Despite the title, this is not a scientific post. It is metascientific, meaning its sort of like metaphysics, but not really. Metascience is when you talk about scientific stuff, but not really in a scientific way.
There are four forces in our universe. They are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Physicists have managed to tie electromagnetism in with the strong and weak forces, but gravity can’t quite fit. Also, or maybe because of this (physics is not my bag, so I’m guessing here), gravity and quantum theory don’t go together. So all of this leads to the search for a single law or theory that will cover everything, electromagnetism, quantum theory and gravity. Such a theory is called a Grand Unified Theory (GUT), and there isn’t one yet. Some people think M theory, which could be related to string theory, might do it, but I have no real idea what either of those are, and apparently they can’t be tested at the moment anyway, so let’s just say the search is still on.
I have the answer. And now we can kiss any pretense of science goodbye, for what follows (while not totally original – I think I read something like this some time ago from some other fruitcake) is clearly way out there.
Here is my GUT feeling:
Yes, the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is love. Love is what gravity is all about. The attraction between two bodies. Love keeps the moon circling the Earth, and keeps the Earth enthralled by the Sun. We call it gravity, but it’s love. The stone or apple flies to its beloved ground thanks to the enormous pull of love for all things from all other things.
But love is weak in inanimate objects like stars and planets. So let’s look toward the atom. The protons and electrons are governed by completely different forces, but what do those forces do? They attract, they repel, again we see the effect of the single unified force of love. And magnetism? Well, clearly, a force of attractive (or its opposite) love.
Moving on to biology, the GUT of love is everywhere. DNA operates by “base pairing.” That is the technical term. “Pairing”. Adenine loves Thymine and Cytosine loves Guanine, but guess what, sometimes Thymine will cheat and hang out with Guanine, and you know what happens then? Mutation!!!.
So how do the bases in DNA pair up? They form bonds (in this case they are called hydrogen bonds), but of course, there are bonds everywhere in chemistry and biochemistry. Enzymes work by bonding with substrates, acting on them and then letting them go. Everything interacts with everything else in biology – cells, hormones, nutrients, receptors… In fact, the science of chemistry is basically all about bonds forming and breaking – it’s all a giant soap opera.
Love explains gravity, electromagnetism, enzyme kinetics, DNA replication and coding, chemical bond formation, multicellular organisms, ecology, and, of course, human behavior. So when Christ preached his message of love, he was teaching us the fundamental natural law of the universe. Objects tend to interact with each other. In all different ways. But they all interact. The absolute value of the force of attraction between any 2 independent discrete objects is greater than or less than 0. The degree of attraction could be negative, leading to repulsion. But there is always interaction between any two objects. This law does not follow from anything else. It underlies gravity, quantum theory, chemistry and biology and psychology. It is the original law of the universe, and it is God’s law. God, himself told us this law in so many words. And all of science proclaims its truth.
Well, you’ve certainly got me smiling with this one. Dare I say I “love” it?
Thanks. It was written in a light hearted manner, but who knows, maybe I am really on to something. 🙂
If you’ve read any of Ian Thompson’s theistic science work, he treats love very much in the way you have suggested here (though I’m sure the details would be different). There is ceratinly good reason to suppose that if the God of love made all things, then that principle is in some way represented in them.
But thinking metascientifically, what you’re saying has a great deal in common, I think, with Aristotelian ideas of the natures of things, which are in many ways affinities (or loves, in fact). The classic example is heavy objects seeking the fulfilment of their potentia in the lowest position. But you could apply it equally to chemical bonds, and so on.
I suppose the biggest conceptual difference from modern science is that natures draw things towards what will complete their goodness: on the other hand laws constrain things from somewhere outside them. It’s very easy to draw theological parallels!
Thanks for the comment, Jon. I take encouragement from it, since you seem to think there is some merit behind the silliness of the post. And I appreciate you steering me toward Ian Thompson (I remember he has posted on Hump, but I dont know his work. Yet.) BTW, I have actually done a little bit of deeper looking into the idea, playing with some of the known laws of physics and chemistry, and they have a similar pattern, (which isnt terribly surprising since many were derived from each other). Interesting, but hardly worth paying much attention to within any kind of scientific discussion (nothing new, and what is, is probably wrong). But still…. well, I will look into Thompson.
Another tidbit. The paper I submitted about teleology in evolution, has gone through one round of review. If it survives a second it might actually get published. I think you might like it.
The paper I submitted about teleology in evolution, has gone through one round of review.
Wonders will never cease! We must pray, like Esther, for a favourable response.
I really resonate with this post. I remember a conversation I had with a friend back when I was 19, and we were talking about God and I ended up on an idea that if we believe God to be the essence of Love, and if He is the source of all creation, then somehow Love is the thread that runs through all of existence. I know it’s a bit poetic and dreamy from some 19-year-old conception of life, but I like to think that I was onto something then.