I will be using my second blog on mathematics to highlight another principle which again might or might not (I am still trying very hard not to give too much away :-)) feed into the derivation of my “Yet another theory of everything”. The principle here is the concept of mathematical constant. This is going to be a longer post than usual but I sincerely hope you will bear with me. In any case this is the last post this year and normal blogging will resume in January and I promise to make it interesting (Have a lovely Christmas, by the way). So you have plenty of time to ponder on the issues I will be raising in this post.

The first part of this post will be a reproduction of a blog I posted on this subject on the 8th of September 2010 (over 5 years ago) on the previous version of Iforg website (before the web redesign). I will then offer some reflections on this post which I encourage you to discuss and ponder.

Background

Let me give you the background to the events leading to my posting of that blog to give you some context. There was the events which I describe in The Doctrine of Universal Truths which were happening in the background and the frustration I was having with getting things done. These were periods of profound reflection for me and when I saw the program on Channel 4 by Prof Dawkins about God Delusion and listened to Prof Hawking’s interview on Radio 4 Today program (8/9/2010) about his new book on M-theory, I ‘flipped’. Moreover, I had just been at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s conference weekend in which the keynote speech was delivered by Dame Claire Bertschinger (5-6/9/2010). On the Tuesday (7/9/2010) of that week, I was meeting with John, my Baptist Pastor to continue on my journey to getting baptised. To further compound my frustration, the death was announced of the prime minister’s father, Ian Cameron on that day. All these represented my perfect storm but when I ‘flip’, I don’t hit out wildly. I offer a carefully thought out riposte. The following was what I wrote:

===========================
First posted on 08/09/2010 on Iforg Limited webblog

Mathematical Constant

I have been planning this post for a while but then I saw a trailer for a program entitled ‘God Delusion’ presented by Professor Richard Dawkins on one of Channel 4’s satellite channels, I resolved that I had to watch it. The recent launch of Professor Stephen Hawking's book on M-theory which is trailed as pronouncing the death of Philosophy and Religion is not only bold but in my humble opinion, misguided. All of these has relevance to what I am about to talk about in this blog, so I will ask you to come with me on this journey.

I am a pharmacist by profession and I consider myself a scientist. I don’t of course possess the degree of eminence in the field of science as Professor Dawkins and Professor Hawking. These people are great assets to the field of science and we need them. I however think they are wrong in specific logical areas and I will demonstrate these in this post. Throughout this piece, I will refer to quotes from these Professors which will advance my arguments.

I love mathematics

As a child growing up my best subject was mathematics. The reason, I must confess, is because I am lazy. What a social scientist will describe in 2,000 words, a mathematician will describe in one equation. So Albert Einstein distilled his findings on special relativity (the so called mass-energy equivalent) into one simple equation:

I am not here to discuss the merits or otherwise of this equation. I am merely pointing out that mathematics allows us to express complexity in a simple way. In a way that means you can more or less expand your horizons with mathematics. That is my plug for mathematics and will support any move to make this an important part of the academic curriculum.

I bring the mathematics up to describe the concept of mathematical equation. A simple equation might look something like this:

We know that our world is complex so a simple equation will not do. Let us try another type of equation (quadratic equation):

The mathematician introduces “x” as a variable (something that changes) and "a", "b" and "c" as constants (something that doesn’t change) to balance the equation. In mathematics, as in real world, we are aiming for balance. You can see that mathematics is only trying to describe the world we find ourselves, using equations. To balance that equation of life, we need something that changes and something that is constant. The mathematician use this number called the mathematical constant which is independent of physical measurements.

There are other types of constants based on physical measurements. They are called physical constants. A good example of this is what I did on the blog I posted in March 2007 entitled “The power of observation - pill counter example” (link). I defined what I called a space constant, k based on my observation of the pill counter in the pharmacy. The point here is that mathematicians from a long time have always talked the language of constants. I am glad to note from the interview with Professor Hawking that the language of constants is still alive and kicking (link). In describing his M-theory, Professor Hawking eluded that the theory allow there to be many different possible universes with different value of the physical constant. I am glad to hear it.

There is a conceptual relationship between physical and mathematical constant and I will illustrate it using the diagram below:

From the diagram you can measure physical constant but we are no way close, in scientific terms, to defining the mathematical constant of life.

Some issues remain unresolved

By invoking the physical constant, Professor Hawking is proposing that we can measure this constant. Maybe we can, maybe we cannot but nonetheless, the job of a scientist is to continue to search, using scientific methods, for the value of these physical constants. Science has made giant strides here but there remain some unresolved issues. We need to allow our scientists to continue on the quest for knowledge.

“From early humanity, what was mysterious and unexplained was so vast and equally higher being (an alpha male) in the sky could fill that gap”
- Professor Dawkins (from God Delusion)

The size of the physical constant is shrinking but it is yet to explain the mathematical constant needed to balance the equation of life. What is unscientific is for us scientists to be making claims which suggests they have the answer to everything.

“...there are still deep questions about the origin of the universe that yet to be explained”
- Professor Dawkins (from God Delusion)

This brings me back to that article which I wrote in 2007. I was simply contrasting the trouble I went through trying to find solution to a problem which I could have better solved by observing. It transpired that I could have better solved my pill counter problem by observing. Less time consuming. It is possible to construct a mathematical constant based on millions of years of experience of humanity that will solve the equation of life. That construct can be found in faith. Informed faith not blind faith.

This is why I find this statement by Professor Dawkins puzzling: “Faith is a brain virus infecting generation of young lives.” Professor Dawkins questioned why “the strange and disturbed mindset of religious faith should automatically demand our society’s respect”. I perfectly understand why Professor Dawkins might take this stance. It is that “suspension of reason” thing. Any faith that demand that you suspend your reason is not only misguided but wrong.

How do you go about defining the mathematical constant of life in faith?

The atheist perspective as championed by Professor Dawkins in his documentary is that “atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be”. I will like to give you quote to provide the full context and I hope I am not infringing on any copyrights. I strongly recommend that you watch the documentary from the Channel 4 stable.

“There is no all seeing, all loving God who keeps us free from harm. Atheism is not a recipe for despair. I think the opposite. By disclaiming the idea of the next life, we take more excitement in this one. The here and now is not something to be endured for eternal bliss or damnation. The here and now is all we have and is an inspiration to make the most of it”

That is fine and I applaud that but it doesn’t work for me. That view doesn’t answer my questions satisfactorily. If I live in war ravaged country or where famine is endemic or where I have no hope, then what do I care? The notion that this is all I have leads me to become care less. It is not life affirming but rather soul destroying. My mindset right now is I am comforted by the notion that this is not all there is. I have chosen to define my mathematical constant in faith. I have done so robustly in a way that answers all my concerns and anxieties.

How you choose to define your mathematical constant is irrelevant at this point. What is important is what it makes you do. If as an atheist it inspires you to be best you can be, then that is not a millions mile from what my faith tells me. If it tells you to wage unnecessary and pointless wars, or it makes you kill or maim scores of people because of some gain in the afterlife, or directs you to burn books some people consider sacred then we have a problem. These views stand in contrast to my mathematical constant which is steeped equally in faith. In defining your constant, you need to be watchful of what it makes you do.

Another point, if this is going to be a true constant, then you need to define it in a manner which is constant (i.e. not changing). That is why some religious leaders fascinate me about their assertions. They confuse tradition with doctrine.

In conclusion:

So you might understand my confusion when an eminent scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins make a sweeping generalisation like: “People like to say that faith and science can live together side by side but I don’t think they can. They are deeply opposed.” However my confusion is only fleeting. I guess I am comfortable in having this most public debate with eminent personalities like Professor Dawkins and Professor Hawking because I know they will understand and relish a good debate. That said, there are some who are informed in their beliefs. As long as there are people who claim to be religious leader who justify their inhumane deeds on the basis of religious beliefs, where reason is suspended, then our scientists have nowhere to go but to take polar opposites. There are scientists on the other side who think they have all the answers. They are no scientists! Science, according to Professor Dawkins, is the discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questioning the logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. They are constantly asking questions and being skeptical.  I rather like the story recounted by Professor Dawkins in the documentary where he described his formative influence as an undergraduate. That story relates to the disproving of a cherished theory of an elderly professor by a vising lecturer. The professor said: “my dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong for 15 years”.

On Monday just gone (06/09/2010), I was at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Conference 2010 entitled Supporting patients and professional decision making. Dame Claire Bertschinger, the head of tropical nursing at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines gave a powerful talk on her work with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). She described how she traveled across warring front-lines during her posting in the Middle East. Every time she meets each section of the warring factions, each were always the good guys. The others are the bad guys. In her encounter she met human beings with similar care and values as her own. Her experience made her conclude that war is never a good thing. If this is the age of knowledge, then we know enough about ourselves not to rehearse old battlegrounds which has brought nothing but misery on all of us. Her presentation was so moving that I was reduced to just saying thank you!

Armed with my training from that conference, I have a decision to make. I have only enough money to cover the cost of a book. Should I buy Professor Hawking's new book or should I buy Dame Claire Bertschinger’s book Moving Mountains. This is a very easy decision for me. I have chosen to buy Dame Claire Bertschinger book because frankly what she has to say is more important to me right now.

Science is one of many tools available at our disposal to unravel the complexity of the world we inhabit. It is nothing more than that. It is a delusion to think otherwise.

Epilogue:

Is there a God? Oh yes there is. Maybe not in the way some might imagine. I have defined my God in the way that is constant. Nothing I have read and observed since has been able to refute that faith. Please bear in mind that I approached this question from a skeptical standpoint. The satisfactory answer that I needed to balance my equation of life, I found in faith. I now have a constant which I can test all physical observation against. I will continue to do so until such time when I should meet my maker.

Do I know that there is a God? Yes. But not in the physical sense. My believe in this God (this Constant) is so strong that I am confident, as I can be, that He exists. That in fact has given a degree of meaning to this life for me. So tonight when the sad news filtered through about the death of David Cameron’s dad, Ian. I offer my sincere condolence. I do so in the knowledge that he has gone to a better place. I hope Mr Cameron will be comforted in that knowledge.

I will now finish off with a quote by The Rev Rob Marshall who wrote the following:

“Many great spiritual writers over the centuries have addressed the consequences of expecting something to happen only to find confusion and uncertainty actually result. It is in terms of constancy and reliability that the notion of God is then introduced into a fluctuating and perpetually changing world.”
-The Rev Rob Marshall
BBC Thoughts for the day: 08/05/2010

===========================

Reflections

As I re-read this piece, 5 years on, I am fascinated by how clear my thoughts were at the height of great pain and anguish. Never the one to cry foul, I continued with a stiff upper lip. I am so glad I defined my mathematical constant in a way that was constant. So today, as I reflect on this, I am encouraged.

“In the end, you will be disappointed if your constant is not constant. You may start with the basic assumption that your constant is not constant”
From “See what they have done to me” Verse I from Lamentations - A collection of poetry by Kazeem Olalekan

There are few points of reflection which I will like to touch on here:

On Mathematical Constant

It continues to be true to my lived experience (and possibly to that of millions of lived experiences) that to balance the live’s equation, we need a mathematical constant (mathematics bear this out). Because science is nowhere close to defining the nature and magnitude of this mathematical constant, we have to find a way of defining this constant. Informed Faith, steeped in belief, is the only way to do this. As hardened believers like myself and the two good professors will attest, for this to work, two things has to be true: (1) that the belief is strong and genuine, and  (2) that it is defined in a way that is truly constant. If these two things are true, then you have a mechanism for transitioning from one plane of existence to another.

“So there you have it: you must believe in something...and that is universal! Believing in nothing is a belief system in itself”
from The Doctrine of Universal Truths by Kazeem Olalekan

So there remain one issue. Why does some faiths (monotheist) talk about one God and others talk about multiple gods? Who is right? I practice monotheism but I don’t believe those faiths are wrong. It is a matter of tactics and my God permits me to think through these issues. If you go into the pantheon of Ancient Rome (Dii Consentes), six gods and six goddesses are depicted. The best analogy is the animated television series I used to watch when I was little called: Voltron: Defender of the Universe. Voltron is usually formed by the teams to meet a challenge:

"From days of long ago, from uncharted regions of the universe, comes a legend. The legend of Voltron: Defender of the Universe. A mighty robot, loved by good, feared by evil. As Voltron's legend grew, peace settled across the galaxy. On Planet Earth, a Galaxy Alliance was formed, together with the good planets of the Solar System they maintained peace throughout the universe. Until a new horrible menace, threatened the galaxy. Voltron was needed once more. This is the story of the superforce of space explorers. Entrusted by the alliance with the ancient secret of how to assemble, Voltron: Defender of the Universe"

"Land Team, form legs...Sea Team, form torso and arms...Air Team, form head!”

In a way humans exist as their own mini gods with unique skills. In time of crisis, a God that has all the different powers of the twelve gods of Rome is summoned and is by all accounts, formidable. It is in the monotheistic God that we have these powers invested. As Aristotle has observed: “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” As humans, we are no God: we are mortal and we employ the tactic of dividing the whole as a tactic for protecting it. The problem is we have developed this strategy into such an artform that we have lost sight of the whole that we are seeking to protect. The whole is God and we need to be reminded of this ever so often. I guess that is the hallmark of my journey thus far: God is enough!

On War and Death

I was clearly moved by the account of war which Dame Claire Bertschinger described at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society conference. I am also disappointed that as humans, we have learnt nothing from centuries of wars and conflicts. I was moved also, by the death of the prime minister’s dad. It reminded me my own dad, who died suddenly exactly 21 years today (pictured). He had a profound effect on my life but I am comforted that he is with my eternal father now.

The question on some lips will no doubt be: How does this help solve the current problems of suicide bombing, war, instability, religious intolerance and such like around the world today? To those lips, I default to Martin Luther:

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”
Martin Luther