On the Incompleteness of the Work of Isaac Newton (1.1.1)

Abstract Other than Jesus of Nazareth, Isaac Newton is the most influential human being in history, but both men have been misinterpreted, and have had their ideas commandeered for purposes to which they would have strongly opposed. In short, the life missions of Jesus and Newton -both thought of themselves as sons of God and messianic figures- are incomplete. Here we examine the failure of Newton’s ideas to fully take hold, and outline a way in which they can be extended so as to bring about the completeness he desired.



Without doubt, the two most influential human beings in human history are Jesus of Nazareth and Issac Newton. And their influentiality is not the only similarity between them. That there are striking physical similarities (assuming that Jesus is the man in the Turin Shroud) is shown by Microsoft’s facial recognition algorithm:

And that there are striking intellectual and temperamental similarities between the men is shown by the following quotes from Newton’s biographers:

The more Newton’s theological and alchemical, chronological and mythological work is examined as a whole corpus, set by the side of his science, the more apparent it becomes that in his moments of grandeur he saw himself as the last of the interpreters of God’s will in actions, living on the fulfillment of times…  In his generation, he was the vehicle of God’s eternal truth… from him nothing had been withheld… (1)

The scientist’s interpretation of Daniel, his decoding of the book’s cryptic language, and his discussion of theological questions, among them the Second Coming, all emanated from the sense of a special mission. This feeling grew from a belief that the “wisdom” to understand the prophecy was transmitted from God to a chosen person – himself. The sense of chosenness grew in Newton, not as a result of his study of prophecies, but following his unique achievements in natural science, which in his opinion, were conveyed to him by God alone… When Newton recognized his authority to interpret the book of Daniel he was convinced that (a) he had been chosen by God; (b) that the time for the end had arrived and the holy process begun (with the birth of Newton)… (2)

Newton’s conviction that he was a chosen one of God, miraculously preserved, was accompanied by the terror that he would be found unworthy, and would provoke the wrath of God his father. This made one of the great geniuses of the world also one of its great sufferers. (1)

Another thing that unites Jesus and Newton -and thing with which we will be concerned here- is the incompleteness of their missions. According to Kabbalistic Judaism, a principle purpose of reincarnation is to complete things uncompleted in previous lifetimes (3), and in the light of this notion, both men would both have very good reason return to reincarnate and/or to return to the earthly domain in order to finish what they started and for various reasons did not finish in those lifetimes.

Incompleteness of the Work of Jesus of Nazareth

According to all forms of Judaism other than Messianic Judaism, Jesus of Nazareth failed his mission because he died without doing the things Mashiach (Messiah) is supposed to do. Below is Wikipedia’s list of the characteristics of Mashiach, with those not yet satisfied by Jesus of Nazareth non-italicized:

  • Isaiah 1:26: “And I will restore your judges as at first and your counsellors as in the beginning; afterwards you shall be called City of Righteousness, Faithful City.” Some Jews[8] interpret this to mean that the Sanhedrin will be re-established.” (Isaiah 1:26)
  •  Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)
  •  The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:11- 17)
  •  He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8 – 10, 2 Chronicles 7:18)
  •  The “spirit of the Lord” will be upon him, and he will have a “fear of God” (Isaiah 11:2)
  •  Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
  •  Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)
  •  He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)
  •  All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
  •  Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
  •  There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
  •  All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
  •  The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
  •  He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)
  •  Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13 – 53:5)
  •  The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
  • The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55
  • Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
  •  The people of Israel will have direct access to the Torah through their minds and Torah study will become the study of the wisdom of the heart (Jeremiah 31:33) He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)
  • He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)
  • He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13 – 15, Ezekiel 36:29 – 30, Isaiah 11:6 – 9)

But Jews holding this opinion can’t easily explain Isaiah 53, which so accurately describes Jesus’ character and life-mission that scholars once insisted it must have been a forgery written after the birth of Christianity (then the discovery of the Isaiah scroll in 1947 disproved them):

…Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Rashi and later rabbis interpreted the passage as referring to Israel, rather than Messiah (4), but this is an unconvincing interpretation since Israel have never been, nor ever will be be cut off from the land of the living. Herz Homberg (1749-1841):

According to the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it relates to Israel at the end of their captivity. But if so, what can be the meaning of the passage, “He was wounded for our transgressions”? Who was wounded? Who are the transgressors? Who carried out the sickness and bare the pain? The fact is that it refers to the King Messiah.

Rabbi Moshe Alsheikh writing in the late 16th century:

I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah.

One wonders in that case why it isn’t abundantly clear to these Rabbis that Messiah and Jesus of Nazareth are the same person… But the thing that confronts and confounds all Christ-rejectors -Jewish and non-Jewish- is the Turin Shroud, on which is imprinted a photographic image of a man bearing all of the wounds the gospels accounts say we were inflicted on Jesus:

In 1988 radiocarbon dating of a sample from a much-handled corner of the Shroud indicated a medieval date (5), leading most to belief that the TS is a medieval painting and/or bas relief, but this image -as a high-resolution photograph imprinted on the topmost microfibers of the cloth- is to be explained only by light emanating from the body in the Shroud. Thus the TS reflects the reliability of the gospel accounts, cohering not merely with the account of the crucifixion, but also with that of the transfiguration, and the resurrection. We cannot say -as those Jews that deny that Jesus was the Messiah say- that Jesus failed his mission. What we can say however is that he has not yet completed his mission. One especially irksome thing, from Jesus’ point of view, must be that his commands have not been followed, and that his ideas have been grossly misinterpreted by his alleged followers:

Benny Hinn:

Years ago they used to preach, “O we are going to walk on streets of gold.” I would say, “I don’t need the gold up there. I’ve got to have it down here.”

Jesus of Nazareth:

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesse Duplantis:

I’ve never had the Lord say, “Jesse, I think that car is a little bit too nice.” I’ve had vehicles and the Lord said, “Would you please go park that at your house. Don’t put that in front of my house. I don’t want people to think that I’m a poor God.

Jesus of Nazareth (to the man who said he would follow him wherever he went):

While the foxes have holes and the birds have nests, the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.

Joyce Meyer on the wealth of televangelists and owning a private jet:

There’s no need for us to apologize for being blessed.

Jesus of Nazareth:

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth… but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven…

Hinn, Duplantis, and Meyer all propound an anti-Christian doctrine known as “Prosperity theology”, according to which wealth and power on earth are a sign of God’s blessing, but all contemporary “Christians”, of all denominations, ought to reflect on the following passages, and consider in what sense they are true followers of Jesus of Nazareth:

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” He said to another man, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say goodbye to my family.” Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

By these words, Jesus is exposing his pseudo-followers are first and foremost attracted to material things, to the kingdom of man rather than to the kingdom of God. And he stresses that it is not possible to have to both ways, to serve both God and “Money”:

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

The problem 2000 years ago -and no less of a problem today- is that Christians first serve Money. God for them is little more than a way to make their earthly life more comfortable and exciting, and to make the prospect of impending death less terrifying -human life is like falling from the high tower of the Tarot card, and God for Christians is a mattress on which he or she can land when the fall ends. But this is a misconception. Jesus said “Don’t fear man, who can destroy the body, but God who can destroy the soul,” a command that can without loss of meaning be rendered as “Don’t fear physical forces, which can destroy the body, but spiritual forces that can destroy the soul.” But today’s Christians, almost without exception, do fear physical forces, and live the entirety lives in fear of them, doing all that they can to make their physical bodies comfortable (seeking high paying jobs, buying expensive cars and houses…), and to prolong their physical identities (running to doctors and having surgeries to prolong their physical identities in this life, and marrying and having children to prolong these physical identities after death), exactly as if they were materialists and believed either that this reality is the only reality, or that at least that this reality was the most important reality. They may quote the words of Jesus, but they do not perform the actions Jesus asked them to perform, proof that they are not truly persuaded of the truth of Jesus’ main thesis that this earthy realm is an inferior realm -part copy but part contradiction- of an underlying heavenly realm in which none of these earthly actions has any place. Until they and the rest of the word are persuaded of the truth of this thesis, Jesus’ mission remains incomplete.

Incompleteness of the Work of Isaac Newton

For all of his great and unique insights into the workings of nature, Newton made significant errors of omission and commission: he failed to account for the action of gravity, for the principle of inertia, for the nature of light, and underlying these failures was the mistaken assumption that space is prior to light. If he had accounted for these things, then the misinterpretations to which his ideas have been subject in the centuries following his death could not have arisen. To see what I mean, consider that Newton believed that the law of gravity, and of the laws of motion, revealed the divine origin of the natural order:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. (6)

It was Newton who first made it seem as if the world was predictable, and analogizing nature to clockwork mechanism, and God to a watchmaker, William Paley wrote in 1802 (7):

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. … There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. … Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

Already this is a misinterpretation -Newton did not think of nature as mechanistic so much as animistic (8)- but worse was to come. The focus by “enlightenment” thinkers on the passive, mechanistic, aspects of nature to which Newton had drawn their attention led ultimately to a general denial that there is any need for a creator, for an intelligent watchmaker. This denial is based on the evolutionary idea that simplicity gives rise to complexity, from which it seems that -contra Paley- you can have a sophisticated mechanism without any need for a more sophisticated mechanism that causes and/or sustains it. A handful of quotes from Richard Dawkins who -referring to Paley- wrote a book entitled The Blind Watchmaker encapsulate evolutionism (9) :

The beauty of evolution is that it does provide an explanation of how you can get complexity out of simplicity. It does it by slow, gradual degree. At no point are you postulating the sudden coming into existence of a complicated being.

Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that.

In the beginning was simplicity.

The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

A 21st century Newton would reject the theory of evolution and Dawkins’s vision in the strongest imaginable terms, but he could not convincingly do so without first extending the equations underlying the system of the Principia. To see how these equations can be extended, consider that the General Theory Relativity in its present form says that space-time is curved by mass (10, 11). It follows that, in the beginning, all the mass of that universe was concentrated into a zero-dimensional point. That the idea is wrong is shown by the implication of multiple singularities at the center of black holes (12), the lack of a coherent framework for both large scale and small scale objects (13), and by the flat rotation curves of distant galaxies (14, 15). A similar idea that doesn’t carry any absurd consequences is the idea of the infinite compression of energy (light), and the elimination of mass. Now curvature is to be attributed, not to mass – which is a combination of light and space- but to imbalances of energy light and space. Mathematically, we capture the what it is to be balanced, and what it is to depart from balance thereby producing curvature, by re-expressing the tradition equation for a circle of area 1 as

\lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{2 \gamma } \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{2 \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}}}\right){}^2=1

Where the traditional equation fails by implying that an energy source located at the center of this area unit-circle is undiminished from center to circumference (it has either a zero or an infinite radius), the second provides as with a potentially infinite number of energy levels. Given that Gamma is a spacial case of \zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}, we can go from \lim_{x\to \infty } \, e^{2 \gamma } \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{2 \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}}}{}^2=1 to the more general

\lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)} \left(\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left((s+1) \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)\right)}\right){}^{\frac{1}{s+1}}\right){}^{s+1}\right)=1

Now consider that although the limit is 1, regardless of the values of x or s, we get an inter-relationship between the exterior and interior circles that is non-repeating if and only s = 1, meaning for instance that the exterior circles in the figures above can be expanded indefinitely and/or that the interior circles contracted indefinitely. These dynamics are associated with spirals that unfold forever. But if s takes on a (positive) real value other than 1 -when the circles take on certain maximum/minimum size- we get an inter-relationship, and a contraction/expansion process that is repetitive. These dynamics are associated to circular forms of a spiral. We can use this mathematics to extend the inverse square law, and so to extend Newton’s law of gravity beyond regions in which there is a balance of light and space, to all regions amenable to mathematical description. Take the 1/r^2 formula, and consider a circle of area 1. There is in the limit a perfect balance of light and space (E = 1 and A = 1). If however if we write pi as the partial sum/integral e^{2 \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}  and/or s is a real number other than 1, then we have an imbalance. We can say the following: if s = 1, then there is an approximately symmetrical relationship between light and space, and the new formula will yield predictions which are similar to those yielded by 1/r^2. If however s != 1, the balance is strongly tipped toward light (extreme example the singularity of concentrated light at the root of the universe), or conversely toward space (extreme example the interior of black holes), and the new formula makes entirely different predictions than 1/r^2. When s != 1, the region oBut all of these degrees of curvature -and everything in this projective universe- is governed by the same equation:f space described by the new law curves back on itself. In these light or space dense environments, curvature -as a function of density- is far greater. But all of these degrees of curvature -and everything in this projective universe- is governed by the same equation:

Since the initial condition of the universe is, in this model, massless -since it involves no space and time, and an infinite concentration of light- it follows that absolutely speaking light has no speed, and that the apparent speed of light is due to the expansion of space. The principle that

  • light is propagated in straight lines at the velocity c regardless of the state of motion of the emitting body

is in a suitably balanced classical region equivalent to the principle

  • space expands in straight lines at the velocity c regardless of the state of motion of the body in space

It follows from the switch from the usual space-centric perspective to the light-centric perspective, that any departure in the speed of an object from the speed of the uniform expansion of space -c- requires the action of a force. So when an object is at rest or moving uniformly (when it is not departing from the speed of the uniform expansion of space), it will for obvious reasons remain that way unless acted upon by a force. This gives us an objective notion of uniformity and explains the principle of inertia. Recalling that balanced classical regions are governed by the equation

\lim_{x\to \infty } \, e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}\right){}^2=1

we can deduce all of Newton’s laws of motion:

  • Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
  • Force is equal to the change in momentum (mV) per change in time. For a constant mass force = mass times acceleration.
  • For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

We also therefore deduce all the forces by reference to the thought that a force is the curvature of space-time resulting in the departure from c in the direction of the acceleration (an imbalance of space) or the de-acceleration of the expansion (an imbalance of light) of space.

The “Blind” Watchmaker

The short-ranged arithmetic sequences associated with s > or < 1 involve units, but these are not classical units -units that can be subject to an indefinite amount of scaling- but proto-units. They describe, not the moderately curved projections of our everyday classical experience arising, but the extremely curved projectors without which these projections and our classical world would vanish. This distinction between potentially infinite and strictly finite implies that the theory of evolution is a flawed theory of origins because it implies that the earliest state of the classical universe cannot possibly have been simple. It must have possessed the same order of complexity as the present-day universe, meaning that it can only have come into existence at once, and by an act of creation. Dawkins in the The Blind Watchmaker focuses on the eye, often cited by detractors as something that cannot have come about as the result of a stepwise process, and is at pains to argue the contrary case. But classical universe is like a giant eye that cannot have come about as a stepwise process, and so the premise on which all of Dawkins’ arguments in The Blind Watchmaker rest -that complexity is reducible to simplicity- is false, and all of these arguments unsound at their root. The classical universe can’t as evolutionary cosmology requires be scaled down to quantum size, and nor can the quantum universe be scaled up to classical size, and to suppose otherwise is to make a category mistake. This disposes of the first and most fundamental necessary condition of the theory of evolution captured by Dawkins statement:

In the beginning was simplicity.

The beginning in the sense of the beginning of the classical universe was, not simplicity, but a great complexity that came about at once. Beyond that, we are lead to the infinite concentration of light which is the source of the projected classical universe, but like the artificial point sources that diffuse finite amount of light to our universe this natural source lies beyond the time line of the universe.

Like materialism of which it is a from, evolution is nothing if not an attempt to banish originality and uniqueness from the universe by showing that everything in this universe derives from something else in this universe. But the enterprise fails because of the location of quantum projectors outside of the classical universe. It particularly fails when it comes to the singularity of light at root of everything that is, and which it cannot deal with in any way since this thing is derivable from nothing other than itself. Dawkins doesn’t appreciate what is perhaps the most important truth behind the engineering of the physical universe: the classical/quantum divide is the divide between the arithmetic and the proto-arithmetic, and therefore the quantum domain doesn’t as he imagines exist on the time line of the universe studied by biologists and scientists that study large scale objects – it is a fiery creative/destructive force lying as indicated beyond and beneath this time line, and it is the force that drives the arrows of time from the past into the future. This classical/quantum distinction provides a natural distinction between the evolutionary (the derived) and the creative (the original), where atomic, finite, quantum systems play the role of the originators of the molecular, potentially infinite, classical universe. But clearly there is a further distinction to be had arising from the difference between the atomic and the molecular: the classical universe increasingly involves a time line whose elements are repetitious, rather than unique, and so it also provides is a distinction between the easy (the combination of atomic proto-units and units and to produce molecular proto-units/units = the derivative) and the hard (the formation of new atomic proto-units/units = the original). And whilst we can all agree that the global direction given by the arrows of time is as evolution asserts one in which relative simplicity moves irreversibly towards complexity, we can further distinguish between derivative complexity and original complexity, and we can observe that the arrows of time move erratically but irreversibly from the latter towards the former. We might start with the radiative arrow arising from the expansion of waves outwards from their source since the disruption of the singularity of light is radiative in this manner. The most well known arrows are the thermodynamic arrow arising from the loss of heat in the direction of the future, the cosmological arrow arising from the expansion of the universe, the causal arrow arising form the fact that effects follows causes rather than precede them, the quantum arrow arising from the collapse of the wave-function, and the psychological arrow arising the fact that we remember the past and the future is unknown. Less well known is the computational arrow arising from the ease of problems in P, and the hardness of NP-Complete problems whose solution would permit the reversal of the arrows above. The inequality of P and NP, it can be said, reflects the impossibility of a classically computational universe, one in which everything is derivative, the universe whose most outspoken champion is Richard Dawkins. All of these arrows derive from the arithmetic arrow arising from the increase in zero-density and the decrease of prime-density, and they all point in the general direction leading from relative simplicity to complexity, but more particularly they all point in the direction leading from creative complexity to derivative complexity. Our focus here is the genetic arrow, which arises from the fact that the creative complexity of DNA decreases like all creative complexity in the direction of the future. This is the wrong direction for a universe that is evolutionary – such a universe must a follow an arrow leading somehow in the reverse direction, and the existence of this genetic arrow disposes of the second necessary condition of the truth of the theory of evolution. Dawkins:

The beauty of evolution is that it does provide an explanation of how you can get complexity out of simplicity. It does it by slow, gradual degree. At no point are you postulating the sudden coming into existence of a complicated being.

Evolution provides an explanation of how you can get derivative complexity out of pre-existing original complexity -by slow, gradual degree. It offers no explanation of how you can get original complexity, which involves the sudden coming into existence of a complicated being. Dawkins

Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that.

Science offers us an explanation of how derivative complexity (the easy) arose out of pre-existing original complexity (the hard). Science offers us no explanation of how original complexity arises. This is simply ignored by science, but it is a necessary condition of arithmetic consciousness. The “hypothesis” of God is a non-reductive condition of arithmetic consciousness.

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

Even at first glance, Dawkins position seems self-contradictory: if the watchmaker is as evolution dictates the product of blind, purposeless, mindless forces, then how can he be said in the final analysis to be anything other than blind, purposeless and mindless himself? Consciousness (mind), some materialists argue, emerges from a certain critical amount of blind, purposeless, mindless complexity, but we have seen that this is not the case, and that consciousness (the collapse an atomic wave-function) emerges from original non-reducible complexity, not from derivative complexity. But in any case the forces of physics are clearly far from blind and mindless. On the contrary, they exhibit such an extreme degree of foresight in regard to the purpose of producing arithmetic consciousness, that human watchmakers -who Dawkins agrees have minds and a purposes- are blind by comparison. If the (Generalized) Riemann Hypothesis (16) were false (if there was a zero of an L-Function with real part other than 1/2), then arithmetic conscious and the universe with it would vanish. As Dawkins himself has said:

To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability.

This is an understatement. Let me show you just how thin this “knifes edge”. Let g = Graham’s number (17) – if every digit in Graham’s number is considered to occupy as little as 1 Planck volume, it would nonetheless too big to fit in the observable universe- and note that if the value of s in the equation

\lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)} \left(\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left((s+1) \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)\right)}\right){}^{\frac{1}{s+1}}\right){}^{s+1}\right)=1

were to differ from 1 by as little as

1\ 10^{-g}

the primes would be finite, i.e. if and only if the there is a complex zero of an L-Function whose real part is other than 1/2 -if the Riemann Hypothesis is false- then there are no solutions to the equation

e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)} \left(\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left((s+1) \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)\right)}\right){}^{\frac{1}{s+1}}\right){}^{s+1}=\left(e^{2 \gamma } \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{2 \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}}}\right){}^2

This kind of precision -arguably the smallest but most significant difference ever seen in mathematics- is about as far from blindness, and lack of purpose as could be imagined. As for natural selection and for evolutionary (derivative) processes – in and of themselves they are blind, but they are directed by the creative (original) processes that underlie them. It is like the difference between the painter and the painting – in and of itself the painting is blind, but it conveys the vision of the painter. Dawkins may imagine, like the similarly minded Stephen Hawking (18), that he has an answer to this dilemma in the anthropic principle (the universe is fine-tuned because if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be conscious of it) and in multiverses, the most of which aren’t fine tuned, but by the considerations above neither of these is helpful to the cause of evolution. First the anthropic principle. Suppose that a prisoner sentenced to death by hanging escapes execution because the noose breaks three times, and there is a law decreeing that in these circumstances the prisoner is to be freed. Whilst it is true that he is able to contemplate his narrow escape only because the noose improbably broke multiple times, that is a necessary, not a sufficient condition of his escape. What are the sufficient conditions of the thrice-broken noose? By the same token fine-tuning is a necessary condition of a universe in which life and consciousness exists, but it is not sufficient. What are the sufficient conditions of life and consciousness? The government of the relationship between light and space by the Riemann Hypothesis provides both the necessary and sufficient conditions of life and consciousness. There are two related sets of laws beneath our scientific understanding of the universe -physical laws and mathematical laws- and all of our scientific knowledge is based on their interaction, an interaction that is governed by the Riemann Hypothesis, which places limits on the amount of randomness there is in the count and the thing being counted, the internal and the external number line. A meta-universe in which the Riemann Hypothesis is false, and in which constants of nature therefore lack the values they have in our universe, is not an arithmetically comprehensible universe. It is highly improbable that a single blind man firing a shot from a rifle will hit a bottle located a hundred meters away, but all things being equal an infinite number of blind shooters will hit such a bottle infinite times. But while we know that it is true that a sufficiently large number of blind shooters will hit the bottle in our Riemann Hypothesis-friendly, exquisitely fine-tuned, universe, we can’t apply this knowledge outside of this context. The same knock-down counter-argument can be offered in response to the well-known metaphor of a monkeys randomly pressing the keys on a typewriter: a sufficiently large number of monkeys, it is correctly argued, will eventually type all the works of Shakespeare, but this is a false analogy when used outside the context of our universe. We can make inferences about possibility and probability assuming the Riemann Hypothesis which guarantees that the relationship between the laws of physics and mathematics are as they are in our universe, but all bets are off in a universe where this relationship doesn’t exist. Many -notably Hawking and Dawkins- tend believe we are able to reason mathematically from somewhere outside the physical universe, a vantage point from which the mind is free from the constraints imposed on it by physics, but there is no such vantage point for a man. About universes in which the Riemann Hypothesis is false, and in which the laws of physics and mathematics are therefore related in an unfamiliar way, nothing serving Hawking’s and Dawkins reductionistic world-view can be said, because such universes are uncountable.

The God “Delusion”

Many of Dawkins arguments against God are straw man arguments. He analogizes God to Father Christmas, leprechauns, tooth fairies.., and then proceeds to argue that, since there is no evidence for a Father Christmas-like God that, there is no God (19). But the God of Judeo-Christianity is unlike Father Christmas in that he is not in essence an object within the physical universe, but a transcendent condition of the existence of objects within this universe. It is irrelevant to the question of God’s existence that he has rarely been observed coming down people’s chimneys on Christmas eve, because God is not the sort of entity that could come down a chimney. This is a glaring category mistake by Dawkins. Dawkins’ only argument against God which avoids this mistake is that propounded in the Blind Watchmaker, i.e. that God is unnecessary as an explanation because the theory of evolution is a sufficient to explain the universe and everything in it. To see why God really is necessary, we consider what are the three classic “proofs” of the existence of God, the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, and the teleological proof. The best example of the ontological proof comes from philosopher Alvin Plantinga (20) who argued in this way:

(1) God = the being that exists in all possible worlds;
(2) It is possible that God exists, i.e. a being satisfying this definition exists in at least one possible world;
(3) But if God exists in one possible world then he exists in all possible worlds;
(4) And if God exists in all possible worlds he exists in the actual world.
(5) Therefore God exists.

The best example of a cosmological proof comes from Leibniz (21) who argued in this way:

(1) There is a distinction between contingent beings and a necessary being in that the former are derived from other beings and the latter-is- not;
(2) God = necessary being;
(3) Continent beings are dependent on necessary being;
(4) The world as we know it, and everything in it, is contingent;
(5) Therefore God exists.

Paley’s argument -which has been our indirect focus throughout- is a teleological proof. In essence:

(1) Everything -such as a watch or an eye- that exhbits great intricacy and purpose stands in need of a designer;
(2) The world as we know it exhbits intricacy and purpose;
(3) Therefore the world stands in need of a designer;
(4) Designer of the World = God;
(5) Therefore God exists.

The standard refutation of Plantinga’s ontological argument that it is possible God doesn’t exist, from which it follows that he doesn’t exist in the actual world. Bertrand Russell eloquently expressed the standard refutation of Leibniz’ cosmological argument when he said during the course of a 1948 BBC radio debate with F.C. Copleston (22) is that if every event in a causal series has a cause, then there is no need to ask for the cause of the series as a whole:

I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother — that’s a different logical sphere.

The refutation of the teleological argument we have been considering from Dawkins is that things can exhibit great intricacy and apparent purpose when this in an illusion arising from the ability of evolution and natural selection to conjure complexity from simplicity. We are now in a position to reduce all these arguments to a single argument that is immune to these counter-arguments:

(1) A complex zero of an L-function off the 1/2 line -the falsity of the Riemann Hypothesis- implies the finitude of the primes;
(2) A universe in which the Riemann Hypothesis is false is a universe in which the primes are finite and arithmetic consciousness doesn’t exist;
(3) Arithmetic consciousness does exist in our universe;
(4) Therefore the Riemann Hypothesis is true in our universe;
(5) Therefore God -defined as transcendent singularity of light at root of every universe in which the Riemann Hypothesis is true- exists.

Download pdf


(1) Manuel, F (1974), The Religion of Isaac Newton

(2) Barnes, T (1993), Science and Biblical Faith

(3) Luria, I (2003), Shaar Hagilgulim: The Gates of Reincarnation

(4) Ulrich, E et al (2010), Qumran Cave 1: II: The Isaiah Scrolls

(5) Driver, S, and Neubauer, A (1969), The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters

(5) Damon, P, et al (1989), Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin

(6) Newton, I (), The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

(7) Paley, W (1802), Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature

(8) White, M (1997), Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer

(9) Dawkins, R (1986), The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

(10) Einstein A. (1916), Relativity: The Special and General Theory

(11) O’Connor, J (1996), General relativity

(12) Wald, R (1997), Gravitational Collapse and Cosmic Censorship

(13) Wald, R (1984), General Relativity

(14) Rubin, V et al (1980), Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R = 122kpc)

(15) de Swart, J. et al (2017), How dark matter came to matter

(16) Davenport, H (2000), Multiplicative number theory

(17) Graham, R et al (1971), Ramsey’s Theorem for n-Parameter Sets

(18) Hawking, S (2010), The Grand Design

(19) Dawkins, R (2006), The God Delusion

(20) Plantinga, A (1974) The Nature of Necessity

(21) Leibniz, G (1714), The Monadology

(22) Russell, B, and Copleston, F (1948), The Existence of God, in John Hick, ed., The Existence of God