Monday, June 26, 2006

More thoughts on the Templeton Prize

What struck me about the Polkinghorne book was that we need a scientific model to answer some of the theological questions. Note Polkinghorne is previous winner of the Templeton prize (you see I really am training to win the dosh). It does seem pointless to add some random quotes from some theological texts and mix in some modern science. Emerging theology from a simple tissue of lies. Umm, maybe not. To answer questions such as can their be free will with all powerfull God, wde need a spefic model where these questions can posed and answered. Yes, this is reductionalism, but what else can do. Randomly qoting from previous theology texts has noi produced any progress (or big book sales) in understanding God. That will have to be some simplications. I am thinking of a simple spin system, such as the Ishing model. Human beings would be modelled by an up or down state at a lattice site. God would then be a magnetic field. God is all powerfull, because he can flip spins. So something like the Ising model. So questions of free will could be discussed in terms of whether the all powerfull magnetic field can always flip a human being (modelled as a spin). I also want to the model like Conway's game of life. Then I could do a presentation, where two blobs come together and then three blobs leave - that is normal birth. But once in the model, one blob just comes from a single blob. See, that is the birth of Jesus. Umm, I am not very good at this type of model building. I have just checked on a physics site. Search Results Search titles in `cond-mat' in all years (1992-2006) for occurrences of `God' (0 matches) : Sorry there were no titles/authors containing the term God using the search criteria specified. You can return to the searching form by using the BACK option of your browser.
I have just invented the field of spin theology. That must be worth something! I do worry that this may be hidden somewhere in: "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram.