God, Einstein and Quantum Mechanics

Most of us live in a world in which Euclidean geometry does everything we need done. We never (knowingly) deal with large enough masses of substance to note any difference in behavior. If we even remember that Pauling said such a difference existed, we focus on Vitamin C.
Yes, he’s the chap who said masses of that vitamin could cure the common cold. Too many of us have tried taking lots and lots of pills and gone right on sneezing. The whole argument has reduced poor Pauling and his theory to something of a joke.
Einstein suffered the same fate. He and men like Planck and Bohr turned physics on its head. But Einstein was not content to rest on his laurels. He looked at the incompatibility between his Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and didn’t like what he saw.
He didn’t like the fact that followers of the new theories saw the universe as a jumble of randomly occurring events without theme or unifying principle. This gave rise to one of his better known plaints: “God does not play dice with the universe.”
So Einstein set to work, spending the last dozen years of his life looking for some theory that could re-unify the universe. It was considered so impossible that he became the butt of jokes and sneers throughout the world of physics.
He plowed on—unsuccessfully. “I,” he said, “have explored a hundred roads that no one else need follow.” After all, he reminded people, he had made his reputation and won his Nobel prize. He could afford to pursue things that might damage a younger man’s career.
Today the whole realm of physics accepts the pursuit of what Einstein called “The Unified Field Theory” as being valid science. No one is laughing.
For most of us, such theorizing approaches the Fantastic. It’s entirely beyond our experience. It is not intuitively logical. A thing somehow changing when there is more of it. A world in which the motions of incredibly vast things and things so small as to be invisible all move in some sort of ordered reality that we cannot even see, let alone fathom.
I remember something I read once. A scientist was trying to explain why it is so difficult to grasp the phenomena of far away space. For one thing, living under miles of earth’s atmosphere puts us in the position of fish in a fish bowl. The water around them distorts all reality beyond the bowl; as our atmosphere distorts space.
I suspect it is more than water or atmosphere we live under and that distorts our perceptions of reality. I wonder if the real distortion isn’t more psychological. We live on a tiny little ball. Everything we deal with from the moment of birth onward is limited by and to the finite reality that can fit on this one, minute planet spinning in immeasurable space that for most of human existence wasn’t even imagined.
Could it be more than just Euclidean geometry—that works so well and fits so neatly on this teensy space—that is skewed? If we could isolate a small particle of the black matter of space, would it behave differently when limited by our finite world?
Our greatest minds have intelligence quotients of barely more than two hundred. Might there be theories, geometries, forces, realities or cosmic laws that might require an intelligence many more times as powerful just to understand?
We who live on a world where the farthest we can go is about 12,000 miles before coming back to ourselves—we can imagine a space that stretches incredible numbers of light years into the beyond. Is it so absurd to imagine an intelligence as much greater than our own?
If someone told us that 12,000 miles was as far as mankind could dream of going, we would make disparaging remarks about his knowledge and his intelligence. But we are equally disparaging when someone suggests the existence of an intellect as much greater than our own (who doesn’t play dice with our universe).
Is that or is that not silly?