Beyond Intelligent Design
From an autonomous universe to a functional virtual reality
The book is available at Amazon. Below are excerpts from a review by Indranu Suhendro* and Dmitri Rabounski**
…Therein, Dr. Harokopos outlines a genuine solution to the persistent, often popularly misunderstood problems and challenges in scientific epistemology from the ancient epochs of the Greeks and the Indians, through the medieval ages of the Perso-Arabic –and then pan-Hellenic European – civilization, to the most recent eras of modernism, post-modernism, and scientism.
…The philosophical propositions for cosmology and cosmogony elaborated upon by Dr. Harokopos in the very phrase”Intelligent Interaction” (notice how the more infinitely reflexive-neutral “interaction” can be inherently different from mere passive-dogmatic “design” here, especially when determining a genuine sense of cosmic semi-autonomy as well as both the weak and strong anthropic principles) must be seen as sincere and epistemic, and are meant to enrich public understanding of the matter in the very arena of “science and philosophy at a cross-roads”.
…the problem addressed herein by Dr. Harokopos: is the Universe, our home, autonomous or is it dependent (on a supposed “demi-urge” or “creator” – while the word “creation” should in any case be epistemically qualified)? If it is autonomous, is itmachine-like and ultimately random, or is it quasi-anthropomorphic and teleological, or is it absolutely autonomous? If it is dependent, what kind of dependency (or creation) is there: epiphanic (as in the neo-Platonic sense), or theological (as in the Kalam cosmological argument and in the Thomian sense), or none of these? Before answering – or rather, epistemically addressing – such questions, a sense of mindful humility is very important, one akin to Einstein who, as known, did not believe in a personal god, but for whom – like for Spinoza – the word “God” should represent a very broad, genuine sense of Reality and Onto-Realism…
… Harokopos, in countering the currently prevalent, financially and politically more supported dogma of a self-sufficient material universe emerging by chance and populated by randomness, does not side with creationism, let alone “biblical creationism” or “intelligent design” for he has assuredly maximum epistemic distance from falling solipsistically into this or that (while, like Einstein, considering “religion” only psychologically and historically); rather, like Einstein, he aims to humbly showhow the problem is not settled: be it among the Greeks, among medieval thinkers, or among the contemporary minds of today. He, like Einstein, humbly sees a “superior manifestation of intelligence” in Nature and on the horizon of things and, on a psychological and historical note, is merely sympathetic with the minority in this category – and the faintest of voices –, and this is true in any case.
*Scientific Secretary of Zelmanov Journal, the journal of General Relativity (Stockholm, Sweden)
**Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics, the US journal of physics (Gallup, NM, USA)