Biology prof: How can we really know if the universe is fine-tuned?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 14, 2016

Fine tuning}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Waynesburg U biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, a question about claims for fine tuning of the universe:

My major concern with arguments from fine-tuning in cosmology is, how do we really get from from observations of precision to statements of probability? To say that something is precise is not to say that it is improbable. Those are two different things.

As a third quick analogy, if we studied the fall patterns of icicles from the roof of my home, we might find that their placement is incredibly precise. Given the vast surface area a given icicle could fall on (my yard, the road, my neighbor’s yard, etc.), the fact that they consistently fall within a very narrow area directly below the edge of the roof (they more or less fall straight down) seems absurdly precise. Absurdly precise, if it was logical to entertain the possibility of icicles falling in ways other than straight down. But the presence of gravity and the lack of strong winds make this highly precise phenomenon highly probable. Said plainly, it would be absurd to treat the falling of an icicle straight down and the falling of it laterally into my neighbor’s yard as equally likely.

But, I think that’s the sort of assumption being made in the argument from cosmological fine-tuning. To say that such-and-such a physical parameter rests upon a razor’s edge does tell us something. It tells us that any small change in the setting of that parameter would lead to a universe drastically different from the one we live in, and likely one that could never even produce material objects (let alone life) as we understand it. Fair enough. I agree. What it doesn’t tell us is how likely any of those other settings are. More.

Thoughts?

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

juwilker, if I had cared about what people who did not like me or my posts on UD told me to do, I would never comment on UD and would have killed myself a long time ago since I have been told to do both those things by people who were opposing me. Thus, in response, I have a developed a fairly hard edge against people who do not like me or my posts. Atheists are often irritated that I often include related scriptures in my posts and have openly mocked me for such a practice and said they refuse to read my posts because of it. (Matzke and Myers comes readily to mind) Whatever. I include scripture anyway when I see fit. Thus not caring what others think about me or my posts is more or less an attitude that is given to me by my opponents. I try to write solely for the sake of advancing knowledge and understanding regardless of whether people may like what I write or not. Anyways, regardless of whether I was too 'rough' or not in defending my right to post as how I best see fit on UD, I've already apologized for any part, real or imagined, that I had in his ad hominem towards me and have moved on. I sense that he has moved on also. Which is just as well and good. Holding grudges is counter productive and in the end only ends up hurting oneself.
Matthew 18:21-22 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
bornagain77_{December 20, 2016
December
12
Dec
20
20
2016
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer: Here is a question that I haven’t seen dealt with here yet. The last four parameters that I listed above (of course, there are many others) all have specific values or a range of values. Assuming that they could be different (and not knowing if they could be, it is possible that they could) how would you derive probability for each one?
Allow me to repeat myself one more time: One can derive probability only after someone comes along who hypothesizes: 1. The coming into existence of the universe and its constants is due to a mechanism X with a random output. 2. The random output by mechanism X is such and such. IOWs probabilities or improbabilities reference a mechanism (such as flipping a coin or throwing a dice). Without a mechanism we cannot assign probabilities. This "inability" is no problem for the design inference, because the nature of the design inference is holistic.Origenes_{December 20, 2016
December
12
Dec
20
20
2016
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 34, I am a casual observer and a great admirer of you and your posts. But I think you are being uncharitable with Dr Rossiter by saying you don't care about his comments or suggestions. Your words are technically not ad hominem attacks, but the tone is. Kind of unfair to call him out when I think your posts initiated his ad hominem response. Also, I would like to point everyone to Dr. Dembski's take on the fine tuning argument as it relates to assigning probabilities. It kind of supports Dr Rossiters objections. Chap 16 Contingency and Chance (p 128 Being as Communion): "It's worth pondering here what these difficulties of assigning probabilities to the entire universe mean for fine-tuning arguments...(goes on the explain fine tuning...). But since we are talking about features of the universe that need to be in place before the universe can be said to exist and operate, its not clear where those probabilities that are applied to the universe as a whole are coming from or how they can be coherently grounded" I think that is the point Origenes is trying to make with the Da Vinci example. We have no way to assign probabilities to designed events. The events themselves are evidence of design and we have no way to assign probabilities from a sample of one.juwilker_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

What is fine tuning? It is the empirically derived fact that if certain fundamental physical parameters or constants had been slightly different life and self-conscious life would not exist anywhere is the universe. Many prominent physicists agree. Stephan Hawking writes, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” But the fine-tuning is even more intricate than Hawking’s brief summary suggests. For example, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had differed by 1 part in 1016, no stars would have formed… no stars… no life. Or, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had not been precisely balanced to 1 part in 1040 then we would have no stars of the right size to support life. We need both fast burning large stars to produce the essential elements for life’s chemistry and planet formation as well as long burning small stars to burn long enough to provide planetary systems habitable for life. Also, if the nuclear ground state energies for helium 4, beryllium 6, carbon 12, and oxygen 16 had not been fine-tuned so that they varied no more than 4% with respect to each other, there would not be sufficient oxygen or carbon for the development of life.” Or if the majority of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun (or any equivalent star) wasn’t within a very narrow band: one part in 10 raised the 25th power (that’s one followed 25 zeros) life could not exist on earth. Here is a question that I haven’t seen dealt with here yet. The last four parameters that I listed above (of course, there are many others) all have specific values or a range of values. Assuming that they could be different (and not knowing if they could be, it is possible that they could) how would you derive probability for each one? Not being a mathematician or a physicist, I honestly don’t know how you would. Maybe someone here does. This seems to me, if I am understanding Wayne’s point correctly, that this question gets us to the heart of the problem. If you can give me some probabilities then it seems to me you have answered his objection. If you can’t then I think Wayne has a good point.john_a_designer_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

WR, I suggest, the a posteriori probability that we validly experience a world is near unity. A priori, given what sensitivity analysis on the parameters and laws shows is a different matter. And, that is embedded in even the term fine tuning. The sensitivity analysis tells us something, and that something is clearly significant. Which is John Leslie's point. A further one, is that even if the parameters and laws are "locked," that only moves the issue up a level. A super-force that locks a vast cluster of parameters, laws and just plain physical manifestations across a span c 90 Bn LY across, at minimum, is itself highly suggestive. KF PS: I note, there are several senses of probability. In that context, it is meaningful to discuss the probability of an agent taking options 1 to n, per our experience and insight. And we must be aware that s/he may do something, say S; as a determination to act with surprise. This is a commonplace in strategy where surprise is a crucial force multiplier.kairosfocus_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

wrossite you state" "Frankly, I don’t know what you even mean to say that “human thought is endowed with a essential timeless element to it that cannot possibly be reduced to any within space-time, materialistic, explanation.” IMHO, in the following short quote, David Berlinski has succinctly captured the timeless nature of information, specifically mathematical information, and thus the 'timeless nature' of human thought:
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
James Franklin adds his two cents here:
The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
To put it more basically, all abstract human thought is 'timeless' in its foundational nature. Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, broke with Charles Darwin over precisely this issue:
"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910
In other words, all information is timeless in its basic nature and since man thinks, speaks, and writes in terms of information, then this makes the nature of man's thoughts, of necessity, 'timeless'. To further clarify this point, it is good to note that whilst information can be infused into an almost endless variety of material substrates, none-the-less the meaning of the information does not change. Dr. Stephen Meyer briefly touches on that issue in the following video:
“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8
And here is some empirical evidence that establishes immaterial information as its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy:
A few notes on the physical reality of ‘immaterial’ information: (December. 2016) Thermodynamic Content, Erasing Classical Information with Quantum Information, Quantum Teleportation https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/digg-what-is-information-a-remarkably-unstupid-vid/#comment-622155
Moreover, it is important to reiterate the fact that humans, uniquely out of all God's creatures on earth, think, speak and write, in terms of immaterial information. As highlighted in post 51, Tom Wolfe wrote a book precisely because leading Darwinists, in the field of human language, publicly confessed, in peer-review, that they have no solid, real, clue as to how human speech could have possibly evolved. Yet, as Tom Wolfe argued in his book, "Kingdom of Speech", human speech is 95% plus of what lifts man above the animals.
“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech
In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure. And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, and plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so. Specifically, the ‘top-down’ infusion of mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades. Here are a couple of articles which clearly get this ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information point across:
Here is one by Peter Tyson Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson – Nov. 2011 Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell’s four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you’re relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine’s algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you’re hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time. “When you listen to a mobile phone, you’re not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking,” Devlin told me. “You’re hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/describing-nature-math.html Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, ,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to dominate the world through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. Renowned physicist John Wheeler stated “in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe”.
"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))
In the following article, Anton Zeilinger, a leading expert in quantum mechanics, stated that ‘it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows.’
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics:
In the following video at the 48:24 mark Zeilinger states that “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” and he goes on to note at the 49:45 mark the Theological significance of “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
Moreover, besides being foundational to physical reality, information is also found to be ‘infused’ into biological life.
Information Enigma (Where did the information in life come from?) - - Stephen Meyer - Doug Axe - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g Complex grammar of the genomic language – November 9, 2015 Excerpt: The ‘grammar’ of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world. The findings explain why the human genome is so difficult to decipher –,,, ,,, in their recent study in Nature, the Taipale team examines the binding preferences of pairs of transcription factors, and systematically maps the compound DNA words they bind to. Their analysis reveals that the grammar of the genetic code is much more complex than that of even the most complex human languages. Instead of simply joining two words together by deleting a space, the individual words that are joined together in compound DNA words are altered, leading to a large number of completely new words. - per sciencedaily Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. - per astro “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability infuse information into material substrates. I guess a more convincing evidence could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=5
Verses:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
bornagain77_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

" However, to dismiss me because I hold a PhD in biology, instead of cosmology or physics is to commit the genetic fallacy" ,,, and then "As for amateur, are you saying it’s mean to suggest that someone’s training and skill set might cause us to be suspicious of their ability to discuss a topic?,,," You were saying? :) (Just some good natured ribbing buddy)bornagain77_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

I'm not emotionally bound to the argument. In fact, if I'm wrong, then that's good for everyone (because it would mean that the arguments we use in public are actually valid). However, to dismiss me because I hold a PhD in biology, instead of cosmology or physics is to commit the genetic fallacy (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/). As for timelessness of human nature, I guess I don't follow. Others can evaluate that statement. There was no time before the big bang (so far as we know), since time is bound to space and both coalesce at the singularity of the big bang. Speculation as to the causal mechanisms that might give rise to our space-time are just that, speculations. By definition, because they would be outside of our universe, they cannot be tested or verified. Frankly, I don't know what you even mean to say that "human thought is endowed with a essential timeless element to it that cannot possibly be reduced to any within space-time, materialistic, explanation." I mean, I get the idea of mind or consciousness that is not describable by materialism. But what does that have to do with the mechanism(s) responsible for creating a universe or the assignment of a probability to a parameter? I just don't follow. W p.s. As I recall, you're asking me to apologize for calling you bitter, argumentative and amateur. Perhaps you're not bitter, and for that, I will apologize. You do seem to like to quarrel, so that's looking more and more to be a true statement (not an ad hominem). As for amateur, are you saying it's mean to suggest that someone's training and skill set might cause us to be suspicious of their ability to discuss a topic? :) (see above) You're welcome to go to the CSS website and search for the Q&A after my talk, in which Robin and I interact, and he makes this concession.wrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

By the way, Dr. Rossiter - I think your exercise is a very good one. We do need to challenge our own views and arguments. I stumbled into that exercise here recently on another topic and it was a little difficult to walk away without some unnecessary friction. We've been somewhat of a war zone here, at least in past years (it has died down considerably) so we're quick to fight back. But thanks for your good work and it was great to learn about your background.Silver Asiatic_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Wrossite: Basically, the ID community would be rejecting the argument that the parameter settings are highly improbable.
There is no rejection of any probability argument, because probabilities do not enter the design inference from the get-go. Let’s take a look how Bartlett speaks about the design inference wrt biology:
It used to be that the arguments for design were very plain. Biology proceeded according to a holistic plan both in the organism and the environment. This plan indicated a clear teleology – that the organism did things that were *for* something. These organisms exhibited a unity of being. This is evidence of design. It has no reference to probabilities or improbabilities of any mechanism. It is just evidence on its own.

Wrossite: But, since the atheists/materialists want to try to put probabilities on these things (via a multiverse scenario), then the ID community–for the sake of argument–accepts those probabilities. That in itself strikes me as really odd.
But the same thing happened when Darwinians proposed a mechanism. ID theorists accept the mechanism–for the sake of argument–for critical examination. Bartlett again:
Then, in the 19th century, Darwin suggested that there was another possibility for the reason for this cohesion – natural selection. Unity of plan and teleological design, according to Darwin, could also happen due to selection. Thus, the original argument is: X, Y, and Z indicate design Darwin’s argument is: X, Y, and Z could also indicate natural selection So, therefore, we simply show that Darwin is wrong in this assertion. If Darwin is wrong, then the original evidence for design (which was not based on any probability) goes back to being evidence for design. The only reason for probabilities in the modern design argument is because Darwinites have said, “you can get that without design”, so we modeled NotDesign as well, to show that it can’t be done that way. So, the *only* reason we are talking about probabilities is to answer an objection. The original evidence *remains* the primary evidence that it was based on. Answering the objection simply removes the objection.

wrossite : But, even so, my point is that they don’t. The multiverse folks think there could be 10^500 universes (one mainstream examples: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/). So, if the ID folks are going to accept this view for the sake of argument, then those improbabilities aren’t so improbable (again, the gravitational constant is a often-used example, but is only a 1 in 10^40 chance.
Given 10^500 universes, our gravitational constant may not be improbable. BTW why not assume 10^500 multiverses to get things settled once and for all? But surely, the fact that assumptions such as these need to be made in order to ground a naturalistic explanation for our universe is quite telling.Origenes_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

wrossite, whatever! I've apologized, twice now, for my part even though I did not attack your personally. You did not accept my apologies. And you are still unrepentant for your direct ad hominem against me. Whatever. The clean slate of friendship is still offered if you will only accept. Moreover, to find your argument severely wanting, even more so after having read your post from top to bottom. is not to insult you personally. You are confusing the rejection of your argument with an insult to you personally. It is not. Not even close. Might I suggest you are too emotionally attached to your argument? You even confess that cosmology and fine-tuning are not your areas of expertise. Through the years here on UD, we have seen all sorts of arguments against fine-tuning, by people, i.e. by and large atheists, much more qualified than you self-admittedly are, and their arguments were all eventually found have fatal holes. As mentioned in post 51, after mulling all this over for a while, I found one particularly interesting fatal hole in your argument. Not the only hole but the most interesting one. That hole is, to reiterate, that you are basically trying to make a humans act contrary to the 'timeless' nature of their thoughts and to not even question what was before the big bang:
KF, Thanks for the post. Notice that it assumes many of the things I’m suggesting we can’t. It talks as if there are in fact other universes. It talks as if we can know anything about them or their laws. It assumes a range and a distribution for parameters. None of this can be known. It is pure speculation. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, you cannot calculate a probability given a sample size of one. - W
wrossite, it has occurred to me that your wished for ‘mandate’, (a wished for ‘mandate’ that basically states, ‘we are not allowed to speculate on what was ‘before’ the big bang’), is equivalent to trying to make a new rule decreeing that water is not allowed to run downhill. Let me expand on that a bit. For you to try to mandate that humans cannot speculate on what happened before time began is to go against human nature itself. Human nature, especially human thought, is endowed with a essential timeless element to it that cannot possibly be reduced to any within space-time, materialistic, explanation. ,, etc.. etc..,, https://uncommondescent.com/fine-tuning/biology-prof-how-can-we-really-know-if-the-universe-is-fine-tuned/#comment-622354

In other words, even if your argument were correct, you have scant hope of ever getting anyone besides perhaps a few to rigidly follow it since it goes against the nature of human thought itself. Now I admit getting a nod from Robin Collins for 'sloppiness' in regards to Gordon's 40 orders of magnitude 'guesstimate', was interesting. But it still does not help you since I do not know what Collins exact context was when he said it. Does he have some other a priori knowledge of what was before the big bang that Gordon does not? Certainly not. Without such a priori knowledge it is hard to envision how Collins might possibly clean it up or make it more reasonable. And if anyone could, I think that he certainly could. Does he suggest cleaning the 'guesstimate' up by some other more reasonable way? Or does he, like you, just try to say that we are forbidden from even thinking about it? I highly doubt that Collins would go that far. Perhaps you could get him (or Luke Barnes) to comment more fully on it ? Perhaps develop the argument more fully or even (unthinkably) perhaps have them show you more clearly where your holes are?bornagain77_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

WA Right, agreed. I wasn't trying to compare the probability arguments for both of those but rather something like the generation of functional code from a non-intelligent source. ID can oppose that in principle, without even getting into the probability arguments. But then for the sake of argument, to work as if it was possible and then discuss from there.Silver Asiatic_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

SA, I would push back only on the idea that cosmology is like origins of life (OOL) biology. We have many empirical resources at our disposal when it comes to OOL science. We are aware of the mechanisms proposed as causes for first life, and we can empirically evaluate them. Further, we have many planets, moons, etc to evaluate the rarity of abiogenesis. So there, the probability arguments rest on a firm foundation. Cosmology is nothing like that. We have no mechanism to empirically or experimentally evaluate. Thus, we can't really hang a probability on the things we discover about the cosmos at large. Otherwise, I think we agree. Wwrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

WR
I’ve honestly given some thought to this angle, since several have raised it. Basically, the ID community would be rejecting the argument that the parameter settings are highly improbable. But, since the atheists/materialists want to try to put probabilities on these things (via a multiverse scenario), then the ID community–for the sake of argument–accepts those probabilities. That in itself strikes me as really odd.
We do a similar thing with arguments for evolution or abiogenesis. It's not that we can't calculate probabilities, but that the materialist arguments are absurd from the start, but we accept their assumptions. Actually, consider this - atheistic materialism undercuts the very foundation of rational argument. But we (IDists) set that aside and pretend we actually can have a discussion. So, it's a question of tactics here. And yes, there's room for disagreement on that, but it's certainly not a question of right versus wrong in the methodology one wants to use to convince someone.
So, if the ID folks are going to accept this view for the sake of argument, then those improbabilities aren’t so improbable (again, the gravitational constant is a often-used example, but is only a 1 in 10^40 chance.
The multiversers propose a speculative scenario. Ok, if IDists accept the 10^500 number, then it's not as improbable. However, I think most IDists do not accept that part of the multiverse argument. But we're chasing something amorphous. We're talking about IDists and Multiversers as if they both have unified views on this.
So, I don’t buy that the ID theorist doesn’t mean to say that the fine-tuning is highly improbable, but does so just to play ball with the materialists. None of their discussions appear to be operating that way. Hope that clears up my point.
Yes, fair enough. But your argument here is really on what ID theorists might mean or not in their views. In my experience, most ID theorists I've encountered actually think a multiverse is not only 'not subject to probability studies' but is simply irrational and illogical. It's something that cannot, in principle - by definition, be a source of empirical data. It transcends analysis. That's the most common view within the ID world. I'm open to correction here. If any of my fellow IDers disagree and think that the probability of any number of additional universes can be calculated or rationally comprehended, I would like to hear it. I think Origenes expressed my view well. We consider probabilities only as an "even if" scenario, which is already absurd before we started discussing it.Silver Asiatic_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Thank you john_a_designer. I want to be clear, I'm interested in making the best ID arguments we can in the public sphere. I want good arguments that work and are both honest and logically sound. I was hoping this would be iron sharpening iron. And, to be fair, several on here have done so (Origines, Silver Asiatic, Dionisio and others). So, all-in-all, it hasn't been a bad discussion. Wwrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

bornagain77. What is childish is running to the administrator when somebody doesn't treat you nice. Can you honestly say that a statement like, "To be blunt, like the hundreds of atheists I’ve dealt on UD before who don’t like me or my posts, I don’t care what you personally think about the length of my posts or me and could care less if you like them or not or if you like me or not," is in any way charitable or amenable to conversation? I'm more insulted by the fact that you didn't actually read my blog before launching into your 50,000 word responses. But, I'm a big boy. I can handle it. I've seen it before. Wwrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

SA, I don't buy this statement "Yes, those don’t change so we have no empirical evidence of other data points from which to build probabilities. I don’t think you answered Origenes’ points in 49. The ID argument accepts the materialist assumption that our universe emerged from an unknown number of random, physical/material elements all like what is known." I've honestly given some thought to this angle, since several have raised it. Basically, the ID community would be rejecting the argument that the parameter settings are highly improbable. But, since the atheists/materialists want to try to put probabilities on these things (via a multiverse scenario), then the ID community--for the sake of argument--accepts those probabilities. That in itself strikes me as really odd. But, even so, my point is that they don't. The multiverse folks think there could be 10^500 universes (one mainstream examples: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/). So, if the ID folks are going to accept this view for the sake of argument, then those improbabilities aren't so improbable (again, the gravitational constant is a often-used example, but is only a 1 in 10^40 chance. The same is true for the others). So, I don't buy that the ID theorist doesn't mean to say that the fine-tuning is highly improbable, but does so just to play ball with the materialists. None of their discussions appear to be operating that way. Hope that clears up my point. Wwrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

I think it is shameful that Wayne is not getting a fair hearing here. I thought maybe UD had cleaned up its act. I guess not. Please read his blog post before you begin refuting his argument. I see little evidence that any other the other commenters have done that. We rightly criticize our atheist interlocutors for setting up straw-men. It’s hypocritical if we turn around and do the same. And, for those who are Christian, it is unchristian. Here was a link to Wayne’s blog, which was also given in the OP: https://shadowofoz.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/sock-drawers-and-cosmological-fine-tuning/ Casey Luskin has written about him at Evolution News and Views:
Rossiter tells some of his own personal story. He entered grad school as a "staunch and cantankerous atheist," studying under "an equally atheistic advisor who was of Dawkins's ilk." But soon he started having doubts about atheism, sparked in part by his increasing doubts about Darwin. As he puts it: “I started to read and listen to scientists and intellectuals who had found faith in God compelling. Just as I was converting, so too was the famed atheist Antony Flew (though never to Christianity). I started to realize that there were good reasons to doubt the metanarrative of naturalism (the centerpiece of which is Darwinian evolution), and that many secular thinkers in fields related to the topic had also come to doubt the entire enterprise (and Darwin in specific).” (p. 5) After going through a deconversion process, leaving behind atheism and Darwinism, and now with a doctorate in hand, he landed a job teaching biology at a Christian university. There, however, he saw that many Christian students were moving in the opposite direction. Under the influence of the Darwinian evolution they had been dogmatically taught they must believe, they were losing their religious faith…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/in_shadow_of_oz101421.html Luskin also interviews at Dr. Rossiter at ID the Future. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2016/01/shadow-of-oz-wayne-rossiter-on-theistic-evolution-pt-1/ And, he has been mentioned before here at UD. https://uncommondescent.com/science/wayne-rossiter-conservatism-doomed-to-extinction/ Come on guys he is an ID success story not a closet atheist.john_a_designer_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

wrossite instead of apologizing for his personal attack towards me offers his own translation of what I wrote so as to introduce an ad hominem that I did not state: "Translation, “Wayne, you’re a nobody, I’m really not interested in your contributions to the ID enterprise, and I really don’t care what you or anybody else thinks.” Might I suggest that when you have to offer your own translation of something I wrote so as to produce evidence of a ad hominem that I did not write, perhaps you should have just apologized for your personal attack in the first place? :) As for my part, I already apologized for mistaking you for an atheist, (although that is not really an personal insult in itself) and now I also further apologize to you for anything, real or imagined, that I may have done to you to make you mad at me and hope that we can rise about such pettiness in the future. It really all seems a bit childish. I'm certain that God has a better path for us.bornagain77_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

WR I'm sorry, what don't you buy? You're saying that it is, indeed, possible to calculate the probability of the existence of possible universes? I thought you said we only have a population of one to work from. Now you're saying we have a population of 10^500? Yes, I may misunderstand ... you.Silver Asiatic_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

SA, I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Here's why: So far as I've seen, the multiverse theorists suppose 1 x 10^500 possible universes. Guys like Craig and Gordon acknowledge this. So, if that's what we're working from, then statements about c being 1 in 10^120, or G being 1 in 10^40 would be totally within the probabilistic power of such a multiverse scenario. Even there, these guys either misuse the argument, or you misunderstand it. Sorry. Wwrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Dr. Rossiter
The probability of our universe, so far as we know, is one. There are no other universes that we know of, and we have no idea what they might be like if they do exist. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this idea of changing relations over space. Could you expand on that?
I probably misunderstood the topic since it appears to be limited to arguments citing finely-tuned 'constants' and the origin of the universe. Yes, those don't change so we have no empirical evidence of other data points from which to build probabilities. I don't think you answered Origenes' points in 49. The ID argument accepts the materialist assumption that our universe emerged from an unknown number of random, physical/material elements all like what is known. So, we accept, for sake of engaging the atheistic community, their assumptions, even though strictly-speaking, they cannot be used for any probabilistic analysis. It's the same with any multiverse arguments. The discussions ends when there is proposed observable evidence for anything outside of the observable sphere. It's illogical and false from the beginning. But for the sake of it, we proceed "even if ..." Beyond that, regarding changeable elements - I was pointing to the fact that the universe is also finely-tuned for life on earth and those parameters are not universal constants. The mass of the sun, distance of sun from earth, thickness of earth's crust, earth's tilt, etc. So, your point here - which you seem quite intense about, is one of tactics and not really of the science. It seems you're saying that ID proponents should not engage anyone on the topic of a multiverse and the only response to that is: "There can be no evidence. It's totally imaginary. Our understanding of universes is limited to a population of one. No probabilities can be built on that. Any talk of a multiverse is illogical and irrational." And things like that. I think we'd all agree with your conclusions (if I'm correct about them), but whether that is the best strategy for engaging our opponents - that's not something that can be solved scientifically or even philosophically. It's more in understanding what makes materialists tick - and what arguments will work best. Even those built on their false premises can be successful.Silver Asiatic_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

All, I don't think I'll be further discussing my blog on this forum. Many have had their say. I'm happy that several of you agree with my point (even if you disagree with tangents surrounding it). Just to wrap up what has been an awkward and unfruitful discussion with bornagain77, here are some things he/she has said to: First, the continued accusation that I (as a Christian) am an atheist. “Again, this does not surprise me since Atheists have always retreated to ‘ignorance of the gaps’ arguments to try cover up embarrassing empirical findings.” “This is too funny. Who put you up to this?” “Thus wrossite, while you may pretend that the fine-tuned universal laws are just what they are and are of no big concern for the atheist, the fact of the matter is that your own atheistic metaphysics is what is contradicting you every step of the way.” Note that it's not just that I might be an atheist (which I'm not), but that I am doing this as a ruse, and that I'm trying to be dishonest by covering up facts and ignoring contradictions, perhaps even gladly ignorant. then, upon being informed that I'm actually an ID proponent, a backhanded apology. “Frankly, I’ve never heard of you as an ID author but only as someone who has authored a book criticizing Theistic Evolution. As I don’t think much of TE anyway, I’ve not been interested in your book. It just is not that important of a topic for me. …To be blunt, like the hundreds of atheists I’ve dealt on UD before who don’t like me or my posts, I don’t care what you personally think about the length of my posts or me and could care less if you like them or not or if you like me or not.” Translation, "Wayne, you're a nobody, I'm really not interested in your contributions to the ID enterprise, and I really don't care what you or anybody else thinks." On top of this, at several points bornagain77 demonstrates that he/she hasn't even read my blog (referencing as proofs for his/her case things that I actually directly reference in my blog, as if I wasn't aware of those already). At any rate, call me mean if you like. I've made my case. I've seen nothing to make me think that I was mistaken in my appraisal of the situation. Wwrossite_{December 19, 2016
December
12
Dec
19
19
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Moreover, when scrutinizing the details of quantum wave collapse, we find that the Christian Theist is well justified in holding that the infinite 'Mind of God' must be behind bringing reality into existence, i.e. must be behind collapsing the wave function upon conscious observation. First off, an ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201
Moreover, this 'infinite information' quantum qubit is also mathematically defined as being in an 'infinite dimensional' state:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater
Since God is both omniscient and omnipresent, (possesses infinite knowledge and is everywhere present), then God is certainly a 'sufficient cause' to explain exactly how a infinite information, infinite dimensional, quantum wave state can possibly collapse to a single bit state. Verses and Music:
Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?” Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible. THE GREATEST GIFT – Yancy - music video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHGVud2Qfa4
Quote:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)
bornagain77_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

wrossite at 44 you state
KF, Thanks for the post. Notice that it assumes many of the things I’m suggesting we can’t. It talks as if there are in fact other universes. It talks as if we can know anything about them or their laws. It assumes a range and a distribution for parameters. None of this can be known. It is pure speculation. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, you cannot calculate a probability given a sample size of one. W
wrossite, it has occurred to me that your wished for 'mandate', (a wished for 'mandate' that basically states, 'we are not allowed to speculate on what was 'before' the big bang'), is equivalent to trying to make a new rule decreeing that water is not allowed to run downhill. Let me expand on that a bit. For you to try to mandate that humans cannot speculate on what happened before time began is to go against human nature itself. Human nature, especially human thought, is endowed with a essential timeless element to it that cannot possibly be reduced to any within space-time, materialistic, explanation. In other words, for you to try to say that humans are not allowed to think 'timelessly', i.e. to think about what possibly might have been before time began, is for you to try to mandate that humans are not allowed to think 'timelessly' as humans 'naturally' think. You might as well say that water is not allowed to run downhill as to try to say humans are not allowed to think about what happened before time began. Indeed. you might as well say humans are not allowed to speak or write since speaking and writing are a direct reflection of the 'timeless' immaterial attribute that man's mind is endowed with: Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery, puts the situation like this:
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html Language Is a Rock Against Which Evolutionary Theory Wrecks Itself - Michael Egnor - September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Wolfe provides a précis of his argument: "Speech is not one of man's several unique attributes -- speech is the attribute of all attributes!" And yet, as Wolfe points out, Darwinists are at an utter loss to explain how language -- the salient characteristic of man -- "evolved.",,, I have argued before that the human mind is qualitatively different from the animal mind. The human mind has immaterial abilities -- the intellect's ability to grasp abstract universal concepts divorced from any particular thing -- and that this ability makes us more different from apes than apes are from viruses. We are ontologically different. We are a different kind of being from animals. We are not just animals who talk. Although we share much in our bodies with animals, our language -- a simulacrum of our abstract minds -- has no root in the animal world. Language is the tool by which we think abstractly. It is sui generis. It is a gift, a window into the human soul, something we are made with, and it did not evolve. Language is a rock against which evolutionary theory wrecks, one of the many rocks --,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/language_is_a_r103151.html
But this 'timeless' attribute of man is more than just a proof that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be true. This 'timeless' attribute of man goes to the very heart of physics. In fact, this 'timeless' attribute of man, and the denial of the reality thereof by Einstein, is what figured centrally in Einstein failing to receive a Nobel prize for relativity. Einstein had an encounter with a famous philosopher, Henri Bergson, over the proper definition of time. In fact, that encounter with Bergson over the proper definition of time, and the heated disagreement that ensued between the two men over that proper definition of time, was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to receive a Nobel prize for relativity:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory,,, Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more.,,, Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
After Einstein's heated encounter with Bergson, Einstein had another encounter with another philosopher. Einstein was once asked by Rudolf Carnap (a philosopher):
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
Einstein’s answer was categorical, he said:
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video.
Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
And here is a bit more detail of the encounter:
The Mind and Its Now – May 22, 2008 – By Stanley L. Jaki Excerpt: ,,, Rudolf Carnap, and the only one among them who was bothered with the mind’s experience of its now. His concern for this is noteworthy because he went about it in the wrong way. He thought that physics was the only sound way to know and to know anything. It was therefore only logical on his part that he should approach, we are around 1935, Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist of the day, with the question whether it was possible to turn the experience of the now into a scientific knowledge. Such knowledge must of course be verified with measurement. We do not have the exact record of Carnap’s conversation with Einstein whom he went to visit in Princeton, at eighteen hours by train at that time from Chicago. But from Einstein’s reply which Carnap jotted down later, it is safe to assume that Carnap reasoned with him as outlined above. Einstein’s answer was categorical: The experience of the now cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement. It can never be part of physics. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
The exact meaning of Carnap's question of ‘the Now’ can also be read in fuller context from the preceding article:
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS.,,,
Moreover, the statement Einstein made to Carnap on the train, ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since ‘the now of the mind’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as central to quantum theory and undermined the space-time of Einstein's General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality.
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html “Reality is in the observations, not in the electron.” – Paul Davies “We have become participators in the existence of the universe. We have no right to say that the past exists independent of the act of observation.” – John Wheeler
i.e. ‘the Now’, as philosophers term it, and contrary to what Einstein, (and Jaki), thought possible for experimental physics, and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher in this way:
“It is impossible for the experience of ‘the now of the mind’ to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”
bornagain77_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

wrossite @ 46: If you can't get along with BornAgain77 you have some real issues.Truth Will Set You Free_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

wrossite: But if it is meaningless to ask what the probability of getting a different parameter setting is, then my argument is correct, and we should stop doing it.
It is meaningful to ask what the probability of getting a different parameter setting is, only in the context of a proposed random mechanism, such as a multiverse (*). So again, my point is simple and obvious (and on this we agree): without mechanism X being proposed we cannot evaluate the probabilities and improbabilities of mechanism X. However, I'm not sure that you agree with me on the holistic nature of the design inference, and more importantly, that the absence or vagueness of a proposition of a random mechanism does not weaken the design inference wrt the universe. - - - - (*) I am not talking about unrestricted multiverses, in which anything that can possibly happen, actually happens in some universe. I don't think that probabilities apply here. Everything that can happen happens by definition — IOWs every event is 100% likely to happen. Instead, I’m talking about the more modest claim that our universe is just one of a vast number of universes with varying physical constants and different laws of nature, and that there is something like a “universe-generator” which churns out baby universes.Origenes_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

wrossite states,,
If the administrator cares to read your voluminous comments, he/she will see how unkindly you have treated me. Frankly, you are nasty to talk to,
You are projecting! Please provide one instance on this thread where I have 'been nasty' towards you personally. I admit, I have not been kind to your argument and indeed I find it severely wanting. But showing you to be wrong in your argument, contrary to what you may believe, does not equate to me 'being nasty' towards you personally. The right thing for you to do would be for you to apologize for your personal ad hominem towards me and start over on a clean slate with me. I doubt you will though. If you can't admit you are wrong on this relatively minor instance of insulting someone instead of forthrightly engaging them, then it is easy to see why you are having so much trouble admitting that you are wrong on the bigger issue of the truth of your claim. To reiterate KF's quote which hit the nail on the head, or the fly with a bullet as it were:
“. . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.” - John Leslie - Our Place in the Cosmos http://web.archive.org/web/20050308175505/http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/leslie_cosmos.htm In short, finding oneself at a locally isolated operating point for a cosmos is just as momentous as thinking in terms of whether a variable can go in magnitude from 0 to the transfinite. - KF
bornagain77_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

WR, nope, it is not so easy as plastering over the term "assumptions," move along nothing to see; much as with "god of the gaps"; this is about the architecture of the framework of the observed cosmos. What John Leslie did was to summarise what many others have noted about the structure of laws and parameters that we have discovered over the years, in effect applying sensitivity analysis to the laws and parameters -- a standard move. Where, mathematics is perhaps best understood as the logic of structure and quantity. The result is that in parameter space there are many converging zones yielding a deeply isolated operating point. That is significant, and well worth pondering. Nor, is it easily got rid of. If there are super-laws forcing the tightly convergent clustering Leslie summarises, then those super-laws would be fine tuned. And so forth. KFkairosfocus_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, suck it up buttercup. If the administrator cares to read your voluminous comments, he/she will see how unkindly you have treated me. Frankly, you are nasty to talk to, and if you do treat atheists like this on these threads, you're hurting the cause. Wwrossite_{December 18, 2016
December
12
Dec
18
18
2016
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply