Predirected Conclusions
by Bradford“A Universe Built For Us”is the title of the linked blog entry at Tom Gilson's Thinking Christian. That is also the title of an article of Discover Magazine which Tom analyzes. In quoting the Discovery article Tom brings out the point that the universe appears adapted to enable life. Some might wish to put it differently and state that the universe was front loaded at its inception so as to make life possible.
There have been two explanations offered to explain our universe's hospitality toward life. One, of recent vintage, holds that our universe is but one of an infinite number of universes. Infinite varieties conveniently would explain very unlikely things. The alternative explanation is that the universe is a purposeful creation.
Tom notes this quote from the article:
When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data… we don’t have any alternative explanations…”
I agree with Tom that the statement is disingenuous. What Linde really needs to acknowledge is that the purposeful creation explanation is ruled out a priori. The significance of that is that scientific inquiries about origin issues are directed toward preconceived conclusions. Sure, there are variations in possible explanations but one of a sub-group is an inevitable choice when artificial restrictions are in place.
To be fair one might reasonably object that an empirical discipline is not equipped to evaluate the purposeful creation option. If so that would say more about the limits of science than it would about the viability of an alternative explanation.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Bradford:
An empirical discipline is also not equipped to evaluate the multiverse fantasy, since it is and must by definition remain entirely outside the realm of empirical observation. Here you've just got science confusing itself with metaphysical philosophy and pretending their metaphysical musings are science. It's not any more scientific than purposeful creation, front-loading and/or time travelers creating the past from the future.
Thus all human metaphysical speculations about the facts of a tuned-for-life universe are on equal footing here. None is more or less "scientific" than the others.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
That is not necessarily correct. Multiverses may have testable empirical implications. The hypothesis results as an apparent consequence of Inflation Theory. No such test yet exists, though. (Just as we can test theories of the interior of the Earth or Sun even though we can't examine them directly.)
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
zachriel,
As I understand it from the article, from other sources, and from talking it over with a physicist just this morning, there is nothing anywhere on the horizon that presents anything like a direct test of the existence of a multiverse. The LHC may provide evidence in support of string theory, and string theory opens a possible theoretical door to a multiverse, but that remains nothing more than a door, with no way to walk through it except by speculation and maybes.
Comment by TomG — November 7, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Does a multi-verse rule out/ exclude an intelligent designer?
I don't think so. It may even add credence to the multiple designer hypothesis.
Or does it give ID opponents more splainin' to do?
I think it does as they have a hard enough time splainin' this one- the laws of nature just are the way they are!? But that is their science for ya…
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
That's correct. My comment concerned Joy's belief that it must necessarily be untestable.
No.
No.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I think it does as they have a hard enough time splainin' this one- the laws of nature just are the way they are!? (Zachriel thinks that is scientific)
Now they have that x infinity!
Also they would have to explain how they know those other "verses" are any different than ours. IOW there may be more but what laws govern them?
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Is this any less scientific than, "the laws of nature are the way they are just because someone wanted them to be that way"?
From my point of view, the multiverse ideas do one thing: they refute the claim that there is no explanation other than an intelligent designer. It's true that there's no way to verify the existence of multiple universes, but is there a way to verify the existence of an intelligent designer? As far as I can see, both theories offer nothing more than a suggested explanation without anything that makes one or the other more plausible.
Comment by don provan — November 7, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Don
not so fast
It seems that even the number of universes in the multiverse is fine tuned.
If the number approaches infinity then science is impossible because anything logically possible will happen at least once. Induction would be meaningless.
If the number of universes is too small then the fine-tuning problem in our universe remains.
So if you want to go the multiuniverse route you must not only explain why it exists but what constrains it to such a limited numerical range of universes. Why not more? Why not less? I wonder if any one has attempted to calculate exactly how many universes would be necessary to explain ours
Not to mention the larger problem of why there is something at all rather than nothing.
I guess that the pesky intellgent designer is not going away after all
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 7, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 4:29 am
The number of universes has no impact at all on the application of induction in any given universe.
That would be an interesting question is there were, in fact, any limit. But it doesn't matter: the point remains that a multiverse theory only needs to be as well supported as ID. Are their telic theories about why an intelligent designer made the universe exactly this big?
Comment by don provan — November 8, 2008 @ 4:29 am
November 8th, 2008 at 5:24 am
fmm:
I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that any infinite set of real numbers must contain every real number (at least once), which is demonstrably false: the set of all real numbers between zero and one is (uncountably) infinite, yet doesn't contain the number 2.
And as Don pointed out, induction would not seem to be meaningless in each self-consistent universe. Or can you prove otherwise?
Comment by Raevmo — November 8, 2008 @ 5:24 am
November 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Don
If that universe is but a small part of a larger multiverse it most certainly does.
In such a reality If anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times. What happened in the past is no guide at all to what will happen in the future
There must be a limit or science is impossible and if the multverse is posited to explain the finetuning of the universe the upper and lower limit is very "Finetuned"
Raevmo
That's because the occurrence of the number two in not logically possible in that set.
What I meant was
In an infinite multiverse
Monkeys will fly out of my butt an infinite number of times
I will give birth to a T-Rex who will become president an infinite number of times
Life will spontaneously arise from the primordial ooze an infinite number of times
Earth will be visited by the intelligent designer an infinite number of times
YEC will be true an infinite number of times
The Idea that we are living in a computer simulation is true an infinite number of times
IOW
Anything that can logically happen will an infinite number of times predictions and science would be impossible
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 8, 2008 @ 8:18 am
November 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
And so it comes down to this: We throw out reason in order to avoid entertaining the possibility that there may really be a God. We prefer to be unreasonable while hiding behind a scientific facade. It is very reasonable to believe in a Creator but we prefer to unreasonably explore other options because the Creator might just demand something of his creation and we all realize we fall short.
Comment by 0112358 — November 8, 2008 @ 9:39 am
November 8th, 2008 at 9:40 am
But the odds that you will observe such events doesn't change. It is still infinitesimal. Just as it is in a monoverse.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 9:40 am
November 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Multiverses are just an untested hypothesis, a possible mathematical consequence of current Cosmological Theory. Just like Dirac noticed certain solutions to equations resulted in anti-particles, then predicted their existence, even though no one had ever seen such a thing. It doesn't mean they exist in fact. It's a hypothesis proposed for the purpose of directing research. Positrons, i.e. anti-electrons, were subsequently discovered, confirming the hypothesis.
Hypotheses are not proposed to avoid entertaining the possibility that there may really be a God. Hypotheses are tentative assumptions proposed in order to test their empirical consequences.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 9:59 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
We have dierect experience with designers implementing design parameters.
It does no such thing.
The designer does not need to still exist. However we do have tried and true design detecvtion techniques.
When we apply these to the natural world ID rings true.
Comment by ID guy — November 8, 2008 @ 10:01 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:49 am
don provan
Maybe. There is a lot we do not know about the universe. But the theme of the blog entry is centered on nature's constants which are conveniently located within those narrow ranges that allow for life. These are things we are able to empirically measure so to say that undetected universes are on an equal par with this is erroneous.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 10:49 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Point well taken. God is a perfectly reasonable option. Excluding options for personal reasons is not rational.
A psychological impediment.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 11:10 am
November 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
don provan:
LOL!!! This is truly rich, when oh-so empirical science whines that its non-empirical fantasies "only" need to be as well supported as ID! Never thought I'd live to see the day.
I seem to recall a principle called "Occam's Razor" where the most circumspect explanation wins. Especially when talking about fantasies and speculations. Multiverses violate this principle, intentional (or necessary) design does not.
The very same projected possibility of finding evidence that more is going on than what we can observe or measure here supports a multidimensional universe much more circumspect than this silly infinite proliferation of realities we can never know about. A single universe in which our 3+1 dimensions are a subset, and where some of the odder manifestations of matter/force/energy are effects of something that exists and acts in 5 or 11 or 22 dimensions.
To accept for theoretical purposes the existence of 'things' (unknown nature) that operate in more dimensions than we can perceive isn't nearly as fantastic as Max's Multiverses. String theories, in fact, make this very projection – they are NOT about infinite numbers of universes, and confirming any of the projections does NOT confirm an infinite number of universes. It just confirms that there are 'more' existing dimensions than we consciously participate in.
If indeed there are 'more' existing dimensions than we consciously participate in, no scientist or layperson can definitively rule out the existence and operation of some kind of life/consciousness in any or all of them. Why, it might start looking increasingly likely that this is to be expected rather than arbitrarily ruled out for metaphysical reasons.
If ever the tests of string theories do provide evidence of the 'more' that both scientists and laypersons expect is out there, I hope the ideological die-hards on the scientific end don't decide to push the fantastic, Occam-violating non-explanation over the more reasonable 'subset' explanation. But despite my hope, I don't think the games of dueling metaphysics will ever go away.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Zach:
Depends on what you mean by “me” if by me you mean a being with exactly my physical makeup and exactly my memories living in a universe exactly like this one the odds would be 100 percent that I would experience these things infinite times.
If by me you mean my actual individual immaterial soul you are correct but most folks who hold to the multiverse don’t believe in such things an immaterial soul.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 8, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
You are not your twin. The odds that *you* will observe extraordinary events doesn't change depending on the number of multiverses. It is still infinitesimal for a single observer.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Zach:
Zachriel, meet Raevmo and his "Poof-Joy." Raevmo, meet Zachriel.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Zach:
I agree but my twin does not have exactly my physical makeup and exactly my memories now does he?
How can you call an event that occurs an infinite number of times extraordinary
Infinity times infinitesimal still equals Infinity. In an infinite multiverse anything that can happen will infinite times.
nothing is improbable, everything is certain in such a world
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 8, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Because it's extraordinarily rare.
That's incorrect. It actually depends, e.g. let
x → ∞, 2x * 1/x = 2Perhaps. There may be other limits, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.
For any particular observer, the chance of an extraordinary event remains infinitesimal. It's like poker. Yes, if you keep dealing hands, eventually you will get a Royal Flush. But the chance of you getting a Royal Flush on a particular hand stays the same. It doesn't matter if you have played a single hand, or a billion hands, or if a million monkeys have played a million hands. The chance for you on any given hand remains the same (one in ~2½ million).
We can therefore predict with any reasonable certainty that you will not see such an event. That's all induction can do. Because even if there is only a single universe, or an infinity of universes, the odds for you remain the same.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Zach:
Speaking of odds using your logic and given the multiverses what are the odds of single observer finding himself in a world as extraordinary diverse and beautiful as the one I live in?
infinitesimal?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 8, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Zach:
And yet a significant percentage of us DO observe extraordinary events in our lifetimes. Some of us observe quite a bit that's extraordinary. What are the chances that a person – or a small group of people in an entire population – would serve as witness to such events on a better-than random basis?
Science's "ideal" experiments can't even be rectified with observable reality (wave/particle duality) unless some aspect of consciousness is involved. Even in those "ideal" experiments, which have nothing much to do with fuzzy, sloppy, mundane reality. After awhile, it gets demonstrably ridiculous to keep on insisting that there's no rhyme or reason to what we all observe and experience day-to-day in our honest-to-real lives.
I'd suggest that perhaps consciousness extends into dimensions we don't "normally" inhabit, and is able to sometimes 'pull' events from there to here. And sometimes the simple existence of this person or that one 'pulls' events semi-predictably. Gotta be a "strange attractor" sort of thing.
If I told you I've seen – and examined up close and personal – a ~1.5-ton granite gneiss boulder floating in a field at least 2.5 feet above the ground (but not 'knowing' it wasn't right where it should be in this gravity well), would you reject the report out of hand, or would your mind start generating explanations from whatever its databank feeds it? Would you "not-see" it just because it's so incongruous? Would you not report it because it's so incongruous? Or would you suspect very strongly upon your own examination that something – entirely natural but highly unusual – is going on with this particular boulder?
…would you even attempt to generate some kind of theory based on what you know or could find out as to what it might be?
People (hopelessly metaphysically deluded) tell me I'm crazy, but I'm not. I've been some places, seen some things. For which science has no rational explanation at all, but instead insists must be labeled "Miracle." If science can accept the existence of "Miracles," so can I. But I still want a rational explanation, within a spectrum of what is possible.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy."
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I suppose some people might have ulterior motives such as an adversion to or propensity towards explaining things with gods. For myself, I don't really care what the explanation is, I merely observe that reason does not actually support or refute a telic explanation. One thing that makes this clearer is alternative explanations, such as multiverses, that are equally plausible.
Comment by don provan — November 8, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
We have no way of calculating the odds, but the odds of winning a lottery are also quite small, yet people win lotteries all the time. So, yes, we are very lucky according to multiverse theoriies (because we are in the "right" universe") and ID theories (because we are the "right" species).
Comment by don provan — November 8, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
You have me confused with someone else. I have no interest in supporting the multiverse theory. I merely observe that it's exactly as valid as any telic theory being presented in this thread. I see no reason at all to think either is correct.
Comment by don provan — November 8, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
As is favoring options for personal reasons.
Comment by don provan — November 8, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
And we also have experience with statistically unlikely things happening. What we don't have is any experience with designers building universes or multiple divergent universes. Both are equally unsupported speculations.
Comment by don provan — November 8, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:28 am
don provan:
A tiny percentage of participants must win lotteries. That outcome is part of an intelligently designed game plan. But you're welcome to contend that the origin of the universe is grounded in intelligent design.
Explaining fine tuning by postulating infinite varieties is tautological. In the absence of validating tests it offers nothing explanatory. One might as well explain the uniqueness of don provan by postulating an infinite number of intelligent organisms among an infinite number of universes. Shore splains things Festus.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 6:28 am
November 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
We've been using the term "extraordinary" in a particular manner. We're referring to the random motion of quantum particles; e.g., the chance of all the molecules of air in an otherwise ordinary room suddenly moving to one side. Because this is so rare, we would normally expect another explanation than statistical happenstance. This is true whether there is one universe, or an infinite number of universe. Induction works just the same.
This would be a case in point. Even if we assume there are an infinity of universes, the odds of such an occurrence in any particular universe due to statistical happenstance are still infinitesimal. We would look for other, more plausible explanations.
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2008 @ 9:17 am
November 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Like design maybe?
Comment by gmlk — November 9, 2008 @ 11:56 am
November 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
gmlk
No don’t you see that in Zach's infinite mulitverse even though there are an infinite number of intelligent designers who float an infinite number boulders we should never expect to see one because they are rare.
On the other hand we should not be surprised in such a place to find so-called extraordinary things like life and consciousness spring in to being from imamate matter even though they only happen once that we know of because such a thing happens an infinite number of times.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 9, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Sure. Some unseen mechanism, perhaps. Or something to do with perception. But most any would be more plausible than just statistical happenstance. The key point from above is that the statistical odds in a given universe don't change regardless of the number of universes (excepting the inherent limitations of the Anthropic Principle).
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Huh? I thought we were talking about multiverses. We already know that intelligent agents can move boulders. Happens every day.
At any time, quantum fluctuations can, in principle, result in any odd arrangements of particles. We can imagine situations (air moving purely by statistical fluctuation to one side of an otherwise ordinary room) where the odds are infinitesimal in a given universe. However, if we posit an infinity of universes, it is conceivable (though not necessarily the case) that every *possible* arrangement will occur. But…
But the odds that you will observe such events in a given universe doesn't change. It is still infinitesimal. Just as it is in a monoverse.
No one knows if multiverses exist, but let's suppose (hypothesis) they do. We might expect a range of initial values for energy and relationships between the various forces. Among these, apparently some are suitable for life. We expect to be in such a universe. Just like there may be many planets, but it's not surprising humans happen to be on one which is habitable.
As to whether there is a test for the existence of multiverses is still not known, but entanglement between universes may leave a signature in the overall structure of the Cosmos.
It's possible that life is extraordinarily rare, and that the only explanation is some cosmically unlikely happenstance and the Anthropic Principle. However, this seems to be contradicted by the available evidence. Given the basic structure of the universe, life appears inevitable.
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 4:57 am
That is my point, of course.
What does the fact that lotteries are run by humans have to do with it? A river takes only one of many possible courses. Is that a sign of intelligent design?
How? Is the explanation for why someone wins the lottery or why a river takes a particular course tautological?
Quite true. Multiverse explanations are exactly like teleological explanations in that neither offers validating tests.
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 4:57 am
November 10th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Can you explain what makes design more plausible? That's the part I'm missing. Design as an explanation appears to have all the same faults as a multiverse.
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 5:02 am
November 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am
How about a side by side comparison
Infinite multiverse:Monkeys will fly out of my butt an infinite number of times
Design:Monkeys will not fly out my butt
Infinite multiverse:
I will give birth to a T-Rex who will become president an infinite number of times
Design:I will not give birth to a T-Rex who will become president
Infinite multiverse:
Life will spontaneously arise from the primordial ooze an infinite number of times
Design:Life will not arise spontaneously (for no reason)
Infinite multiverse:
Earth will be visited by the intelligent designer an infinite number of times
Design:Earth will be visited by the intelligent designer only if he chooses to
Infinite multiverse:
YEC will be true an infinite number of times
Design:Yec will be true or false not both at the same time
Infinite multiverse:
The Idea that we are living in a computer simulation is true an infinite number of times
Design:The Idea that we are living in a computer simulation will be true or false not both at the same time
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 10, 2008 @ 7:57 am
November 10th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Such an incident can happen even in a monoverse. The odds in a particular universe do not change based on the number of universes. But I've already said this.
Like a stick turning into a snake. Design is such a nebulous category, that it is unconstrained. But, as I already said, design or some other causal phenomena is a better explanation than some statistically improbable quantum fluctuation in such a case.
Salt spontaneously dissolves in water. Spontaneous, in this context, means just the opposite of "for no reason". It means that it happens naturally due to the properties of the components. The evidence indicates that life may arise spontaneously due to the natural properties of carbon and water as found in this particular monoverse.
You have completely ignored my previous comments. Your continued confusion is the result of not thinking about the problem. We already know you don't understand the concept of infinity, but you continue to argue about it anyway, and show no willingness to learn.
Infinity times an infinitesimal,
let x → ∞, 2x * 1/x = 2let x → ∞, x^2 * 1/x = ∞
let x → ∞, x * 1/x^2 = 1/∞
Could be finite, infinity or an infinitesimal. We can't make this determination without considering cases. An infinity of universes does not necessarily imply that every quantum event that can be conceived will come to fruition. Nor do the vast majority of scientists rely on multiverses to explain anything other than the fundamental physical constants.
More importantly, multiverses are just speculation based on some interesting extensions of cosmological equations. Scientists don't *claim* they exist. They *posit* they exist for the purpose of trying to tease out their empirical implications. This is contrary to most of the ID Community, who inaccurately say there is scientific evidence to support ID.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 9:32 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Have we ever experinced design parameters or rules just popping into existence without a designer? No.
All we need to know is what designwers are capable of and what mother nature is capable of. And we also know that mother nature cannot account for her own origins. Therefore she had to have had some help.
So we take that known point and add it with the other known points and we come to a design inference as the best explanation.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:08 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:16 am
There isn't any such evidence and there isn't any such indication.
If we take a bacterium and slit it open and spill out its contents they will not spontaneously re-assemble in a bacterium. And there isn't any mechanism that can get all the required pieces in one place.
Heck inside of a living cell are amino acids in very close proximity to each other. Yet they don't just spontaneously configure themselves. Nor do all the free nucleotides inside a cell spontaneously nconfigure themselves.
There is scientific evidencxe to support ID. For starters we have the genetic code. And you have failed to demonstrate that mother nature can cobble together any sort of code.
Then we have the laws that govern nature. Laws and rules, as far as we know, only come from intelligent agencies. That is what all of our experience tells us.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:16 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
You're conflating two definitions of laws. In science, a law is an observed regularity. There is no scientific evidence of Intelligent Falling.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 10:51 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
And regularity needs to be based on something- like design parameters. We wouldn't expect any regularities in a universe not designed by an intelligent agency.
You never heard of a parachute? Or how about someone jumping off of a roof?
But I digress. There is direct observational evidence of intelligent designers designing perametrs. There isn't anything that demonstrates such parametrs "just arise".
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 11:02 am
November 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
How about a serious conversation?
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Could you point me to definitive definitions of "design parameters" and "rules"? Why isn't "Water must flow to lower elevations" a design parameter? Why isn't "Laws of physics must be followed" a rule?
What are the design parameters and rules you see in galaxy formation that suggest a designer? Is "supports life" a design parameter, or just a result? How can you tell?
Well, let's think about this. We know that physical laws can describe the creation of galaxies. Do we know any designers capable of creating galaxies?
We also know that no designer can account for its own origins, and therefore designers have to have some help. And, in fact, we study the natural forces that have led to the origins of all designers we know of.
You are cherry picking the "known points" that are convenient to your position and ignoring the "known points" that support other explanations. This is OK for developing a hypothesis, but unacceptable for drawing a conclusion. Which do you claim to be doing?
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
FWIW -
The article which prompted the linked blog post at top is here: Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.
Comment by todd — November 10, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Joy,
I would start generating explanations. The primary explanations would involve a fault in the report ranging from you making it up through someone deceiving you.
I am not clear on whether this is hypothetical or not. If you are saying you actually did witness a floating boulder, what can you offer to help us eliminate explanations involving you, for one reason or another, reporting something that you didn't actually witness?
I don't think it's a slip of the tongue that we've shifted in the middle of the paragraph from me experiencing your report to me experiencing the floating boulder for myself. I think this just reveals that in your thought processes, you leap over the possibilities I just raised and expect me to accept your report as if it were my own experience. Such leaps are exactly what science avoids.
Of course. Who wouldn't?
Are you asking me to just take your word for it? I have no reason to think you're crazy, but if you tell me about the boulder and ask me to accept it as fact, I have to rule out you being crazy as a possibility. Isn't that reasonable?
But that's exactly what "miracle" means in this context: something with no rational explanation that puts it beyond the spectrum of what is possible.
But I'm not sure what science accepts "miracles". Science logically can say nothing beyond "unexplained". Perhaps you can clarify the scientific difference?
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
don provan:
The outcome is a designed outcome which is my point of course.
For one it makes its applicability to multiverse arguments irrelevant if you are arguing against design. The multiverse argument against design is based on the infinity concept, not a designed competition which ensures a winner in a finite system.
Strawman.
Infinite variety arguments can be used to explain anything. That means they explain nothing in the absence of evidence for the infinite variety.
The top blog entry offers a means of testing mind duality.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
It could be, but a design factor evidenced by water subsequently appearing at a higher elevation is another possibility.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I think we have different concepts of "strawman". Your objection to my lottery example was that lotteries are designed, so I am offering another example with the same logical consequence, but that doesn't involve any intelligent design.
The original question was:
The odds of a river having any specified course is also in tiny, yet the river has its course, nonetheless. So while the odds of any single observer finding himself in a world with any specified attribute is small, the point is that some observer will find himself in that world. The odds against any single observer finding himself in that world are unimportant.
Yes. Exactly like intelligent designer arguments, in the absence of evidence for an intelligent designer.
And testing mind duality tells us what about the creation of the universe?
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
A strawman is an argument you set up and then demolish. The river was not introduced by me.
Evidence of design can be found in nature. If a conclusion is maintained that no design is evident, evidence must be allowed for the opposite.
Results indicating mind function without an underlying physical basis would support the idea that intelligence can preceed brain cells (or matter) rather than have to arise from them. That in turn makes a requisite condition for an intelligently designed universe theoretically viable.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I never said it was.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, can you address the issue? Do you agree that the odds against a river course is similar to the odds against an observer finding himself in our universe?
I make no conclusion about no design, I merely observe that there is no evidence for design beyond the same kind of "what else could it be?" class of arguments that you object to when used to justify multiverses.
I'll be happy to conceed "viability" as long as you acknowledge that we experience physical processes constantly, so they provide explanations that are at least as viable.
Comment by don provan — November 10, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
The physical processes we observe are not those which would bear on the question of design. For example, what physical process generates a genetic code?
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Zach
universe 1: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated :
If the multiverse exists it is the universe and what we think of as the universe is but a small part of the real universe. When you discover a new universe it automatically becomes part of your universe.
To claim otherwise is nothing but a dodge.
So the odds do change from “won’t happen” to “certain”.
What evidence?
Carbon and water has never done this as far as we know despite trillions of different combinations and billions of years.
You are the one who is ignoring comments until you tell me what you mean by “me” your points will be meaningless. Am I an immaterial soul or not?
If I’m the sum total of my memories and atoms Monkeys will fly out my butt infinite times in a infininte multiverse. Am I wrong?
What cases? list them please. remember they must be robust enough to explain finetuning
That’s my point the multiverse explains the fundamental physical constants at the expense of explaining everything including why the monkeys flew out my butt.
More accurately folks *posit* they exist to avoid the obvious implications of fine tuning
Keep on your crusade to defeat the big bad Christian fundies Zach everyone needs a purpose in life
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 10, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Conceptually. However, the concept of intelligent designers has at least one leg up: we know intelligent designers exist, and that they design things. We have no such evidence of a multiverse.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 10, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 8:49 am
1. It isn't necessary to redefine common words in order to form your argument. In the context of a discussion of multiverses, a universe is a single Big Bang cosmology, and a multiverse is "the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality." In general, these multiverses are posited to be causally disconnected, though possibly entangled.
As I am using the term appropriately, and in light of your accusation, I hope you take a moment for self-reflection. The charitable interpretation was that one of us was confused.
2. Multiverse may or may not mean an infinity of universes. And even if infinite, it may or may not mean that every possible quantum event occurs. But let's accept that every possible quantum timeline is taken in some alternative universe.
3. That would mean, by our supposition, that every possible event that can occur will occur. Life may be going on just like normal, and suddenly all the molecules of air in the room move to one side for a moment by pure random happenstance. And this is bound to happen in some multiverse somewhere. Perhaps even in this multiverse.
But that doesn't change the fact that for any single observer the odds of observing such an occurrence remain infinitesimally small. The odds don't change for a particular observer even if there are an infinity of multiverses. The odds of being in that universe are extraordinarily small—with one exception. So when you observe such an extraordinary event, your best bet (induction) is to look for causation.
The one exception is the weak Anthropic Principle. You have to be in a universe amenable to observers.
Of course they have. Look at your children.
How am I supposed to know? You might just be a bot.
Does a clone have a soul? Does an indentical twin? Multiworld timelines? Soul is not a scientific concept, so don't expect a scientific answer.
I already did.
let x → ∞, 2x * 1/x = 2let x → ∞, x^2 * 1/x = ∞
let x → ∞, x * 1/x^2 = 1/∞
That's a non sequitur. But in any case, according to the hypothesis, the physical constants take a different value in each "bubble" or universe, just like quantum particles have indeterminant position or momentum, but appear to take all of them and none of them until observed.
You still haven't grasped the concept. According to quantum mechanics, quantum particles might be found anywhere. Extraordinary events can happen in a finite universe, with finite (but infinitesimal) probability. And because of the limitations of induction, there is no definitive way to determine causation, even assuming you're not just a character in a deity's dream. Multiverses don't change this.
I don't know about "folks", but scientists posit multiverses as a possible consequent of Inflation Theory, but consider it mere speculation absent empirical support.
Please discontinue misrepresenting my position.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 8:49 am
November 11th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Zach:
I agree a multiverse could be big enough to let folks deny the obvious implications of fine tuning but so no big as to explain everything.
In order to be a viable option he multiveres itself must be fine tuned.
You have yet to define what qualifies as single observer if the standard materialist definition of self is correct any single observer will observe such an occurrence infinite times
My kids were anything but spontaneous their births involved the deliberate action of at least two adults.
But an answer is necessary. If you don’t have one you can’t answer the odds question when it come to Multiverses
Those are not cases those are equations you’ve made no effort to connect them to reality. It's been a while since I multiplied infinities so I’d appreciate it if you gave me some meat on those bones.
From here:On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
If you read the article you'll find this is the stated reason that many scientists postulate a multiverse
Once again you misrepresent facts so as to score points against the fundie. I'm not suprised
I can’t read minds Zach I can only go by what you’ve shown on this forum.
Which is to “postulate” a fundi behind every bush and pull out all the stops to make sure they know their place
If you have different position than you’ve shown here I have no way of knowing it
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 11, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
That doesn't make sense in light of the hypothesis. First, do you understand that in quantum mechanics a particle doesn't have a definite position and momentum, and that its behavior can be predicted by summing over all possible histories?
A single observer is an entity that records or experiences information about the world. You and your twin are not the same person, the same entity, or the same observer. You and your twin have different histories. But I've said this before, several times.
Then you're not doing it right.
Multiverses is a highly speculative scientific conjecture. Souls are not a scientific concept. Multiverses could be true or false, regardless of the existence of souls. They are disjunctive. Multiverses is just a posited structure of physical reality.
You said, "Infinity times infinitesimal still equals Infinity." That is a mathematical statement and is incorrect. The result is undefined, and best approached with limits. The equations above are quite simple. For example,
2x * 1/x = 2regardless ofx. So it doesn't matter if we allowx → ∞, it's still2. The other equations are similar.—
Off-topicIf you can't read minds, then please learn to read the printed word. I do not "postulate" fundies hiding behind bushes. Nor do I put you down for your ideas. However, I do find your arguments to be poorly supported. But this has nothing to do with your personal religious beliefs. It has to do with your refusal to look skeptically at your own position and not giving careful consideration to contrary arguments.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
zach:
but in a infininte mulitverse there are inifinite beings with my history
I agree I just don't know what they have to do with the multiverse or the price of tea in China
I agree hence your dilemma in order to disprove that infinite monkeys will fly out my butt in a multiverse you must assume a unscientific concept. how sad for you.
Who’s ideas were you responding to when you made this comment?
.
And why did you feel it necessary to bring it up while we were having an unrelated discussion
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 12, 2008 @ 8:42 am
November 12th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Consider a single quantum particle, such as a photon, in a single universe, our own Cosmos perhaps. According to Quantum Theory, we can't predict the exact trajectory of this particle, not even in principle. It could be here. It could be there. It could even show up in the other room through an impenetrable wall.
However, some paths are far more likely than others. This allows us to make statistical relevant predictions. And for large collections of particles, our predictions closely resemble determinism—but not quite. Interestingly, the statistical behavior of quantum particles can be calculated by assuming the particle takes all paths, each in a different parallel universe. These Many Worlds are speculation, but the mathematical results are accurate.
Now, let's reconsider our large collection of particles. It is quite possible that something extraordinary (meaning statistically unlikely due solely to quantum indeterminism) could happen. Perhaps, all the particles in your body could suddenly show in the other room. It's much more likely that your particles would just be scattered. But even that would be very extraordinary. It's much more likely than that that they won't do anything extraordinary at all.
Consider an infinity of universes. Each universe has a finite quanta, and also assume that the fabric of space-time is quantized. So there are only so many possible arrangements of the particles that make up each universe. But not all arrangements are equally likely! So when we start inspecting these universes, the vast majority will be quite ordinary. There will be no extraordinary events.
Now, we apply the Anthropic Principle. Your other arguments have no validity, but this is where it might be possible to make a valid objection. We are selecting only those universes that are suitable for observers. However, the balance of the events in the universe would tend to be ordinary, not extraordinary. Except insofar as what is minimally required for observers to exist.
But even that gets back to whether or not we have evidence that life occurs naturally. Given the fundamental physical properties that lead to carbon and liquid water, it appears so. That's why Cosmological ID has some (albeit only speculative) validity, while Biological ID is completely without merit.
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 8:53 am
November 12th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Yeah, we can defintely see how fundamental properties of carbon and water lead to the development of protein coding systems.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 8:58 am
November 12th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Yes, perhaps there will be an infinity of identical fmms, but vastly more with similar, but not identical paths. Each universe will tend to diverge according to quantum indeterminacy. This is true because, from the scientific view, we presume fmm is composed of a finite number quanta.
It has to do with the chances of extraordinary events. If we sample the infinity of universes, though an infinity will include extraordinary events, this is still an infinitesimal of the total number of universes. Just as if we dealt an infinite number of poker hands, we will have an infinity of Royal Flushes, but they'll still be only 1 in ~2½ million hands. That's why your previous misunderstanding concerning the arithmetic of infinity was important to correct.
There's your other misconception. Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence. The evidence indicates that such extraordinary events are unlikely, and that something other than quantum indeterminacy is a more likely explanation. However, according to Quantum Mechanics, there is nothing to prevent the extraordinary occurrence.
If you read the context, I was comparing the certainty expressed by many in the ID Community to the speculative nature of multiverses. This is an ID blog, and the thread is about ID. Multiverses is just one of many indistinguishable conjectures at this time. But that doesn't make your arguments about monkeys valid.
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 9:09 am
November 12th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Yes, that's what the evidence strongly suggests. We have the versatility of carbon chemistry, spontaneous formation of complex macromolecules in many different environments, naturally-occurring catalysts for assembling nucleotide sequences and vesicles, random sequences with autocatalytic properties, evidence of primitive precursors to the genetic code and other cellular structures. Of course, conclusions are considered very tentative because of the distance of time and the lack of fossils, but all the lines of evidence point to a natural origin, and there is no evidence of teleology.
But we would agree, I'm sure, that any reasonable theory of abiogenetics should be able to point to causes, and not just some extraordinary event of quantum indeterminacy on the primordial Earth and the Anthropic Principle.
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 9:25 am
November 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
What evidence? Please provide it som we can take a look.
Carbon's versatility is due to its design. What macromolecules spontaneously form? And what suitable catalysts assemble nucleotide sequences that can be demonstrated to have arisen via unguided processes?
For starters the genetic code is evidence for teleology.
And you can refute that by demonstrating it can arise via unguided processes.
Yet you have failed to do so.
As a matter of fact you have also failed to provide a hypotrhesis to test your position.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2008 @ 9:33 am
November 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Maybe to you bio ID doesn't have any merit but then again you have never produced anything which would demonstrate your position has any merit.
Whether you like it or not living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain complex specified information. That isn't going to change any time soon.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2008 @ 9:45 am
November 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
A bold claim with no caveats. Regardless of the origin of carbon, it appears to spontaneously form macromolecules. But if you insist that everything is designed, then no empirical distinction can be made.
Amino acids, including peptides. Nucleobases. PAH's, such as anthracene and pyrene. Clays such as montmorillonite.
You can say that, but we have evidence that the genetic code evolved from more primitive precursors.
Each time I have entertained a discussion on Irreducible Complexity, the definition and application changes. There was a thread on this forum not long ago where it was argued that organisms are *not* Irreducibly Complex.
As for Complex Specified Information, that's purportedly a mathematical term. Could you point me to any papers in a respected journal of mathematics that define and utilize the concept?
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 10:27 am
November 12th, 2008 at 11:36 am
One can point to the same evidence an say we have evidence that the genetic code does not evolve from precursors. The one way to decisively settle the matter is by showing the chemical transformations starting with precursors and ending with code. There is no such demonstration.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 11:36 am
November 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
What do you want an introduction with the designer? It appears that is all you will acept.
Anything that self-replicates? And origins are very important.
I never implied nor thought such a thing. Never mind insisted upon it.
Thanks. Still no proteins or nuclic acids. But still OK and still nothing that self-replicates.
And I know we can make amino acids form in the right lab conditions, but even in the close proximity inside a living cell they do not configure themselves.
And no evidence that it ORIGINATED via unguided processes. And for all we know it "evolved" (your continued equivocation is duly noted) becaiuse it was DESIGNED to do so.
How the code ORIGINATED directly influences any subsequent history of it. And there isn't any data which demonstrates that living organisms can survive without one.
Science is NOT static. The definition of "species" changes, because THAT is the nature of the beast. IC will continue to be refined. THAT is the halmark of a good idea.
Science has demonstrated there is a minimal complexity required to achieve "living organism status". Once one looks at that minmal complexitry it is easy to see its irreducible complexity.
It may have a mathematical component to "prove" the premise but you would need to provide a reference that states it is a mathematical term.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2008 @ 11:40 am
November 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
You can say anything you want, but scientific hypotheses about the evolution of the genetic code have been fruitful in directing research.
No, that's now how we decide such matters in science. If we had to know everything about a process, we could never make progress. Rather, we propose a hypothesis, and then test the empirical implications. We may not know every ancestor of George Washington, but we have every reason to believe he descended the usual way.
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
We know the usual way people spawn descendents. We do not know of a means by which life comes from non-life. Science has no answer to the question.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
No. Just a valid scientific hypothesis and the entailed empirical predictions.
Random nucleotide sequences can have autocatalytic properties.
I appreciate the clarification. You had said that carbon was designed. Can you give some examples of things not designed?
There is no complete theory of abiogenesis, nor did I claim there was.
Amino acids form spontaneously in a number of natural environments.
An origin is not a single moment in time for evolutionary processes. There is no evidence of "unguided processes", but plenty of evidence of an evolutionary history.
I have no problem with the different utilizations of scientific terminology. When constructing an argument, however, it's important the terms be clearly defined. Which definition are you using?
Is the mammalian middle ear (ossicles, timpanic membrane) irreducibly complex?
I didn't know it was in dispute. Specified Complexity is defined by Dembski as a measure of information.
χ = –log2[ 10^120 · φS(T)·P(T|H)].
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Yes, we also know that if we look back to Washington's ancestors, we'll find non-human hominids, ferret-like mammals, and a common ancestor with fish. We know this even if we are missing a great-great grandparent here or there.
That wasn't the issue you raised. You indicated the only way to decisively settle the matter would be to provide every step of the process. Just like we may not know every ancestor of Washington, or every intermediate between land mammals and whales, we can predict the data well-enough to know with reasonably scientific certainty that Washington has a common ancestor with whales.
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Previous comment should read as follows:
Zachriel: … There is no evidence of "
unguided processes" …Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
A more accurate statement is that there is no evidence for any processes that start with organic chemicals and end with a living cell.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
So let's agree that science has no answer to how life developed and move past that to evaluating hypotheses.
On the one hand, there's a hypothesis that an intelligent designer is responsible. What's on the other hand? You seem to think that the other hand is a specific description of a series physical steps. But that's obviously not comparable: the first hypothesis has no steps and isn't even clear on the basic process.
The comparable hypothesis is actually the similarly vague claim that physical processes are responsible in some unknown way.
In that light, there's really no comparison. First of all, the second hypothesis starts out by being significantly more specific than the first, claiming, as it does, that physical processes we can study today are responsible. We can study modern intelligent agents all we want, but there's nothing about the first hypothesis that tells what, if any, characteristics of modern intelligent agents will hold true for the intelligence speculated by the hypothesis.
Furthermore, we know those physical processes were acting at the time in much the same way they act today. On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever that an intelligence of any sort was present.
It's only when one introduces the unsupportable claim that we somehow know that there are no possible ways physical processes could lead to life that the alternative explanation has any basis at all.
Since we don't know how it happened, we cannot rule out some intelligent intervention, of course, so there's nothing unreasonable about believing in such a thing if you like. But the claim of scientific validity is based entirely on thinking that your "science has no answer" observation allows any proposal to fill in as a scientific answer.
Comment by don provan — November 12, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
An ID process can have steps as would FLE for example. Cosmological ID references solid concepts like fine tuning for support. A gradual stepwise birth to the universe being irrelevant anyway. It is true that the generation of a genetic code would lack a gradual incremental chemical process that would describe it as a result of a series of chemical reactions. But that is characteristic of codes. They are a product of conceptualization. Physical processes are merely used to express them.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
But there are no processes even proposed that start with intelligence and end with a living cell, so even without any evidence, the natural forces hypothesis is still a leg up.
Yes, an ID process could have steps, and if we discussed a specific proposal which had steps, we could compare the extent to which there is evidence for that hypothesis on the same level we discuss evidence supporting similar hypotheses involving physical processes that do not encounter intelligent intervention. But at that level, "no evidence for any processes that start with organic chemicals and end with a living cell" is false since once we're scaled down to specifics, some steps can be demonstrated, even though other steps, such as any involving the specifics of how some intelligence manipulates the physical world, are entirely speculation.
Are you suggesting that because the ID proposal has no specifics, it is somehow immune from the considerations applied to proposals involving physical processes? You've got it backwards: proving that single, miraculous step has much higher requirements. The incremental steps of a physical process provide opportunities for incremental proof. That doesn't prove the case, of course, but it does allow us to show that some parts of the process are reasonable.
You are claiming to be saying something about reality, but presupposing that this is "a code" with these characteristics is part of the hypothesis, not an established fact about how life came to be.
Physical processes implement them, and all science is talking about is the implementation.
The problem with the ID hypotheses are you are presenting them is that at the end of the story, there's still the question of how "the code" was actually implemented once it was designed. We're still left doing exactly what the non-ID scientists are doing to find the implementation, and we may or may not detect intelligent influences in the process even if we accept that the result must have had intelligent influences.
Comment by don provan — November 12, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Unproven proposals do not impress.
Cosmological ID references solid concepts like fine tuning for support. A gradual stepwise birth to the universe being irrelevant anyway.
LOL. Those mathematical constants are specific. This is cosmology, not biology.
You have to look for a causal genesis for coding systems which mimicks intelligence but is not intelligent. Good luck.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 7:16 pm