These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 25th, 2007 at 12:42 am and is filed under The Rabbit.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/what-am-i-supposed-to-tell-the-kids/trackback/
59 Responses to “What am I supposed to tell the kids?”
TTers - This is a draft, I haven't posted anywhere else yet.
I encourage the grammer nazis out there to make suggestions.
Any other suggestions are also welcome.
I will be posting this on other blogs, verbatim, Monday night.
With Mike's permission, I will ask people to comment here.
Thanks,
Thought Provoker
Hello,
For the many who don't know me, my handle is Thought Provoker. I have some thoughts I would like to share. It is my hope they will provoke some thinking. Baring that, let them provoke laughter.
For a little history from my perspective. I got introduced to the ID movement and Dr. Behe during the Dover trial. I went from Dr. Behe's IC to Dr. Dembski's ID Alternative called "telic properties in nature". However, I was immediately disinvited from Uncommon Descent. In case it needs to be spelled out, most people would, and have, considered me anti-ID.
I ended up at Telic Thoughts (TT). Mike Gene and TT intrigued me. We have had our ups and downs. However, I was a tolerated guest and, occasionally, was encouraged to participate more. I learned a few things during my time there.
Dr. Dembski's telic properties in nature may have been a general reference to EAM (TT's Joy provided me with the hint I needed). However, EAM still leans heavily on "intelligence" (ability to learn/adapt) as opposed to just "telic"(purposeful). To the irritation of many TTers, I looked for why intelligence was required as opposed to simply purpose. The result was figuring out ID's information theory argument boils down to a general statement that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word "intelligence".
Being an electrical engineer, I start thinking about a feedback loop. How do you create a sine wave output? Use a sine wave input and amplify it. Where do you get the input? From the output. It is called an oscillator circuit. Nothing magical or supernatural about it (except, maybe, the AA battery).
One of Joy's pet peeves is that she feels Evolution Biologists don't look outside their own discipline enough. Whether or not that is true, the physicist Steven Hawking's work is freely available via the web and, unlike some other PhD types, he explains both the math and logic in a way that it can be understood and vetted by anyone who wishes to do so. Steven Hawking isn't infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist) but he knows a lot more about cosmetology than I do (understatement).
Here is a link where he explains the concept of time as just another dimension like North/South directions on a globe with the South Pole being the beginning of time and the North Pole being the end of time. Questions about events before the beginning of time are like questions about locations South of the South Pole. Both are paradoxical, but neither requires the supernatural.
I realize some people don't accept this explanation as the Truth (capital "T"). This is where NOMA (Non-Overlapping_Magisteria) comes in. What I have come to realize in my TT travels is that NOMA is probably at the root of the Culture War (please be gentle with the "DUH" comments). I also noticed NOMA transcends the religious/atheist divide. A standard four-quadrant map comes to mind, with the x-axis ranging from active atheist to devout fundamentalist and the y-axis ranging from no separation (OMA) to absolute separation (NOMA), making the quadrants religious-OMA, atheist-OMA, religious-NOMA and atheist-NOMA. A dot for individuals could be placed on the map to review which quadrant each fell into. Previously, I would have placed myself in the atheist-NOMA quadrant. Now, I am not sure for reasons I'm about to explain. There is a lot more to discuss about NOMA, but that would take too much space.
The passion in the ID/Evolution debate comes when someone (from either side) tries to claim the one and only OMA Truth. This is the elephant-in-the-livingroom that has to be addressed. So, without further ado, I boldly use the Hawking Model as my starting point for a proposed, OMA Truth that meets the various claims and goals of both sides of the issue. I am sure that some will not like this choice. To these people, I suggest they write a beginning to end proposal like this one and allow it to also be vetted publicly.
The Hawking Model includes the multiverse paradigm"¦ "The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size."¦ A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse."
A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn't solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky. I suggest changing the bubbles of steam analogy to lightening strikes. The only universes that get beyond the recollapse stage are those that can complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time. Think of the improbability of a lighting striking hitting a specific, small piece of metal out of acres of other targets. However, when that piece of metal is a lighting rod that completes a circuit, the improbable becomes very probable.
I offer this as a reason for a telic universe. The purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. The universe must do what it needs to complete the consistency circuit from the beginning to the end of time, or it won't exist. "Retrocausality" is a term that came up in TT. Here is the link to the newspaper article that initiated the discussion. A future state (cause) that completes the consistency circuit will influence the historical time-path (effect) much like a lightening strike steers towards a lightening rod.
This proposed model may help explain why this universe appears finely tuned. It had to be, or it wouldn't have even started. It may also explain why historical events appear too fortuitous (retrocausality). But why life? Why intelligent life?
In case there was any illusion this would resolve the Culture War, it ends here. I am going to stipulate that in some yet-to-be-determined way, intelligent life is helpful in completing the consistency circuit of the universe.
I approach this next part with dread. To complete the picture, I feel I have to discuss potential reasons why intelligent life is needed for our universe to be consistent. One trivial answer (and not very believable) is that our SETI activities has provided just the right amount of focused electromagnetic energy to assist in allowing a symmetrical collapse at the end of time. The reason I bring up this silly example is to illustrate that while the universe needs to reach the end of time, intelligent life may not have to. To the contrary, intelligent life may have already outlived its usefulness.
However, there are a few Billion people out there who are predisposed to believe at least some kind of intelligence will exist at the end of time. Let's call this intelligence an "Intelligent Designer". This has the effect of elevating the problem. The purpose of intelligent life is to eventually grow into the Intelligent Designer. Now, what is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer? Well, for one, the designer could use retrocausality to create intelligent life. This is the oscillator circuit mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I will just assume an Intelligent Designer would be useful in completing the consistency circuit of the Universe in other ways too.
I think the hole I have dug for myself is pretty deep, so I am going to stop now. BTW, "pathetically obvious" wouldn't be unexpected reaction to this. It could also be claimed that this is just a restatement of various Anthropic Principles. I wouldn't disagree with that and I apologize for not giving all the people who deserve credit their due. I have no interest in claiming this as my idea. My real interest is in getting it presented and observing the reactions. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Comments and suggestions are also welcome. However, I am on business travel until Friday, 30 March so my time for responding will be limited. From 30 March to 8 April, I will be on vacation where I will be without any access to a computer at all (family enforced).
Regards,
Thought Provoker
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 1:20 am
Thought Provoker cites Hawking's well-known work (which as I understand it, is based on the dificult and seemingly unphysical mathematics of 'imaginary time'), as the starting point for TP's proposal.
Here's a quotation from the great man himself:
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
"¦The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
So, even Hawking is puzzled as to why the math produces physical reality. That's my first point.
My second point is that, regardless of whether the universe had a beginning in time or not, any quantum event presupposes the validity and applicability to reality of quantum mechanical laws.
Where did these laws come from? Where, indeed does the reality and validity of the math used by such as S. Hawking to describe them come from, not to mention rational minds (such as Hawking's?) that use said math for understanding reality? Anthropic principles per se do not answer such questions satisfactorily, because, as the Hawking quote I used illustrates, math is necessary but physical reality is contingent. And if anthropic mind 'arose' or 'emerged' from matter by natural and thus contingent mechanisms–they must be contingent if Hawking's question is a sensible one–then it remains a mystery how contingent mind and necessary math hook up with so much 'fit'.
And if the laws and the math that describes them are 'eternal', why is there zero evidence for their existence or instantiation in physical reality 'prior' to the Big Bangarama 14 billion years (as measured by clocks in our reference frame) or so ago?
Hi, TP. While your outline attempts to address fine-tuning arguments, it doesn't appear to address OOL or biological evolution at all. So the hypothesis that "intelligent life" causes itself doesn't explain anything about where it came from and how it got from there to here (while coincidentally maintaining a representative sample of everything in between, still existent today).
Questions of universal beginnings and endings are interesting, but irrelevant to real-time struggles for adaptation in the biological world - which at least as it now stands, is just one little rock among several orbiting a middling star in a tiny corner of a single galaxy among billions. For biological purposes, the existence of a universe capable of supporting life can be simply taken as 'given', and no arguments among physicists and mathematicians will establish or falsify the notion of intelligent design in biological evolution.
In evolution, the questions to be pondered - apart from OOL - have to do with the common life-coding [DNA], the complex processes and fortuitous adaptations that allow life to fulfill the 'Prime Directive' that has been in force from the first single-celled life form (if there was one) all the way to here and now, in every life lived inside of time for a time and assuring the continuance of life beyond individual limitations. Its enthusiastically deployed Evolvability.
I am glad you wrote because, as you may have noticed, I reference you a couple of times without getting your permission first.
You are well within your rights to request/demand I remove your name from this.
However, I would rather fix it so you aren't too uncomfortable with it (I am not asking you to endorse it).
I am at work right now. When I get to the hotel, I will add a paragraph just before my closing that will acknowlege that I didn't address OOL and DNA implications and that this could very well justify why an Intelligent Designer is required for consistancy in the universe.
If you have the time (at wish to), I wouldn't mind if you wanted to give me your words for such a paragraph.
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Hey, TP, I came into this thread to express silliness about the ex-wabbit, but you have provoked thought. I'm not sure I like that.
About the ex-wabbit, this picture is not at all like it seems. I have a book this thick on it at home (holds fingers wide apart.) This is the story of the gwinch who stole easter. The gwinch dressed up as a wabbit, as we all know, and stole a bunch of the eggs (don't worry, there's lots more) but when he was leaving he had an accident with the roadrunner. Actually, he nearly hit the roadrunner, but swerved hard to the right only to be munched by one of wyl-e's rolling bolders. That's what did him in. So the coyote saved the day by killing (no, just knocking cold) the gwinch who was trying to steal easter. That's all it is folks, nothing to see here. Move along.
Best part was the EAM link. I've had vague thoughts along that line and I'm glad to see some people are seriously working on it. (Isn't it rather Lamarkian?)
I also liked your idea that the purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. I'm not sure I would use the word purpose so much as perhaps just fundamental attribute. Again, similar to my own thoughts.
By the way, when I said on the other thread that there can be no Toe if we abide by NOMA, you took it to mean evolution, which may be incidendally true also, but I meant to say Theory of Everything. If we are ever to understand reality, then anything which is part of our reality must be understood as to how it relates to the whole. If it does not relate to the whole, it might as well not exist and is of no interest. Thus I am firmly in the OMA camp. NOMA is at best a compromise to deal with gaps in understanding and at worst a copout.
Now, why is being told that asking what started this whole thing, before time, is like asking what is south of the south pole so strangely unsatisfying?
Anyway, I'm glad for your participation and genuine attempt to puzzle things out.
Reading over what I wrote earlier I see that I need to clarify something. I had stated:
Anthropic principles per se do not answer such questions satisfactorily, because, as the Hawking quote I used illustrates, math is necessary but physical reality is contingent.
The word 'necessary' in that sentence means 'necessary to the theory Hawking propounds', not 'is a complete set of necessary truths'. And as Hawking himself says, a physical theory (deduced mathematically from a chosen axiom set) is one thing, physical reality another.
And the point I'm making later when I write,
And if the laws and the math that describes them are 'eternal', why is there zero evidence for their existence or instantiation in physical reality 'prior' to the Big Bangarama 14 billion years (as measured by clocks in our reference frame) or so ago?
is that we have zero scientific evidence for the real existence of 'laws' or 'necessary mathematical truths' independently of the real existence of minds, or for their instantiation at any time in any previous physical reality; which would be very odd if they are truly
1. both eternal and exist independently of minds endowed with free will
and if
2. this is a genuinely scientific as against metaphysical proposal (perhaps motivated by a desire not to posit a will-endowed—that's 'will' with an 'i'— transcendent mind).
Otherwise it is implied by this proposal that we've all had these debates an infinite number of times before, given the eternal real mind-independent existence of the quantum mechanical laws and their underlying mathematical truths.
A short way of putting that is that there is no scientific evidence for any real infinite past, and Hawking's proposal doesn't help because it depends on imaginary time, not real time, and even he can't figure out why his theory or any other theory becomes reality. The scientific evidence currently available says the real past is, in fact, finite. That makes it at least look like the universe is best explained by a rational will, not an eternal abstraction.
The scientific evidence currently available says the real past is, in fact, finite. That makes it at least look like the universe is best explained by a rational will, not an eternal abstraction.
I agree with the first sentence. The SLOT (assuming it's time-invariant) guarantees a finite past - otherwise the universe would have reached maximum entropy by now, which it hasn't. The rest of your statement is a total non sequitur. How do you come up with such nonsense?
To Mike and/or Joy "“
Unless I hear something to change the plans, this is what I will be posting to other blogs. I will wait until 8pm EST tonight.
Excuse the rush, but I wanted to get this out before my planned loss of computer privileges.
I thought it appropriated to give TT the first right of refusal to host the comments.
Thanks,
Thought Provoker
Hello,
For the many who don't know me, my handle is Thought Provoker. I have some thoughts I would like to share. It is my hope they will provoke some thinking. Baring that, let them provoke laughter.
For a little history from my perspective. I got introduced to the ID movement and Dr. Behe during the Dover trial. I went from Dr. Behe's IC to Dr. Dembski's ID Alternative called "telic properties in nature". However, I was immediately disinvited from Uncommon Descent. In case it needs to be spelled out, most people would, and have, considered me anti-ID.
I ended up at Telic Thoughts (TT). Mike Gene and TT intrigued me. We have had our ups and downs. However, I was a tolerated guest and, occasionally, was encouraged to participate more. I learned a few things during my time there.
Dr. Dembski's telic properties in nature may have been a general reference to EAM (TT's Joy provided me with the hint I needed). However, EAM still leans heavily on "intelligence" (ability to learn/adapt) as opposed to just "telic"(purposeful). To the irritation of many TTers, I looked for why intelligence was required as opposed to simply purpose. The result was figuring out ID's information theory argument boils down to a general statement that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word "intelligence".
Being an electrical engineer, I start thinking about a feedback loop. How do you create a sine wave output? Use a sine wave input and amplify it. Where do you get the input? From the output. It is called an oscillator circuit. Nothing magical or supernatural about it (except, maybe, the AA battery).
One of Joy's pet peeves is that she feels Evolution Biologists don't look outside their own discipline enough. Whether or not that is true, the physicist Steven Hawking's work is freely available via the web and, unlike some other PhD types, he explains both the math and logic in a way that it can be understood and vetted by anyone who wishes to do so. Steven Hawking isn't infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist) but he knows a lot more about cosmetology than I do (understatement).
Here is a link where he explains the concept of time as just another dimension like North/South directions on a globe with the South Pole being the beginning of time and the North Pole being the end of time. Questions about events before the beginning of time are like questions about locations South of the South Pole. Both are paradoxical, but neither requires the supernatural.
I realize some people don't accept this explanation as the Truth (capital "T"). This is where NOMA (Non-Overlapping_Magisteria) comes in. What I have come to realize in my TT travels is that NOMA is probably at the root of the Culture War (please be gentle with the "DUH" comments). I also noticed NOMA transcends the religious/atheist divide. A standard four-quadrant map comes to mind, with the x-axis ranging from active atheist to devout fundamentalist and the y-axis ranging from no separation (OMA) to absolute separation (NOMA), making the quadrants religious-OMA, atheist-OMA, religious-NOMA and atheist-NOMA. A dot for individuals could be placed on the map to review which quadrant each fell into. Previously, I would have placed myself in the atheist-NOMA quadrant. Now, I am not sure for reasons I'm about to explain. There is a lot more to discuss about NOMA, but that would take too much space.
The passion in the ID/Evolution debate comes when someone (from either side) tries to claim the one and only OMA Truth. This is the elephant-in-the-livingroom that has to be addressed. So, without further ado, I boldly use the Hawking Model as my starting point for a proposed, OMA Truth that meets the various claims and goals of both sides of the issue. I am sure that some will not like this choice. To these people, I suggest they write a beginning to end proposal like this one and allow it to also be vetted publicly.
The Hawking Model includes the multiverse paradigm"¦ "The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size."¦ A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse."
A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn't solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky. I suggest changing the bubbles analogy to lightening strikes. The only universes that get beyond the recollapse stage are those that can complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time. Think of the improbability of a lighting striking hitting a specific, small piece of metal out of acres of other targets. However, when that piece of metal is a lighting rod that completes a circuit, the improbable becomes very probable.
I offer this as a reason for a telic universe. The purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. The universe must do what it needs to complete the consistency circuit from the beginning to the end of time, or it won't exist. "Retrocausality" is a term that came up in TT. Here is the link to the newspaper article that initiated the discussion. A future state (cause) that completes the consistency circuit will influence the historical time-path (effect) much like a lightening strike steers towards a lightening rod.
This proposed model may help explain why this universe appears finely tuned. It had to be, or it wouldn't have even started. It may also explain why historical events appear too fortuitous (retrocausality). But why life? Why intelligent life?
In case there was any illusion this would resolve the Culture War, it ends here. I am going to stipulate that in some yet-to-be-determined way, intelligent life is helpful in completing the consistency circuit of the universe.
I approach this next part with dread. To complete the picture, I feel I have to discuss potential reasons why intelligent life is needed for our universe to be consistent. One trivial answer (and not very believable) is that our SETI activities has provided just the right amount of focused electromagnetic energy to assist in allowing a symmetrical collapse at the end of time. The reason I bring up this silly example is to illustrate that while the universe needs to reach the end of time, intelligent life may not have to. To the contrary, intelligent life may have already outlived its usefulness.
However, there are a few Billion people out there who are predisposed to believe at least some kind of intelligence will exist at the end of time. Let's call this intelligence an "Intelligent Designer". This has the effect of elevating the problem. The purpose of intelligent life is to eventually grow into the Intelligent Designer. Now, what is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer? Well, for one, the designer could use retrocausality to create intelligent life. This is the oscillator circuit mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I will just assume an Intelligent Designer would be useful in completing the consistency circuit of the Universe in other ways too.
There are many, many details left out of this presentation. For example, several people at TT insist a lack of progress in the origin of life research and certain features at the molecular level (DNA, proteins, etc) posit some kind of outside intervention like an Intelligent Designer. As I said, any illusion that this resolves the Culture War is for naught. I would hope this broad brush outline will be used as a framework to add details like OOL. Alternatively, I hope it provokes others into offering counter proposals to the same level of logical closure (even if lacking detail).
I think the hole I have dug for myself is pretty deep, so I am going to stop now. BTW, "pathetically obvious" wouldn't be unexpected reaction to this. It could also be claimed that this is just a restatement of various Anthropic Principles. I wouldn't disagree with that either and I apologize for not giving all the people who deserve credit their due. I have no interest in claiming this as my idea. My real interest is in getting it presented and observing the reactions. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Comments and suggestions are also welcome. However, I am on business travel until Friday, 30 March so my time for responding will be limited. From 30 March to 8 April, I will be on vacation where I will be without any access to a computer at all (family enforced).
Regards,
Thought Provoker
P.S. I am looking for anyone willing to host comments on their blog. I have an unknown blog I could use, but if anyone is interested in a small spike in traffic (maybe a very small spike) please feel free to start a thread with it. I will understand if a blog owner wishes to add a disclaimer about my thoughts.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
I agree with the first sentence. The SLOT (assuming it's time-invariant) guarantees a finite past - otherwise the universe would have reached maximum entropy by now, which it hasn't. The rest of your statement is a total non sequitur. How do you come up with such nonsense?
Where do I get it? Rational thinking. You should try it sometime.
Think about it. Even if it hurts.
If some impersonal universe-creating thing—something that doesn't possess a free and rational will—-has always existed, or exists eternally or timlessly (like a timeless computer program or timeless mathematical structure, or some universal quantum law or field or simply some universe-generating mechanism—–we don't know what)—–, then either universes should have always existed, or this universe should have always existed. But there is zero scientific evidence for either proposition.
It will not be 'up to' any impersonal non-mindlike universe-generating thing whether to generate universes. Its generation of universes follows impersonally from its nature as a universe-generator that it generates a universe or multiple universes. And it always does what its nature dictates because it always has the nature that it has (whatever that nature is). Analogously, I have always breathed because I've always had a human nature and that nature dictates that I always breathe. And my heart always pumps blood for the same reason. And the universe-generator has always–for an infinite past duration–had its nature. I'll come back to this point presently.
By contrast, if some free rational mind capable has always existed, then there's no necessity that there be a universe at all, since whether there is or not depends on that mind's free choice. If it chooses to create a universe at all, there'd be no reason that such a universe would have to have (though it could have) an infinite past. Quite the contrary. Such a created universe could easily have a beginning along with time itself. And this is what, in fact, we actually observe to be the case scientificallywith regard to our universe. (We know of no others, though there could be others.)
Now, an alternative might be that either this universe, or a universe-generator, popped into existence, with its laws and constants and initial conditions, all of which are fine-tuned for life at least in this universe, out of absolutely nothing. How plausible and how probable is that? But even if one asserted such a thing, there would no possible scientific evidence for it, since there logically cannot be a science that's about absolutely nothing.
And please do not confuse the quantum vacua or fields with absolutely nothing. Such a vacua and/or fields are not 'nothings' but 'somethings'–namely, fields or structures that are governed either by quantum mechanical laws or whatever laws the ultimate physical theory or TOE specifies.
Now, let's suppose you say, ok–but the universe-generator itself may have been generated by a universe-generator-Generator. I then say, ok, but that Generator should have always been Generating universe-generators. And then you say, ah, but that Generator could have been Generated by a universe-generator-Generator-GENERATOR. I then say, ok, but that universe-generator-Generator-GENERATOR should always have been GENERATING universe-generator-Generators…..
Do you see where I'm taking you, raevmo? Yes, that's right: ad infinitum. (For some reason I'm thinking of Godel's first incompleteness theorem at this point, but I shall ignore the thought.)
Now you may say at this point, I'm fine with taking a trip to infinitum. You may say, I don't mind going there even one tiny bit. You may say, gee, I always (though not an infinite past sense of 'always') wanted to visit there, to see what it's like, and to send a postcard home with an 'infinitum' postage mark on it.
And at that point I say, that's fine. Just don't call it a scientific statement or a scientific theory. Just don't call the infinite generator series 'science', or a 'scientific theory', or a 'scientific belief'. You've got no logically possible science for infinite numbers of unobservable entities. What would Uncle Ockham say? He'd say, raevmo has been very, very, very naughty. And I would laugh at you as you squeal at the sight of Uncle Ockham's freshly sharpened Razor.
Theism just needs one God (i.e one universe generator, but one that is endowed with a free and rational will); and one actual universe. And soo Uuncle Okham would say to me, "Here's a bag of candy for being so economical. Keep saving your ontological pennies, and one day you will be rich, while raevmo will have spent all his pennies.
Do you understand now why your charge that the rest of my statement 'is a total non sequitur' is itself rationally unjustified? Even if theism is false, it's simply not the case that the conclusion you objected to didn't have any rational grounding. So the non sequitur charge doesn't even hold thick and hearty vegetable soup.
So, even Hawking is puzzled as to why the math produces physical reality. That's my first point.
point taken. I don't know where to take it, but it is taken.
My second point is that, regardless of whether the universe had a beginning in time or not, any quantum event presupposes the validity and applicability to reality of quantum mechanical laws.
Where did these laws come from? Where, indeed does the reality and validity of the math used by such as S. Hawking to describe them come from, not to mention rational minds (such as Hawking's?) that use said math for understanding reality? Anthropic principles per se do not answer such questions satisfactorily, because, as the Hawking quote I used illustrates, math is necessary but physical reality is contingent. And if anthropic mind 'arose' or 'emerged' from matter by natural and thus contingent mechanisms"“they must be contingent if Hawking's question is a sensible one"“then it remains a mystery how contingent mind and necessary math hook up with so much 'fit'.
And if the laws and the math that describes them are 'eternal', why is there zero evidence for their existence or instantiation in physical reality 'prior' to the Big Bangarama 14 billion years (as measured by clocks in our reference frame) or so ago?
In my presentation I talked about only four NOMA quadrants. Maybe we need to add a fifth, religious super NOMA.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Best part was the EAM link. I've had vague thoughts along that line and I'm glad to see some people are seriously working on it. (Isn't it rather Lamarkian?)
I also liked your idea that the purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. I'm not sure I would use the word purpose so much as perhaps just fundamental attribute. Again, similar to my own thoughts.
By the way, when I said on the other thread that there can be no Toe if we abide by NOMA, you took it to mean evolution, which may be incidendally true also, but I meant to say Theory of Everything. If we are ever to understand reality, then anything which is part of our reality must be understood as to how it relates to the whole. If it does not relate to the whole, it might as well not exist and is of no interest. Thus I am firmly in the OMA camp. NOMA is at best a compromise to deal with gaps in understanding and at worst a copout.
I am glad you like it. I must of understood something or the OMA/NOMA passage would just be a product of random forces and not design.
Actually the various TT discussions/arguments over NOMA were key to obtaining that particular insight. I do apologise for my lack of mentioning people who should have been mentioned. Yes, you were one of these people.
Now, why is being told that asking what started this whole thing, before time, is like asking what is south of the south pole so strangely unsatisfying?
Because it is. (I started typing a sexual reference and thought better of it).
Anyway, I'm glad for your participation and genuine attempt to puzzle things out.
Thank you
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Hi, TP. While your outline attempts to address fine-tuning arguments, it doesn't appear to address OOL or biological evolution at all. So the hypothesis that "intelligent life" causes itself doesn't explain anything about where it came from and how it got from there to here (while coincidentally maintaining a representative sample of everything in between, still existent today).
Questions of universal beginnings and endings are interesting, but irrelevant to real-time struggles for adaptation in the biological world - which at least as it now stands, is just one little rock among several orbiting a middling star in a tiny corner of a single galaxy among billions. For biological purposes, the existence of a universe capable of supporting life can be simply taken as 'given', and no arguments among physicists and mathematicians will establish or falsify the notion of intelligent design in biological evolution.
In evolution, the questions to be pondered - apart from OOL - have to do with the common life-coding [DNA], the complex processes and fortuitous adaptations that allow life to fulfill the 'Prime Directive' that has been in force from the first single-celled life form (if there was one) all the way to here and now, in every life lived inside of time for a time and assuring the continuance of life beyond individual limitations. Its enthusiastically deployed Evolvability.
I am not sure how to take your reaction. I don't know what I hoped for, but this wasn't it.
That moldy corpse named Charlie is going to hang around until some common ground is established. How can we talk about whether or not the Flagellum is designed when we haven't established whether or not the moon is designed?
I may like to generate conflict more that you and others like, but it helps me understand where the common ground is.
You apparently didn't like my choice of focus. Beyond that, is there anything in my "outline" (an appropriate description, BTW) that conflicts with your thoughts? Not a lack of support, but out and out conflict.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
That moldy corpse named Charlie is going to hang around until some common ground is established. How can we talk about whether or not the Flagellum is designed when we haven't established whether or not the moon is designed?
Hi, TP. I wrote that response to your outline, am still assimilating (Borg!) your whole piece. I check out early these evenings, it being spring and the allergy meds I can afford OTC being those notorious for inducing deep sleep. I'll try again this morning.
Common Ground is a hopeful wish, but not likely to occur so long as the issues are *not* really about science, but more about metaphysics. Humans are nothing if not highly defensive of their metaphysics, almost universally unable to consider such things rationally no matter how "rational" they tell themselves their own personal beliefs are. I sometimes feel sorry for Charlie's corpse. I suppose if it all works out well in the end, he will be vindicated for raising the issues. Someone was bound to do so eventually.
Compared to you guys, the Darwinists are brutal. The echos of laughter are still ringing.
Steven Hawking isn't infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist) but he knows a lot more about cosmetology than I do (understatement).
The first time I read it I pictured Hawkings doing hair and make-up and nearly ruined my keyboard with the coffee that flew out my mouth… this is an interesting topic/discussion so I thought better of commenting on it. 'Til you brought it up that is.
The scientific evidence currently available says the real past is, in fact, finite. That makes it at least look like the universe is best explained by a rational will, not an eternal abstraction.
Where do I get it? Rational thinking. You should try it sometime.
Let me try to summarize your long argument:
A: if universes are not created by a free rational mind (God), then at least one universe should always have existed.
B: by contrast, if universes are created by a free rational mind, then universes need not always have existed.
C: our universe appears to be finite.
Therefore: a free rational mind must be responsible.
You further dismiss two arguments against A:
1. Our universe may have popped into existence ex nihilo
Dismissed as simply implausible or improbable.
2. Some unknown process might "create" universes, ad infinitum
Dismissed because there is "no logically possible science for infinite numbers of unobservable entities" and Uncle Ockham would get upset.
Apparently you think this is sound reasoning. I maintain that it is a non sequitur. In particular, both A and B are non-sequiturs. The ex nihilo and ad infinitum arguments against A are dismissed without evidence or reason. Moreover, Uncle Ockham wouldn't be too pleased either with postulating an unobservable free rational mind with infinite capacity.
1. Our universe may have popped into existence ex nihilo
Dismissed as simply implausible or improbable.
Well, here's what I actually said:
Now, an alternative might be that either this universe, or a universe-generator, popped into existence, with its laws and constants and initial conditions, all of which are fine-tuned for life at least in this universe, out of absolutely nothing. How plausible and how probable is that? But even if one asserted such a thing, there would be no possible scientific evidence for it, since there logically cannot be a science that's about absolutely nothing.
Now I'd love to know what mtraven thinks of the idea that starting from literally absolutely nothing, not even a quantum vacuum, but Zilch with a capital Z, a universe or universe-generator suddenly pops into being, complete with laws/constants/initial conditions plus mass/energy or some kinda 'stuff'—and it just so happens to contain the potential for human life. Given mtraven's past remarks, if anything can be conceived that smacks more of magic than this scenario, I really find it impossible to say what it could be.
I mean, let's compare this scenario with the Resurrection of Jesus. With Jesus, you at least are not starting from literally absolutely nothing. No, you have a corpse. And then an empty tomb. And visual testimony—see 1 Corinthians 15—including Paul who persecuted Christians. Now, I'm sure you're ingenious enough to explain all this away somehow….
….But a whole universe/universe-generator containing the potential for human life within itself, popping into existence out of absolutely nothing whatsoever for no reason—you'd swallow that sooner than the resurrection of one man?
You don't see the incongruity here? You gotta be shittin me. But I guess you're not.
Btw, would this include mathematics popping into existence too, or did math pre-exist somehow, even though I typed in bold, 'absolutely nothing' twice?
But never mind that for now.
So….. what did I say? Here it is again:
"But even if one asserted such a thing, there would be no possible scientific evidence for it, since there logically cannot be a science that's about absolutely nothing."
Did I dismiss it, or did I say that even if that (to me admittedly mindbogglingly improbable) event actually happened, it's not an event that science could have evidence for, because absolutely nothing isn't the type of 'thing' (if you'll pardon the oxymoronic expression) that generates evidence of 'itself', so to speak.
If we regard the Big Bang as having been such an event, we reach infintesimally close to t=0, but never quite reach it. And even if we did, there would be
a) nothing to see
and
b) we wouldn't be able to tell if there had been any other universes in existence prior to, or in parallel with ours.
So your charge that I dismiss the 'something out of absolutely nothing' idea is straightforwardly false. I didn't dismiss it. I just say that even if true, there couldn't be any science of it (though, of course, I do actually regard it as a desperate lapse into magical thinking in order to avoid an unpalatable for you, but much more probable hypothesis, namely theism, or deism).
Moving on…
2. Some unknown process might "create" universes, ad infinitum
Dismissed because there is "no logically possible science for infinite numbers of unobservable entities" and Uncle Ockham would get upset.
Apparently you think this is sound reasoning. I maintain that it is a non sequitur.
Well, as long as you keep maintaining that, then you'll feel good about the whole thing, won't you?
In particular, both A and B are non-sequiturs.
There, you've maintained it again. Good for you.
Let me be the first to offer my congratulations on a splendid achievement.
The ex nihilo and ad infinitum arguments against A are dismissed without evidence or reason.
I didn't dismiss anything. I simply said that there's no logically possible science that would support either ex nihilo popping-into-existences; it's intrinsically unverifiable states of affairs, if only because there could always be other universes that we don't know about, in which case it would be false that a true state of absolute nothingness obtained; and I said:
"and to send a postcard home with an 'infinitum' postage mark on it.
And at that point I say, that's fine. Just don't call it a scientific statement or a scientific theory. Just don't call the infinite generator series 'science', or a 'scientific theory', or a 'scientific belief'.
Do you see the bit where it says, "…I say, that's fine?" Can you see it? Good. That shows that your charge that I dismiss the infinite regress of universe self-assembly kits is gratuitously false, and not even in a good way.
You're the guys who worship at the altar of science, aren't you, offering sacrifice to the empirical testing gods, etc. But then, when you reach the edge of observability, it suddenly becomes perfectly rational to posit….to posit what?
…..Whole Universes/U-Generators Springing Into Being From the Acme of Ontological Zilchness;
[snigger]
and/or
An Infinite Past Filled with Unobservable, Undetectable Entities
[snigger]
And you then have the temerity to castigate theists for not 'scientifically testing their theistic hypothesis', for indulging in magical thinking, for proposing an unobservable infinite—-
….like an infinite past filled with unobservable entities isn't like that???? Oh, and how you pride yourselves on logical consistency?
Theist says X—
Atheists all shout in a chorus: RUBBISH
Atheist says X'—See how rational and consistent we atheists are—you should be more like us. Don't propose any infinite unobservable. That's not scientific or in conformity with reason. Unless, of course you have to posit it to avoid theism. See, here's what you don't understand in your simple caveman way: your infinite unobservable is mindlike. Ours isn't. That what makes ours so superior. It's logic, you see. Not that logic is intrinsically an attribute of rational mind, or anything that smacks of Dark Ages thinking like that. Nor math, oh no. Nope. That is just medieval superstitious nonsense. Oh, by the way, did you burn any witches today? Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho. Aren't we atheists brilliant humorists? He he he he he….
Yes you are. Purty forkin hilarious, actually. Priceless even.:-)
Moreover, Uncle Ockham wouldn't be too pleased either with postulating an unobservable free rational mind with infinite capacity.
William of Ockham (also Occam or any of several other spellings, IPA: [Ë¡É’kÉ™m]) (c. 1288 - c. 1348) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher, from Ockham, a small village in Surrey, near East Horsley. He is considered, along with Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, one of the major figures of medieval thought and found himself at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of the fourteenth century. Although commonly known for Ockham's Razor, the methodological procedure that bears his name, William of Ockham also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology….
….." For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else is contingent..
Now I'd love to know what mtraven thinks of the idea that starting from literally absolutely nothing, not even a quantum vacuum, but Zilch with a capital Z, a universe or universe-generator suddenly pops into being, complete with laws/constants/initial conditions plus mass/energy or some kinda 'stuff'"”and it just so happens to contain the potential for human life. Given mtraven's past remarks, if anything can be conceived that smacks more of magic than this scenario, I really find it impossible to say what it could be.
For one thing, I think that attempts to do cosmology with ordinary language are doomed to confusion. These are mathematical theories and while you can try to understand them with metaphors of everyday language, you can't really criticize them that way. For instance, the universe "suddenly pops into being" sounds like first there was nothing, then there was something, but since time itself starts with the Big Bang, there is no before.
I believe I got started in this whole argument by asking what was wrong with Richard Dawkins childlike argument — if God created the universe, who created God? The answer I guess is that God by definition is timeless and has always been around. But of course that doesn't really answer the argument.
Let's posit there is Something that is eternal, transcendent, prior to the created universe, the ultimate ground of being. The question is, what is that Something like? Theists think it is sort of like a person, but bigger, more powerful, with human qualities like reason and morality taken to some kind of limit. Physicists who care to speculate tend to think it's something like mathematics.
I don't pretend to know the answer to this question but certainly think the latter path is more plausible. Actually I think the real answer is none of the above and I hope to discover something better than any of the available alternatives, but perhaps that is wildly ambitious and presumptuous.
I just stumbled on a very interesting blog, Subversive Christianity, that might interest folks here. A quote:
If God is, God doesn't exist. If God is, God can't exist. If God is, God isn't a fact. If God is, God isn't as things are. If God is real, God isn't real in the way that an object is. If God is, existence discourse isn't applicable to God's isness. If God is, we need a different kind of script to talk about God. Thomas Aquinas' natural theology doesn't work (as even Thomas himself recognized toward the end of his life). Richard Dawkins' scientistic reductionism doesn't work. Both of them use existence discourse to talk about God. They're trying to squeeze blood from turnips.
…
So: I don't think God exists. … I do believe that God is (in fact, I believe that God only is), but not that God exists. And what this means is that I must accept that God is in the realm of the mysterious, and that mystery discourse is necessarily ambiguous, evocative, poetic, stuttering, vague, chthonic, and weakly when compared to its more robust and muscular cousin, existence discourse. That's just the way things are. Theists may try to put mystery discourse through a steroid regimen in the hope that it'll grow existence discourse muscles, but the results are artificial.
Now, this guy is a Christian and I am not, but I am in complete sympathy with the sentiments. If God makes any sense at all it's the kind of sense he's talking about.
"If God is, God doesn't exist. If God is, God can't exist. If God is, God isn't a fact. If God is, God isn't as things are. If God is real, God isn't real in the way that an object is. If God is, existence discourse isn't applicable to God's isness. If God is, we need a different kind of script to talk about God." - A. Deacon
"That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is." - B. Clinton
Stunney, I stand corrected on Ockham. Thanks for the history lesson. It seems though that friar Ockham didn't practice what he preached. He still needed that rational mind with infinite capacity. Not entirely surprising for a man of his time.
But you didn't defend your assertion (on which your entire argument hinges) that if universes are not created by a free rational mind (God), then at least one universe should always have existed. "Always" meaning an infinite amount of time according to you. But as mtraven pointed out, there simply was no time until the big bang happened, at least according to the mathematical models (based on general relativity theory). You might argue that God is timeless, but what does that really mean?
You also said,
I mean, let's compare this scenario with the Resurrection of Jesus. With Jesus, you at least are not starting from literally absolutely nothing. No, you have a corpse. And then an empty tomb. And visual testimony"”see 1 Corinthians 15"”including Paul who persecuted Christians. Now, I'm sure you're ingenious enough to explain all this away somehow"¦.
Well, I would argue that there is no compelling evidence that Jezus ever existed, let alone that he stood up from the dead. There are no contemporary first-hand accounts of his existence, so it doesn't take much ingenuity to remain agnostic regarding his existence and resurrection.
You continued:
"¦.But a whole universe/universe-generator containing the potential for human life within itself, popping into existence out of absolutely nothing whatsoever for no reason"”you'd swallow that sooner than the resurrection of one man?
That's a bit of a false dichotomy there. We simply don't know how or why our universe came into existence.
I have to disagree with mtraven that one can't criticize mathematical theories with metaphors of everyday language. The basic assumptions of mathematical theories can often be expressed in everyday language, and I think the old saying of garbage-in-garbage-out applies to cosmological theories as much as it does to other mathematical theories. At least in my field of mathematical models of genetics I see this all too often.
Um… Got what wrong? I ask because your link is the same MSNBC story TP provided, about the hexagon formation at Saturn's north pole. They've known about this since the Voyager 1 and 2 missions. Why wasn't it well known before today's Cassini revelation (and Saturn's south pole "eye")?
As for Arthur Clarke, you might wonder how he happened to know so much about a certain Saturnian satellite - a Moon With a View. [Parts 2, 3 and 4].
And, if you read more than the many pretty pictures in those links (they do tell an interesting tale), consider some other Cassini news from Saturn released yesterday - seems one of the moons (Enceladus, they claim, though I can't confirm due to a lack of actual data) is messin' with the magnetic field that forms the plasma torus around the equator, causing the force lines to 'slip' and disguise the planet's actual rotation period. Which as of now, is officially "unknown."
Um"¦ Got what wrong? I ask because your link is the same MSNBC story TP provided, about the hexagon formation at Saturn's north pole. They've known about this since the Voyager 1 and 2 missions. Why wasn't it well known before today's Cassini revelation (and Saturn's south pole "eye")?
Well, I have only known about it for less than one day, and that's all that really matters. I don't know why it wasn't well known before today's Cassini revelation - maybe scientists and journalists are just forgetful, absent-minded sorts. Or maybe hexagons are just boring.
However, my reference to Arthur C. Clarke was an attempt to make a joke about his "Jupiter and the black dominoes" idea in his "Space Odyssey" series. He was apparently off by one planet, and a couple of vertices in a plane (that is, it's not Jupiter and black monoliths, but Saturn and hexagons). Now see what you've done? You've gone and ruined my clever and subtle cultural reference by making me try to explain it.
Sorry, Douglas. I wondered because I'd loaded in all 4 pages of Hoagland's "Moon With a View" series on Iapetus (a.k.a. "Death Star"), and the subtitle right there on Page 1 is:
raevmo, mtrven…
I don't have time to edit the first part, so don't treat it as set in stone, please…
raevmo, I don't understand what you're saying. I give the non-theist two routes–finite past, infinite past. But if one chooses not to go with absolute nothingness, then you still have to choose something with finite past, or something with infinite past. The problem with finite past and eschewing absolute nothingness as a metaphysical starting point, is why didn't the u-generating mechanism—which has never not existed—act sooner, and indeed have generated an infinite past. That is, it has always been there outside of spacetime. Why didn't spacetime start expanding in the infinite past. And it's an impersonal u-generator. So it's always outside spacetime trying timelessly to blow up spacetime. Whereas a personal or free-willed mindlike u-generator can decide from a vantge point outside spacetime: Let Us Create a 20 billion year, 100 light-diameter Spacetime. And stick animal and embodied rational conscious minds in there too. The impersonal Ur-universe-generator acts blindly and has no choice or selection power (I would contend, unless it hhad been intelligently designed by an intentional agent.) It would be staggeringly unlikely that there be only one universe, impersonally generated—–and it be this one. That s=is not a rational belief, and the physicists know it. Hence the mad scramble to generate this universe naturalistically via a Multiverse. But then Uncle Ockham's not going to be your friend anymore…
I wrote this before I saw your post:
mtraven wrote:
For instance, the universe "suddenly pops into being" sounds like first there was nothing, th
en there was something, but since time itself starts with the Big Bang, there is no before.
Yeah, I know all that. Augustine knew it too. And Aquinas said philosophy per se could go either way on the question.
But it misses the point. The question isn't about whether time came into being with our universe. Let's say it did which is my position).
The Question Is: Is physical reality's past finite or infinite?
In a sense, I don't really care one way or the other, as my responses to raevmo indicated. Of course, current science states we have a finite past in this universe of about 13.7 billion years, give or take a day or two. If you saw my fast-moving clock thought experiment, raevmo kindly supplied a roughly 2.1 billion year age of the universe in that clock's frame of reference when it lands on Earth. In photons' frames of reference, the past is presumably even shorter or non-existent. Etc. And of course, it's conceivable that this is not the only universe. Etc. Who knows, right? But let's think big for a moment
For present purposes, WORLD means everything that's not God (whether God exists or not). Laws, particles, Platonic Forms, universe-generator-Generator-GENERATORS, energy fields, vacua, numbers, multiverses of multiverses, Susskindian cosmic landscapes, turtle piles—–you name it, apart from divine beings, you got it, and it's a member of the set I'm calling the WORLD.
One issue is whether the WORLD began to exist at some finitely past date—at which perhaps something called time also started. Or is the WORLD beginningless in an infinite past. Either way, there's problems:
Either the WORLD began to exist, arising out of the Acme of Ontological Zilchness;
and/or (so as not to risk imaginary false dichotomies that some crazy atheist might accuse me of drawing)
the WORLD has an Infinite Past Filled with Unobservable, Undetectable Entities.
My firm, and main contention is that neither a real infinite past WORLD, nor the Acme of Ontological Zilchness is a logically possible object of science. Neither can be a definite component of a falsifiable empirical hypothesis. You can affirm either one if you like. But such an assertion is non-scientific because neither a real infinite past (which is arguably logically equivalent to a Multiverse), nor a metaphysically but non-temporally pre-existing state of absolute nothingness is a possible object of scientific study and verification, or falsification, since science cannot detect other universes we don't know about that may exist but are eternally or for finite duration intrinsically undetectable from locations outside of them.
I have serious doubts too that even the concept of absolute nothingness is logically coherent with a real world having a beginning. For if a real world began, we wouldn't count any metaphysically prior state as absolute nothingness, but rather as containing a world-generating power of unknown nature.
(NB metaphysical priority not = temporal priority)
At the very least, the scientificity of both a real infinite past WORLD hypothesis , and of a hypothetical state of absolute nothingness that is a metaphysically prior state to a WORLD beginning, is extremely dubious. And there is currently zero real scientific evidence for either hypothesis in any case. So I guess that puts them in the same boat as ID, eh?
But here's the thing… which hypothesis best explains current actual scientific data? That's the science that has data saying there's a finite past—and what's 13.7 billion years compared to an infinite past? Not long at all.
That's also the science that says many physical features of our universe appear anthropically finely-tuned. And as of this writing I am not aware of any other universes having been discovered (and my suspicion is it might be a longer wait than Waiting for Godot).
Btw, both the infinite past WORLD and the WORLD beginning from a state of absolute nothingness are, for present purposes, defined as impersonal sorts of world at some foundational ontological level.
I'm not aware of any compelling reason we should expect an infinite past WORLD to be discontinuous in terms of discrete universes. A Hoyle-type steady state universe could be infinite in both temporal directions, without the need for Big Bangs and Crunches (I think–I may stand to be corrected). So perhaps the current dominance by Big Bang cosmology tells somewhat, though hardly conclisively, against an infinite past WORLD.
By contrast, if some free rational mind capable of universe- generation has always existed, then there's no necessity that there be a universe at all, or for there to be one for particular duration, since whether there is a universe or not, and how long it lasts for as measured within it, depends on that mind's free choice.
Note well, that this would make any universe the mind chooses to generate have an appearance of contingency both as to its existence and to the specifics of its design. This does seem quite borne out by current science as regards our own universe. I'll come back to this point.
As I've mentioned and quoted before, Hawking is puzzled by the universe's actuality. Nothing about the various relevant underlying mathematical considerations or cosmological hypotheses proposed so far shows clearly why any particular model or theory impersonally necessitates its own instantiation in reality, and/or prevents other conflicting theories being instantiated instead, or in addition.
Contingency is suggestive of choice in one way, and of chance in another way. Free act, and luck of the draw wear the clothing of contingency, if only because physicists can devise models of alternative physical parameters.
Given the current state of the relevant scientific data—–that there is but one and only one universe that we have any knowledge of; that it began expanding 13.7 biillion years ago; and that its physical parameters are remarkably consistent with the existence of beings endowed with rational will, intellect, and moral awareness—-what's more likely?
1) A metaphysical state of absolute nothingness gave way to a universe 13.7 billlion years ago, and the impersonally determined nature of the universe, lo and behold, turns out to be suitable for the emergence of beings like us. But humans are unintended by this metaphysical transition.
2) A metaphysical state of transcendent divine being exists timelessly, and timelessly wills a purposeful and valuable creaturely world that reflects that state of divine being's own transcendent reason, consciousness and value.
Now it might be argued that 2 falls to Uncle Ockham's shaving kit because you have God, plus a universe, whereas 1 only has a universe. I'll waive the objection I raised earlier about absolute nothingness being logically incoherent if a universe begins (one suspects in such a case that there's really two things–an unknown causal power that masquerades as absolutely nothing, plus the universe that actually begins.) As I say, I'm waiving that one.
But I do have a reason to prefer 2, and it's based on Uncle Ockham trusty blade, or rather the rule Incle Ockham gave for using that steely cutting implement of his. The rule is not, whoever ends up with the fewest entities wins. Oh no. Not at all. It's DON'T MULTIPLY ENTITIES BEYOND NECESSITY.
That's a little more subtle.
Option 1, with my waiver, has 1 universe with a beginning at some finite past date.
Option 2 has that plus God. But is God necessary?
Oh yes. The universe in option 1 isn't just any old universe. It's our universe. Given everything we know–and everything we don't know (such as there being any other universes) , how likely is an impersonally generated spontaneous universe like ours? Actually, Roger Penrose addresses this problem in his recent book, The Road to Morocco, sorry, to Reality. The problem is the ridiculously unlikely odds against the unbelievably special nature of the conditions at our Big Bang: they were precise to 1 part in 10^10^123 the phase space volume.
Now that's special. And it really, really grabs Penrose, in a kind of worryingly ten bazillion gazillion to one shot special way.
Then there's Uncle Ockham's Double Edged Sword. Because the only remotedly plausible way you get Option 1 spontaneously and impersonally forming our universe is if Option 1 is really a Multiverse. And now Uncle Ockham starts flicking his gleaming Razor against the leather–and on both edges too. And there's a hard, cold glint in that medieval eye of his….
The problem with finite past and eschewing absolute nothingness as a metaphysical starting point, is why didn't the u-generating mechanism"”which has never not existed"”act sooner, and indeed have generated an infinite past. That is, it has always been there outside of spacetime. Why didn't spacetime start expanding in the infinite past. And it's an impersonal u-generator. So it's always outside spacetime trying timelessly to blow up spacetime.
What does that even mean: being always outside of spacetime? How can something be outside spacetime? Unless you mean our spacetime and the universe is a 4D bubble in a higherdimensional space, or something like that. Perhaps "always" is a meaningless term in such a hyperspace. Who knows? I don't. Why don't you just admit that you don't know either and acknowledge that your so-called logical argument is nothing but speculation. Entertaining speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
Raevmo, be fair - when it comes to cosmological origins, most of what you're talking about is speculation. That doesn't mean arguments about it can't be logical; it just means that the epistemological value of the premises you're working from is going to be low.
On the other hand, the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in 1st century Judaea and shook things up a bit (to say the very least) is not nearly as speculative, and the fact that you outed yourself in this regard doesn't speak well for you, I'm afraid.
Well, I hate to interrupt a discussion on hyperdimensional space with news about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but this is really important stuff!
Thanks to livescience.com — that haven of Just So evolutionary story reporting — we now have an explanation for why we're not all handsome (see here). It all depends on the lek paradox. You see, the female gene sacks called women select the most handsome men. The male gene sacks called men select the prettiest women. OK. So what explains Rosie O'Donnell or Senator Voinovich? Surely evolution would have selected against the ugly genes a long time ago?
Well, no. It turns out that the bio machines that go around fixing mutations are way more powerful than the genes driving us to select the best looking mate. This maintains variety in the gene pool. So, as Jesus once said, "ye have the ugly always with you."
There's a tintsy tiny problem: As my own research in People magazine proves without a doubt, ugly women don't always choose the prettiest guys, and vice versa. You've seen pictures of Anna Nicole Smith kissing her late millionaire husband, right? I mean, gag me with a spoon. Liza Minnelli and David Gest, anyone?
You see, the female gene sacks called women select the most handsome men. The male gene sacks called men select the prettiest women. OK. So what explains Rosie O'Donnell or Senator Voinovich? Surely evolution would have selected against the ugly genes a long time ago?
Have you noticed how much better looking humans are than chimps and gorillas? I think we're getting there.
What does that even mean: being always outside of spacetime?
Existing timelessy, and not in space. Here's leading string physicist Brian Greene writing in his bestseller, The Elegant Universe:
But in the raw state, before the strings that make up the cosmic fabric engage in the orderly, coherent vibrational dance we are discussing, there is no realization of space or time. Even our language is too coarse to handle these ideas, for, in fact, there is even no notion of before. In a sense, it's as if individual strings are "shards" of space and time, and only when they appropriately undergo sympathetic vibrations do the coventional notions of space and time emerge.
Imagining such a structureless, primal state of existence, one in which there is no notion of space and time as we know it, pushes most people's powers of comprehension to their limit (it certainly pushes mine). Like the Stephen Wright one-liner about the photographer who is obsessed with getting a close-up shot of the horizon, we run up against a clash of paradigms when we try to envision a universe that is, but that somehow does not invoke the concepts of space or time. Nevertheless, it is likely that we will need to come to terms with such ideas and understand their implementation before we can fully assess string theory….
……Similarly, since the triumph of string theory is its natural incorporation of quantum mechanics and gravity, and since gravity is bound up with the form of space and time, we should not constrain the theory by forcing it to operate within an alraedy existing spacetime framework. Rather, just aas we should allow our artist to work from a blank canvas, we should allow string theory to create its own spacetime arena by starting in a spaceless and timeless configuration.
Ibid., pp. 378-379. Emphases in original.
OK? Get it now? Or do you intend to publish in a refereed journal an article demonstrating that Greene is talking nonsense?
Have you noticed how much better looking humans are than chimps and gorillas? I think we're getting there.
Are you kidding? Let me repeat: David Gest. Besides, once the Europeans give great apes the legal status of personhood, the gene pool is going to open up nicely. After all, we are 99.9% the same, right? This is going to be a blessing to rednecks and hillbillies — whom I love dearly. Now they can go to a zoo as well as a family reunion to find a date (OK, apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).
OK? Get it now? Or do you intend to publish in a refereed journal an article demonstrating that Greene is talking nonsense?
No, I still don't get it. It seems to me that Greene smoked a bit too much of the good stuff before he wrote this down. He talks about the "triumph of string theory", which is nothing but blowing a lot of smoke. Pure theoretical speculation. Where is the empirical evidence supporting predictions of string theory that have not been made by standard theory? There is none. I do not intend to publish this in a refereed journal, since this is already well known.
Raevmo, be fair - when it comes to cosmological origins, most of what you're talking about is speculation. That doesn't mean arguments about it can't be logical; it just means that the epistemological value of the premises you're working from is going to be low.
I agree with that. But then you apparently agree with me that a finite universe does not logically imply the presense of an infinite rational mind outside of spacetime. I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just saying that there is no compelling logical or empirical reason to think so.
On the other hand, the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in 1st century Judaea and shook things up a bit (to say the very least) is not nearly as speculative, and the fact that you outed yourself in this regard doesn't speak well for you, I'm afraid.
I find it too difficult to compare the plausibility of cosmological speculation and the exisitence of Jezus. However, I think it's fair to say that there is considerable doubt among historians that Jezus really existed. So I remain agnostic in that respect. If that doesn't speak well for me, well, I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention to insult anybody.
A Biblical fundamentalist Christian might say of evolution that he 'doesn't get' how it could have produced human beings. A good reply to such a person is to say that the following is an atrociously bad argument:
"I don't get how evolution could do X. Therefore it didn't."
I'll move on…
It seems to me that Greene smoked a bit too much of the good stuff before he wrote this down.
Do you any evidence for this, or are you merely flailing amidst wild speculations of your own?
He talks about the "triumph of string theory", which is nothing but blowing a lot of smoke.
Context is important here. I couldn't type the whole book into a comment. He's not claiming string theory has triumphed.
Pure theoretical speculation. Where is the empirical evidence supporting predictions of string theory that have not been made by standard theory? There is none. I do not intend to publish this in a refereed journal, since this is already well known.
Look, for my point to hold, I don't have to demonstrate the existence of spaceless timeless entities. I just have to show that the concept of such entities is considered scientifically coherent by the likes of,……… oh, a Fields Medalist like Edward Witten.
Well, duh. I figured that out even before Julia Roberts decided to marry Lyle Lovett. Of course, the "before my time" Bogey-Bacall situation could have clued me in, not to mention Scarlett and Rhett. Sexy is as sexy does. The Geeks inherit the earth… §;o)
The problem with finite past and eschewing absolute nothingness as a metaphysical starting point, is why didn't the u-generating mechanism"”which has never not existed"”act sooner, and indeed have generated an infinite past. That is, it has always been there outside of spacetime. Why didn't spacetime start expanding in the infinite past.
Now, I happen to think a universe starting from nothingness is the ultimate in illogic, but why shouldn't there have been previous universes born and died in the infinite past? So that our universe would be finite, but prior ones arise and fall in cycles.
Now, I happen to think a universe starting from nothingness is the ultimate in illogic,
Agreed.
but why shouldn't there have been previous universes born and died in the infinite past? So that our universe would be finite, but prior ones arise and fall in cycles.
I considered the hypothesis of an infinite past already in my comments on this thread.
The reasons against are:
1) It conflicts with the known scientific data. which indicate there is but one universe with but one beginning. Anything beyond that is speculation.
2) It's extremely extravagant, ontologically speaking. As I mentioned in one of my comments somewhere, an infinite past is probably not distinct logically from a multiverse; and as I also mentioned, it entails the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities. If such is posited to avoid theism, one must ask, what's the point?
Look, for my point to hold, I don't have to demonstrate the existence of spaceless timeless entities. I just have to show that the concept of such entities is considered scientifically coherent by the likes of,"¦"¦"¦ oh, a Fields Medalist like Edward Witten.
Let's recap. You believe that the finiteness of our universe logically implies the existence of an infinite rational mind outside of spacetime. There is no evidence at all that anything exists or can exist outside of spacetime, and the whole idea is very controversial to say the least, but as long as a handful of eminent scientists have entertained the notion of spaceless timeless entities, that is enough for you to have great confidence in your claim. Well, good for you. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. I give up.
Let's recap. You believe that the finiteness of our universe logically implies the existence of an infinite rational mind outside of spacetime. There is no evidence at all that anything exists or can exist outside of spacetime, and the whole idea is very controversial to say the least, but as long as a handful of eminent scientists have entertained the notion of spaceless timeless entities, that is enough for you to have great confidence in your claim. Well, good for you. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. I give up.
raevmo sunshine, you don't seem to be aware that Big Bang cosmological science says there actually was once in the finite past no space or time.
I merely stated that the concept of a spaceless timeless entity is scientifically coherent.
You believe in magic. You believe that something can come into being from absolute nothingness. I believe that being can only come from being.
You believe that a metaphysical state of absolute nothingness gave way to a universe 13.7 billlion years ago for no reason at all (since reason didn't exist then), of which the impersonally determined nature, lo and behold, turns out to be suitable for the emergence of beings like us; but that humans are unintended by this metaphysical transition.
It's magic, not just because it's something from nothing, but because of the ridiculously unlikely odds against the unbelievably special nature of the conditions at our Big Bang: they were precise to 1 part in 10^10^123 the phase space volume.
The only remotedly plausible way you get a spontaneously and impersonally forming our universe is if it is really part of a Multiverse (of which one form is an infinite past)….
One possible explanation for the small but non-zero value was noted by Steven Weinberg in 1987[2]. Weinberg explains that if the vacuum energy took different values in different domains of the universe, then observers would necessarily measure values similar to that which is observed: the formation of life-supporting structures would be suppressed in domains where the vacuum energy is much larger, and domains where the vacuum energy is much smaller would be comparatively rare. This argument depends crucially on the reality of a spatial distribution in the vacuum energy density. There is no evidence that the vacuum energy does vary, but it may be the case if, for example, the vacuum energy is (even in part) the potential of a scalar field such as the residual in
March 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am
The eggs spontaneously broke themselves. No rational agents were involved.
Comment by stunney — March 25, 2007 @ 1:11 am
March 25th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Funding the creationist conspiracy by renting out the rabbit, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Hmmmm?
Comment by todd — March 25, 2007 @ 2:14 am
March 25th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Just tell the kids that after the third day, he rose again from the dead. After all, he is the Easter Bunny.
Comment by keiths — March 25, 2007 @ 3:04 am
March 25th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Tell them it was self-defense.
Comment by Krauze — March 25, 2007 @ 3:59 am
March 25th, 2007 at 7:38 am
"Kids, the Easter Bunny is in rehab. He is fighting to overcome an addiction to colored eggs."
Comment by Douglas — March 25, 2007 @ 7:38 am
March 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Hello,
For the many who don't know me, my handle is Thought Provoker. I have some thoughts I would like to share. It is my hope they will provoke some thinking. Baring that, let them provoke laughter.
For a little history from my perspective. I got introduced to the ID movement and Dr. Behe during the Dover trial. I went from Dr. Behe's IC to Dr. Dembski's ID Alternative called "telic properties in nature". However, I was immediately disinvited from Uncommon Descent. In case it needs to be spelled out, most people would, and have, considered me anti-ID.
I ended up at Telic Thoughts (TT). Mike Gene and TT intrigued me. We have had our ups and downs. However, I was a tolerated guest and, occasionally, was encouraged to participate more. I learned a few things during my time there.
Dr. Dembski's telic properties in nature may have been a general reference to EAM (TT's Joy provided me with the hint I needed). However, EAM still leans heavily on "intelligence" (ability to learn/adapt) as opposed to just "telic"(purposeful). To the irritation of many TTers, I looked for why intelligence was required as opposed to simply purpose. The result was figuring out ID's information theory argument boils down to a general statement that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word "intelligence".
Being an electrical engineer, I start thinking about a feedback loop. How do you create a sine wave output? Use a sine wave input and amplify it. Where do you get the input? From the output. It is called an oscillator circuit. Nothing magical or supernatural about it (except, maybe, the AA battery).
One of Joy's pet peeves is that she feels Evolution Biologists don't look outside their own discipline enough. Whether or not that is true, the physicist Steven Hawking's work is freely available via the web and, unlike some other PhD types, he explains both the math and logic in a way that it can be understood and vetted by anyone who wishes to do so. Steven Hawking isn't infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist) but he knows a lot more about cosmetology than I do (understatement).
Here is a link where he explains the concept of time as just another dimension like North/South directions on a globe with the South Pole being the beginning of time and the North Pole being the end of time. Questions about events before the beginning of time are like questions about locations South of the South Pole. Both are paradoxical, but neither requires the supernatural.
I realize some people don't accept this explanation as the Truth (capital "T"). This is where NOMA (Non-Overlapping_Magisteria) comes in. What I have come to realize in my TT travels is that NOMA is probably at the root of the Culture War (please be gentle with the "DUH" comments). I also noticed NOMA transcends the religious/atheist divide. A standard four-quadrant map comes to mind, with the x-axis ranging from active atheist to devout fundamentalist and the y-axis ranging from no separation (OMA) to absolute separation (NOMA), making the quadrants religious-OMA, atheist-OMA, religious-NOMA and atheist-NOMA. A dot for individuals could be placed on the map to review which quadrant each fell into. Previously, I would have placed myself in the atheist-NOMA quadrant. Now, I am not sure for reasons I'm about to explain. There is a lot more to discuss about NOMA, but that would take too much space.
The passion in the ID/Evolution debate comes when someone (from either side) tries to claim the one and only OMA Truth. This is the elephant-in-the-livingroom that has to be addressed. So, without further ado, I boldly use the Hawking Model as my starting point for a proposed, OMA Truth that meets the various claims and goals of both sides of the issue. I am sure that some will not like this choice. To these people, I suggest they write a beginning to end proposal like this one and allow it to also be vetted publicly.
The Hawking Model includes the multiverse paradigm"¦
"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size."¦ A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse."
A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn't solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky. I suggest changing the bubbles of steam analogy to lightening strikes. The only universes that get beyond the recollapse stage are those that can complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time. Think of the improbability of a lighting striking hitting a specific, small piece of metal out of acres of other targets. However, when that piece of metal is a lighting rod that completes a circuit, the improbable becomes very probable.
I offer this as a reason for a telic universe. The purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. The universe must do what it needs to complete the consistency circuit from the beginning to the end of time, or it won't exist. "Retrocausality" is a term that came up in TT. Here is the link to the newspaper article that initiated the discussion. A future state (cause) that completes the consistency circuit will influence the historical time-path (effect) much like a lightening strike steers towards a lightening rod.
This proposed model may help explain why this universe appears finely tuned. It had to be, or it wouldn't have even started. It may also explain why historical events appear too fortuitous (retrocausality). But why life? Why intelligent life?
In case there was any illusion this would resolve the Culture War, it ends here. I am going to stipulate that in some yet-to-be-determined way, intelligent life is helpful in completing the consistency circuit of the universe.
I approach this next part with dread. To complete the picture, I feel I have to discuss potential reasons why intelligent life is needed for our universe to be consistent. One trivial answer (and not very believable) is that our SETI activities has provided just the right amount of focused electromagnetic energy to assist in allowing a symmetrical collapse at the end of time. The reason I bring up this silly example is to illustrate that while the universe needs to reach the end of time, intelligent life may not have to. To the contrary, intelligent life may have already outlived its usefulness.
However, there are a few Billion people out there who are predisposed to believe at least some kind of intelligence will exist at the end of time. Let's call this intelligence an "Intelligent Designer". This has the effect of elevating the problem. The purpose of intelligent life is to eventually grow into the Intelligent Designer. Now, what is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer? Well, for one, the designer could use retrocausality to create intelligent life. This is the oscillator circuit mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I will just assume an Intelligent Designer would be useful in completing the consistency circuit of the Universe in other ways too.
I think the hole I have dug for myself is pretty deep, so I am going to stop now. BTW, "pathetically obvious" wouldn't be unexpected reaction to this. It could also be claimed that this is just a restatement of various Anthropic Principles. I wouldn't disagree with that and I apologize for not giving all the people who deserve credit their due. I have no interest in claiming this as my idea. My real interest is in getting it presented and observing the reactions. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Comments and suggestions are also welcome. However, I am on business travel until Friday, 30 March so my time for responding will be limited. From 30 March to 8 April, I will be on vacation where I will be without any access to a computer at all (family enforced).
Regards,
Thought Provoker
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 1:20 am
March 26th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Thought Provoker cites Hawking's well-known work (which as I understand it, is based on the dificult and seemingly unphysical mathematics of 'imaginary time'), as the starting point for TP's proposal.
Here's a quotation from the great man himself:
So, even Hawking is puzzled as to why the math produces physical reality. That's my first point.
My second point is that, regardless of whether the universe had a beginning in time or not, any quantum event presupposes the validity and applicability to reality of quantum mechanical laws.
Where did these laws come from? Where, indeed does the reality and validity of the math used by such as S. Hawking to describe them come from, not to mention rational minds (such as Hawking's?) that use said math for understanding reality? Anthropic principles per se do not answer such questions satisfactorily, because, as the Hawking quote I used illustrates, math is necessary but physical reality is contingent. And if anthropic mind 'arose' or 'emerged' from matter by natural and thus contingent mechanisms–they must be contingent if Hawking's question is a sensible one–then it remains a mystery how contingent mind and necessary math hook up with so much 'fit'.
And if the laws and the math that describes them are 'eternal', why is there zero evidence for their existence or instantiation in physical reality 'prior' to the Big Bangarama 14 billion years (as measured by clocks in our reference frame) or so ago?
Comment by stunney — March 26, 2007 @ 2:05 am
March 26th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Mike,
Could you post something new so we don't have to keep looking at that dead rabbit every time we come to TT?
It makes me sad.
Comment by keiths — March 26, 2007 @ 6:52 am
March 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am
No, I have to get the kids ready for school and run off to work.
Comment by MikeGene — March 26, 2007 @ 6:54 am
March 26th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hi, TP. While your outline attempts to address fine-tuning arguments, it doesn't appear to address OOL or biological evolution at all. So the hypothesis that "intelligent life" causes itself doesn't explain anything about where it came from and how it got from there to here (while coincidentally maintaining a representative sample of everything in between, still existent today).
Questions of universal beginnings and endings are interesting, but irrelevant to real-time struggles for adaptation in the biological world - which at least as it now stands, is just one little rock among several orbiting a middling star in a tiny corner of a single galaxy among billions. For biological purposes, the existence of a universe capable of supporting life can be simply taken as 'given', and no arguments among physicists and mathematicians will establish or falsify the notion of intelligent design in biological evolution.
In evolution, the questions to be pondered - apart from OOL - have to do with the common life-coding [DNA], the complex processes and fortuitous adaptations that allow life to fulfill the 'Prime Directive' that has been in force from the first single-celled life form (if there was one) all the way to here and now, in every life lived inside of time for a time and assuring the continuance of life beyond individual limitations. Its enthusiastically deployed Evolvability.
Comment by Joy — March 26, 2007 @ 9:35 am
March 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hi Joy,
I am glad you wrote because, as you may have noticed, I reference you a couple of times without getting your permission first.
You are well within your rights to request/demand I remove your name from this.
However, I would rather fix it so you aren't too uncomfortable with it (I am not asking you to endorse it).
I am at work right now. When I get to the hotel, I will add a paragraph just before my closing that will acknowlege that I didn't address OOL and DNA implications and that this could very well justify why an Intelligent Designer is required for consistancy in the universe.
If you have the time (at wish to), I wouldn't mind if you wanted to give me your words for such a paragraph.
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:47 am
March 26th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hey, TP, I came into this thread to express silliness about the ex-wabbit, but you have provoked thought. I'm not sure I like that.
About the ex-wabbit, this picture is not at all like it seems. I have a book this thick on it at home (holds fingers wide apart.) This is the story of the gwinch who stole easter. The gwinch dressed up as a wabbit, as we all know, and stole a bunch of the eggs (don't worry, there's lots more) but when he was leaving he had an accident with the roadrunner. Actually, he nearly hit the roadrunner, but swerved hard to the right only to be munched by one of wyl-e's rolling bolders. That's what did him in. So the coyote saved the day by killing (no, just knocking cold) the gwinch who was trying to steal easter. That's all it is folks, nothing to see here. Move along.
Comment by bFast — March 26, 2007 @ 11:19 am
March 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Hello TP,
Best part was the EAM link. I've had vague thoughts along that line and I'm glad to see some people are seriously working on it. (Isn't it rather Lamarkian?)
I also liked your idea that the purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. I'm not sure I would use the word purpose so much as perhaps just fundamental attribute. Again, similar to my own thoughts.
By the way, when I said on the other thread that there can be no Toe if we abide by NOMA, you took it to mean evolution, which may be incidendally true also, but I meant to say Theory of Everything. If we are ever to understand reality, then anything which is part of our reality must be understood as to how it relates to the whole. If it does not relate to the whole, it might as well not exist and is of no interest. Thus I am firmly in the OMA camp. NOMA is at best a compromise to deal with gaps in understanding and at worst a copout.
Now, why is being told that asking what started this whole thing, before time, is like asking what is south of the south pole so strangely unsatisfying?
Anyway, I'm glad for your participation and genuine attempt to puzzle things out.
Comment by onething — March 26, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Reading over what I wrote earlier I see that I need to clarify something. I had stated:
The word 'necessary' in that sentence means 'necessary to the theory Hawking propounds', not 'is a complete set of necessary truths'. And as Hawking himself says, a physical theory (deduced mathematically from a chosen axiom set) is one thing, physical reality another.
And the point I'm making later when I write,
is that we have zero scientific evidence for the real existence of 'laws' or 'necessary mathematical truths' independently of the real existence of minds, or for their instantiation at any time in any previous physical reality; which would be very odd if they are truly
1. both eternal and exist independently of minds endowed with free will
and if
2. this is a genuinely scientific as against metaphysical proposal (perhaps motivated by a desire not to posit a will-endowed—that's 'will' with an 'i'— transcendent mind).
Otherwise it is implied by this proposal that we've all had these debates an infinite number of times before, given the eternal real mind-independent existence of the quantum mechanical laws and their underlying mathematical truths.
A short way of putting that is that there is no scientific evidence for any real infinite past, and Hawking's proposal doesn't help because it depends on imaginary time, not real time, and even he can't figure out why his theory or any other theory becomes reality. The scientific evidence currently available says the real past is, in fact, finite. That makes it at least look like the universe is best explained by a rational will, not an eternal abstraction.
Comment by stunney — March 26, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I agree with the first sentence. The SLOT (assuming it's time-invariant) guarantees a finite past - otherwise the universe would have reached maximum entropy by now, which it hasn't. The rest of your statement is a total non sequitur. How do you come up with such nonsense?
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
keith,
That rabbit's not dead - just overcome by too many colored eggs.
Comment by Douglas — March 26, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Hello,
For the many who don't know me, my handle is Thought Provoker. I have some thoughts I would like to share. It is my hope they will provoke some thinking. Baring that, let them provoke laughter.
For a little history from my perspective. I got introduced to the ID movement and Dr. Behe during the Dover trial. I went from Dr. Behe's IC to Dr. Dembski's ID Alternative called "telic properties in nature". However, I was immediately disinvited from Uncommon Descent. In case it needs to be spelled out, most people would, and have, considered me anti-ID.
I ended up at Telic Thoughts (TT). Mike Gene and TT intrigued me. We have had our ups and downs. However, I was a tolerated guest and, occasionally, was encouraged to participate more. I learned a few things during my time there.
Dr. Dembski's telic properties in nature may have been a general reference to EAM (TT's Joy provided me with the hint I needed). However, EAM still leans heavily on "intelligence" (ability to learn/adapt) as opposed to just "telic"(purposeful). To the irritation of many TTers, I looked for why intelligence was required as opposed to simply purpose. The result was figuring out ID's information theory argument boils down to a general statement that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word "intelligence".
Being an electrical engineer, I start thinking about a feedback loop. How do you create a sine wave output? Use a sine wave input and amplify it. Where do you get the input? From the output. It is called an oscillator circuit. Nothing magical or supernatural about it (except, maybe, the AA battery).
One of Joy's pet peeves is that she feels Evolution Biologists don't look outside their own discipline enough. Whether or not that is true, the physicist Steven Hawking's work is freely available via the web and, unlike some other PhD types, he explains both the math and logic in a way that it can be understood and vetted by anyone who wishes to do so. Steven Hawking isn't infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist) but he knows a lot more about cosmetology than I do (understatement).
Here is a link where he explains the concept of time as just another dimension like North/South directions on a globe with the South Pole being the beginning of time and the North Pole being the end of time. Questions about events before the beginning of time are like questions about locations South of the South Pole. Both are paradoxical, but neither requires the supernatural.
I realize some people don't accept this explanation as the Truth (capital "T"). This is where NOMA (Non-Overlapping_Magisteria) comes in. What I have come to realize in my TT travels is that NOMA is probably at the root of the Culture War (please be gentle with the "DUH" comments). I also noticed NOMA transcends the religious/atheist divide. A standard four-quadrant map comes to mind, with the x-axis ranging from active atheist to devout fundamentalist and the y-axis ranging from no separation (OMA) to absolute separation (NOMA), making the quadrants religious-OMA, atheist-OMA, religious-NOMA and atheist-NOMA. A dot for individuals could be placed on the map to review which quadrant each fell into. Previously, I would have placed myself in the atheist-NOMA quadrant. Now, I am not sure for reasons I'm about to explain. There is a lot more to discuss about NOMA, but that would take too much space.
The passion in the ID/Evolution debate comes when someone (from either side) tries to claim the one and only OMA Truth. This is the elephant-in-the-livingroom that has to be addressed. So, without further ado, I boldly use the Hawking Model as my starting point for a proposed, OMA Truth that meets the various claims and goals of both sides of the issue. I am sure that some will not like this choice. To these people, I suggest they write a beginning to end proposal like this one and allow it to also be vetted publicly.
The Hawking Model includes the multiverse paradigm"¦
"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size."¦ A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse."
A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn't solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky. I suggest changing the bubbles analogy to lightening strikes. The only universes that get beyond the recollapse stage are those that can complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time. Think of the improbability of a lighting striking hitting a specific, small piece of metal out of acres of other targets. However, when that piece of metal is a lighting rod that completes a circuit, the improbable becomes very probable.
I offer this as a reason for a telic universe. The purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. The universe must do what it needs to complete the consistency circuit from the beginning to the end of time, or it won't exist. "Retrocausality" is a term that came up in TT. Here is the link to the newspaper article that initiated the discussion. A future state (cause) that completes the consistency circuit will influence the historical time-path (effect) much like a lightening strike steers towards a lightening rod.
This proposed model may help explain why this universe appears finely tuned. It had to be, or it wouldn't have even started. It may also explain why historical events appear too fortuitous (retrocausality). But why life? Why intelligent life?
In case there was any illusion this would resolve the Culture War, it ends here. I am going to stipulate that in some yet-to-be-determined way, intelligent life is helpful in completing the consistency circuit of the universe.
I approach this next part with dread. To complete the picture, I feel I have to discuss potential reasons why intelligent life is needed for our universe to be consistent. One trivial answer (and not very believable) is that our SETI activities has provided just the right amount of focused electromagnetic energy to assist in allowing a symmetrical collapse at the end of time. The reason I bring up this silly example is to illustrate that while the universe needs to reach the end of time, intelligent life may not have to. To the contrary, intelligent life may have already outlived its usefulness.
However, there are a few Billion people out there who are predisposed to believe at least some kind of intelligence will exist at the end of time. Let's call this intelligence an "Intelligent Designer". This has the effect of elevating the problem. The purpose of intelligent life is to eventually grow into the Intelligent Designer. Now, what is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer? Well, for one, the designer could use retrocausality to create intelligent life. This is the oscillator circuit mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I will just assume an Intelligent Designer would be useful in completing the consistency circuit of the Universe in other ways too.
There are many, many details left out of this presentation. For example, several people at TT insist a lack of progress in the origin of life research and certain features at the molecular level (DNA, proteins, etc) posit some kind of outside intervention like an Intelligent Designer. As I said, any illusion that this resolves the Culture War is for naught. I would hope this broad brush outline will be used as a framework to add details like OOL. Alternatively, I hope it provokes others into offering counter proposals to the same level of logical closure (even if lacking detail).
I think the hole I have dug for myself is pretty deep, so I am going to stop now. BTW, "pathetically obvious" wouldn't be unexpected reaction to this. It could also be claimed that this is just a restatement of various Anthropic Principles. I wouldn't disagree with that either and I apologize for not giving all the people who deserve credit their due. I have no interest in claiming this as my idea. My real interest is in getting it presented and observing the reactions. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Comments and suggestions are also welcome. However, I am on business travel until Friday, 30 March so my time for responding will be limited. From 30 March to 8 April, I will be on vacation where I will be without any access to a computer at all (family enforced).
Regards,
Thought Provoker
P.S. I am looking for anyone willing to host comments on their blog. I have an unknown blog I could use, but if anyone is interested in a small spike in traffic (maybe a very small spike) please feel free to start a thread with it. I will understand if a blog owner wishes to add a disclaimer about my thoughts.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
raevmo said:
Where do I get it? Rational thinking. You should try it sometime.
Think about it. Even if it hurts.
If some impersonal universe-creating thing—something that doesn't possess a free and rational will—-has always existed, or exists eternally or timlessly (like a timeless computer program or timeless mathematical structure, or some universal quantum law or field or simply some universe-generating mechanism—–we don't know what)—–, then either universes should have always existed, or this universe should have always existed. But there is zero scientific evidence for either proposition.
It will not be 'up to' any impersonal non-mindlike universe-generating thing whether to generate universes. Its generation of universes follows impersonally from its nature as a universe-generator that it generates a universe or multiple universes. And it always does what its nature dictates because it always has the nature that it has (whatever that nature is). Analogously, I have always breathed because I've always had a human nature and that nature dictates that I always breathe. And my heart always pumps blood for the same reason. And the universe-generator has always–for an infinite past duration–had its nature. I'll come back to this point presently.
By contrast, if some free rational mind capable has always existed, then there's no necessity that there be a universe at all, since whether there is or not depends on that mind's free choice. If it chooses to create a universe at all, there'd be no reason that such a universe would have to have (though it could have) an infinite past. Quite the contrary. Such a created universe could easily have a beginning along with time itself. And this is what, in fact, we actually observe to be the case scientificallywith regard to our universe. (We know of no others, though there could be others.)
Now, an alternative might be that either this universe, or a universe-generator, popped into existence, with its laws and constants and initial conditions, all of which are fine-tuned for life at least in this universe, out of absolutely nothing. How plausible and how probable is that? But even if one asserted such a thing, there would no possible scientific evidence for it, since there logically cannot be a science that's about absolutely nothing.
And please do not confuse the quantum vacua or fields with absolutely nothing. Such a vacua and/or fields are not 'nothings' but 'somethings'–namely, fields or structures that are governed either by quantum mechanical laws or whatever laws the ultimate physical theory or TOE specifies.
Now, let's suppose you say, ok–but the universe-generator itself may have been generated by a universe-generator-Generator. I then say, ok, but that Generator should have always been Generating universe-generators. And then you say, ah, but that Generator could have been Generated by a universe-generator-Generator-GENERATOR. I then say, ok, but that universe-generator-Generator-GENERATOR should always have been GENERATING universe-generator-Generators…..
Do you see where I'm taking you, raevmo? Yes, that's right: ad infinitum. (For some reason I'm thinking of Godel's first incompleteness theorem at this point, but I shall ignore the thought.)
Now you may say at this point, I'm fine with taking a trip to infinitum. You may say, I don't mind going there even one tiny bit. You may say, gee, I always (though not an infinite past sense of 'always') wanted to visit there, to see what it's like, and to send a postcard home with an 'infinitum' postage mark on it.
And at that point I say, that's fine. Just don't call it a scientific statement or a scientific theory. Just don't call the infinite generator series 'science', or a 'scientific theory', or a 'scientific belief'. You've got no logically possible science for infinite numbers of unobservable entities. What would Uncle Ockham say? He'd say, raevmo has been very, very, very naughty. And I would laugh at you as you squeal at the sight of Uncle Ockham's freshly sharpened Razor.
Theism just needs one God (i.e one universe generator, but one that is endowed with a free and rational will); and one actual universe. And soo Uuncle Okham would say to me, "Here's a bag of candy for being so economical. Keep saving your ontological pennies, and one day you will be rich, while raevmo will have spent all his pennies.
Do you understand now why your charge that the rest of my statement 'is a total non sequitur' is itself rationally unjustified? Even if theism is false, it's simply not the case that the conclusion you objected to didn't have any rational grounding. So the non sequitur charge doesn't even hold thick and hearty vegetable soup.
Comment by stunney — March 26, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Hi Stunney,
point taken. I don't know where to take it, but it is taken.
In my presentation I talked about only four NOMA quadrants. Maybe we need to add a fifth, religious super NOMA.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Hi bfast,
Mike gaciously allowed me to use a rabbit thread as an open thread for these purposes.
I am sorry for the confusion, I am looking for a proper home as we speak.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Hi onething,
I am glad you like it. I must of understood something or the OMA/NOMA passage would just be a product of random forces and not design.
Actually the various TT discussions/arguments over NOMA were key to obtaining that particular insight. I do apologise for my lack of mentioning people who should have been mentioned. Yes, you were one of these people.
Because it is. (I started typing a sexual reference and thought better of it).
Thank you
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
March 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Hi Joy,
I am not sure how to take your reaction. I don't know what I hoped for, but this wasn't it.
That moldy corpse named Charlie is going to hang around until some common ground is established. How can we talk about whether or not the Flagellum is designed when we haven't established whether or not the moon is designed?
I may like to generate conflict more that you and others like, but it helps me understand where the common ground is.
You apparently didn't like my choice of focus. Beyond that, is there anything in my "outline" (an appropriate description, BTW) that conflicts with your thoughts? Not a lack of support, but out and out conflict.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Hi All,
Compared to you guys, the Darwinists are brutal. The echos of laughter are still ringing.
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 27, 2007 @ 12:32 am
March 27th, 2007 at 9:18 am
TP:
Hi, TP. I wrote that response to your outline, am still assimilating (Borg!) your whole piece. I check out early these evenings, it being spring and the allergy meds I can afford OTC being those notorious for inducing deep sleep. I'll try again this morning.
Common Ground is a hopeful wish, but not likely to occur so long as the issues are *not* really about science, but more about metaphysics. Humans are nothing if not highly defensive of their metaphysics, almost universally unable to consider such things rationally no matter how "rational" they tell themselves their own personal beliefs are. I sometimes feel sorry for Charlie's corpse. I suppose if it all works out well in the end, he will be vindicated for raising the issues. Someone was bound to do so eventually.
Yeah. They're a piece of work, aren't they? §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2007 @ 9:18 am
March 27th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Hi TP,
The first time I read it I pictured Hawkings doing hair and make-up and nearly ruined my keyboard with the coffee that flew out my mouth… this is an interesting topic/discussion so I thought better of commenting on it. 'Til you brought it up that is.
Good times,
-Rob
Comment by Rob R. — March 27, 2007 @ 9:59 am
March 27th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Let me try to summarize your long argument:
A: if universes are not created by a free rational mind (God), then at least one universe should always have existed.
B: by contrast, if universes are created by a free rational mind, then universes need not always have existed.
C: our universe appears to be finite.
Therefore: a free rational mind must be responsible.
You further dismiss two arguments against A:
1. Our universe may have popped into existence ex nihilo
Dismissed as simply implausible or improbable.
2. Some unknown process might "create" universes, ad infinitum
Dismissed because there is "no logically possible science for infinite numbers of unobservable entities" and Uncle Ockham would get upset.
Apparently you think this is sound reasoning. I maintain that it is a non sequitur. In particular, both A and B are non-sequiturs. The ex nihilo and ad infinitum arguments against A are dismissed without evidence or reason. Moreover, Uncle Ockham wouldn't be too pleased either with postulating an unobservable free rational mind with infinite capacity.
Comment by Raevmo — March 27, 2007 @ 10:47 am
March 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
raevmo wrote:
Well, here's what I actually said:
Now I'd love to know what mtraven thinks of the idea that starting from literally absolutely nothing, not even a quantum vacuum, but Zilch with a capital Z, a universe or universe-generator suddenly pops into being, complete with laws/constants/initial conditions plus mass/energy or some kinda 'stuff'—and it just so happens to contain the potential for human life. Given mtraven's past remarks, if anything can be conceived that smacks more of magic than this scenario, I really find it impossible to say what it could be.
I mean, let's compare this scenario with the Resurrection of Jesus. With Jesus, you at least are not starting from literally absolutely nothing. No, you have a corpse. And then an empty tomb. And visual testimony—see 1 Corinthians 15—including Paul who persecuted Christians. Now, I'm sure you're ingenious enough to explain all this away somehow….
….But a whole universe/universe-generator containing the potential for human life within itself, popping into existence out of absolutely nothing whatsoever for no reason—you'd swallow that sooner than the resurrection of one man?
You don't see the incongruity here? You gotta be shittin me. But I guess you're not.
Btw, would this include mathematics popping into existence too, or did math pre-exist somehow, even though I typed in bold, 'absolutely nothing' twice?
But never mind that for now.
So….. what did I say? Here it is again:
Did I dismiss it, or did I say that even if that (to me admittedly mindbogglingly improbable) event actually happened, it's not an event that science could have evidence for, because absolutely nothing isn't the type of 'thing' (if you'll pardon the oxymoronic expression) that generates evidence of 'itself', so to speak.
If we regard the Big Bang as having been such an event, we reach infintesimally close to t=0, but never quite reach it. And even if we did, there would be
a) nothing to see
and
b) we wouldn't be able to tell if there had been any other universes in existence prior to, or in parallel with ours.
So your charge that I dismiss the 'something out of absolutely nothing' idea is straightforwardly false. I didn't dismiss it. I just say that even if true, there couldn't be any science of it (though, of course, I do actually regard it as a desperate lapse into magical thinking in order to avoid an unpalatable for you, but much more probable hypothesis, namely theism, or deism).
Moving on…
Well, as long as you keep maintaining that, then you'll feel good about the whole thing, won't you?
There, you've maintained it again. Good for you.
Let me be the first to offer my congratulations on a splendid achievement.
I didn't dismiss anything. I simply said that there's no logically possible science that would support either ex nihilo popping-into-existences; it's intrinsically unverifiable states of affairs, if only because there could always be other universes that we don't know about, in which case it would be false that a true state of absolute nothingness obtained; and I said:
Do you see the bit where it says, "…I say, that's fine?" Can you see it? Good. That shows that your charge that I dismiss the infinite regress of universe self-assembly kits is gratuitously false, and not even in a good way.
You're the guys who worship at the altar of science, aren't you, offering sacrifice to the empirical testing gods, etc. But then, when you reach the edge of observability, it suddenly becomes perfectly rational to posit….to posit what?
…..Whole Universes/U-Generators Springing Into Being From the Acme of Ontological Zilchness;
[snigger]
and/or
An Infinite Past Filled with Unobservable, Undetectable Entities
[snigger]
And you then have the temerity to castigate theists for not 'scientifically testing their theistic hypothesis', for indulging in magical thinking, for proposing an unobservable infinite—-
….like an infinite past filled with unobservable entities
isn't like that???? Oh, and how you pride yourselves on logical consistency?
Yes you are. Purty forkin hilarious, actually. Priceless even.:-)
Izzatafact? Well, you learn something new every day, don't you….
Wow. That was easy.
Comment by stunney — March 27, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
For one thing, I think that attempts to do cosmology with ordinary language are doomed to confusion. These are mathematical theories and while you can try to understand them with metaphors of everyday language, you can't really criticize them that way. For instance, the universe "suddenly pops into being" sounds like first there was nothing, then there was something, but since time itself starts with the Big Bang, there is no before.
I believe I got started in this whole argument by asking what was wrong with Richard Dawkins childlike argument — if God created the universe, who created God? The answer I guess is that God by definition is timeless and has always been around. But of course that doesn't really answer the argument.
Let's posit there is Something that is eternal, transcendent, prior to the created universe, the ultimate ground of being. The question is, what is that Something like? Theists think it is sort of like a person, but bigger, more powerful, with human qualities like reason and morality taken to some kind of limit. Physicists who care to speculate tend to think it's something like mathematics.
I don't pretend to know the answer to this question but certainly think the latter path is more plausible. Actually I think the real answer is none of the above and I hope to discover something better than any of the available alternatives, but perhaps that is wildly ambitious and presumptuous.
Comment by mtraven — March 27, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I thought some of you might be interested in this…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17...
(Sorry Mike if I am abusing my "open thread" privileges)
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 27, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I just stumbled on a very interesting blog, Subversive Christianity, that might interest folks here. A quote:
Now, this guy is a Christian and I am not, but I am in complete sympathy with the sentiments. If God makes any sense at all it's the kind of sense he's talking about.
Comment by mtraven — March 27, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Whoa! Calling Richard Hoagland… Enterprise Mission. Calling Doctor Hoagland… §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Comment by chunkdz — March 27, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Double whoa! Check out what's on the 'other' pole of Saturn!
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Arthur C. Clarke got it wrong.
Comment by Douglas — March 27, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Stunney, I stand corrected on Ockham. Thanks for the history lesson. It seems though that friar Ockham didn't practice what he preached. He still needed that rational mind with infinite capacity. Not entirely surprising for a man of his time.
But you didn't defend your assertion (on which your entire argument hinges) that if universes are not created by a free rational mind (God), then at least one universe should always have existed. "Always" meaning an infinite amount of time according to you. But as mtraven pointed out, there simply was no time until the big bang happened, at least according to the mathematical models (based on general relativity theory). You might argue that God is timeless, but what does that really mean?
You also said,
Well, I would argue that there is no compelling evidence that Jezus ever existed, let alone that he stood up from the dead. There are no contemporary first-hand accounts of his existence, so it doesn't take much ingenuity to remain agnostic regarding his existence and resurrection.
You continued:
That's a bit of a false dichotomy there. We simply don't know how or why our universe came into existence.
I have to disagree with mtraven that one can't criticize mathematical theories with metaphors of everyday language. The basic assumptions of mathematical theories can often be expressed in everyday language, and I think the old saying of garbage-in-garbage-out applies to cosmological theories as much as it does to other mathematical theories. At least in my field of mathematical models of genetics I see this all too often.
Comment by Raevmo — March 27, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Douglas:
Um… Got what wrong? I ask because your link is the same MSNBC story TP provided, about the hexagon formation at Saturn's north pole. They've known about this since the Voyager 1 and 2 missions. Why wasn't it well known before today's Cassini revelation (and Saturn's south pole "eye")?
As for Arthur Clarke, you might wonder how he happened to know so much about a certain Saturnian satellite - a Moon With a View. [Parts 2, 3 and 4].
And, if you read more than the many pretty pictures in those links (they do tell an interesting tale), consider some other Cassini news from Saturn released yesterday - seems one of the moons (Enceladus, they claim, though I can't confirm due to a lack of actual data) is messin' with the magnetic field that forms the plasma torus around the equator, causing the force lines to 'slip' and disguise the planet's actual rotation period. Which as of now, is officially "unknown."
Hyperdimensional physics can be fun!
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Comment by stunney — March 27, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Joy:
Double whoa! Check out what's on the 'other' pole of Saturn!
That's nothing, check out the hexagon. Looks like the defense department's super-secret plan to build "The Hexagon" has been discovered.
Comment by Lurker — March 27, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
joy,
Well, I have only known about it for less than one day, and that's all that really matters. I don't know why it wasn't well known before today's Cassini revelation - maybe scientists and journalists are just forgetful, absent-minded sorts. Or maybe hexagons are just boring.
However, my reference to Arthur C. Clarke was an attempt to make a joke about his "Jupiter and the black dominoes" idea in his "Space Odyssey" series. He was apparently off by one planet, and a couple of vertices in a plane (that is, it's not Jupiter and black monoliths, but Saturn and hexagons). Now see what you've done? You've gone and ruined my clever and subtle cultural reference by making me try to explain it.
Comment by Douglas — March 27, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Sorry, Douglas. I wondered because I'd loaded in all 4 pages of Hoagland's "Moon With a View" series on Iapetus (a.k.a. "Death Star"), and the subtitle right there on Page 1 is:
What Did Arthur Know …and When Did He Know It?
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
March 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
raevmo, mtrven…
I don't have time to edit the first part, so don't treat it as set in stone, please…
raevmo, I don't understand what you're saying. I give the non-theist two routes–finite past, infinite past. But if one chooses not to go with absolute nothingness, then you still have to choose something with finite past, or something with infinite past. The problem with finite past and eschewing absolute nothingness as a metaphysical starting point, is why didn't the u-generating mechanism—which has never not existed—act sooner, and indeed have generated an infinite past. That is, it has always been there outside of spacetime. Why didn't spacetime start expanding in the infinite past. And it's an impersonal u-generator. So it's always outside spacetime trying timelessly to blow up spacetime. Whereas a personal or free-willed mindlike u-generator can decide from a vantge point outside spacetime: Let Us Create a 20 billion year, 100 light-diameter Spacetime. And stick animal and embodied rational conscious minds in there too. The impersonal Ur-universe-generator acts blindly and has no choice or selection power (I would contend, unless it hhad been intelligently designed by an intentional agent.) It would be staggeringly unlikely that there be only one universe, impersonally generated—–and it be this one. That s=is not a rational belief, and the physicists know it. Hence the mad scramble to generate this universe naturalistically via a Multiverse. But then Uncle Ockham's not going to be your friend anymore…
I wrote this before I saw your post:
mtraven wrote:
Yeah, I know all that. Augustine knew it too. And Aquinas said philosophy per se could go either way on the question.
But it misses the point. The question isn't about whether time came into being with our universe. Let's say it did which is my position).
The Question Is: Is physical reality's past finite or infinite?
In a sense, I don't really care one way or the other, as my responses to raevmo indicated. Of course, current science states we have a finite past in this universe of about 13.7 billion years, give or take a day or two. If you saw my fast-moving clock thought experiment, raevmo kindly supplied a roughly 2.1 billion year age of the universe in that clock's frame of reference when it lands on Earth. In photons' frames of reference, the past is presumably even shorter or non-existent. Etc. And of course, it's conceivable that this is not the only universe. Etc. Who knows, right? But let's think big for a moment
For present purposes, WORLD means everything that's not God (whether God exists or not). Laws, particles, Platonic Forms, universe-generator-Generator-GENERATORS, energy fields, vacua, numbers, multiverses of multiverses, Susskindian cosmic landscapes, turtle piles—–you name it, apart from divine beings, you got it, and it's a member of the set I'm calling the WORLD.
One issue is whether the WORLD began to exist at some finitely past date—at which perhaps something called time also started. Or is the WORLD beginningless in an infinite past. Either way, there's problems:
Either the WORLD began to exist, arising out of the Acme of Ontological Zilchness;
and/or (so as not to risk imaginary false dichotomies that some crazy atheist might accuse me of drawing)
the WORLD has an Infinite Past Filled with Unobservable, Undetectable Entities.
My firm, and main contention is that neither a real infinite past WORLD, nor the Acme of Ontological Zilchness is a logically possible object of science. Neither can be a definite component of a falsifiable empirical hypothesis. You can affirm either one if you like. But such an assertion is non-scientific because neither a real infinite past (which is arguably logically equivalent to a Multiverse), nor a metaphysically but non-temporally pre-existing state of absolute nothingness is a possible object of scientific study and verification, or falsification, since science cannot detect other universes we don't know about that may exist but are eternally or for finite duration intrinsically undetectable from locations outside of them.
I have serious doubts too that even the concept of absolute nothingness is logically coherent with a real world having a beginning. For if a real world began, we wouldn't count any metaphysically prior state as absolute nothingness, but rather as containing a world-generating power of unknown nature.
(NB metaphysical priority not = temporal priority)
At the very least, the scientificity of both a real infinite past WORLD hypothesis , and of a hypothetical state of absolute nothingness that is a metaphysically prior state to a WORLD beginning, is extremely dubious. And there is currently zero real scientific evidence for either hypothesis in any case. So I guess that puts them in the same boat as ID, eh?
But here's the thing… which hypothesis best explains current actual scientific data? That's the science that has data saying there's a finite past—and what's 13.7 billion years compared to an infinite past? Not long at all.
That's also the science that says many physical features of our universe appear anthropically finely-tuned. And as of this writing I am not aware of any other universes having been discovered (and my suspicion is it might be a longer wait than Waiting for Godot).
Btw, both the infinite past WORLD and the WORLD beginning from a state of absolute nothingness are, for present purposes, defined as impersonal sorts of world at some foundational ontological level.
I'm not aware of any compelling reason we should expect an infinite past WORLD to be discontinuous in terms of discrete universes. A Hoyle-type steady state universe could be infinite in both temporal directions, without the need for Big Bangs and Crunches (I think–I may stand to be corrected). So perhaps the current dominance by Big Bang cosmology tells somewhat, though hardly conclisively, against an infinite past WORLD.
By contrast, if some free rational mind capable of universe- generation has always existed, then there's no necessity that there be a universe at all, or for there to be one for particular duration, since whether there is a universe or not, and how long it lasts for as measured within it, depends on that mind's free choice.
Note well, that this would make any universe the mind chooses to generate have an appearance of contingency both as to its existence and to the specifics of its design. This does seem quite borne out by current science as regards our own universe. I'll come back to this point.
As I've mentioned and quoted before, Hawking is puzzled by the universe's actuality. Nothing about the various relevant underlying mathematical considerations or cosmological hypotheses proposed so far shows clearly why any particular model or theory impersonally necessitates its own instantiation in reality, and/or prevents other conflicting theories being instantiated instead, or in addition.
Contingency is suggestive of choice in one way, and of chance in another way. Free act, and luck of the draw wear the clothing of contingency, if only because physicists can devise models of alternative physical parameters.
Given the current state of the relevant scientific data—–that there is but one and only one universe that we have any knowledge of; that it began expanding 13.7 biillion years ago; and that its physical parameters are remarkably consistent with the existence of beings endowed with rational will, intellect, and moral awareness—-what's more likely?
1) A metaphysical state of absolute nothingness gave way to a universe 13.7 billlion years ago, and the impersonally determined nature of the universe, lo and behold, turns out to be suitable for the emergence of beings like us. But humans are unintended by this metaphysical transition.
2) A metaphysical state of transcendent divine being exists timelessly, and timelessly wills a purposeful and valuable creaturely world that reflects that state of divine being's own transcendent reason, consciousness and value.
Now it might be argued that 2 falls to Uncle Ockham's shaving kit because you have God, plus a universe, whereas 1 only has a universe. I'll waive the objection I raised earlier about absolute nothingness being logically incoherent if a universe begins (one suspects in such a case that there's really two things–an unknown causal power that masquerades as absolutely nothing, plus the universe that actually begins.) As I say, I'm waiving that one.
But I do have a reason to prefer 2, and it's based on Uncle Ockham trusty blade, or rather the rule Incle Ockham gave for using that steely cutting implement of his. The rule is not, whoever ends up with the fewest entities wins. Oh no. Not at all. It's DON'T MULTIPLY ENTITIES BEYOND NECESSITY.
That's a little more subtle.
Option 1, with my waiver, has 1 universe with a beginning at some finite past date.
Option 2 has that plus God. But is God necessary?
Oh yes. The universe in option 1 isn't just any old universe. It's our universe. Given everything we know–and everything we don't know (such as there being any other universes) , how likely is an impersonally generated spontaneous universe like ours? Actually, Roger Penrose addresses this problem in his recent book, The Road to Morocco, sorry, to Reality. The problem is the ridiculously unlikely odds against the unbelievably special nature of the conditions at our Big Bang: they were precise to 1 part in 10^10^123 the phase space volume.
Now that's special. And it really, really grabs Penrose, in a kind of worryingly ten bazillion gazillion to one shot special way.
Then there's Uncle Ockham's Double Edged Sword. Because the only remotedly plausible way you get Option 1 spontaneously and impersonally forming our universe is if Option 1 is really a Multiverse. And now Uncle Ockham starts flicking his gleaming Razor against the leather–and on both edges too. And there's a hard, cold glint in that medieval eye of his….
I leave the rest as an exercize for the reader.
Anyway
Anyhow
Comment by stunney — March 27, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 5:28 am
What does that even mean: being always outside of spacetime? How can something be outside spacetime? Unless you mean our spacetime and the universe is a 4D bubble in a higherdimensional space, or something like that. Perhaps "always" is a meaningless term in such a hyperspace. Who knows? I don't. Why don't you just admit that you don't know either and acknowledge that your so-called logical argument is nothing but speculation. Entertaining speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
Back to work now.
Comment by Raevmo — March 29, 2007 @ 5:28 am
March 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Raevmo, be fair - when it comes to cosmological origins, most of what you're talking about is speculation. That doesn't mean arguments about it can't be logical; it just means that the epistemological value of the premises you're working from is going to be low.
On the other hand, the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in 1st century Judaea and shook things up a bit (to say the very least) is not nearly as speculative, and the fact that you outed yourself in this regard doesn't speak well for you, I'm afraid.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 29, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Well, I hate to interrupt a discussion on hyperdimensional space with news about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but this is really important stuff!
Thanks to livescience.com — that haven of Just So evolutionary story reporting — we now have an explanation for why we're not all handsome (see here). It all depends on the lek paradox. You see, the female gene sacks called women select the most handsome men. The male gene sacks called men select the prettiest women. OK. So what explains Rosie O'Donnell or Senator Voinovich? Surely evolution would have selected against the ugly genes a long time ago?
Well, no. It turns out that the bio machines that go around fixing mutations are way more powerful than the genes driving us to select the best looking mate. This maintains variety in the gene pool. So, as Jesus once said, "ye have the ugly always with you."
There's a tintsy tiny problem: As my own research in People magazine proves without a doubt, ugly women don't always choose the prettiest guys, and vice versa. You've seen pictures of Anna Nicole Smith kissing her late millionaire husband, right? I mean, gag me with a spoon. Liza Minnelli and David Gest, anyone?
Comment by thetaphi — March 29, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Have you noticed how much better looking humans are than chimps and gorillas? I think we're getting there.
Comment by onething — March 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
raevmo wrote:
Existing timelessy, and not in space. Here's leading string physicist Brian Greene writing in his bestseller, The Elegant Universe:
Ibid., pp. 378-379. Emphases in original.
OK? Get it now? Or do you intend to publish in a refereed journal an article demonstrating that Greene is talking nonsense?
Comment by stunney — March 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Are you kidding? Let me repeat: David Gest. Besides, once the Europeans give great apes the legal status of personhood, the gene pool is going to open up nicely. After all, we are 99.9% the same, right? This is going to be a blessing to rednecks and hillbillies — whom I love dearly. Now they can go to a zoo as well as a family reunion to find a date (OK, apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).
Comment by thetaphi — March 29, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
stunney:
No, I still don't get it. It seems to me that Greene smoked a bit too much of the good stuff before he wrote this down. He talks about the "triumph of string theory", which is nothing but blowing a lot of smoke. Pure theoretical speculation. Where is the empirical evidence supporting predictions of string theory that have not been made by standard theory? There is none. I do not intend to publish this in a refereed journal, since this is already well known.
Comment by Raevmo — March 29, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
thechristiancynic:
I agree with that. But then you apparently agree with me that a finite universe does not logically imply the presense of an infinite rational mind outside of spacetime. I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just saying that there is no compelling logical or empirical reason to think so.
I find it too difficult to compare the plausibility of cosmological speculation and the exisitence of Jezus. However, I think it's fair to say that there is considerable doubt among historians that Jezus really existed. So I remain agnostic in that respect. If that doesn't speak well for me, well, I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention to insult anybody.
Comment by Raevmo — March 29, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
raevmo wrote
A Biblical fundamentalist Christian might say of evolution that he 'doesn't get' how it could have produced human beings. A good reply to such a person is to say that the following is an atrociously bad argument:
"I don't get how evolution could do X. Therefore it didn't."
I'll move on…
Do you any evidence for this, or are you merely flailing amidst wild speculations of your own?
Context is important here. I couldn't type the whole book into a comment. He's not claiming string theory has triumphed.
Look, for my point to hold, I don't have to demonstrate the existence of spaceless timeless entities. I just have to show that the concept of such entities is considered scientifically coherent by the likes of,……… oh, a Fields Medalist like Edward Witten.
Comment by stunney — March 29, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
thetaphi:
Well, duh. I figured that out even before Julia Roberts decided to marry Lyle Lovett. Of course, the "before my time" Bogey-Bacall situation could have clued me in, not to mention Scarlett and Rhett. Sexy is as sexy does. The Geeks inherit the earth… §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Stunney,
Now, I happen to think a universe starting from nothingness is the ultimate in illogic, but why shouldn't there have been previous universes born and died in the infinite past? So that our universe would be finite, but prior ones arise and fall in cycles.
Comment by onething — March 30, 2007 @ 12:47 am
March 30th, 2007 at 2:37 am
onething wrote:
Agreed.
I considered the hypothesis of an infinite past already in my comments on this thread.
The reasons against are:
1) It conflicts with the known scientific data. which indicate there is but one universe with but one beginning. Anything beyond that is speculation.
2) It's extremely extravagant, ontologically speaking. As I mentioned in one of my comments somewhere, an infinite past is probably not distinct logically from a multiverse; and as I also mentioned, it entails the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities. If such is posited to avoid theism, one must ask, what's the point?
Comment by stunney — March 30, 2007 @ 2:37 am
March 30th, 2007 at 5:31 am
Let's recap. You believe that the finiteness of our universe logically implies the existence of an infinite rational mind outside of spacetime. There is no evidence at all that anything exists or can exist outside of spacetime, and the whole idea is very controversial to say the least, but as long as a handful of eminent scientists have entertained the notion of spaceless timeless entities, that is enough for you to have great confidence in your claim. Well, good for you. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. I give up.
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2007 @ 5:31 am
March 30th, 2007 at 8:19 am
raevmo wrote:
raevmo sunshine, you don't seem to be aware that Big Bang cosmological science says there actually was once in the finite past no space or time.
I merely stated that the concept of a spaceless timeless entity is scientifically coherent.
You believe in magic. You believe that something can come into being from absolute nothingness. I believe that being can only come from being.
You believe that a metaphysical state of absolute nothingness gave way to a universe 13.7 billlion years ago for no reason at all (since reason didn't exist then), of which the impersonally determined nature, lo and behold, turns out to be suitable for the emergence of beings like us; but that humans are unintended by this metaphysical transition.
It's magic, not just because it's something from nothing, but because of the ridiculously unlikely odds against the unbelievably special nature of the conditions at our Big Bang: they were precise to 1 part in 10^10^123 the phase space volume.
The only remotedly plausible way you get a spontaneously and impersonally forming our universe is if it is really part of a Multiverse (of which one form is an infinite past)….