Dark Matter Can Enlighten Minds
by BradfordIntelligent Design is about sneaking ID into public schools. No, there no evidence for it. It's vacuous. But wait. There's this:
The total amount of dark matter – the unseen stuff thought to make up most of the mass of the universe – is five to six times that of normal matter. This difference sounds pretty significant, but it could have been much greater, because the two types of matter probably formed via radically different processes shortly after the big bang. The fact that the ratio is so conducive to a life-bearing universe "looks like a tremendous coincidence", says Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley.
The succession of anthropic discoveries is becoming routine. If you hate ID you better hedge your bets with multiverse theories. That big lab we call our universe looks ever more designed the more it is studied. Pssst. Bradford ain't lyin.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:22 am
The IDists should have had you take the stand at Dover, Bradford. You could have explained about Of Pandas and People. I am sure you would have told Judge Jones exactly where cdesign proponentsists came from, and he would not have concluded that ID is about sneaking creationism into school.
Back in the real world, here is what Judge Jones actually concluded.
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 8:22 am
December 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Pixie, I'm not defending the Dover school board. But that school district does not represent public education in the U.S. much less the rest of the world. The fact that ID elicts knee jerk references to that case shows the superficiality of ID critics.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 8:26 am
December 16th, 2008 at 8:41 am
The court case went into the whole of ID, such as the publication of the textbook, Of Pandas and People. You cannot claim that the Dover school board had anything to do with the systematic replacement of "creationism" with "intelligent design", can you? That event, among other things, led Judge Jones to conclude that ID itself was an attempt to sneak creationism into schools in general, and not just in Dover.
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 8:41 am
December 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Judge Jones went beyond where he needed to go to render a verdict. He does not seem to have in depth knowledge of issues or be aware of the broad scope of individuals associated with advocating ID.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 8:55 am
December 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
So Bradford, I take it ID has something useful to say about dark matter? What is it, exactly?
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 9:14 am
December 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Yes, the evidence against ID was so strong that he felt obliged to beyond just the attempt to get ID in to schools in Dover, and rule against the on-going attempts to get ID into schools across the US. Er, how does that help your argument, Bradford.
The IDists were there in court to represent their side (well, okay, Demski bottled it). If they failed, you can only blame them. In any event, a Christian, federal court judge who was presented with evidence from both sides of the debate concluded that ID was an attempt to get creationism into schools, which rather flies in the face of claims to the otherwise.
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 9:32 am
December 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
The defense depended upon a claim that ID was science, their experts said they wanted to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural, and along with the plantiffs asked the court to rule on whether ID was science.
The court also found that defense witnesses "testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions".
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 10:28 am
December 16th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Olegt,
No olegt, it is science that is offering useful information about ID. The fine tuning of dark matter just happens to fit nicely with an ID universe. Try reading the article, or better yet read the Freivogel paper and maybe you could actually add something useful to the conversation yourself. Like Bousso did.
And as I have predicted elsewhere, when we bring you science that doesn't fit your preconceptions it causes you to drool, screech, and throw feces at the Dover school board or anything else you perceive to be a threat.
Thanks everyone for completely ignoring the science that Bradford so generously offered you, and instead choosing to reach below your prehensile tails for something to fling.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
It was Bradford who chose to start his OP with a comment about ID in education. He wanted to score cheap points. Why act all self-righteous when others react to it?
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I don't see "fine-tuning" as scientifically useful information about ID. The universe is full of patterns. Science can't ascribe an intelligent cause just because we perceive a pattern. That would be puddle-logic.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Pixie,
So you've resorted to "He started it"?
Bradford's post was intended to contrast the stereotype of ID with what science is revealing about ID.
But rather than addressing the science you and your critic friends choose to follow your prejudices. Bolstering the stereotype is apparently more important to you than the science that Bradford offered you. It's a shame you monkeys can't resist the urge to grab a handful anytime you see the letters I and D together in a sentence.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Zachriel,
Yes, indeed, young Zachriel. Just imagine if raw chemicals somehow woke up and started thinking!
Some scientists think about how fine-tuned a universe would have to be to make that happen.
You sit and think about how far you can fling a pawful of crap.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Chunkdz,
If I filter out the whining, the gist of your message is that ID brings nothing to the table. That doesn't surprise me.
The multiverse and the landscape aren't accepted science, they are fringe hypotheses that can't even be tested experimentally at the moment or in the foreseeable future. For that reason I (along with the vast majority of physicists) don't take papers like arXiv:0810.0703 seriously.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
In my humble opinion, creationists like dark matter not because it enlightens the mind but rather because it does the opposite—muddles the water. Scientists don't understand what dark matter is, they have no idea how it formed or what determines its abundance. So it must be a sign of design.
If that's not god of the gaps then I don't know what is.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Happens every day. Quite amazing, really.
It is reasonable to speculate, and to stretch one's imagination. (Look at Adams' Four Ages of Sand to see a master of imagination at work.) Wonderment is vital to the scientific enterprise. But it takes more than fancy to build a valid scientific theory.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Hey Olegt, welcome back from self-bannage lol.
Comment by Guts — December 16, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Zachriel wrote:
I'd like the recipe for your thinking chemical soup, please. It better not have that "percolate for a billion years" line in it either, because it "happens every day", and I don't have eons to wait for my soup.
That whole "get it from Planet X" stuff won't work either. I need my soup now.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 16, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Amazing how published science makes you retreat into such obtuseness.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
They're Made Out Of Meat.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
It's neither published, nor science. Freivogel's paper is a preprint.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
olegt,
Finally a critic who doesn't just fling poo at the Dover School Board. Oleg flings his poo at Theoretical Physics too.
So many threats. So little poo.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I've earned that right, chunkdz. I am a theoretical physicist.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
chunkdz
Ah, right. So I was wrong to bring up ID in education. only I did not. So now I am wroong to point out that Bradford bought the topic up. I think I can see how you IDists work.
Rather than address the suuposed science, I chose to address the falsehood Bradford is trying to promote. I do apologise if you find this poor behave.
It is a shame Bradford could not simply present the supposed science. He chose not. That set the tone for the thread.
So let us talk about the science, chunkdz. Basically, this is the fine-tuning argument. It is, in my opinion, the best that ID has (out of a sorry bunch). I think multiverse offers at least one alternative, but realistically we do not know enough about it to be able to decide between the two or any other as yet unimagined hypothesis.
The thing about the fine-tuning argument, is where does it take us? Let us grant that it is true, and the universe was set up intelligently. Can we then decide between a huge computer simulation set up by extra-universal scientists who are studing the universe as an experiment or a universe fine-tuned by time travellers from the far future? What science does it lead to? What are IDists scientists doing right now about the fine-tuning argument, where are they going with it? I look forward to hearing more on this ID science.
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
olegt,
Yes! Every great poo flinger is convinced that his poo is absolutely the best poo on the planet. Yours is undoubtedly of the finest consistency and texture. Please continue.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
olegt:
Strangely, I don't think dark energy/matter are anything at all. I think they're mere fudge-factors for "correcting" our poor theories of gravity. Which of course reflect our poor understanding of gravity. But then, since we don't even know where mass comes from – on which this force is postulated to act – our ignorance is not so surprising.
We note that the universe is as it *is*, and try to think up reasons for it being that way. If what we think up cannot account for what we observe, we'll add patches and stitch holes until the fabric is so tattered it can't be fixed anymore. Then we shrug our shoulders and promise we'll think up something else eventually.
That the universe is what it *is* and does what it does, and we are able to think up fanciful theories about observed order (i.e., "laws") to explain it are indications of design to those disposed to suspect design in things that appear designed. That would be most humans who ever lived, so you can't really expect your protests to convert the world to scientism. Or even just materialism. Science demonstrate a century ago that materialism is a tall tale. Science designed itself to be provisional, so scientism is a crappy philosophy too.
You'll have this in a world where individuals are capable of independent thought and will. You wouldn't have it in a world where such things don't exist.
Comment by Joy — December 16, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
What does it say about ID? I can see how you might think it confirms ID, but does it really tell us anything about ID?
I read the paper. It doesn't mention ID or intelligent or design or, indeed, anything about origins. On the other hand, the paper is quite clear that it is basing its predictions entirely on what observers require, not on how observers came into existence. Are you sure you're not reading something into this work that isn't really there?
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Joy wrote:
Alternative theories of dark matter along these lines have been proposed. However, they have been largely discredited by recent observations of a merger between two galactic clusters. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article discussing this: Dark_Matter#Modifications_of_gravity.
Key paragraph from an astro paper arXiv:astro-ph/0608407 cited in the article:
It looks like dark matter is there, after all.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Provan,
So what? Physicists have long sought a Theory of Everything and the anthropic principle has implications for that. As Einstein said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
The various degrees of fine tuning for physical constants and ratios often support the Goldilocks theory. No surprise for some ID'ers, but an enigma for pure materialists.
Don't you have anything you want to say about the Dover School Board? How about that William Dembski? Doesn't he just make your fur stand on end?
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Pixie,
So Bradford lampoons a dumb stereotype, you choose to embrace the
dumb stereotype, and it's all Bradford's fault.
You are a piece of work, Pixie.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
olegt:
Still looks like a fudge-factor to me. But you'll have this whenever you appeal to "the Invisible Unknown" to make your calculations come out right. In fact, it doesn't look a whole lot different conceptually from vitalism. Or Intelligent Design.
Sometimes it seems like this entire culture war is so deeply rooted in competing metaphysics that science itself is at fault. But I'm sure you'll say your magical poof-stuff is somehow more 'real' than anyone else's magical poof-stuff, because it's generated from Almighty Science rather than the ancient human attempt to know the Almighty God.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I expect we're all fundamentally wrong, without much hope of ever being fundamentally right. Mere Dueling Metaphysics, just like it always was.
Comment by Joy — December 16, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Hi Oleg,
Glad to see you posting again to TT.
You wrote that suggesting dark matter/energy is unneccesary with a better understanding of gravity to …
You then linked to a Wikipedia which included…
"However, a study in August 2006 reported an observation of a pair of colliding galaxy clusters whose behavior, it was claimed, was not compatible with any current modified gravity theories.[25]."
However, the article went on to say…
"In 2007, John W. Moffatt proposed a theory of modified gravity (MOG) based on the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT) that claims to account for the behavior of colliding galaxies.[26]
and futhermore is suggested my favorite, tying spacetime to Quantum Mechanics…
"Quantum mechanical explanations
In another class of theories one attempts to reconcile gravitation with quantum mechanics and obtains corrections to the conventional gravitational interaction. In scalar-tensor theories, scalar fields like the Higgs field couple to the curvature given through the Riemann tensor or its traces. In many of such theories, the scalar field equals the inflaton field, which is needed to explain the inflation of the universe after the Big Bang, as the dominating factor of the quintessence or Dark Energy. Using an approach based on the exact renormalization group, M. Reuter and H. Weyer have shown[27] that Newton's constant and the cosmological constant can be scalar functions on spacetime if one associates renormalization scales to the points of spacetime. Some M-Theory cosmologists also propose that multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects on the visible universe meaning that dark matter is not necessary for a unified theory of cosmology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter#Modifications_of_gravity
You have suggested that I don't know enough (yet) to understand how I am misunderstanding, but it sure seems appropriate to think that the fundamentals of QM and relavistic spacetime are inherently linked.
Which would also link Gravity and "Quantum Weirdness".
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 16, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Is that the Dembski who makes flash animations with farting noises? The one who introduces the Explanatory Filter, 10 years later declares it dead, and then resurrects it just to spite his critics? The Dembski who once said that peer review was overrated and is now bragging that his paper with Bob "Galapagos Finch" Marks has finally cracked the peer-review ceiling?
No, he doesn't make my fur stand on end. He makes me laugh.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
So Bradford lampoons a dumb stereotype, you choose to embrace the dumb stereotype, and it's all my fault? Ever look in the mirror, chunkdz?
By the way, congratulations to Joy, the only IDist on this thread who seems to want to discuss the science instead of whining about the ID opponent not talking about the science.
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Joy wrote:
Well, that's how physics works. Recall the history of neutrino. In 1930 the existence of this particle was postulated to account for the missing energy and momentum in β decays. It interacts so weakly with matter that experimentalists were unable to observe it until 1956. Now we we have solid proof that neutrinos exist. Heck, we even know that they come in 3 flavors and that they change flavors on the fly.
These days physicists are working on detecting particles that make up dark matter. Maybe they won't succeed, but maybe they will.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
LOL! All I know is when you put a mirror in front of a drooling, angry chimp it makes him freak out and fling poo. It took you all of 1 post to submerge yourself in a knee-jerk torrent of poo flinging and stereotyping.
Do you think that Telic Thoughts was supportive of the Dover Board?
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
olegt:
LOL!!! Good one, Oleg. You've never seen a neutrino and neither has anybody else. What, exactly do you "know?" That this purported beastie precisely confirms your math, or that your math precisely confirms the existence of this beastie?
BTW, I always wanted to ask… is our constant bombardment with this sea of beasties responsible for thermodynamics? An intriguing weird idea, but as is the case with all those weird ideas past the boundary of what we can know or demonstrate, not necessarily anything more meaningful than a bedtime story.
Comment by Joy — December 16, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
olegt:
So you don't know what dark matter is. Join the club.
This isn't a gap. It's an anthropic argument. You know better. If you see a maze and find out there are a million routes to nowhere and one that leads to a treasure and find out that some IDiot navigates his way to the treasure the first try, do you at least suspect the outcome was loaded?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
You said, "it is science that is offering useful information about ID," yet the paper offers no information about ID whatsoever. I was just pointing out that you had mistaken your own interpretation for something science had offered, that's all.
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Papers and even articles do not necessarily state things like transcriptional network motifs include feed-forward loops and multi-input motifs and such loops and motifs argue for modular cellular networks. But if you wish to argue the case for cellular network modularity you can reference papers containing the supporting data. The same applies to mainstream evolution, ID…
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Provan,
Do you think that anthropic explanations have zero ramifications for ID? Or are you just being obtuse again?
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Got anything about Behe you want to get off your chest?
Guillermo Gonzales?
Sternberg?
I'm here for you.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Well, yes, actually, I do, but the point is that this paper — the only science here — doesn't offer such ramifications.
If you'd like to discuss my position, I simply observe that anthropic arguments depend only on what humans are and give us no insight whatsoever into how they got that way. You still have to apply ID's standard "What else could it be?" argument to get from this paper to ID.
This data doesn't support ID. See above.
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Wrong. When one wins the lottery repeatedly design is a strong suspect. That's what we're witnessing. One condition after another falling within a narrow range that is hospitable to life.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
dp:
It has to do with life and an alignment of fortuitous circumstances favoring it.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
chunkdz
It is so tempting to say, yes, I can believe that that is all you know.
That would be impressive. A whole torrent from just one post – and only five lines at that.
What makes you think my post was "knee-jerk", and indeed, why is it a problem if it is? I saw Bradford posting nonsense, and I called him on. Sure, you want to spin that as "a knee-jerk torrent of poo flinging and stereotyping", because, hey, this is a culture war, afterall.
Are you claiming that Bradford was talking only about TT's version of ID? That was not the impression I got. Here it is again:
The way I read this is that Bradford is stereotyping (or lampooning if you are an IDist) ID opponents. This is what all ID opponents say. Now to my mind, he is not thinking that all ID opponents believe that Intelligent Design at Telic Thoughts is about sneaking ID into public schools. I read it to mean that Intelligent Design in general, or all Intelligent Design, or the Intelligent Design movement is about sneaking ID into public schools. I think the idea that Bradford is trying to promote in that first sentence of the OP is that Intelligent Design is not about sneaking ID into public schools. I appreciate that at Telic Thoughts it is not, but there is substantial evidence – enough to convince a Christian federal judge – that the ID movement was using ID to sneak creationism into schools.
By the way, do you think Judge Jones was correct in that assessment?
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 16, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Obtuse.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Pixie:
It looks like the nonsense is coming from your direction. I post a blog on dark matter and the anthropic principle and your subsequent reactions are focused on the singularly narrow issue of public schools. But that is in keeping with your history. It's always a narrow vision that marks your reactions.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Joy wrote:
You've never seen a neutron, Joy, but I don't think you doubt their existence. Physicists use scintillation detectors to observe light flashes excited by them, either directly (for neutrons) or indirectly, through their reaction products (for neutrinos).
No, thermodynamics has nothing to do with neutrinos. Thermal physics in its modern incarnation was developed in the 19th century, i.e. well before even the idea of neutrinos crossed anyone's mind. A bunch of spheres elastically colliding with each other (and the walls of their container) possesses a well-defined temperature. No need to bombard them with anything.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Is the phrase ID movement found in Judge Jones' ruling?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Bradford wrote:
Can you be a little more specific and describe the route taken by the "IDiot"? From my standpoint it looks like he is just sitting in an armchair, but I may be wrong.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Pixie,
Because Bradford was not advocating ID in schools. You have no reason to feel threatened by Telic Thoughts, as none of the principals here supported the school board, afaik.
Yet you use your very first post to ignore the linked articles and launch into a defense of your stereotype. Kneejerk.
If you really feel so strongly about your prejudicial view of ID'ers, why don't you go fling poo at some website that actually supports ID in schools?
Seriously, you come off like some old temperance preaching spinster who strides into Starbucks and starts railing about the dangers of alcohol.
Listen, lady, we're just trying to enjoy a cup of java and we've heard it all before so why not shut up and order a grande or take your rant to the bar down the street. You're embarrassing yourself.
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
olegt:
The route is the history of the universe and all that has taken place from its birth to the advent of life on earth. Sit in your armchair and ponder this. If natural laws were such that conditions favoring life were ubiquitous throughout the universe and so was life itself then life would look as inevitable as gravity. If you were going to look for design you might start by looking for anamolies. All these mountains in South Dakota have similar features but four stand out. Erosion could not have produced these faces. If initial conditions at the point of the BB could have produced a broad array of values for nature's constants of which only a minute percentage would give rise to conditions allowing for life then so noted. What conditions would give rise to an earth like planet with a suitable star allowing for the possibility of life? Would this be a commonplace occurence throughout the universe or a very rare confluence of cosmological events? Within such planets should we expect to find organic chemicals that could be precursors to life and would chemical properties of them, as opposed to our expectations, produce reactions that give rise to cells? If you replayed the history of life would the present outcome be virtually inevitable with variations or would it be an extremely improbable outcome? Dogma or philosophical naturalism would dictate that we presume the sufficiency of natural outcomes. Wind up that cosmological clock and down the timeline comes the earth, sun, cells and eukaryotes. It all flows naturally or does it? If you question the necessity of an affirmative answer to that question then causal scenarios allowing for design become possible. Why not instead allow for a flow of cosmological data and a mindset open to all conclusory options?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Is any of that empirically testable, Bradford?
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Given that life exists, the probability that the dark matter/non-dark matter ratio is conductive to a life-bearing universe equals one. So where's the surprise?
Comment by Raevmo — December 16, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
That's what I said, isn't it? Yes, let's all agree we're amazingly fortunate. All done. No need for more data.
Now focus: What caused this fortunate turn of events? I claim we have no idea. You claim that it must be an intelligent designer. Anthropic arguments don't help us resolve our difference of opinion: we already agree we're lucky.
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Yes, perhaps, but we here at Telic Thoughts are more open minded, and we are willing to consider intelligent design as a possible cause. All you have to do is actually produce some evidence of intelligent design instead of just pointing out why one explanation or another doesn't seem possible.
As long as you base your argument on nothing but what is probable, all one has to do to shoot you down is point out that an intelligent designer is the most improbable of all explanations.
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Did this involve empirical testing Olegt?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
What contingencies are connected with the life outcome?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Bradford:
I don't know. Do you?
Comment by Raevmo — December 16, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
That would provide us with nothing more than your personal opinion.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Were there contingencies connected with the BB? If there were then our understanding of the particular outcome peculiar to our universe occurs within a range of possible outcomes. That in turn furthers an understanding of what contingencies lead to life.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
In other words: you don't know either.
Comment by Raevmo — December 16, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Bradford wrote:
No, it did not.
I have already said that I do not consider the multiverse part of science. The same goes for the anthropic principle. As Penrose wrote in The Emperor's New Mind, "it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."
And now back to my question: is any of what you described testable?
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I don't know if anyone does. Since when does that inhibit inquires? We're looking back to the initial moments of origin and perhaps beyond. I'm not inserting presumptions into gaps. Let the chips fall where they may.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Olegt, is it your position that it is not possible to predict the most likely value for the ratio of dark matter to normal matter which allows observers like us to emerge?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Bradford,
It seems like you're evading my question.
To answer yours, yes, you can calculate how much matter is needed in the Universe to create conditions like those we have today. But that calculation cannot be subjected to any empirical testing: we already know that the answer is correct. We know how much dark matter exists in the Universe!
Your turn to answer my question.
Comment by olegt — December 16, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
How did we arrive at the knowledge of how much matter exists or, as far as that's concerned, knowledge related to any number of anthropic factors that could have been mentioned instead? There is empirical testing connected with these matters.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 12:24 am
December 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
oleg to Bradford:
There you have it in a nutshell, Bradford. We know how much invisible closet monsters exist because we know exactly how many invisible closet monsters it takes to balance our equations. We need invisible closet monsters because without them, our equations don't balance. And our equations must balance because we know what gravity is and what it does, and there has to be about 95% more matter (that has to be invisible closet monsters because we can't see it or detect it by any means) in our material universe for our cool theories about gravity and what it does to work. Duh.
That's simple enough for anyone to understand. Is it science? Why, yes it must be. Because we make the rules up as we go along.
I must say that's some really impressive sleight of mind there, oleg. You don't happen to be a well-paid coverup expert for nuclear meltdowns and/or blown supercollider superconductors in your spare time, do you?
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2008 @ 12:27 am
December 17th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Could someone help me out with this?
Is all dark matter sparticles? Or is it theorized that sparticles might make up some of the dark matter that exists?
Comment by GringoRoyale — December 17, 2008 @ 1:05 am
December 17th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Also,
is all dark matter classified as WIMPS? Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.
Comment by GringoRoyale — December 17, 2008 @ 1:11 am
December 17th, 2008 at 7:50 am
GringoRoyale wrote:
WIMPs are one of the leading candidates for dark matter. At this point, such particles only exist in the imagination of theorists. The idea is that WIMPs interact only via gravity and the weak force, but not with photons. Neutrinos fit the bill, but they are too light and fast to explain the known properties of dark matter. It tends to form clumps, which points to slowly moving and massive objects, so one expects WIMPs to have a mass on the order of a GeV or more.
The Standard Model of particle physics has no particles that look like WIMPs. Its extensions, such as the Minimal Supersymmetry Models, predict the existence of sparticles, supersymmetric partners of the familiar particles. The lightest sparticle (neutralino) is expected to be stable and fairly heavy (50 to 2000 GeV), so it is an ideal WIMP candidate.
In addition, there are macroscopic candidates for dark matter, known as MAssive Compact Halo Objects, or MACHOs (pun intended). Those would be black holes, brown dwarfs and such.
Here's a link to a review article Experimental Searches for Dark Matter by Timothy Sumner from the Astrophysics Group at Imperial College London.
Comment by olegt — December 17, 2008 @ 7:50 am
December 17th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Bradford wrote:
The amount of matter in a galaxy can be deduced from the velocities of its stars: the faster a star rotates about the center, the more mass exists inside its orbit. This estimate can then be compared to the amount of visible matter (stars and dust) and it turns out that there isn't enough visible stuff in galaxies to account for the observed rotation speeds of the stars. This much has been known since the 1930s. See Dark_Matter#Observational_evidence at Wikipedia.
I don't understand the second part of your question.
And I suppose you're not going to answer my question, so we'll leave it at that.
Comment by olegt — December 17, 2008 @ 7:58 am
December 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Would you enlighten us regarding the details of your (im)probability quest, Provan? I'm sure you're all giddy and can't wait to teach us your personal philosophy.
Short version: you talk poop.
Comment by Jean — December 17, 2008 @ 9:14 am
December 17th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Jean:
Jean, I have seen you around at TT for at least a year, but in all this time you have never, ever, made a positive contribution. All you do is personally attack critics of ID. Could you please make some positive contributions in the future?
Comment by Raevmo — December 17, 2008 @ 10:06 am
December 17th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Zachriel wrote:
These are not the raw chemicals I was sold. This chemical soup has meat in it. Besides, the only line I see here on your recipe for making the meat is "allow meat to slap together for 4 billion years", which is the very thing I asked you not to include.
My Chinese investors are going to be very disappointed.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 17, 2008 @ 10:33 am
December 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Caveat emptor.
Yes, meat is chemicals.
The "happens every day" refers to chemicals waking up and starting to think. As for the recipe, I'm sorry, but a soufflé takes time.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 11:41 am
December 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Thanks for that answer, olegt.
appreciated.
Comment by GringoRoyale — December 17, 2008 @ 11:45 am
December 17th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not finding the standard anthropic coincidence in this paper:
The fact that the ratio is so conducive to a life-bearing universe "looks like a tremendous coincidence".
This may be true, but your typical anthropic coincidence bears the signature of the "Goldilocks Enigma", and I don't see how the assumed ratio of dark matter to matter defines an anthropic coincidence without consideration for the diametrically opposing runaway tendency that counterbalances the total gravitational effect.
probably formed via radically different processes
Probably?… Probably not.
Comment by island01 — December 17, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
olegt:
Don't you guys ever get tired of magical poof-beasties and invisible closet monsters? I mean, if my whole job in life were simply to invent demons to make up for holes in my equations (and understandings), I'd probably reach retirement age suspecting I hadn't contributed a thing to practical human knowledge other than 'if your math doesn't work, cheat'.
But it's certainly true enough that our 'standard' theories can't account for observations, though one might suspect it could be an observational anomaly. Or maybe we're just nowhere close to knowing what's going on. It's starting to look like both mass and the gravity that acts upon it might involve effects of causes we can't observe because they originate in different dimensions than the ones we inhabit. This might have been made rather obvious when those predicted 'holes' in spacetime turned out to be real, but there just weren't enough of 'em…
Or, as Frank the Pug said to Agent J in MIB…
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Zachriel,
So a puddle suddenly waking up is equivalent to a human waking from a nap, huh? Your 'obtuse meter' just shorted out. Thanks for wasting our time and bandwidth.
Comment by chunkdz — December 17, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I didn't say that. Humans are composed of chemicals. And at least some humans wake and begin to think.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Joy,
I actually track this dark matter stuff pretty well for a disinterested amateur, and I think your position is actually reasonably accurate. I also still suspect that the problem might be in the theories, even after I read about the recent discovery olegt mentioned. But I have three points for you:
1. This really is a complicated scientific issue that neither you nor I really know enough about that we can reasonably brush it aside as "cheating", even as we continue to suspect that the problem is actually in the numbers rather than being something undetected. (Didn't that CERN rap tell us we'll know whether dark matter exists once the LHC is up?
)
2. There's no motive for people to make up this stuff, let alone to pay people to make up this stuff. There's just as much, if not more, fame and riches in discovering a problem in the existing theories as there is in discovering a new form of matter that makes the existing theories correct. There's no reason at all to think that people trying to find evidence for dark matter are doing so for any reason other than a sincere interest in discovering dark matter if it exists or ruling it out if it cannot be discovered.
3. Regardless, the dark matter issue is being debated using real theories and real data and real scientific concepts. Even if every single thing anyone's ever said about dark matter turns out to be false, at least we will be able to demonstrate that it is false. Even in your wildest case, where dark matter is nothing but a sham, we'll eventually be able to show it was a sham. ID doesn't even rise to the level of "might be a sham".
Comment by don provan — December 17, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I would like to see the precise gap-free origination of the "receipe" for said soufflé.
(BTW, humans are conscious, and it is unknown scientifically whether or not chemicals organized in a certain way alone is responsible for this phenomenon. Since "thinking" is something conscious "awake" humans do, your statement that chemicals wake up and start to think is incomplete and misleading.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Zach,
You haven't said anything. That's the problem.
I said "raw chemicals", idiot.
And some are so obtuse they think raw chemicals wake up and think.
Comment by chunkdz — December 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Cadavers are composed of chemicals too. Do you also think of them as meat?
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
If you cook thinking meat, it no longer thinks.
Though meat is composed of chemicals, not all chemicals are meat, nor does all meat think. Thinking meat is apparently quite rare.
Yes, cadavers are meat. Tearing apart dead animals for the spawn to ingest is a popular tradition during the holidays.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
There was actually a relevant point involved before the diversion. Just because the universe is compatible with human life doesn't mean the universe was designed for human life. That's puddle-logic.
The CSI of the puddle's hole is huge. It's not that the shape of the hole is merely complex. It's that it matches so precisely the shape of the puddle. It's highly specified!
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yes. It was my point that any puddle that suddenly woke up and started thinking would have every reason to wonder why he can wonder about the universe.
I said "raw chemicals", idiot.
Comment by chunkdz — December 17, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
No, it's an attempt to identify contingencies and account for the observed outcome as contrasted with a perhaps almost infinite number of contrary possibilities. Someone has to win the lottery but when the same individual repeatedly wins it all but anti-telicians would begin to suspect design.
If the hole is a ditch dug to a planned depth your parody becomes one directed at your own critique.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I wish I had more time, as this is fascinating. I’m wondering what type of world view leads someone to degrade their fellow human beings as meat. Are you an atheist?
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
dp:
I'm actually quite radical on this end of things, based on the fact that they just can't seem to get a handle on mass and gravity – thus must pretend like 95% or so of the whole universe is MIA. Completely invisible, mostly undetectable (except for the holes in our theories), and counterintuitive enough to make Creationism seem almost reasonable in comparison.
If it ever manages to get up and stay up for more than a couple of go-arounds. That's beginning to look less like a sure thing these days. No, I don't pretend to KNOW what's wrong with the theories, I only suspect they've been going about it the wrong way for so long they've forgotten what the right way might be. Imagine a huge banquet hall lined with blackboards scribbled with equations and solutions. They're almost all the way round, approaching the first blackboard again and still scratching their heads about whole huge amounts of supposed 'reality' that is nowhere to be found. You glance over to that first blackboard, their starting point, and notice that right there in the first equation 2 + 2 = 5.
They may have the whole nature of matter/energy wrong, but can't see it because they've been utterly dazzled for generations by the amazing fact that the more energy they pour into point-space, the more weird beasties manage to pop out. As if matter and energy were some sort of equivalent or something. Big Bangs can be fun, but our world doesn't work on the smashing atoms menu. Some of those beasties are reported not to have existed anywhere since the first nanoseconds of the bang. Exactly what practical human issues do they solve in 2008?
And you think they don't get paid for it? Do you know what that still-idled LHC cost (and is still costing, and will continue to cost)? These are the biggest, baddest machines in the whole of humanity's history of building big, bad machines. Why do guys soup up their cars? Why do they fall in love with mostrous nuclear reactors (when less complicated (and dangerous) machines would provide as many 'trons)? Why do they blast people and things to space riding atop semi-controlled WMDs? More Bang for the Buck. It has always been thus.
You can bet your bippy that dark matter and energy will still be asserted to exist even if it is undiscoverable. Because there are holes in the theories, and ~95% of the universe is still MIA. Though I suppose we can hope that some genius someday does figure out how to manipulate mass and gravity "the easy way," which means not simply beating it into submission. After all, if there are 11 (or 22 or infinite) dimensions in reality, of which we experience only 4, then the immensity of what we're "missing" might more logically be residing 'there'.
You know they're gearing up to promote 'cold' fusion reactors now, don't you? You remember that 'sham', I'm sure. Seems reproducing the effects wasn't as hard as most everybody thought – or wanted desperately for it to be because there's way more money in plasma fusion (pipe dream) and atom-smashing. Go figure.
ID isn't going to go away just because people don't call it ID. The idea that there's rhyme and reason to our universe and all things in it – including us and discoverable by us – is as old as our existence on the planet and our curiosity about what makes everything tick the way it does. That it might include teleological design (possibly by intelligence occupying 'other' dimensions) will remain a better supposition about what we're likely never to know for sure in our lifetimes than the monumental shoulder-shrug that insists 95% of what *is* is actually *not*. Randomly accidental as *is not* has to be by philosophical commitment and all.
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I'm just curious, but do you deny that, given that the universe exists with the known properties it has, that the outcome could have been any different with regards to the appearance of humans?
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I vote for hungry cannibal.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Zachriel: Just because the universe is compatible with human life doesn't mean the universe was designed for human life. That's puddle-logic.
kornbelt888: I'm just curious, but do you deny that, given that the universe exists with the known properties it has, that the outcome could have been any different with regards to the appearance of humans?
The tiresome, common, and unfounded assumption that's being made by both sides, (as usual), is that a strong anthropic constraint means that the universe was created *for* us, rather than the other way round.
I honestly don't know which side is more arrogant.
Comment by island01 — December 17, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Joy wrote:
No, we don't get tired. And furthermore, past experience shows that physicists can close pretty large gaps in their knowledge.
Take the situation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Physicists discovered gaping holes in their understanding of the world. (1) The Michelson-Morley experiments showed that the theory of luminiferous aether was wrong, putting the entire theory of electromagnetism in jeopardy. (2) The ultraviolet catastrophe seemed to indicate that electromagnetism was also incompatible with thermodynamics. (3) The Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem proved that para, dia, and ferromagnetism were impossible. (4) Rutherford's experiments and the resulting planetary model of the atom were incompatible with discrete atomic spectra and in fact with the very stability of atoms! How's that for a theory in crisis?
Well, physicists managed to solve all of those problems. That required the invention of relativity and quantum mechanics, but hey, it was worth it!
You can whine all you want, no one cares.
Comment by olegt — December 17, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
How's that for a theory in crisis?
David Gross calls science's failure to produce a dynamical structure principle the single biggest failure of physics in the last twenty years. It's more like 35, and string theory isn't doing any better than loop quantum gravity, where time *without progress* compounds the absurdity exponentially in the direction of crackpotdom, PhD not withstading…
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/
On the one hand we have a very pointed bio-orientation. Maybe you think that's debatable, but I've found that it's usually not.
On the other hand we have a desperate need for a cosmological structure mechanism.
Where one and one equals a clear call for the willfully ignored bio-oriented cosmological structure principle.
Even David Gross doesn't want that to be reality.
Comment by island01 — December 17, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
island01:
The notion works either way, though I've always been intrigued by the idea that intelligent life on planet Earth just might have been some version of velociraptor (or turkey). Sort of dino-bird-people. Apparently those 'raptors were well on their way when their world came to an abrupt end and rodents took over.
In the end it doesn't matter if the universe was made for us, or we were made for the universe. We're still here, and the only thing approaching intelligent life in the universe that we know of. So we ask these big questions and either tell ancient stories about the answers we don't know (religion) or go looking for new stories to tell about what we don't know (science). Still six of one, half a dozen of the other.
People are frightened of what they don't know. Always have been, probably always will be. A few simply don't care, and others are content with the bedtime stories. Any way you slice it, we all die not knowing all the answers.
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
island01,
I'm afraid the problem is not with theorists, who are plenty smart, it's with the lack of experimental input.
You will notice that theoretical progress in the 20th century was preceded by experimental work. Quantum mechanics wasn't discovered in the vacuum: theorists had clues in the form of data: spectral lines of hydrogen, the spectrum of black-body radiation etc.
In contrast, there are virtually no data to constrain the imagination of string theorists: not a single particle has been discovered that is outside the realm of the Standard Model. High-energy theorists are hoping that the LHC will bring something the final confirmation of the SM (the Higgs boson). If that doesn't happen, particle physics will be in pretty bad shape.
Comment by olegt — December 17, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
My question contained no assumptions or arrogance. When Zachriel starts talking about puddle logic, I'd like some clarification about what he really believes about the plausible scenarios of causality.
"…was created *for* us, rather than the other way round"
That may or may not be nonsense depending on how you view causality. For example, in a strictly deterministic universe (down below any quantum uncertainty to our measurements), the puddle and the hole were always predetermined to have that relation, at the beginning of the process. "Was the puddle made for the hole or was the hole made for the puddle" cannot be answered by examination. Any supernatural, or pre-universe, telic importance of either over the other is not something that can be judged from within the system itself. In other words, the charge of puddle logical is worthless. On the other hand, in a universe that has "truly random events", one is in the odd position of explaining the existence "magical" events that are not determined by the state of the system. Such magical events could lead to all sorts of unplanned, a-telic formations. But the acceptance of the existence of magical events themselves are no better than, well, magical thinking.
I was just interested in what direction Zachriel's mind tends to bend. I suspect he won't commit either way, but either way his charge of puddle logic is useless.
Anyway, sorry to bother you. Feel free to ignore my posts.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
If that doesn't happen, particle physics will be in pretty bad shape.
Maybe Joy can refer you back to a thread where I said the same thing, and I hope so too, because I honestly think that these guys…
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/12/08/college-wins-3m-award-to-crack-einstein-theory-91466-22425017/
…need to take a serious look at this:
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/
Comment by island01 — December 17, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
My question contained no assumptions or arrogance.
kornbelt888, you are absolutely correct, and I apologize for projecting you into the debate.
Comment by island01 — December 17, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
olegt:
LOL!!! You're the one who un-banned himself in order to play dumb MACHO (pun intended) games with us peon IDiots.
Don't they miss you back at the Swamp? I think I hear your mother calling…
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
You haven't won the lottery repeatedly. You've won one out of one and have no idea of the mechanism by which numbers are drawn. As Einstein said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
The puddle's argument is fallacious *regardless*.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
No problem.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Humans don't cease being noble because they happen to be featherless bipeds. And it is the understanding of flesh and bone that constitutes modern scientific medicine.
No.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I'm unsure of your question. Even with the given physical constants, the grand structure of the Cosmos depends on quantum indeterminacy in the Big Bang. Galactic Superclusters and Great Voids would apparently vary each time you recreated the universe, though stars and metals would apparently form.
HAMLET: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
KING CLAUDIUS: What dost you mean by this?
HAMLET: Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Yet that is exactly what the puddle does. He examines his hole and noticing that he fits staggeringly well, draws an unsupported conclusion. This is analogous to Cosmological ID which notices that the physical constants must be within narrowly defined ranges, or humanity would not exist. Humans fit their hole.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Really? Then those finely tuned forces of nature evident after the BB had to be followed inevitably by galaxy formations allowing for stars and solar systems that would give rise to life. Life hospitable planets like earth were an inevitable consequence of conditions existing at the birth of the universe itself. And of course we just know that a self-replicating nucleic acid replicated itself all the way to a cell which evolved. Just one event. One lottery. I sense dogma and an unwillingness to consider alternatives that don't fit the preconceived idea.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
The analysis is incredibly dull. Talk about a science stopper and a lack of intellectual curiosity. We don't assume any such thing. What we'd like to do is keep an open mind so that when if one sees a series of very unlikely events based not on deterministic outcomes like water flowing downhill, but on events emerging from contingencies whose results do not follow inevitably from predictable laws, then one could distinguish between erosion and Mt. Rushmore. But if philosophical naturalism is a revered idol obviously the mind will be closed to anything other than it is because it it happened according to nature. All ya gotta know to be a smart critic.
You left out a few thousand events not dictated by constants.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
It fits staggeringly well huh Zach. So does your banning. Go play in a puddle. It beats crying foul.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Zachriel:
I don't believe you.
Comment by Jean — December 17, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Bradford,
Do you really not get the puddle analogy? The puddle always fits its location. That fact doesn't tell the puddle anything about how the location came into existence. You keep acting like he's making a silly point, but then you keep proving his point by listing things that are exactly like the things the puddle would list as "proof" that the hole it's in was made especially for it.
I'm sure you don't feel all ID arguments fall into that category, but do you really not see how the dark matter/normal matter ratio fits that description to a T? It's exactly like the puddle saying, "and over here, notice how this curve fits me so precisely. It's obviously been made for me." You seem to be just missing that entirely, and I can't imagine how you could. Could it be that, like the puddle, you can't imagine being in any other location or having any other shape?
Comment by don provan — December 17, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
dp:
These are arrogant assumptions. We know why water flows downhill and can describe effects of gravity and observe a hole. Determinism all the way. Everything explicable. There is nothing comparable with cosmology. You don't know exactly what condiions were like a very brief time after the birth of the universe. Nor do you know the could have beens. You don't have anything resembling a puddle analogy with regard to what subsequently took place. A better analogy would be the locating of a group of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border by Border Patrol Agents on a pitch black night in a rural sector. Was it accidental? Did the two groups just happen to cross paths and meet accidentally or did the agents deliberately go about searching for the group and find them by means that are explainable. It seemed like fate to the smuggled aliens. In this big unmarked desert they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Noone knew their route and they were quiet as they moved. No dogs were with the agents. But the agents used infrared devices to see. Each seemingly natural and untelic step they took was in fact guided by what was to the aliens an unseen hand. You don't know the forks in the cosmological road. You have very incomplete information about initial condtions at points of origin yet arrogantly assert what you know to be a determinstic scenario without purposeful imput prior to or during points of origin.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Joy:
Didn't Neptune and Pluto get discovered precisely because they filled up holes in the Newtonian equations? Didn't Dirac fill up some holes by inventing positrons? Postulating stuff that makes equations work has been a pretty successful enterprise so far. That's why it's not much of a stretch to invent dark matter.
Comment by Raevmo — December 17, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Bradford:
Stunningly, you admit we have very incomplete information, yet you keep crying "Design":
Bradford ain't making sense.
Comment by Raevmo — December 17, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
The difference between my position and that of those crying "No Design" is that I acknowledge open questions that could tilt toward either side. We all have opinions but imposed dogma is another matter.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
David Heddle provided his own view on the whole 'puddle' analogy, right here. I think he does a good job of it, and the recent Discover magazine 'God or multiverse' (Hey, why not both?) article helps illustrate why crying 'puddle' only has limited intellectual utility. The best conclusion it could hope to establish is 'science is utterly impotent to rule on questions of design and God'. That would tick off ID proponents almost as much as it would tick off ID opponents.
In fact, if the multiverse gains more widespread respectability, look out for arguments whereby the universe is probably designed (because we're living in a simulation, for example) but God does not exist (because the programmers are likely just 'natural' agents, not God). Hell, look out for that viewpoint to ramp up regardless.
As an aside, I recall that Amanda Gefter, in complaining about the Nature article, offered up the idea that consciousness is a fundamental component to any universe such that you cannot have a universe without conscious entities as a possibility, adding that 'at least it's science'. Has anyone noticed that between QM, multiple universes, computer simulations, and otherwise… atheism just ain't what it used to be?
Comment by nullasalus — December 17, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
nullasalus wrote:
That's a big if.
Comment by olegt — December 17, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
olegt,
Not necessarily. I said 'widespread respectability' – you may be connecting this to some deep scientific confirmation, or even respectability particularly among physicists. I'm thinking respectability, period. Basic, interested-layman-level acceptance. My anecdotal experience is this is easy to attain.
Comment by nullasalus — December 17, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Agreed, just as they don’t cease being noble because they happen to be wingless homeotherms. But notice how you have suddenly abandoned your original description of humans as ‘meat’ and replaced it with something that sounds more cute – 'featherless bipeds.' Why did you do this? Because you know that the term meat, when applied to humans, does not convey nobility. On the contrary, it is a degrading term, as in ‘meathead’ or ‘piece of meat.’ You know I am right because you tried to switch metaphors midstream.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
nullasalus,
My anecdotal evidence suggests that astrology enjoys widespread respectability. Not among physicists, mind you.
Comment by olegt — December 17, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Raevmo:
Do let me know when you've got a chunk of it to show us. Until then, all you have is a 95% hole in the universe.
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2008 @ 12:07 am
December 18th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Hi Zachriel,
I just watched the whole video you linked to and it clearly confirms my point – the term ‘meat’ is meant in a denigrating fashion. One alien is disgusted with the idea that “meat” thinks and other is incredulous, then amused. It turns out the aliens want nothing to do with humans because they are only meat. The video shots of human behavior are meant to reinforce this image. ‘Humans as meat’ is a direct attack on the notion that humans have any nobility. They’re just meat, as you say.
I did some googling that also confirmed something else. It turns out that Terry Bisson and his meat story is very popular among atheists.
Comment by MikeGene — December 18, 2008 @ 12:31 am
December 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
olegt,
Go argue with the atheists who cry 'multiverse' when the theists cry 'fine-tuning', olegt. It won't be hard to find them, and my suspicion is it's only going to get easier as time goes on. If you're trying to convince me that accepting the multiverse gives rise to all manner of silliness, no need – it's pretty much my tact to begin with.
Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2008 @ 1:06 am
December 18th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Mike Gene:
It's a parody for Christ's sake, on people like you who have a low opinion of meat.
Comment by Raevmo — December 18, 2008 @ 2:50 am
December 18th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Some people answer "multiverse" when IDists ask, "What else could it be but fine-tuning?"
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 4:14 am
December 18th, 2008 at 4:43 am
You have to imagine yourself as the puddle. This is a logical point about limits of the point of view of the puddle. It asks you to consider whether your point of view has similar limits. My God, man, you've completely misunderstood if you think it has anything to do with water or gravity or anything else about us observing the puddle. That's the whole point: we know that the puddle's wrong about the hole being made to fit it, but the puddle's overlooking explanations other than intelligent design.
That's an OK example, too. The aliens can't tell whether it was an effort directed at them or just dumb luck or the fact that the entire border is lined with border patrol agents. Or something else. ID is like saying, "I have no idea how long the border is, I have no idea how many agents there are, and I have no idea how hard it is for an agent to detect us, but I calculate that the odds against them finding us by luck are a scillion to one, so they must have been intentionally looking for us in particular because what else could it be." And when someone answers, "Well, it could be that the entire border is lined with agents," you say, "You can't prove it!" instead of acknowledging it as another possibility just as reasonable and just as unprovable as yours.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 4:43 am
December 18th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Heddle's table is pointless: the easiest application of the puddle argument is precisely that we cannot tell whether we are or aren't multiple universes, so it's kinda silly to evaluate in the context of pretending we know that there's only one universe. Furthermore, his statement "any life requires heavy elements" also misses the point, not only because it ignores the obvious case of some form of life he cannot imagine not requiring heavy elements, but even more fundamentally ignores the possibility of sentience that doesn't depend on what we call "elements" at all. So that's three different examples of puddle thinking wrapped up in his argument that the puddle argument doesn't apply to his thinking.
Obviously science rules on questions of design all the time, so I assume you mean questions of God and just threw in "design" to put God in the specific context of designing our existence, a nod to ID. In that sense, the term "God" (or "intelligent designer" if anyone prefers) is not defined in a way that allows scientific investigation, so science is, indeed, unable to investigate it. If it pleases you to phrase that as "science is impotent", feel free, but a less colorful description would be, "God isn't science."
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 5:06 am
December 18th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Well, olegt, here we have Don Provan saying that 'the easiest application of the puddle argument is precisely that we cannot tell whether we are or aren't multiple universes'. So here's someone taking that whole 'multiverse' thing seriously.
Go git 'im, tiger. Let 'em know how all the physicists are laughing at his puny, feeble ideas!
Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2008 @ 5:09 am
December 18th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Every bit as seriously as I take ID, and for exactly the same reasons.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 5:27 am
December 18th, 2008 at 5:48 am
So multiverse hypotheses are on the same level as ID? This just gets better and better.
For the record, as I always repeat – I don't think ID (or its opposite) is rightly science either. Compare and contrast how a multiverse advocate is commonly regarded versus an ID advocate for a small sample of why I have tremendous ID sympathy nevertheless.
Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2008 @ 5:48 am
December 18th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Other people aren't as impartial as I am. I can view them both with equal sympathy instead of favoring one and pretending I'm doing it because of some perceived unfairness.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 6:01 am
December 18th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Yeah Don, you're just a living model of fair judgment.
When 'equal sympathy' becomes more widespread, I'll stop pointing out the hypocrisy in play. Until then, I'll just watch how gently multiverse considerations are handled by Ye Olde Defenders of Science.
Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2008 @ 6:07 am
December 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
nullasalus wrote:
I don't care much for culture wars, nullasalus, and you know it. Scientists tend to have a lighthearted view of this silly controversy. I already pointed out to you what Max Tegmark thinks about the multiverse. Here an article that sheds light on what Andrei Linde (cosmologist of the eternal-inflation fame) thinks about his own work. Tippler and Barrow are mentioned there, too.
Comment by olegt — December 18, 2008 @ 9:40 am
December 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
olegt,
No, olegt, I don't know it. I didn't bring up your motives or psyche, and have no wish to comment on them one way or the other.
You can insist that scientists will continue to reject the multiverse on various grounds all you like. I haven't really disagreed with that (though I notice the topic gets approached far differently than other *cough* perceived misuses of science), so I'm not sure what you're going for here. Again, if you want to regard those who seriously entertain multiverse ideas as going far, far beyond the bounds of science, go right ahead. I'll just agree. If you want to insist that the idea will never gain much favor with scientists, I'll shrug and say it's possible (though Paul Davies would apparently disagree, and I don't view scientists as a monolithic group immune to excesses.) Otherwise, your argument would be with someone else.
Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2008 @ 9:55 am
December 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
dp:
Why? I'm not the puddle and am in a position to investigate how the puddle was formed. I hypothesize it was dug to accomodate a swimming pool and find all the materials needed to construct such a pool nearby.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
DP, you have the requisite skills for Comedy Central.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Why do you say that? Do you think people that dismiss ID entirely are more impartial than I am?
And are you in a position to investigate how the universe was formed?
Bradford, I want to treat you with as much respect as possible, but your inability to even begin to grasp this analogy is making it hard. You are the puddle. That's the point. You act as if you have no understanding of analogies at all.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
You're no more impartial than anyone else at TT.
don provan: You have to imagine yourself as the puddle.
Bradford: Why? I'm not the puddle and am in a position to investigate how the puddle was formed.
A collective we or they would have been more exact.
The analogy is a philosophical reformulation. It just exists. You're falsely imputing purpose to an existential condition. The problem with this position is you know not the complete causal trail leading from a preexisting universe to life on earth and are unable to specify contingencies that could have produced alternative outcomes. If the gaps are this cavernous inserting philosophical naturalism into the gaps and asserting an ateleological process is arrogant.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
dp to Bradford:
Deal is, the analogy doesn't work. In fact, it's positively asinine. A hole has no awareness, and neither does the water in a hole. The approach in using this analogy is to negate the very awareness necessary to ask questions.
We humans ask these questions, and seek answers. Everything in our "hole" (body) has function – either serving our purposes or thwarting them via dysfunction. You cannot equate a puddle to our physical and intelligent purposes without negating the reason we ask questions altogether.
It is not 'respectful' to insist that others follow your blind machine-logic without objection to the inherent insult intended by analogies that simply don't apply. It's like calling humans nothing but "meat" and then whining because the insult intended is readily recognized by those you intend to insult. You've been at this a long time. Even a 'bot would have learned its lesson by now. Are we to presume your programmer is just too stupid to have included learning algorithms, thus you are stuck in an endless loop of peat and repeat of the same old same old same?
That's insulting all by itself.
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
"We know"? You cannot know any such thing unless you arbitrarily limit your field of consideration to proximate effects. Using your logic, the wheels on my bicycle (if they could think) must necessarily conclude their spinning has no purpose, since the proximate cause is unconscious, atelic gears and chains. In order to answer whether the puddle and the hole exist with a telic purpose, one has to go back farther, right back to the origin of the universe, where scientifically, there is no answer. So while it's improper for the puddle to conclude the hole was intended to exist so that the puddle could exist, it's wrong to conclude it's not, on the surrounding facts alone. But there are always more facts to consider than those.
The puddle correctly understands it dependence on the hole for its existence. Humans correctly understand their dependence on the constants of the universe. Add to that A) our hole is the only known hole, and B) the fact of our consciousness, leads many beyond the limits of science to suspect (or even conclude) that the hole was designed so that the puddle could exist. Your puddle/hole analogy ignores this sort of thing, and really is nothing but a cute but useless expression of your underlying philosophy about the universe. It's neither scientific nor does it help scientific advancement.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 18, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Provan,
Treating our fellow man with respect is a personal choice we make Don, not something we are compelled to do. It depends entirely upon you, not upon those you might choose to deride.
Got that, moron?
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
That would be an interesting conversation, but in this case I was only claiming to be more impartial than people that dismiss ID out-of-hand.
Literary criticism now? A collective "we" would, in fact, have been more accurate. (No idea why you think "they" would be, though.) I considered "we", but choose to use "you" because I felt it fit into the conversation better.
Me? I'm not the one that says that the ratio of dark matter to matter must imply an intelligence defined the ratio. In fact, I'm the one that's pointing out just the opposite: that "we" have no clue about the matter whatsoever and cannot possibly reach any conclusion about the cause of our existence based on the remarkable nature of this ratio.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Oh, for heaven's sake….
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The subject here is the ratio of dark matter to ordinary matter. Is it right or wrong to conclude, based on that ratio, that the universe (hole) was intended to exist so that we (the puddle) could exist?
But thank-you: at least someone gets the analogy well enough to start talking about other things the puddle might study beyond the relation of its shape to the shape of its hole. The puddle argument minimizes a certain class of observations, but, as I think you've realized, it does not imply that the puddle has no chance of determining its origins.
You last paragraph is reasonable, except, as you probably now realize, we're not mistaking the puddle argument as an argument against ID, only as a way of demonstrating why one shouldn't interpret anthropic arguments as proof of intelligent design. But I will point out that the puddle's hole is the only hole it knows of, as well.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
There's more to it than this. If the ratio were the only physical factor cited you would have a stronger case. But even the blog entry itself indicates that the ratio is but one of many factors that can be cited.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Bradford,
I think the rationale DP is using is that, no matter how many factors there are, he's going to say 'puddle'. As he said,
When you put it like that, fine-tuning will never matter, no matter how fine, no matter how carefully balanced. Because tuning issues will be processed as an odds argument, odds depend on chances, and 'some people' are more than willing to assume either tremendous luck or an infinite amount of chances – hell, they're willing to assume that the mere appearance of a careful balance is evidence for those chances. (Nevermind that walking down this road makes a designed/simulated universe as much as or more likely than 'undesigned'. Or that you can have both a multiverse an an utterly traditional, orthodox big-d 'Designer'.)
In other words, don't count on making any progress here. If the odds are such that the chances of a puddle forming in any universe is ten trillion to one, either we got incredibly lucky, there's trillions of universes around, or the universe is set up in such a way that no universe will exist without puddles. It can't be design. Ever.
…It just can't be.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 4:50 am
December 19th, 2008 at 5:10 am
The puddle analogy does not seem to be going down too well. What about "the emperor's new clothes"? The clothes are ID, the emperor are those convinced that ID has scientific usefulness, the crafty tailor is the Discovery Institute, the boy who couldn't see any clothes Dawkins et al., the crowd that has gone home are mainstream scientists, and the few bystanders left are Don and Zachriel. I am also asking "where are the clothes?" For ID to gain any credence, someone has to do more than assert "Of course they are there! You are just too blind to see them." Someone will have to produce evidence that the clothes really exist other than in the imaginary plane, or ID will continue to decline into obscurity.
The above is just my personal opinion, but then, that does not distinguish it from many other comments here.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 19, 2008 @ 5:10 am
December 19th, 2008 at 5:42 am
The puddle argument explains why the dark matter/matter ratio and any other anthropic observations, no matter how many, can be ignored: we simply don't have enough information to eliminate other factors, such as whether sentience could arise in more cases than we realize or whether there have been more trials than we realize. Or some other factor that we can't possibly imagine.
And, again, just in case anyone is confused about it: this doesn't rule out the possibility that the universe was created especially for us, it just reveals the fallacy in thinking that made-for-us is the only possible explanation for anthropic observations. There's no conceivable universe that we could exist in that wouldn't look as if it were made for us to exist there. Just like the puddle and its hole.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 5:42 am
December 19th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Correct.
I'm not willing to assume anything of the sort. But some people are willing to assume that there was just one chance and that we couldn't possibly be any different than we are.
The paper you are thinking of said this was the case only if our society survives and continues to advance, which aren't givens.
This is true, and it's important to recognize why: the "Designer" hypothesis is so completely vacuous that it can be applied absolutely anywhere, including a reality as incredibly different as a multiverse. (You've probably read Uncommon Dissent, so you'll remember the remarkable section where someone argued that a multiverse was even more unlikely, so it was even more reason to infer intelligent design. Amazing!)
I've said this over and over, but I guess you haven't heard it yet: I do not argue that it can't be designed, I only argue that the ID inferences that it was designed are invalid. Christians are frank that their belief in God is based on faith, and that's perfectly reasonable, so I don't argue with them. IDists claim to be able to show that an intelligent designer exists, something I would find very interesting and exciting, but their arguments don't hold water.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 6:01 am
December 19th, 2008 at 6:34 am
DP,
You're confusing things, if you're referring to Nick Bostrom's argument – he never gets into multiverses at all as far as I know. Paul Davies touches on this more directly, but it's reasonable enough. Increase the number of universes enough, and you're not just increasing the odds of fine-tuning taking place. You're increasing all kinds of other odds too – and if you're opening the door to an infinite number of universes, you're making quite a lot of weird things a certainty. Like a universe simulating a universe simulating a universe simulating… etc. Along with Boltzmann brains and other such.
That a society will survive and advance to do this IS a given in that context. Over and over and over again. All kinds of oddities become actual, 'somewhere'. Especially if you mix that interesting concoction with 'and the only universes that actualize are ones with observers / conscious agents'.
By the way, notice that Andrei Linde can talk about this sort of thing (both multiverses and consciousness as an essential component to the universe), and Amanda Gefter, defender of the scientific method, is willing to call it all science. Nobody bats an eye at this. Meanwhile, who does Discover list prominently as a critic of the multiverse? John freaking Polkinghorne.
I love it so!
As is the 'chance' hypothesis. My position is that science can neither find God or rule God out. It is utterly impotent in that regard. The 'it was all luck' hypothesis is vacuous. The 'there is no God' hypothesis is vacuous. And you can do science, good science, without ever pretending you're scientifically touching on those questions.
But not enough people were satisfied with that. And I am not talking about Dembski and company here.
I reject your characterization of the Christian case – over simplified. And ID proponents, as near as I've ever been able to tell, claim to be able to infer the existence of a designing agent on the level of natural science. They attempt to separate their 'science' (there are strong inferences that X was designed) from their personal convictions (the designer of X is God) by way of admitting that once you identify a designer, you're outside the bounds of science. That much is to their credit.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 6:34 am
December 19th, 2008 at 7:32 am
nullasalus:
It's a mistake to think that an infinite number of universes implies that everything that's logically possible will happen in at least one of the infinitely many universes. It could be, for example, that there are infinitely many universes that differ from each other in the position of a single electron, but are equal in every other respect.
Which is therefore false.
What is the 'chance' hypothesis?
That's because God is an utterly vague and undefined concept. Science can rule out certain religious claims, such as that the earth is 6000 years old.
Comment by Raevmo — December 19, 2008 @ 7:32 am
December 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Raevmo,
If the multiverse concept was built around the idea that 'all these universes are the same as ours, except the position of one electron differs', the multiverse proponents wouldn't be talking about it. The conditions they're talking about open the door to these kinds of speculations easily.
Once you open the door to material infinities, you're opening the door on an infinite number of possibilities, and closing the door on really being able to sort them out. Which is fine – it's just not science.
Paul Davies thinks otherwise:
The one they have come up with is multiple universes, or "the multiverse". This theory says that what we have been calling "the universe" is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is an infinitesimal fragment of a much grander and more elaborate system in which our cosmic region, vast though it is, represents but a single bubble of space amid a countless number of other bubbles, or pocket universes.
Things get interesting when the multiverse theory is combined with ideas from sub-atomic particle physics. Evidence is mounting that what physicists took to be God-given unshakeable laws may be more like local by-laws, valid in our particular cosmic patch, but different in other pocket universes. Travel a trillion light years beyond the Andromeda galaxy, and you might find yourself in a universe where gravity is a bit stronger or electrons a bit heavier.
The vast majority of these other universes will not have the necessary fine-tuned coincidences needed for life to emerge; they are sterile and so go unseen. Only in Goldilocks universes like ours where things have fallen out just right, purely by accident, will sentient beings arise to be amazed at how ingeniously bio-friendly their universe is.
It's a pretty neat idea, and very popular with scientists. But it carries a bizarre implication. Because the total number of pocket universes is unlimited, there are bound to be at least some that are not only inhabited, but populated by advanced civilisations – technological communities with enough computer power to create artificial consciousness. Indeed, some computer scientists think our technology may be on the verge of achieving thinking machines.
It is but a small step from creating artificial minds in a machine, to simulating entire virtual worlds for the simulated beings to inhabit. This scenario has become familiar since it was popularised in The Matrix movies.
Now some scientists are suggesting it should be taken seriously. "We may be a simulation … creations of some supreme, or super-being," muses Britain's astronomer royal, Sir Martin Rees, a staunch advocate of the multiverse theory. He wonders whether the entire physical universe might be an exercise in virtual reality, so that "we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself".
Chances are you can figure it out.
And it's ruled out various atheist claims, and lent support to various religious claims. But the standard isn't 'vague and undefined', but whether what's defined and specific is at all open to investigation within the scope of science. You can have very specific concepts and ideas that science simply can't address.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 7:52 am
December 19th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Raevmo
Depends on which god we are talking about
You are right now in the process of exploring the scientific (i.e. Historical) claim that God became flesh and lived on earth and proved this fact by rising from the dead.
If you accept the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection then God is no longer a “vague and undefined concept” but a very real person that walked and talked and was crucified for his people’s sins.
I just had to through that in
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 19, 2008 @ 8:18 am
December 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
A note to the spelling purist
feel free to read throw instead of through.
cursed edit function
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 19, 2008 @ 8:30 am
December 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
nullasalus:
Sure, but my point stands: not everything that's logically possible needs to happen in infinitely many universes.
That's why statistics was invented. You examine a finite sample and make inferences about the whole. A perfectly acceptable scientific practice.
You probably refer to this part of the quote:
It's pure speculation. Even if the number of universes is unlimited, it doesn't follow logically that some are populated by advanced civilizations.
What atheist claims were ruled out by science? What religious claims were supported?
Comment by Raevmo — December 19, 2008 @ 8:38 am
December 19th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Raevmo,
Your point has no application here. It's a question of what doors get opened the moment we start talking about multiverses of the type indicated. You may as well tell multiverse advocates 'For all we know having an unlimited number of universes still wouldn't result in physical laws we experience in this universe, so it's pointless to suggest.' Fire off that email to Linde, I'm sure he'd appreciate being told he's off-base here.
By all means, apply statistical analysis to the multiverse. Have fun with your sample size of one. Unless, of course, you're counting computer simulations.
Of course it's pure speculation. Even multiverse advocates typically admit they're not going to get direct evidence of their claims, and the indirect evidence will be meager at best – and that's just for the multiverse, not the contents of those universes. Davies clearly recognizes just where this speculation can lead to, and at least invites as a strong possibility. Apparently, Rees does too, and Barrow, and others. It doesn't stop them from realizing just what the speculation would entail, and how bizarre those possibilities are unless we start being completely arbitrary. "Okay, we have a multiverse, that explains why our laws are tuned this way. But, uh, no one else is alive in other universes! Or if they are they never invent computers like we do! And no one created the multiverse itself! Whew, there, all the loose ends are tied up."
What, you want an exhaustive list? Here's a couple of broad ones: Skinner behaviorism for a claim ruled out, or at least discredited. Placebo effects for a claim supported.
And before it happens: You can turn around and argue 'theists could have advocated Lysenkoism, and atheists could have advocated mind affecting body, so those don't count'. It'd just carry around the smell of 'atheists could argue the world is only thousands of years old too'.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 9:14 am
December 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
fmm:
Thanks for reminding me. I'm not a convert yet though.
Comment by Raevmo — December 19, 2008 @ 9:16 am
December 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
nullasalus:
Sure it does. It invalidates your claim that
Those weird things are not a certainty in the multiverse scenario.
My point was that a lot can be learned about an infinite set by studying a finite sample. I don't care too much about the multiverse idea, but it would be stupid to rule it out. Not too long ago we thought there was just a single milky way.
Wow, that's pretty bizarre. Skinner behaviorism is an atheist claim? Placebo effects support religious claims? Those unsupported claims are worth a couple of new threads.
Comment by Raevmo — December 19, 2008 @ 9:41 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Raevmo,
Yes, it would be stupid to rule out an important possibility that can't be falsified. Just ask Blaise Pascal.
Think through what you're saying. If our 'finite sample' is one of an infinite number (our universe within a multiverse), and we can't even get direct evidence of a multiverse (or even 'another universe'), what can we learn and still be within the realm of science?
Better yet: Is a simulated reality a possibility in our own universe? Put aside that we already run simulations as is, just vastly less expansive ones than imagined: You can use your perfectly acceptable scientific practice of statistical analysis to, like Ray Kurzweil, argue that the technology is not just possible, it's downright inevitable – especially if you're also assuming materialism. And if we're going to assume that we can study one universe (our own) out of an infinite set to get an idea of those 'other universes', guess what? Now we have ample reason to believe the multiverse is chock full o' simulated realities. Except you can have more than one simulated reality in each universe, and simulated realities within those simulated realities. So what are the odds you're in a 'real' universe, and not one or more levels down? Good luck calculating that. And good luck explaining why, though certainly possible in our own universe (whatever 'level' we may be on), it's a possibility that would never get actualized across an infinite set of universes.
You may think all of the above is scientific speculation. If so, more power to you. Literally. Your 'self' will need a lot of CPU cycles to power on through those possibilities.
Hopefully now you'll get an idea of why Davies, Rees, and others have said what they have with regards to such speculation. And why there is a concern that accepting the possibility alone introduces so many problems that the speculation can hardly be called scientific anymore.
And as predicted, here comes the squirreling. Why not go the full Dennett route and argue that behaviorism was popular under Stalin's reign, Stalin viewed himself as a god, therefore Stalin was religious, and behaviorism was a theistic excess?
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 10:13 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Only within the scientific domain, i.e, "within the Matrix", so to speak. Science cannot rule out absolutely that the earth (and universe) is not 6000 years old since it cannot rule out whether or not we're in a virtual reality of some sort. If we're in a virtual universe, why, anything is possible. (Including "miracles.")
Multiverses. Virtual Realities. This is fun!
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2008 @ 10:18 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
"Quantum indeterminacy" is nothing more than an informational gap to us. You don't actually believe that quantum events are unchained from a deterministic cause and effect, do you?
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2008 @ 10:28 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
nullasalus
Do you mean radical behaviorism? Why do you say it has been discredited? A quick scan of the Wiki entry does not indicate that to be the case.
How is this a theistic claim? On the contrary, it sounds like the sort of thing an atheist would use to explain faith healing.
Can you really claim that these correspond to the claims of a young Earth? A belief in a young Earth is a necessary consequence of a literal interpration of the Bible. It follows from faith, despite the evidence, and has been well and truly disproven. I was expected you to trot out the Big Bang…
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 19, 2008 @ 10:40 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
nullasalus wrote:
Actually, Gefter was absolutely correct in her characterization. That quote comes from her December 4, 2008, article Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse:
To see that she is right, you have to know the background story about Hawking's "top-down cosmology." The link in Gefter's article leads to another article of hers, available only to subscribers. Here is the key part that explains why Hawking's proposal is scientific—because it's empirically testable:
Mind you, lots of scientists are skeptical about this proposal and Gefter mentions that, quoting Andrei Linde and Paul Steinhardt. But it offers concrete predictions that can be checked by astronomers and that makes it science.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 10:49 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The Pixie,
If you think 'a quick scan of the wiki entry' is much to go on, by all means, suit yourself. I'm not interested in getting into this too deeply in this thread – the attachment of any 'scientific claim' to a theistic or atheistic viewpoint will be disputed, on the grounds that the claim can be detached from the viewpoint. Similar to how eugenics history gets immediately sliced off as 'an abuse of darwinism', rather than.. well, we all know that debate.
I'll kindly pass on the YEC talk as well, other than to say your estimation of what 'a necessary consequence of a literal interpretation' is utterly off-base. It would make 'non-literalists' out of Augustine, Aquinas, and others – and if they are such, I don't mind keeping their company.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 10:51 am
December 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
olegt,
Again, quoting Gefter.
I just want to get this straight from you, olegt: You are saying that Gefter's claims – that 'we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation', 'observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now' and that 'we in some sense create the universe' – all these things are, according to you, entirely scientific claims?
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 10:57 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Nice sleight of hand, nullasalus.
Gefter's claim "at least it's science" refers to the proposal by Hawking and Hertog. If you want to dispute that, be my guest.
Your latest quote from Gefter is not a scientific claim: she is not a scientist, she is a journalist trying to convey to the (reasonably educated) layman what Hawking and Hertog are saying.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 11:03 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
So if someone conjectures that if life was designed, we should eventually find IC structures in cells, you would consider that a scientific statement?
And when Behe is attempting to find an "edge" to evolution, do you consider that a scientific endeavor?
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2008 @ 11:05 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
olegt,
So Gefter was 'entirely correct in her characterization' – except for the bulk of the claims you cite. Now 'my latest quote' (You know, quoting the quote you just supplied) of Gefter contains claims that aren't scientific. Meanwhile, I previously referred to Gefter talking about consciousness as a fundamental component to the universe, and you take that to mean a criticism of Hawking's proposal (which I've discussed in the past on this very site)?
Sleight of hand, indeed.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 11:08 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
nullasalus, you're erecting one straw man after another.
I didn't say Gefter's claims were correct, I said her characterization of Hawking's work as science was correct. Do you wish to dispute that?
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 11:14 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
olegt,
You're either being deceptive here or incredibly clumsy. My guess is the latter.
I made a reference to Gefter treating consciousness as a fundamental component of the universe, and how 'at least it's science'. You chime in to argue that Gefter's characterization was correct, because part of her little sideshow was a reference to Hawking's top-down cosmology. I quote from the same quote you provide in order to get down to specifics – since I was clearly talking about the idea of consciousness/observers as a fundamental component of the universe, Gefter was clearly talking about consciousness/observers as a fundamental component of the universe, and sorry, her characterization of such things as 'at least it's science' strikes me as odd. Your response is to accuse me of subtle trickery, on the grounds that.. what, you corrected me on a criticism I didn't make of her, and I repeated the criticism I did make? You're admitting Gefter was making unscientific claims right in the portion you quote, but are squirming on it because, well, she's writing for a layman. I guess that makes it okay.
Here, I'll make this easy for you. 'Gefter isn't a very good writer, she got sloppy, but it's not her fault. It's not as if she has a deep grasp of what she's talking about.' There you go, olegt. That's your best possible defense here.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 11:26 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am
nullasalus,
You twist my words and accuse me of being deceptive or clumsy? Wow.
Gefter isn't making any scientific claims. She is a science journalist, not a scientist. Her task is to convey scientists' ideas to the general public. Of course her description will be poetic to a degree.
You took an exception to her specific phrase "at least it's science" without providing context. I showed that it—the third alternative mentioned in Gefter's article, not Gefter's brief description of it—is science. So she was absolutely right. For a millionth time, do you wish to dispute that?
If you want to argue about the merits of Gefter's description, we can do that. But you'll have to first read her article Exploring Stephen Hawking's Flexiverse.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 11:38 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:54 am
olegt,
Yes – I'm accusing you outright of being deceptive or clumsy. Accuse me of being a Big Bad Word-twistin' Wolf in turn. That's how these things usually go.
Without providing context? You quoted me, olegt – I zeroed in on Gefter's talking about consciousness as a fundamental component to the universe as being 'science'. You're saying that Hawking's proposal is science, but Gefter's description of it isn't – and that Gefter clearly meant that only the link was science. Her description? Why, she didn't mean for anyone to take that as being a scientifically accurate depiction at all! Why, she's a non-scientist trying to communicate ideas to a layman audience.
Face it, olegt. You tried to nitpick me on a minor point and you blew it. Suck it up, move on, complain that I'm a big meanie. I already gave you the best defense you can possibly come up with here. I'm sure you'll do better next time.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 11:54 am
December 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
nullasalus,
I've asked you a pointed question several times in a row and you've avoided answering it. One last time.
Was Gefter correct in saying "at least it's science" in regards to Hawking's idea?
Don't discuss the merits of her one-paragraph description of the idea. Just answer the question.
Thank you.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 11:58 am
December 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
olegt,
No, because that's not what Gefter said.
No matter how much it pains you to admit it, Gefter gave a description of Hawking's idea which she capped it off with 'at least it's science'. 'we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation', 'observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now', 'we in some sense create the universe' – if these descriptions are inaccurate characterizations of Hawking's idea, if these are understandings that go beyond science, then she was incorrect to offer them up and say 'at least it's science'.
There we go, olegt. Now, I'd appreciate you answering me once more, because no matter how you answer it, I'll be a happy nullasalus.
'We somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation.'
'Observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now.'
'We in some sense create the universe.'
Are the above sentences 'science'? Can 'observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now' be considered a scientific statement?
I await your judgment on this matter with baited breath.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
nullasalus,
I do not think Gefter's one-paragraph description does justice to Hawking's idea. And I said earlier that Gefter's claims weren't science.
But that wasn't the last word from Gefter on the subject. She had an extensive piece on the "flexiverse" to which she referred. There she explained why it was science. And that was exactly what I pointed out in my first comment of today's exchange.
Now that I answered your question, you should answer mine. It's very simple.
Was Gefter correct in saying "at least it's science" in regards to Hawking's idea?
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
olegt,
Wonderful – so you echo my criticisms of Gefter's piece, as well as her claims. As predicted, I am a happy nullasalus.
I've answered you repeatedly, but I'll give you one more reply with some alteration: No, because her description didn't do justice to Hawking's idea, and contained claims that aren't science.
Are you also asking me if it's correct to say that Hawking's idea 'is science'? Sure, why not. He's Stephen Hawking, he's generally uncontroversial and his idea apparently has some falsifiable content – why should I be skeptical that his theory is scientific? It's not like he's a non-scientist journalist for a layman audience or something.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Yes, of course. Why would anyone think science can rule out anything not in the scientific domain?
"Mathematics tells us 2+2=4."
"Only in the mathematical domain."
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
nullasalus wrote:
That's a poor argument, nullasalus. Gefter linked to the piece where she did do justice to Hawking's idea. If you didn't read it, how is it her fault?
This is another bad argument. Hawking's theory is not science because Hawking is a reputable scientist. It's science because it makes an empirically testable prediction that differs from the prediction of other theories.
It's disappointing to see this kind of twisted logic from you, nullasalus. It's intellectually dishonest, as you right-wingers say.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
olegt,
It's a fine argument, olegt – or rather, a valid complaint. The fact that she may have linked to/written a fuller description of Hawking's theory doesn't suddenly make her unscientific claims and sloppy summation go away, or excuse her passing both off as science. Are the creators of 'What the bleep do we know?' exonerated on the grounds that, while they certainly made some unscientific claims, they also included some valid scientific ideas?
I mentioned the falsifiability right in my justification. Otherwise, I'm just being honest – 'Sure, why not.' I don't feel qualified to evaluate Hawking's theory as if I were a physicist myself, and if I'm settling for summaries from the more qualified, then I'd best be aware of my limitations.
As for your disappointment – I'm sure you'll get over it, olegt. Also, I love that 'you right-wingers' crack. Don't care much for culture wars, indeed.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
So, nullasalus, you agree that Hawking's theory is perhaps science, after all, but you simply don't want to take it from Gefter? Is that a good summary of your position?
As to "unscientific claims and sloppy summation", I'm not sure you or I—or anybody else—can do better in one paragraph. You're being unreasonable here.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
You made an oblique reference, and I guessed wrong about what you were talking about. That's not really "confusing things", at least not on my part.
I see that. You think that pointing out what you think are similar mistakes means you don't have to actually defend your position.
Exactly. The "Designer" hypothesis is no better than the "chance" hypothesis.
Absolutely. So where's the problem? Science doesn't say God doesn't exist. Science only says we haven't detected God. And it will continue to say that until God is actually defined scientifically. (And watch out for that: science has ruled out rain gods since they do have a scientific definition.)
All science is done without touching on those questions, just as all science is done without touching on vacuous hypotheses like "none of it is luck" and "there is a God."
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying here or who you're talking about. There are people, such as Dembski and Dawkins, that address these questions, but in neither case do we elevate their musings to the level of science simply because they might be called scientists.
You'll have to be more specific. Christianity is very specific that the proof of God comes from faith. If you think you know Christians for which that is not true, I submit that they don't actually fit the definition of "Christian" as defined by the history of Christian teachings.
This strikes me as a reasonable description of ID, but I'll phrase it in the way that's more damning: ID propoents claim to separate their "science" from their personal convictions, but then they smuggle in their assumption that God exists into their "science", anyway, they reach a non-scientific conclusion, and then they run for the hills saying, "God is outside science" when everyone points out that their "scientific conclusion" cannot be verified empirically.
There's no credit in that. One might even think it was deceptive if there was any reason to think they realized what they were doing.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It's only intellectually dishonest if the perpetrator recognizes the mistake.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
don provan,
That's what I meant.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
olegt,
No – I agree with you that Gefter's summary of Hawking's idea has unscientific claims. You keep trying to twist this so Gefter didn't say anything but 'Hawking's theory is science' – if you want to pursue that, then shine on you crazy diamond! I've told you repeatedly where my criticisms lie. That's just something you'll have to cope with.
Olegt, are you telling me you're not capable of writing a paragraph about Hawking's theory without slipping in unscientific and inaccurate claims? If that's a statement about how you write, it certainly explains a lot about your comments on this board.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Indeed. Hence my comment to Raevmo statement:
"Raevmo: Science can rule out certain religious claims, such as that the earth is 6000 years old."
He mixed domains in an unwarranted way without qualification.
Science cannot rule out any "virtual" or "metaphysical" effects that occur within the "ordinary" domain that science deals with. Raevmo's statement is false as it stands.
(This is Telic Thoughts, not necessarily "science thoughts." Plenty of other fora for that.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Oleg, you keep wanting to emphasize the notion that what Hawking and Hertog have outlined is in some sense "science," as opposed to ID or those infinitely proliferating and highly unsatisfactory multiverses designed to counter the design argument.
If this is true because Hawking's efforts involve complex mathematics, aren't Max's multiverses exactly as "scientific" because his efforts involve complex mathematics too? Or is "Fun With Math" (you can always get there from here, so long as you're not talking about reality) on this level somehow exempt from the philosophy that motivates the mathematicians?
And if Hawking's extrapolations about consciousness being the ultimate causal actuator for reality in this universe are "science," why are Penrose's extrapolations about consciousness being an actual parameter among all those fine-tuned parameters NOT "science"? And how are either of them NOT arguing from a position that accepts some version of Intelligent Design?
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Here's the answer, Joy. It has nothing to do with the mathematical sophistication.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
But oleg, there is the possibility that Penrose's extrapolations could be tested someday, somehow. That's precisely the criteria you're using to justify Hawking's "sciencey-ness."
We out here in interested observer land are quite used to promises. Promises to cure this disease or that condition or these sorts of injuries – just give us more money. Promises to provide this or that or the other "too cheap to meter" power source someday – just give us more money. Promises to patch this hole or that hole or the other hole. Someday. Some way. Maybe.
"It might be conceivable, so surely we'll conceive of a way" is actually less impressive on the level of ID in cosmology as it is on the level of ID in biological evolution. At least some of the IDers have made honest attempts to quantify things ID that could potentially be tested for their ID-ness. So why is ID not "scientific" again?
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
nullasalus wrote:
I never made a claim like that. I said right at the start that she was justified in labeling Hawking's theory as science. I explained why. You complained that her one-paragraph description was unscientific. Fine, but it doesn't matter. She was not calling her own description scientific, she was referring to Hawking's theory. Do you understand that?
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
That's just the point. Citing existence is sterile in the absence of a causal cosmological trail begining with the birth of the universe. Trails can have forks and diverging breaks that can take a traveler in different directions. It is those contingent events which were not inevitable but may have resulted from apparent randomness that can be telling as to whether the observed outcome is viewed as a puddle or an irrigation ditch.
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Joy wrote:
Actually, Penrose has some concrete proposals for testing his objective reduction. One of them is described in this paper: arXiv:quant-ph/0210001. That's science.
On the other hand, his twistor math is just that—math, as you can see here.
Comment by olegt — December 19, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
olegt:
And there are many more proposals for testing the biological end, Orch-OR. Some, I think, are under testing currently. Though much of that thrust went proprietary a few years ago, judging from Jack Tuszynski's directions (in design application).
Far as I've been able to tell through the years, Hawking stays far away as possible from theism and anything related to theism. While some of his explanations look to cross over, I seem to recall his description of himself as a version of atheist. Penrose, on the other hand, makes no bones about being a Platonist. And Platonism – the belief that there is a realm of idealized "Truth" out there that this reality reflects in some fashion – is not entirely averse to the idea of design as I have come to embrace it. Admittedly sans overt theological motivations.
I have had some nasty experience with science and its applications, that tended to submit to the always-base corruptions of individual human beings. Thus causing great harm. But I stubbornly maintain a belief in the 'spirit' of science for what it attempts so bravely at its best – the unvarnished small-t truth. As such a believer (misguided as that may be), I've always maintained that in the end, science – any field at issue – will follow the evidence wherever it leads. Or make itself irrelevant, and have to go underground again for some generations.
I'd love for science to unabashedly be the quest for practical knowledge, as well as the search for new horizons of the unknown. There will always be the vastness of the unknowable we won't even know is out there (but might suspect) as we continue to place the unknown from under the table to places of prominence on top of the table of our "Known."
I just still don't see or quite understand why everything just has to get corrupted by the various players' metaphysics as it always does. Your participation in these discussions is a result of your metaphysical disdain for those who believe the universe and everything in it (including us) is intelligently designed. That's your metaphysics, it motivates you to be here. As obviously the metaphysics of our many religiously-inspired supporters has motivated them to be here. As my metaphysics (whatever they are, I haven't figured it out yet) motivates me.
Does the metaphysics of any participant truly matter to reality, either as-it-is or as-we-can-figure? If it does, shouldn't everyone be paying much closer attention to the interminable arguments of philosophers and metaphysicians?
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
The point is that the qualifications would have been redundant: he couldn't have possibly meant anything other than "Science can determine that certain religious claims are false to the satisfaction of the scientific method." He may have wanted to suggest that, in addition, that meant we should consider them false in a metaphysical sense, but if so, he was very clumsy about it.
Not to pick on you; this is a common bugaboo. People that don't like what science tells us are forever insisting that we need to end any sentence that makes a scientific statement with "within the limits of scientific investigation" or some such, but that gets old really fast. Science knows what it knows, and it's up to us to judge its pronouncements metaphysically.
As long as I'm here: this is the fundamental problem with all this ID stuff: IDists continually try to warp science or break its rules and are continually frustrated in these efforts, but what many of them really mean, as far as I can tell, is not "science isn't right" but rather "science isn't everything," which is a perfectly reasonable metaphysical position that's easily defended. Indeed, we hear people around here often say "ID isn't science" which suggests thoughts along these lines, but somehow they keep coming back to pointing out things that they think are empirical confirmation of their telic ideas.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 6:38 pm