My research is in the fine-tuning of nomic behavior in multiverse scenarios–primarily in the ontology of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics. I’m conducting my PhD in Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) research on this at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
We have faced several trials with my Crohn’s disease, which hasn’t put us in a financial advantage for this endeavor. We need about $18,000 for the student visa application process and additional funding for tuition, travel, and setting up a new home. We’ll eventually need much more than what we are requesting here but we are hoping to work hard and earn as much money as we can to make it.
Well, my research is on the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God (cumulative case needed, of course) in multiverse scenarios (the idea of many universes). For my dissertation, I’m adding a component that I only included as an appendix in my thesis–the ontology of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. The MWI and multiverse scenarios are the biggest objections to the design/fine-tuning argument. With the advance of modern physics and cosmology, the fine-tuning argument seems to be weakened if we just hit the cosmic jackpot by being just one universe among myriads.
The reason why I like this argument so much is that, in the end, it means that we have a purpose. We don’t have to know, nor do I think we could from the argument, what our purpose is but simply that we have one. This is something personal for me. The struggle of purpose is something that many people seek to overcome.
Overcoming this alienation and the notion of absurdity, primarily objective absurdity, can only be done so by a divine telos. It does seem that man lives his life as if he does have an ultimate meaning, incentive, value, and purpose. However, if God does not exist, then the absurdity is not only subjective but it really is objectively absurd. The existence of a divine telos enables man to live a consistent life of meaning, incentive, value, and purpose. There is a reconciliation of man to himself, others, and God by overcoming this absurdity.
Man exists in a state of alienation. He is alienated from himself, from others, and from God. Alienation from the self creates a subjective perception of life being absurd. Because of his own nature man cannot stand in agreeable terms with himself. His epistemic warrant is not always at ease. He doubts.
His alienation from others is subjective and experienced by the individual as well. It too is a result of man’s nature and state of being. It is at this level of alienation where man often attempts to create his own teleology. He will construct an artificial and arbitrary teleology based on other alienated persons. Man’s alienation from God is irreconcilable by man’s initiative. Man cannot act outside of his closed system; thus, he requires an outside agency to overcome this alienation.
In a Christian context, God recognizes that death is the only way to overcome man’s absurdity/alienation. The means by which God provides teleology is by means of death. (This leads to the question: Who dies? Does man kill himself due to the absurdity of life or does God give his life?) God becomes incarnate and overcomes absurdity by means of his own death, which may be imputed to humanity. Here we find a paradox. In order for there to be a genuine sense of teleology and becoming there must be death. There must be death to bring about life, a life of becoming, relationships, and of teleological existence.
I want to preserve a very important and classic argument for God’s existence. Additionally, it’s much more than philosophy of science/religion. It’s existentially and theologically important that we recognize the implications of this argument. I don’t take my research to the latter part since I have to delimit my focus–but that doesn’t me those implications still aren’t there.
- Audio/Video funds for creating a new podcast
- Living funds
- Conference and research funding (especially when it’s not assisted by the university.