A review, by Martin Kemp, in the Times Literary Supplement
of October 23rd
, 2015 about Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilczek’s new
book, A Beautiful Question: Finding nature’s deep design
[Allen Lane, £25] ends
“Could we use the anamorphic analogy in a different way, to
ask if the distorted image is a real one and whether we are only equipped with
an optical and mental apparatus that makes its reflection in our eyes seem
locally coherent, but which permits no access to the real image? Some
observers might posit that what we see as real is a distortion of a reality to
which we have no access.” [Italics mine, Page 4]
This is a culmination of an analysis of Wilczek’s elaborate
and refined take on the beauty of the “Core Theory” of physics and the math
that accompanies the “theory.”
But reviewer Kemp writes that Wilczek “… knowingly slides
around the central question about who or what is responsible for the
organization of the world at atomic and cosmic levels.” [Page 3]
And Mr. Kemp refers to Leonardo da Vinci’s view that
“Outside is the unknowable infinity of the ‘prime mover’.”
“Modern physics and cosmology have so extended the reach or
potential reach of the mind into multiple dimensions, multiverses and infinity,
that they have squeezed God’s potential realm into something so physically
remote and conceptually abstract as to preclude and clear visualization of the
deity on our own terms.” [Page 3]
(This is the view of the Kabbalists, also.)
Wilczek eschews string theory: “Given its apparent
untestability, string theory has been called a threat to science – even a
pernicious kind of metaphysics. Wilczek implicitly encourages his readers to be
deaf to it.” [Page 4]
“… the beauty embodied in the physical world is a particular
kind of beauty. Nature, as an artist, has a distinctive style”, essentially
mathematical, symmetrical and succinct. “The world does not embody all forms of
beauty … Science isn’t everything, thank goodness.”[Page 4]
What Wilczek tells his readers in his book is that there is
beauty in nature and we can see it or try to, but something of the ultimate
truth will elude us.
What this boils down for me is a confirmation that, just as
the ineffable God is unknowable, some of Its attributes and creations are also
unknowable in essence.
Carl Jung and his acolyte Joseph Campbell also stress this
as does Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica [Q.12: Eleventh article].
Thus one can extrapolate that some things cannot be known,
ever, and I believe we may, after years of pondering, that UFOs, too, are
Paul Kimball stressed in a comment here, recently, that one
(me) shouldn’t scorn UFO buffs for their attention to the phenomenon but,
rather, allow them (buffs) to enjoy the wonder of UFOs.
He has a point.
Trying to understand UFOs, their intrinsic nature, may be
futile, just as Wilczek sees many of the topics of physics, and Jung, Campbell,
Aquinas see the nature of God.
Kevin Randle’s current effort to decipher the Roswell artifact
– the Ramey memo – is an attempt, at bottom, to find a clue as to what happened
in Roswell in 1947 which may (or may not) impact UFOs, providing an explanation
– for Kevin and his minions that UFOs are ET craft perhaps.
But, again, such a clue would leave us with a basic
conundrum, much as the wave/particle theory inherent to quantum mechanics; that
is, so Roswell was, indeed, a crash flying disk, but is that what UFOs are?
It opens a maw that can’t be explained or understood when
all is said and done.
UFOs are an enigma, not as great as that of the supposed
“prime mover” of creation but of a similar kind: beautiful to some, but
contorted to the point that not all see the beauty, allowing an unknowability
that is the essence of the things,
That’s where we are in “ufology” and it’s not a good thing,
but there it is…