In “What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology” (The Atlantic, January 19, 2012), Ross Andersen explains,
In December, a group of professors from America’s top philosophy departments, including Columbia, Yale, and NYU, set out to establish the philosophy of cosmology as a new field of study within the philosophy of physics.
One of the founding members of the American group, Tim Maudlin, was recently hired by New York University, the top ranked philosophy department in the English-speaking world.
And of course Andersen asked Maudlin about fine-tuning:
Now let me say one more thing about fine tuning. I talk to physicists a lot, and none of the physicists I talk to want to rely on the fine tuning argument to argue for a cosmology that has lots of bubble universes, or lots of worlds. What they want to argue is that this arises naturally from an analysis of the fundamental physics, that the fundamental physics, quite apart from any cosmological considerations, will give you a mechanism by which these worlds will be produced, and a mechanism by which different worlds will have different constants, or different laws, and so on. If that’s true, then if there are enough of these worlds, it will be likely that some of them have the right combination of constants to permit life. But their arguments tend not to be “we have to believe in these many worlds to solve the fine tuning problem,” they tend to be “these many worlds are generated by physics we have other reasons for believing in.”
If we give up on that, and it turns out there aren’t these many worlds, that physics is unable to generate them, then it’s not that the only option is that there was some intelligent designer. It would be a terrible mistake to think that those are the only two ways things could go. You would have to again think hard about what you mean by probability, and about what sorts of explanations there might be. Part of the problem is that right now there are just way too many freely adjustable parameters in physics. Everybody agrees about that. There seem to be many things we call constants of nature that you could imagine setting at different values, and most physicists think there shouldn’t be that many, that many of them are related to one another. Physicists think that at the end of the day there should be one complete equation to describe all physics, because any two physical systems interact and physics has to tell them what to do. And physicists generally like to have only a few constants, or parameters of nature. This is what Einstein meant when he famously said he wanted to understand what kind of choices God had –using his metaphor– how free his choices were in creating the universe, which is just asking how many freely adjustable parameters there are. Physicists tend to prefer theories that reduce that number, and as you reduce it, the problem of fine tuning tends to go away. But, again, this is just stuff we don’t understand well enough yet.
Maudlin makes an important point that ID proponents tend to miss:
On another thread, bornagain77 claimed that atheists had concocted the multiverse hypothesis as a way of avoiding theistic interpretations of physics. I replied:
Another important point made by Maudlin:
To successfully make the fine-tuning argument, even assuming only one universe, it is not enough for ID proponents to identify physical constants whose values must be restricted in order to make life possible. They also need to show that the probability of those constants having life-supporting values is small. We only have one universe to observe, so this can’t be done empirically. You need a plausible account of the mechanism by which universes are generated before you can make a reasonable estimate of the probability distributions.
Fundamental physics alone can not explain the origin of other worlds with different laws. The reason is very simple. All these assumptions, including Hawking´s and Krauss´s claims about the origin of a cosmos from “nothingness” are grounded on a philosophical (metaphysical) assumption; the existence of gravity and physical laws in general as entities with real ontological existence as “forces” that act on matter from without. New Essentialists, on the contrary, defend the idea that physical laws have no existence at all as true entities independently of the things that we observe. The behaviour of things should be explained, they claim, just inherent properties of matter.
The existence of laws of Nature is not then a scientific fact but a philosophical interpretation of what we observe in the Universe. In an “essentialist” scenario, “things” as we know them, could not be otherwise, no physical laws could change without things loosing their essence. Other words could not be an alternative for a naturalistic explanation of what we can not explain in this world.
Hawking boldly argued that “The Grand Design” could be explained away and announced the death of any philosophical approach to understanding reality. He did not understand that his own scientific approach was based on an inescapable philosophical interpretation of experimental observations.
felipe,
I don’t follow your argument. In what way does the “origin of other worlds with different laws” depend on the idea that physical laws have “real ontological existence”?
The question is why Maudlin thinks a non-theist would be at all justified in expecting simple laws (cf. http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....re.doc.doc).
champignon:
“All nine of them emerge from the mathematics of existing theories. None were invented to explain away God, no matter how much BA77 would like to pretend otherwise.”
I believe Alexander Vilenkin just declared that three of the leading inflation/multiverses hypotheses do not work mathematically. I imagine the others will soon follow suit. It’s also quite reasonable to conclude that everyone has some sort of hidden agenda, which stems from his or her biased views of reality. It’s called a worldview and no matter how you choose to slice it, the “multiverse hypotheses” has become the secularists “mascot”, when it comes to physics, in many ways, the championed alternative to a special creation, so to speak. And for that one reason alone, the multiverse theory is probably more often than not, pursued out of its implications and not whether the theory might actually work or not. I believe that is what BA77 was trying to convey. But, it should be noted; the same applies for theists.
Not that they don’t work, just that they require a beginning.
Same difference, champignon. What’s the matter with you?
All nine of them emerge from the mathematics of existing theories. None were invented to explain away God, no matter how much BA77 would like to pretend otherwise.
That’s an interesting claim.
Please state for us what models eight and nine are, and how they emerge from the mathematics of existing theories.
OK, null, drop the last two models if you don’t like them. They are the most speculative anyway, and the first seven are taken far more seriously.
The point remains: scientists are not creating these multiverse hypotheses in order to explain away God.
OK, null, drop the last two models if you don’t like them. They are the most speculative anyway, and the first seven are taken far more seriously.
If I don’t like them?
You claimed: All nine of them emerge from the mathematics of existing theories.
I didn’t criticize them at all. I didn’t even criticize your claim – I asked you to back your claim up. So let’s try this again.
Please state for us what models eight and nine are, and how they emerge from the mathematics of existing theories.
If we check what empirical evidence is telling us we overwhelming find an absolute transcendent beginning for this universe. Mathematical conjecture divorced from rigid verification of empirical data is nothing more than mathematical fantasy.,,, As Professor Peter Woit has pointed out time and again on his blog ‘Not Even Wrong”;
Moreover if we follow the evidence where it leads, instead of following ‘imaginations’ where atheists would like to mislead, we find that the evidence clearly, overwhelming, supports the fact that transcendent (beyond space and time), eternal, infinite, even conscious, quantum information created this universe and all life in it. Moreover, besides creating this universe and all life in it, we find that transcendent (beyond space and time), eternal, infinite, even conscious, quantum information even sustains this universe present existence on a continual ‘non-local’ (beyond space and time) basis. i.e. ‘material’ particle/waves are not self sustaining within space-time! Now of course many atheists (especially here on UD) will deny this is the state of evidence and try to deceive that this is not so, but the plain fact is that is where the empirical evidence, which is SUPPOSE to have the last word in science, actually is at right now!
null,
Why are you asking, when my point remains the same with or without models eight and nine? The point is that scientists are not creating multiverse hypotheses in order to explain away God, contra BA77.
Do you disagree?
Why are you asking, when my point remains the same with or without models eight and nine?
Why, scientific curiosity of course. Models 8 and 9 are very interesting, and you said explicitly that they emerge from the mathematics of existing theories.
Now, enough evasion – and enough trying to change the subject. Let’s try this yet another time:
Please state for us what models eight and nine are, and how they emerge from the mathematics of existing theories.
null,
You seem oddly insistent, yet oddly reluctant to explain how the question is relevant.
I’m beginning to suspect that this is related to your embarrassment over being unable to answer Nick’s perfectly relevant question regarding gene duplication and the generation of new information.
I’m happy to answer relevant questions, but I’m not here to jump through hoops for you. If you think your question is relevant, explain why.
champignon:
reading this post, I checked the question you referred to. I suppose it’s the following:
“Hi BiPed,
With regard to information, the main question I’m interested in is, if a gene is duplicated, and one copy get modified such that it has a different specificity or function, has the amount of information in the genome increased?
I think, on any reasonable definition of “information”, the answer is “yes”. But this causes a problem for creationists/ID advocates, because they have invested a huge amount in the proposition that only intelligence can produce new information, and that natural processes such as evolution cannot.
Thus, to defend their assertion, they have to invent all kinds of unreasonable and question-begging “definitions” of “information”.
So, what’s your answer to the gene duplication question?”
I don’t understand why that shloud ne a difficult question at all. The answer seems very simple to me. Just to discuss, I will give here my answer.
Yes, the functional information has increased. Not because of the duplication, but because of the variation that generates the new function.
And no, it is not true at all that “ID advocates… have invested a huge amount in the proposition that only intelligence can produce new information, and that natural processes such as evolution cannot”. I don’t know why Matze says that.
ID states simply that “only intelligence can produce new complex functional information”. Complex means beyond some threshold of bits.
So: the simple duplication of a gene does not create new information. Its variation, if it creates new function, does. If the new information (and therefore the necessary variation) is not complex it can certainly be explained by non designed processes. If it is complex, we infer design. That’s what ID says.
I am sursprised that there can be doubts about these fundamental points.
champignon:
I am sorry, my comment was about your post #1.2.1.1.3, but in some way I missed the nested hyerarchy. I apologize…
You seem oddly insistent, yet oddly reluctant to explain how the question is relevant.
Three strikes, Champ. I knew you didn’t have the guts, but what can I say – the scientist in me required experimental evidence. 😉
Onlookers, here’s why Champ keeps balking at this one. He said that all nine of Greene’s multiverse possibilities “emerge from the mathematics of existing theories”. The lesson here is that, if you’re going to start lecturing everyone about a book, you should probably read the damn thing. At least try to make sure the review/summary you skim is thorough.
Let’s cut to the chase: here’s George Ellis quickly summarizing what models 8 and 9 in Greene’s book are (Via Nature Magazine, 1/19/11 edition, “The Untestable Multiverse”):
The eighth states that we live in one of a set of artificial universes created as simulations on a super-advanced computer. The ninth argues that it is a philosophical necessity that every possible universe must be realized somewhere, in “the grandest of all multiverses”.
So, model 8 looks an awful lot like an ID theory. Model 9 is explicitly philosophical/metaphysical, and leads to some real wild conclusions. If he says model 9 ’emerges from the mathematics’ he’s going to have his work cut out for him to explain how, without appealing to philosophy and metaphysics. If he says model 8 emerges from the mathematics, he’s giving credence to some form of ID.
But rather than make these arguments or – worse – admit he was wrong in his claim, he tried to bluff and misdirect. Of course, that just makes me wonder if he even read the damn book he’s referencing, much less grasped the arguments. Or did his interest end at ‘Scientist says multiverse theories are good! He gives nine examples in the book! That’s enough for ME to parrot, I’ll skip the details for now…’?
Who knows? And, who cares? It’s enough to point out that Champ didn’t know what he was talking about, and when he was caught, he tried desperately to change the subject and bluff his way out. Remember, I gave him three chances to either explain himself or retract his claims. No go: he wanted to kick up dust instead. Shame he ain’t too good at that.
Google scholarship, folks. If you’re going to engage in it, you may want to moderate your claims appropriately.
We’re done here. 😉
gpuccio,
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people under the ‘Big Tent’ who argue that unguided mutations (include gene duplication followed by variation of a copy) never create information, only destroying it.
This apparently includes Upright Biped and nullasalus. Otherwise I can’t imagine why they so adamantly refuse to answer Nick’s simple question, or why, in null’s case, he so desperately tries to spin duplication followed by variation as “degradation”.
As I’m sure you realize, the idea that mutations invariably cause a decrease in information content is easily disproven by a reductio ad absurdum:
1. Assume that these folks are correct, and that mutations invariably cause a loss of information in the genome.
2. Consider a genome X.
3. X experiences a point mutation, becoming X’. According to the “mutations cause information loss” folks, the information content of the genome has decreased.
4. After a while, X’ experiences another point mutation that reverses the first mutation. X’ changes back to X. The second mutation further decreases the information content of the genome.
5. X changed to X’, then back to X. But it experienced two consecutive losses of information. Therefore the information content of X is less than the information content of X.
6. The conclusion that X has less information than itself is absurd. Therefore the assumption that mutations invariably decrease information is wrong.
null,
I see that my hunch was correct, and that this is about your desire to catch me in an error, regardless of any relevance to the topic of discussion. Fair enough. I did have a laugh at your (and Upright’s) expense on the other thread, and you may still be smarting from that.
However, I’m not sure why you think that catching me in an error would be such a big deal. I’m human. I make lots of mistakes, and I’ve never maintained otherwise.
Keeping in mind that you too are human, and that we are not expecting perfection from you: could you answer Nick’s question, or explain to us why you refuse?
Here it is again:
. . . and the idea that mutations invariably cause an increase in information content is also easily disproved by using your same argument!
However, the genome X exists and encodes information content. Thus, if your argument is correct, the information in genome X could not have come from mutations. 🙂
Querius,
Yes. So if you ever find someone who claims that mutations invariably increase the information content of the genome, you can use my argument against them.
There are other possibilities besides ‘mutations always decrease information’ and ‘mutations always increase information’. Think about it.
champignon:
I agree, obviously. Well, I will let others speak for themselves, but I ask you two simple questions:
a) Do you agree that my answer to Matzke’s question is reasonable?
b) Do you agree that ID, in its official forms, starting with Dembski, has never stated what Matze says? And that ID has always been about inferring design from complex specified information?
What should I think: that Matzke has never read Dembski?
Because in a new-essentialist approach laws of nature are only mental representations of the behavior of things that can not behave in a different way without ceasing to be what they are.
There might be other words different from this one, but this word can not contain the same things that we know here with different properties and propensities.
To clarify my position, since it has been brought into question, I believe ‘multiverses’ were born, primarily, out of mathematical equations (string theory, m-theory) that had been postulated to try to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity into a ‘Theory of Everything’, and that atheists have highjacked this purely imaginary conjecture, time and time again despite consistent empirical setbacks, And I believe they have done this to serve their own philosophical bias, (A bias clearly noted in the opening OP), and not from any unbiased seeking of truth. This ‘mathematical’ endeavor, to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, has been fraught with extreme difficulty. Here is, I believe, the main ‘mathematical’ difficulty;
,,,Moreover, this extreme ‘mathematical’ difficulty was actually foreseeable, from previous work, earlier in the 20th century, in mathematics:
,,,Moreover when we allow consciousness its proper role in quantum mechanics:,,,
,,,We find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that, unlike the multiverse conjectures, actually has some very impressive empirical evidence backing it up:
Thus, when one allows God into math, as Godel said must ultimately be done, then there actually exists a very credible reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity! Yet it certainly is one that many Atheists will deny the relevance of.,,,as a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without God, also had this to say:
Music and Verse:
Champ says:
“To successfully make the fine-tuning argument, even assuming only one universe, it is not enough for ID proponents to identify physical constants whose values must be restricted in order to make life possible. They also need to show that the probability of those constants having life-supporting values is small. We only have one universe to observe, so this can’t be done empirically. You need a plausible account of the mechanism by which universes are generated before you can make a reasonable estimate of the probability distributions.”
OK, you are smarter than me so I cannot quite follow your reasoning here. It seems to me that identifying physical constants whose values must be restricted in order to make life possible is more than enough to prove the point. I don’t understand what you mean by saying that we would need to show that the the probability of those constants having life-supporting values is small.
Doesn’t the fact that these constants are fine-tuned and just happen to have a value within the small life supporting zone show that to be true?
“Then you say that we need a plausible account of the mechanism by which universes are generated before you can make a reasonable estimate of the probability distributions.”
Aren’t you simply here simply assuming that there is such a mechanism? Aren’t you simply assuming that there are other universes that exist? What if there is only one universe? That’s all we know of.
If you want to persist in the idea that because we can’t compare it with other universes(whether they exist or not) and therefore refuse to believe that our universe is not unique and well designed for life – hey, that’s your choice. To me the answer is obvious and that is what God tells us as well in His Word. With all these finely tuned constants, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to interpret the data.
I think you will have a hard time convincing people that just because we cannot compare our universe with other universes (that may not even exist) that we really cannot say anything about whether our universe is finely-tuned for life or not. That is going to be a hard sell.
Another very interesting question is “Why is the universe explainable by math equations anyway?” Why should that be true if the universe exists by chance?
Plus, ultimately, mathematics points to a reality outside itself as Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows.
“In 1931 these false philosophies of math crumbled into dust when Gödel proved his Undecideability Theorem. Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28)…”
http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#
I don’t know what constitutes the official forms of ID, but Dembski’s more recent work certainly argues that nature cannot create new information, period. If you read his papers at evoinfo.org, you will find no mention of a threshold. Instead, you’ll find statements like the one I quoted in the previous thread:
And if you read his statement of and proofs supporting the LCI, there is no threshold involved. Note that this is not the same LCI that he proposed in his book No Free Lunch, which did involve a threshold.
But regardless, Matzke’s challenge still stands, even if we grant Dembski’s previous 500-bit threshold. To borrow champignon’s scenario, if a 500+ bit genetic sequence loses its functionality because of a mutation, it would then be unspecified and thus have 0 bits of specified information. If a subsequent mutation reverses the first one, then 500+ bits of CSI have been created.
We should also note that if you grant that a mutation can create even one bit of specified information, then if 500+ such mutations have occurred throughout history, the threshold has been surpassed.
R0bb:
Reference please. The quote you provided doesn’t support that as it involves creating information from scratch.
As for Matzke (and you) he is starting out with the CSI that needs to be explained in the first place.
What the heck is wrong with you guys? If you want to use gene duplications and say they are stochastic processes you need evidence to that effect. And the only way to do that is to show that living organisms are reducible to stochastic processes, which would refute ID right then and there.
champignon,
Where did Matzke get the gene to be duplicated? And why are you being so damn obtuse wrt his scenario?
Joe:
Dembski’s current LCI says:
His previous LCI said:
where I(A) is the pre-existing information and I(A&B) is the post-event information. Both laws place limits on how much nature can increase information, so both apply to situations in which information already exists.
Nick has brought up a case in which the increase in information violates these laws. To answer his challenge, you need to show that information does not, in fact, increase beyond what Dembski says it can.
“If there are no multiverses, an intelligent designer is not the only option.”
But it is the only intelligent option that is consistent with the word, ‘design’. And there are a few things in the universe that just give the impression that someone’s been burning the midnight oil .. well… trying to design them.
Even though Woody Allen opined that “the worst that can be said about God is that, basically, He’s an under-achiever.”
Woody is mustard as regards metaphysics. He also said, “I’m astounded by people who want to ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.”
Versions of Evolution conjectures should be described as ‘suggested Evolution narratives’. ‘Hypothesised’ would sound a tad too scientific, wouldn’t it?