and well being. To give an example, consider a 10 billion year old particle, an electron. How did this particle lead to today’s electronic revolution? How did it know it could function one day as part of a flowing current in a computer chip?

Pilgrimage of reason is not safe

In his book, Flew considers three evidences which require an Intelligence explaining not only its own existence but also that of the world. These are the laws of nature, life, and the existence of the universe. Flew admits that the journey to his discovery of God has so far been a pilgrimage of reason. He has followed the argument where it has led him. The arguments led him to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being.

Although it’s quite impressive what Flew has gone through and he put forward reasonable arguments, no one can actually guarantee that his arguments will ultimately lead to Truth, since they can be neither proved nor disproved. Worse, a smarter philosopher or scientist may well appear in the future and challenge him. Then, how can we actually make sure that Flew is actually right in his arguments?

The answer is, “we can never be.” There is a need for a strong “point of support,” since science and philosophy alone, by definition, as admitted in Schrodinger’s statement above, cannot provide absolutely convincing arguments. If God exists and wants man to know Him, there is a need for a clear message immune from any kind of ambiguity and understandable by virtually anyone. Nothing would be clearer than direct revelations from God. Interestingly, there are, in fact, many verses in the Quran [7], for example, which draw attention to such clarity in God’s messages:

• “A.L.R. These are the Ayats of Revelation, of a Quran that makes things clear.” (The Rocky Tract 1)
• “We have already sent down to you verses making things clear, an illustration from (the story of) people who passed away before you, and an admonition for those who fear (Allah).” (The Light 34)
• “Thus we have sent down Clear Signs; and verily Allah guides whom He will!” (The Pilgrimage 16)
• “We have sent down to you Manifest Signs; and none reject them but those who are perverse.” (The Heifer 99)
• “A.L.R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail, from One Who is Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things):” (The Prophet Hud 1)
• “A Sura which we have sent down and which We have ordained: in it We have sent down Clear Signs, in order that you may receive admonition.” (The Light 1)
• “This is the Way of your Lord, leading straight: We have detailed the Signs for those who receive admonition.” (The Cattle 126)

Revealing the Message of God

Flew finishes his book with a very beautiful analogy of a satellite phone discovered by an island tribe. The sage in the tribe suggests that the phone is a medium of contact with other humans. After some investigation, the tribe confirms that the phone is connected to a network which transmits the voices of intelligent beings that exist. They go even further and decipher the patterns and rhythms and their whole world changes. Similarly the discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature-the communications network in this parable–has led the thinkers to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Although Flew summarizes his pilgrimage in a very beautiful fashion with such a parable, we should agree, however, that the direct revelation of God through his messengers is the integral part of this communication network. Even Flew subconsciously acknowledges the role of the “sage” in his parable.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced in Mergeous [8], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and spiritual thought. The longer and live version of the article [9] is also available in Mergeous for interested readers.

References

1. A. Flew, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” HarperCollins Publishers (New York, 2007).

2. Kainata Imanla Bakis, http://www.mergeous.com/projectcon.asp?aid=21

3. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sozler, Sayfa 281-299 (risaleinurenstitusu.org).

4. M. F. Gülen, “Islam’in engin ufku,” Yagmur, Sayi 30, Ocak-Mart 2006.

5. M. F. Gülen, “Marifet, Muhabbet ve Medyuniyet,” Kirik Testi, http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/?article_id=7978

6. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Flashes, pg. 237 (translated by Sukran Vahide).

7. A. Y. Ali, The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. (New York 2004).

8. Mergeous, Online article and project development service, mergeous.com

9. There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew (Review), http://www.mergeous.com/articlecon.asp?aid=16

The sun and the moon are by an exact calculation (of the All-Merciful) (55:5).
He has made the night for repose, and the sun and the moon a means for reckoning (the divisions of time). (6:96)
He it is Who has made the sun a radiant, illuminating light, and the moon a light reflected, and has determined for it stations, that you might know (how to compute) the number of the years and to measure (time). (10:5)
The number of the months, in God’s sight, is twelve, as determined and decreed by God on the day when He created the heavens and the earth (and set them moving in the present conditions). (9:36)
They ask you (O Messenger) about the new moons (because of the month of Ramadan). Say: “They are appointed times (markers) for the people (to determine time periods) and for the Pilgrimage.” (2:189)

The concept of time is not mentioned directly in the Qur’an. But there are numerous verses reporting a time period in which many words are repeatedly used to allude to it. “Age” (karn – plural: kurun), “month” (shahr), and “year” (sana, am, hijaj, and havlayn) are mentioned 20, 21, and 30 times respectively [1]. Regarding the concept of time, al-Taftazani says in his book Aqaidu’n Nasafi, “Time is used to describe things that have a beginning. Things that have a beginning depend on certain conditions. God is beyond all measurements and limitations” [2].

Islamic scholars divide time into two, “earthly-physical” and “spiritual-metaphysical,” and they describe current time as “psychological time,” “expanding time,” or “existential time.” According to Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, time is a mysterious coordinate that is in charge of regulating the material world and events. He describes biologic time as activity, growth, development, and speed: “However unmoving, constant, and static a clock outwardly appears, it is in a state of continuous movement in essence and inwardly. Likewise the world, which is a huge clock of the Divine Power, rolls or revolves unceasingly in continuous change and upheaval. Its two ‘hands’ of night and day show the passage of its seconds, and its ‘hands’ of years and centuries show the passage of its minutes and hours respectively. Time plunges the world into waves of decay and, leaving the past and future to non-existence, allows existence for the present only” (Twenty-Fifth Word, p. 455) [3].

From this conclusion of Bediuzzaman, we understand that different times are generated through perpetual flow of the heavenly bodies in space (moon, sun, planets and stars.) Bediuzzaman, in his evaluation of the metaphysical time, also states that all the existence in the universe, with their specific and suitable outfits obtained from the spiritual world, gains an image and flow in the river of time. He points to the fact that all beings continuously come from the future, arrive at current time for a rest, and join with the past, therefore allowing the formation of the time river: “What we call time, a mighty river flowing in creation, has a reality like everything else. Its reality is like the ink and pages of the writing of Power on the Tablet of Effacement and Reaffirmation. Only God knows the Unseen” (Tenth Letter, p. 59) [4]. Every moment of the reality of time is a stage of creation under the divine command of “Be, and it is” (Qur’an 2:117).

The creation of things and events in the present cosmos is initiated in the quantum world by the union of each particle to the existence in a chain of countless contingencies. The state before a matter enters the visible, sensible form (macroscopic state) is described, by Bediuzzaman, as the “sphere of contingency,” i.e. the realm of creation, while modern science names it as the quantum world and reality which is composed by n number of micro states in which contingent realities overlap.

The tablets (phases) that host the characteristic contingencies of creation via the instant transition of phases and increasing number of microstates are described as “the Tablet of Effacement and Reaffirmation [Lawh Mahw wa Ithbat])” by Bediuzzaman:

[T]hrough the Manifest Record’s dictates (namely, Divine Destiny’s decree and instruction), Divine Power uses particles to create or write the chain of beings, each link of which is a sign in the creation of things, on the metaphorical page of time (the Tablet of Effacement and Reaffirmation). Thus particles move because of that writing’s vibration and motion, which occurs while beings pass from the Unseen world to the manifest (material) world, from Knowledge to Power. The Tablet of Effacement and Reaffirmation is a slate for writing and erasing, an ever-changing notebook of the fixed and constant Supreme Preserved Tablet, and this latter Tablet’s notebook in the sphere of contingencies, where all things are unceasing manifestations of life and death, existence and ephemerality. This is the reality of time. What we call time, a mighty river flowing in creation, has a reality like everything else. Its reality is like the ink and pages of the writing of Power on the Tablet of Effacement and Reaffirmation. (Tenth Letter, Risale-i Nur Collection, pp. 58-59) [4]

In the Islamic philosophy of existence, the universe is represented as a book; the space-time union is as the union of pen and ink. The nature of existence and phenomena are explained with these representations.

The Preserved Tablet

Mentioned several times in the Qur’an, the Preserved Tablet (Imamun Mubin) and Manifest Record (Kitabun Mubin) (these are considered by some to refer to the same thing), encompass the present world with all its details and fineness, and each particle with their original and true forms that circulate within the infinite sphere of contingency. The transmission of registered events and particles in this book of knowledge through the sphere of contingency to the world of particles takes place in the Tablet of Effacement and Reaffirmation, or the quantum world that can be likened to a scratch pad. Phase transformations – the intercrossing of possible scenarios and overlapping representative images – here are not the reality itself but a variable, transitional, possible micro state reflection of it. The transition of the originals in the Supreme Preserved Book from a state of possibility to a present form, as from the spiritual to the material world, from unknown to the known, require particles to transform from one state to another (tahawwulat-i zarrat). These transitions of phases (vibrations) on the edges of the visible, determined world (space) generate the phenomenon of time. In fact, time follows creation in space (kawn). All of the images and the formations that are called existence in the cosmos are determiners of space.

In other words, space is a cosmos which transforms continuously from non-existence to existence. This way the universe becomes like a scratch pad and always new manifestations occur in the time river that flows through it. “Now is the time, now is the moment” is a mystical expression of this truth, which, for Ibn Arabi, is composed of a constant moment (an-i daim) and the true reality of time corresponds with the moment of manifestations of Divine Names over existence [5]. According to him, with the extreme power of Divine singular oneness over multiple beings, the earth gets terminated via the hand of non-existence every moment, because the existence of a world means that the non-existence of it has become a “moment.” This way, the Manifest One (al-Zahir) imposes His manifestation first on the hidden, then the Immanent One (al-Batin) imposes His immanence on the manifest; therefore the world continuously get terminated and created. At this stage, the Almighty wraps the current moment of things and events under His names the First (al-Awwal) and the Last (al-Akhir) into the past and the future. Later, the Manifest takes the authority, followed by the Immanent, allowing creation renewed until the doomsday.

Time, within its own relative nature, is thus a complex manifestation of the Divine names the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Immanent through the vibrations and movements of particles. The measurement of time is carried out over the movement and speed of the particles and objects. According to Ibn Arabi again, the continual renewal of similarities determined over time happens in such a way that as one thing gets terminated another similar thing (fractal) begins to get created instantaneously [5]. While, for instance, the color white disappears in the form of continual phase transitions, another white that is similar but not the same gets created. If an opposite black were to be created upon termination of the white color, this would disrupt the nature of the things. Existence and creation get renewed together, within the mysterious flow of time and the formation of space, every instant: “Every (moment of every) day, He is in a new manifestation (with all His Attributes and Names as the Divine Being)” (Qur’an 55:29).

Behind the fact that images are temporary and truth is eternal, stands the question of what the mysterious works of time and the reality of the matter really are. Every particle being created in the smallest frame of time, and therefore generating time and eventually flowing in this river that it has caused bears a wisdom of a divine law intertwined with a fine secret, a purpose that reads a universal meaning, an integrity among the opposites, existence in non-existence, and purpose in what seems to be without a purpose. There is no absurdity or anything that is against wisdom emerging from these states that rise as a result of deceptive conflict and limited willpower that seem as transforming, deforming, and dispersing formations and visual images in the sphere of contingencies. The expression of Imam Ghazali; “Nothing is better than what comes out of the sphere of contingencies,” is a beautiful declaration of the perfect wisdom and integrity of continual creation of all things in the page of the time.

References

1. Canan, Ibrahim. 2009. Islam’da Zaman Tanzimi [Time Management in Islam] Izmir: Akademi Yay. Third edition. p. 38.
2. Goodman, L. A. 1997. “Time in Islam,” Asian Philosophy, 2:1, 17.
3. Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. 2010. The Words: The Reconstruction of Islamic Belief and Thought. NJ: The Light, Inc.
4. Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. 2007. The Letters: Epistles on Islamic Thought, Belief, and Life. NJ: The Light, Inc.
5. Ibn-i Arabi. The Universal Tree and the Four Birds – Treatise on Unification (al-Ittihad al-kawni). Translated by Angela Jaffray. Anqa Publishing in association with Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society.

CERN, the most advanced physics laboratory on earth, announced on July 2012 that they had found a particle that behaved like the Higgs boson, a particle predicted almost 50 years ago to exist. This discovery has brought with it the possibility that the Higgs boson may be responsible for all the mass in the universe and that if it does really exist scientists can unravel the mystery and origins of the universe a little more.

Until the 18th century there was no precise distinction between philosophers and scientists. Philosophy and science merged when the ancient philosophers shaped science and improved scientific methods as we know today. Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna (Ibn-i Sina) and Descartes are a few of the greatest known philosophers in history. Most of the prospering scientists in different disciplines have been inspired by their works. For instance, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein, all highly regarded physicists, were heavily influenced by the works of ancient philosophers. All of the aforementioned physicists tried to understand the physical laws that governed energy, time, and space. Even now, modern physicists are still trying to answer some of the most important questions: What is the nature of the universe and what is it made of? Are there undiscovered physical laws of nature? Are there extra dimensions of space? How can we solve the mystery of dark energy?

Today, in order to understand the composition of matter and how the universe was created, the most prominent particle and high energy physicists are designing huge particle accelerators and detectors. Particle accelerators, also known as atom smashers, are devices that use electromagnetic fields to propel a group of charged particles (ions) to high speeds and collides them with other moving particles or a stationary target composed of a bunch of particles (http://public.web.cern.ch). Particle detectors (radiation detectors) are used to detect, track, visualize and identify particles produced from reactions in accelerators. Scientists analyze the results of the collisions and try to understand interactions between the basic constituents of matter. This is the basis of understanding the components of the universe. The largest and most complex of these scientific instruments is located at CERN, the most advanced physics laboratory on earth. Egin Lillestol, a particle physicist from the University of Bergen (Norway), says that [1] there is nothing quite like CERN anywhere else on earth.

What does CERN stand for? CERN is the French acronym of Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire which means European Council for Nuclear Research. It was founded in 1954. It attracts physicists and engineers from all over the world. According to CERN’s sources, half of the world’s particle physicists, about ten thousand scientists, are either doing active research or visiting there. They all work together toward their common goals of advancing technology, answering questions for better understanding the material world and training future scientists. CERN has also seen the development of many practical scientific applications other than those involved with high energy and particle physics. For instance, the world-wide-web was invented at CERN to allow international scientists to communicate and share their ideas more easily. From 1954 to present, scientists at CERN have received Nobel Prizes in Physics including Sam Ting, Burt Richter, Jack Steinberg and Georges Charpak.

CERN hosts the largest and highest energy particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is twenty-seven kilometers in circumference and about one hundred meters under the ground. The LHC enables scientists to collide two groups of particles such as protons and lead ions. Physicists analyze and study the particles that are created in the collisions to study conditions just after the Big Bang, the phenomenon that is believed to form the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Many people in the world are looking forward to see the results the LHC will be producing.

CERN: Black holes

Some people have expressed concerns about the safety of the collider at CERN. The biggest concern is whether or not an atom-smasher as big as the LHC could create black holes and destroy the earth. In 2003, LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) reported that the possible production of vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles and magnetic black holes at the LHC have no real risk. However, concerns about the safety of creating micro black holes in such a high energy particle accelerator have surfaced in the media for many years. Some media sites claimed that a black hole would be formed and destroy everything. Others announced that the LHC might cause earthquakes. According to the administrator of lhcfacts.org, a website in which scientists discuss the lack of safety at the LHC, the possibility of creating a micro black hole at CERN cannot be ignored, and there are two predictions about what that micro hole would be: according to the more optimistic outcome, the micro black hole evaporates before becoming a threat. According to the second prediction, however, the hole could grow quickly and endanger Earth. Eventually, the LSAG finished the discussion by reaffirming and publishing a second review which reports:

“The possibility of creating micro black holes at the LHC is at the rate of the order of one per second. These are harmless because they would quickly decay by hawking radiation (thermal radiation) according to standard calculations. They decay before even reaching the detector.”

Moreover, these kind of events, even with higher energies than those created in any man-made atom smasher, occur naturally and routinely in the universe. For example, ultra high energy cosmic rays (particles created in outer-space) come into contact with Earth’s atmosphere without any hazardous consequences. In brief, American physicist Karen D. Camarda said “If anything bad was going to happen, nature would have already done it.”

CERN: Higgs Boson

Another case which has dominated world news headlines mid-2012 was the Higgs boson, otherwise known as the “God particle.” What exactly is the Higgs boson and why is it called the God particle? The Higgs boson is a yet undiscovered particle which is taught to be a mechanism for how subatomic particles acquire mass. Most likely, it has a mass between the regions 115-130 GeV of energy. The Higgs mechanism was postulated by British physicist Peter Higgs in 1960s. The theory hypothesizes that the Higgs field, a kind of three dimensional frameworks, fills the universe. A particle borrows mass from the Higgs field when it moves through it. This is similar to the process that an electron undergoes as it gains mass when it passes through a positively charged crystal lattice of atoms. The “God particle” was coined as a nickname of the Higgs boson after Nobel prize winning physicist Leon Lederman published his popular science book in 1993 with the title of The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? Lederman said he gave the particle this nickname because it is “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter” [2]. To explain further, the term “God particle” is more applicable to marketing than to science and theology. According to many scientists, calling it the “God particle” is inappropriate because it does not have any connection with God or any religion. Many wonder what will happen if scientists find the Higgs boson. Brad Hirschfield, President of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership said in his article [3] in The Washington Post:

“While not exactly a theory of creation, finding the God Particle would bring us closer to an understanding of the fundamental processes that govern physical existence.”

Furthermore, some scientists admit that exploration in this field will be far from over even after the Higgs boson is found. Instead, the discovery will open doors to newer and more complex questions. For instance, Michio Kaku, the co-founder of String Theory, asserts [4] that finding the Higgs boson is not enough. He says that “we are at the beginning, not the end of physics. The adventure continues.” In spite of these sentiments, some people, including myself, believe that the discovery of the Higgs boson might reveal a very large missing piece in the physics puzzle.

Acknowledgment: This article is produced at Mergeous [5], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and religion.

Kara is a freelance pop-sci writer pursuing a PhD in Physics.

References

[1] CERN, “A Unique Experience,” http://user.web.cern.ch/

[2] Lederman, Leon M. 1993. The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?: A Tale of Two Particles and the Ultimate T-Shirt, Bantam Doubleday Publishing Group.

[3] Hirschfield, Brad. 2011. “The ‘God Particle’ and God,” The Washington Post.

[4] Kaku, Michio. 2011. “The ‘God Particle’ and the Origins of the Universe,” The Wall Street Journal.

[5] Mergeous, Online article and project development platform, http://www.mergeous.com

[11] DOE/NSF, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, Quantum Universe, The Revolution in 23st Century Particle Physics, 2003.

What are complex systems?

If there are multiple elements (variables/factors) interacting with each other in the creation of an event or a being, this structure is called a “Complex System.” For example, in the air system, air and water molecules are a factor. Plants and animals in an ecosystem can also be considered as a factor. These are interconnected to one another in a way hard to imagine and have impacts on each other. Systems with these specifications display complex situations throughout time. For example in the medical field, a disease is described multi-factorial if many factors (causes) take part in its development. However in the past, these laws, specifications, and progress-dependent patterns of the multifactor diseases had to be overlooked due to the lack of a suitable paradigm to study with. But today, with the complex system paradigm, we have a greater access to the inner dynamics of these multi-factor diseases.

Multi-factor systems in terms of structure and function exhibit complex features during the process. Thus, complicated features of a complex system have been found to be dependent on the “Force Law” when investigated with the complex system paradigm. They also establish the basis for principles and laws that are occurring coincidentally. According to the Force Law, in all complex systems, small scale changes occur in greater numbers, and larger scale changes happen less often. This state corresponds to the same direct line, when plotted on the x-y plane logarithmically with scale of changes versus chances of events being created. This indeed results in the stability of the system in the macroscale and yet reveals the variability and instability of the microscale. In other words, the state of the macrosystem is put forth momentarily by selection among many micro incidents, which, for believers, is an indication of an ultimate Divine will in possession of infinite power. The information level, energy and interaction strength of such events or beings plays a great role in the possible selection of micro incidents in the grand scheme of causes.

Complex systems that become visible via space-time river also enters a dynamic cycle which is composed of sub-critical, critical, and super critical states. In this way, events and existence become subjected to newer manifestations or degrees of glory, as for believers, life and existence are artworks of God and His Divine attributes in the visible universe, which resembles a drawing board. Living things display an adaptive and dynamic character along with being a complex system. Healthy processes in the human body display adaptive dynamic complex system properties yet exhibit complex behaviors that bring system down like cancer as well. The medical world in recent years have been referring to cancer more so than before because of undetermined factors in its development, hardships encountered during diagnosis and treatment; as cancer is a multi-factored disease, it is necessary to look at cancer with the complexity lens.

The science of complex systems which studies multidimensional and multifactor relations states that in each complex system there are common features, and that these features can also be observed in cancer just like in all other scientific fields and in all scales. The following will focus on the subject since cancer makes a good metaphor in understanding complex systems of behavior.

In complex systems, a whole system means more than the total value of its factors. This principle emphasizes that properties of events and beings that are the sum of many separate factors do not exist in separate units or tend to disappearas each part is handled more individually. The deduction-reduction examples of a peacock coming out of an egg, a tree growing from a seed, and water that consists of various elements are used as metaphors to explain matters that pertain to belief and bear complex system properties. There are many genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, internal and external factors in ontogeny of cancer, however it only develops with the interaction of these elements and differentiates from regular cells. According to widely accepted views, in order for a cell to become cancerous, it is not enough for it to undergo many genetic mutations on its own. The few mutations that take place in a specific order alongside other epigenetic factors could lead to a tumor and cause a “system death” which means much more than the total value of components. That is why death occurs systematically in humans-cell death, tissue death, organ death, system death (excretion and transport) and death of organism.

All complex systems not only have a specific perimeter but they also remain a part of this boundary. This feature brings attention to the fact that there is even a relation between the Sun and and eye of a mosquito. Cancer starts out with a single cell made up of specific inner parameters, in a particular placement within a tissue. It is not possible for a cancerous cell to proliferate for a long time and cause the death of an individual all by itself. It can cause death as a result of communication with surrounding cells, conversion of these into cancerous types, and dispersion through blood vessels into other organs.

Inhibition or the delay of these stages makes up the most significant strategic approaches of the therapy. Because of this, while a cancerous cell is programmed to change its surrounding it also begins utilizing the nutrient sources of surrounding live cells for itself, as if trying to resolve an optimization problem, and causes disruption in the system by displacing other cells with an uncontrolled proliferation potential. This incident points out that there is no such thing as a “minor” in complex systems.

In complex systems, the more diversity exists within a system, the more powerful the system becomes. This principle brings attention to maintenance contingency and sustainability of the system and the conditions that pertain to it, for the lifespan of complex systems correlates directly with the abundance and diversity encompassed in it. This viewpoint could be observed in the case of a normal cell turning malignant. A mature tumor is a group of differentiated cell types that can provide interaction with neighboring cells through intra- and inter-cellular structures (matrix). That is why one of the characteristics of cancer is progress-dependent heterogenity at a cellular level. Because of this reason, although there is only one cancerous cell at the beginning, it can divide into different populations in time. Each population can be considered as an independent (sub-population) population since each has a specific genetic composition. This diversity is one of the major sources of problems in cancer treatment.

A continued relationship of factors with each other in a complex system has critical importance regarding system survival. Metastasis of a tumor not only depends on relations with surrounding cells but at the same time relies on the stimulation of blood vessel synthesis factors (angiogenesis). Two events are required for the dispersal of cancer cells freely; the first is the reduced interaction with other cancer cells. This can be possible with regulation of cell-to-cell connection molecules (adhesion). Second is the formation of new blood vessels via stimulation to connect with the bloodstream from the vicinity of the tumor. Finally, cancer cells that have reached their target of joining the blood stream should be able to leave the circulation, penetrate the new tissue, and manage to grow again. Metastasis is a situation for cancer cells to regulate limiting factors according to their new conditions to survive.

Behaviors in complex systems which display more features (emergent situation) that are not present in the units or even in the total value of constituents are plentiful and complicated, yet principles as causes behind these rich motifs are simple and determine the function of the system. Cancer disease arises from the execution of three simple basic principles of interaction, proliferation, and dispersion in cancerous cells. Interaction, proliferation, and dispersion do result in a healthy cell if it happens properly in the correct place, time, and dosage; otherwise it results in a cancerous cell. These three principles can cause cancer as a complex system disease or a healthy life which also displays characters of a complex system. Critical factors that control the management of these principles are location, position, timing, and dosage.

In complex systems, minor scale changes in initial conditions can lead to major effects after a certain amount of time, like a small snowball getting bigger as it rolls. Metaphorically, this situation is called the “butterfly effect” which assumes the possibility of a hurricane in one part of the world resulting from a complex chain of events starting with the strokes of a butterfly in another far corner of the world. Most of the adaptive complex systems are called “self-organized systems” in the scientific jargon, however these may exhibit such behaviors that are hard to overlook and believers would attribute to Divine guidance rather than to their so-called self-organization capacity. These systems organized with Divine guidance reach a “critical state” at the end. One of the models that were developed to explain this critical state is called the “sand pile model.” The system is named sub-critical when sand particles start to pile up on a surface, since at this stage the system is not affected from the fall of the next sand particle. As sand particles pile up, they reach a critical state in which every new particle added to the pile can lead to one of the following: 1. Nothing will happen; this is called the super-critical state. Particle can stay on top or roll down to the bottom of the pile. 2. Particles that hit the top of the pile affect other particles and can cause a small avalanche. 3. Sand pieces hit the top and cause some displacement of other particles. These displaced particles successively can cause a bigger avalanche.

This bigger avalanche again restores the system back into a sub-critical level. All complex systems arrive at these stations of sub-critical, critical, super-critical and again sub-critical successively in the flow of time. At each station they are dressed with a form of existence corresponding to a different macroscopic situation. So the outcome of the next situation is contingent on the mean average of microstates and thus points to a manipulator, who wills it to be that way. As a result, a minor event can lead to a “point of no return,” a stage called catastrophe, a super-critical state. These stages result in the continuum of the universe as it transforms and renews itself. A cancer cell also stops by the above mentioned stations and step by step, like a snowball turning into an avalanche, it can impact the whole body after reaching the super-critical stage, and lead to death. That is why early diagnosis (made during sub-critical or critical level) increases the chances of treatment, yet late diagnosis (at super-critical level) decreases therapy outcomes.

There is no hierarchical chain of command or control of causes on each other in complex systems. In other words, not only is there not a single factor in control of the system, but also a great number of factors function in a nonlinear mode of interaction. The development and progression of cancer as a complex system is controlled through interaction of internal and external factors, genetic, epigenetic, physical and metaphysical, tangible and intangible elements. Initial conditions that prepare the basis for cancer progress does exist in human genome, for genes that play a role whether in development, suppression, or regulation of cancer are built in the human genomic library from the beginning. Embryonic development is maintained with proper activation of these regulatory genes in the correct time and place during pregnancy. However, same genes may initiate cancer if not properly expressed in the right time, place, and level after birth. Moreover, all the factors that the zygote is left exposed to during its interaction with the surroundings leave a mark (memory) on the system. This is called “system exposition.”

Exposition forms microstates that will lead to positive/negative development of the organism through interaction with genetic and epigenetic memory of the system. That is why programmed cell death is put in place to eliminate damaged and dysfunctional cells that form in the system.

Cancer, as a consequence of progress-dependent corresponding interaction of genome and system exposition, is a system that can display chaotic behavior. Because of this, spiritual factors as well as physical ones may cause a “butterfly effect” in development of cancer and there is no single center of command that is designed to control each of these in the causation chain. This being the case, one cannot help but wonder how causes can comply with the force law of all complex systems and that they share common features without a hierarchical command on each other.

Each complex system is composed of holographic sub-systems. The human body is an ecosystem of various systems placed within each other. The well-being of the ecosystem depends on proper interaction and health of these sub-systems. A tumor can be considered as a local ecosystem (sub-system) where various species and clones exist in a human ecosystem. While each tumor grows, there are living and dead clone populations in it. One billion elements exist in a tumor as small as 1 cm3 (1 gr). If we omit cell death, this corresponds to the 35th generation of an abnormal cell. Ten more generations later this reaches one trillion cells. This way, a population that started out with a single cell exceeds the total number of humans ever lived throughout history. So, human death with cancer starts with the disruption of one single cell. Once reached a super critical stage, system death occurs when the cancer branches out via blood circulation and disperses into various organs, leading to disconnection between them.

Cancerous cell reminds us that there are no minor events in the universe and points out that the health of our social and spiritual world takes shape according to the rules of complex systems. As a side thought, we may easily infer from cancer that underestimating any seemingly minor misbehavior or a sin and failure of immediate action to make up for it may lead to undesired consequences in our social and spiritual lives. It is also significant to be aware that we do not have an absolute control over our future and we cannot determine whether we will attain healing or not; however we can and we should try with science to elucidate some of the tangible causes of the disease and can point out some possible ways of treatment.

Original article: Olzsak T. et al, Science (2012, epub ahead of print)

It has been known by epidemiologists that people who grew up in farms are less likely to acquire immune diseases such as asthma, allergies, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis when compared to people living in cities. Such observations have been the roots of “hygiene hypothesis,” which essentially points out the beneficial effects of being exposed to infectious agents. Supporting this theory, a recent study at Harvard Medical School showed that exposure to symbiotic bacteria has a long lasting beneficial effect on the immune system development. “We as a species are not exposed to the same germs that we were exposed to in the past,” said the co-author Dennis Kasper, a microbiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. In this study, published in Science, the researchers compared germ-free mice to mice with normal bacterial flora. Germ-free mice showed significantly higher levels of invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cells in their colons and lungs. “We made the serendipitous observation that these cells were dramatically enriched in the lung and colon in mice that lacked any microbes,” said the co-author Richard Blumberg, the chief of gastroenterology at Brigham and Woman’s Hospital in Boston. Body’s own production of elevated iNKT cells correlated with higher susceptibility to inflammatory bowel disease and allergic asthma in germ-free mice. Most strikingly, the study showed that exposure to these bacteria in late age did not lower the susceptibility to these immune diseases, indicating that the bacterial exposure needs to be early in life to boost the immune system. After all, broad-spectrum antibiotics for babies may not be such a good idea.

2- Giant chickens of Jurassic Park

Original article: Xu X. et al, Nature 484, 92 (2012)

Many of us undoubtedly learned a lot about dinosaurs from the famous Sci-fi movie Jurassic Park, but who would have imagined that some gigantic feathered dinosaurs would be running along with our favorite monster T-Rex? Paleontologists have recently made an incredible discovery in Liaoning Province of China. They found a set of perfectly preserved fossils that belong to a previously unknown species of dinosaurs. These 125-million-year-old feathered giant dinosaurs represent the largest feathered animal species ever lived on earth. The adult one is predicted to be at least 9 meters (30 feet) long with a weight of 1400 kg (~3000 pounds), which is approximately 40 times bigger than the Beipiaosaurus, largest known feathered dinosaur. New gigantic feathered dinosaurs are given a Chinese-Latin name Yutyrannus huali meaning a “beautiful feathered tyrant.” Simple filament like structures as well as the relatively small sizes of feathers seem more similar to feathers from a baby chick than the plumes of an adult bird, suggesting that Yutyrannus used feathers not for flying but for body temperature insulation, perhaps under the harsh climate conditions of that age. Paleontologists are really excited to see that how much more we have learned about dinosaurs over last 15 years and they predict that many different feathered meat-eating dinosaurs lived before and they are still yet to be discovered.

3- Stardust mystery revealed

Original article: Norris B.R.M. et al, Nature 484, 220 (2012)

Heavy elements are formed in the cores of stars and are crucial in formation of celestial structures like our earth. When an intermediate-mass star dies, it triggers a cosmic sandstorm that lasts thousands of years ejecting more than half of its mass into space. Our Sun is expected to go into a similar phase in around 5 billion years. Scientists observed these sandstorms for years but it was a mystery how these particles found could leave the vicinity of the stars and find their way into interstellar space. Computer simulations hinted that these sand-like particles could not be that small, otherwise they would be evaporated by the immense heat of the dying star. Scientists using the Very Large Telescope in Chile had a chance to explore these stars in a greater detail and discovered that the size of these particles is around a micrometer. This size might seem very small to us but for these particles, it is large enough to behave like mirrors for the light rays coming out of the star instead of absorbing them. Since light also behaves like a particle, the momentum transferred by this reflection helps particles to accelerate to the speeds like 10km/second. As the lead author of the study, Barnaby Norris from University of Sydney says: “The dust grains are like lots of little sails catching the wind, or in this case, starlight.” The material that comes out of the stars is recycled during the formation of new stellar objects like our old planet.

4- Babies understand more than we think

Original article: Bergelsona, E. & Swingley, D., P.N.A.S. 109, 3252 (2012)

Most babies do not say a meaningful word until they are a year old. It was not clear whether they knew the meaning of the words prior to the speaking age. It is easy to ask the question on whether the babies understand words but it is hard to scientifically measure it. The researchers from the University of Pennsylvania devised an ingenious experiment to test the hypothesis whether the 6-9 months babies understood the common words. During the experiment babies sat on their parents’ lap in front of a computer while some images of body parts or foods were shown on the screen. The parents were given instructions through headphones about what to say to the baby about the image on the screen. Babies were monitored by an eye-tracking device to measure their attention being directed to screen. The researchers designed a control environment by pairing a body part and a food item. For instance, if a banana and some hair were shown on the screen, the researchers measured the time that the baby fixated on the banana when the parent instructed the child to look at the banana versus when the parent instructed the baby to look at the hair. 33 infants of ages 6 to 9 months and 50 toddlers of ages 10 to 20 months were recruited for this study. The study convincingly showed that the babies fixated longer on an object when they were instructed to do so. Moreover, as the age of the babies increased the period of fixation stayed pretty much constant until 14 months, but jumped dramatically afterwards. The reason behind the jump in 14 months begs further research. Now, the researchers want also to test the vocabulary of the babies and whether the babies also understand the abstract concepts.