At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Eric Hedin

December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

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

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

@Origenes "I am not sure if I understand your point. Is your concern addressed if it is said that universal consciousness (or whatever) is not perfect?" Arguing that the pantheist God or universal consciousness is not perfect could of course alleviate the problem, but at the cost of exacerbating the contingency of the whole construct (why these imperfections rather than others, etc...) and thus makes it even more glaring that it leaves unadressed the two fundamental questions. "Perhaps you are saying that if everything is one thing, then it must be in perfect harmony with itself. Another concern would be: if everything is one thing, who am I?" Indeed, this is the “alienation” aspect I was referring to. Under this kind of monism, the mere possibility of an “I” or “self” that are implied by consciousness is unintelligible and left completely unexplained. For example, buddhists call it an error or an illusion, but never really explain (beyond vague handwaving) why such error is possible in the first place while failing to recognize that consciousness is nothing but the manifestation of subjectivity/selfhood.Jblais_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Q “They all vigorously deny that the conclusion follows the premise, and that they are not advocates for my “modest proposal.” Next up the normalization of pedophilia. Notice they are not pedophiles anymore they are “Minor Attracted Persons” To control language is to control thought. Vividvividbleau_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Jblais @272,
What needs to be explained (the empirical datum) is the contingent physical reality we inhabit. It needs to be explained because it cannot be its own explanation, precisely because it is contingent.
Nicely articulated!
Moreover, these views are plagued by a much more acute problem of evil than theism. Indeed, if everything IS God (or the universal consciousness or whatever), how can there be any evil, mistakes, errors, alienation etc… ?
There seems to be a massive gap between the views you describe and the daily practice and values of those who hold them! On numerous occasions, here people claim that the former and latter are somehow compatible. For example, I've teased some people here on several occasions on this point. When they argue that abortion is the innate right for a "birthing person" to determine what they do with the fetal tissue of THEIR bodies is their unalienable right, then it's only LOGICAL that they should be allowed to sell their own fetal tissue for medical experiments and as an exceptionally nourishing source of commercial protein to be distributed to starving populations in exploited parts of the world. Not to mention dog food. They all vigorously deny that the conclusion follows the premise, and that they are not advocates for my "modest proposal."
Thus, in my opinion, not only are these views relying on a brute fact but are ultimately incoherent as well.
Indeed! -QQuerius_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Jerry If there is evil, then how could this all powerful and benevolent God, allow it to happen? Thus, there cannot be an all powerful and benevolent God. But if evil does not really exist, this argument disappears.
First I thought you are joking but then I realized you really believe such a self-defeating nonsense.
Jblais Yes. I agree it’s a pseudoproblem for theists.
Jesus came to resolve that "pseudoproblem".whistler_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Jblais @272
… the need to invoke emergence only occur in the context of naturalistic ontologies devoid of fundamental mental aspects.
True. When you find out that certain things cannot be explained by the barren naturalistic ontology, then proceed to do the obvious: reconsider your allegiance to naturalistic ontology. Do not go down the path of irrationality by saying that things cannot be explained, as in “non-reductionism” and/or **POOF** magic (strong emergentism).
... if everything IS God (or the universal consciousness or whatever), how can there be any evil, mistakes, errors, alienation etc… ? Thus, in my opinion, not only are these views relying on a brute fact but are ultimately incoherent as well.
I am not sure if I understand your point. Is your concern addressed if it is said that universal consciousness (or whatever) is not perfect? Perhaps you are saying that if everything is one thing, then it must be in perfect harmony with itself. Another concern would be: if everything is one thing, who am I?Origenes_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

@Jerry Yes. I agree it's a pseudoproblem for theists.Jblais_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

I fully agree with you, under theism.
The argument from evil comes up when people question the existence of a benevolent creator, especially the Christian God. If there is evil, then how could this all powerful and benevolent God, allow it to happen? Thus, there cannot be an all powerful and benevolent God. But if evil does not really exist, this argument disappears. See my comment made a couple days ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-reasons-org-why-would-a-good-god-allow-destructive-hurricanes/#comment-772766jerry_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @270
... randomness will not do, even in combination with mechanical necessity, once we have functionally specific complex Wicken Wiring diagram organisation (so, associated information) beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. And to get a von Neumann self replicator you need 1500 bits.
Killer argument, I completely agree. However, it is amusing to see naturalists like Pattee vehemently arguing against causal closure. It’s rather uncharacteristic for them to do so, right?Origenes_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

@Jerry I fully agree with you, under theism. Under pantheism/panpsychism/idealism though, there is a very acute one.Jblais_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

The other day I tried to remember the name of an old school friend, but the name refused to pop up.
I think you talk about a different "process". Accessing the database of memory is not the same thing as identifying a thought.whistler_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

plagued by a much more acute problem of evil
There is no problem of evil. It is a problem manufactured based on illusions on how a productive existence must actually be. But In any meaningful system there must be trade offs. All trade offs have something not liked. What individuals don’t like about these trade offs is called evil. Aside: Are some of the trade offs necessary to cause doubt? Which leads to the question - Could there be a meaningful existence without doubt?
2) Why is this reality the way it is rather than some other way?
Is this the best of all possible worlds? The only logical answer to this question is - Yes jerry_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

PM1 @254 "I see the emergence/reduction issue as separate from the question whether the universe is a brute fact or has a rational explanation… The question about reduction vs emergence is a question about how “the special sciences” (esp. biology) relate to physics (esp fundamental physics, which is distinct from lots of other disciplines within physics that are not fundamental)." While the issue of the relationship between the special sciences and physics is an interesting one, there is a much deeper reason why emergence and ontology are related, namely, that the need to invoke emergence only occur in the context of naturalistic ontologies devoid of fundamental mental aspects. As for the rest of your post, the sort of ideas you’re proposing are missing the point. What needs to be explained (the empirical datum) is the contingent physical reality we inhabit. It needs to be explained because it cannot be its own explanation, precisely because it is contingent. What is called “the universe” is simply the collection of physical objects we encounter (macroscopic objects, subatomic particles, quantum fields, whatever, in their various states). All those things are contingent and interrelated via a network of cause-and-effect relationships. There is no justification to distinguish between local and global PSR. Either this contingent collection is a brute fact or it has an explanation. So there are only two fundamental philosophical questions really: 1) Why is there a contingent physical reality 2) Why is this reality the way it is rather than some other way Because of its contingent nature, if these two questions have an answer (if reality is not a brute fact), this answer can only be a transcendent source through an intentional purposive (teleological) creative act. Its teleology (final causality), namely to create moral conscious agents with true freedom, autonomy in what they can become and the capacity to share in the transcendental truth, goodness and beauty, obviously explains 2) (e.g. fine tuning, the informational nature of life, etc…). While some people (such as yourself if I understand you correctly), have realized the impossibility of explaining this reality (containing minds, meaning, etc…) via a reductionistic materialistic ontology and have instead proposed ontologies with “built-in” mentality like pantheism, panpsychism, various forms of idealism including buddhist and some hindu versions is besides the point. Simply tagging to it an ad hoc fundamental mentality (whether divine in the case of pantheism or mundane in the case of panpsychism or idealism) doesn’t change the contingent nature of our empirical datum. Therefore, the two above questions remain unanswered, and all these “pan-idealistic” philosophies ultimately collapse to a brute fact. Moreover, these views are plagued by a much more acute problem of evil than theism. Indeed, if everything IS God (or the universal consciousness or whatever), how can there be any evil, mistakes, errors, alienation etc… ? Thus, in my opinion, not only are these views relying on a brute fact but are ultimately incoherent as well.Jblais_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Perhaps — though this also speaks to the distinction between philosophy and science. To teach Spinozism in schools as philosophy would be one thing, but to teach it as science is something else altogether.
I agree that Spinozism should be only taught as philosophy but both Spinozists and theists should be friendly to ID being taught as science.hnorman42_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Origenes, randomness will not do, even in combination with mechanical necessity, once we have functionally specific complex Wicken Wiring diagram organisation (so, associated information) beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. And to get a von Neumann self replicator you need 1500 bits. What Pattee has shown is that there are configuration spaces that are not determined by lawlike necessity and so high contingency is compatible with Physics. That is familiar to anyone who has tossed a coin [a two sided die, technically] or a common die of six sides. That opens room for chance hence the hoped for frozen accident. But codes, languages and hardware stores are commonplace evidence of another high contingency source, convention that sets up standards by design. KFkairosfocus_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

@268
I think that the recognition of teleology is common ground between theism and Spinozism. A Spinozist should definitely support teaching the evidence for teleology in schools along with Darwinism.
Perhaps -- though this also speaks to the distinction between philosophy and science. To teach Spinozism in schools as philosophy would be one thing, but to teach it as science is something else altogether. And Spinoza himself was ruthlessly critical of the belief in teleology, though not all Spinozists have followed him in this regard. (I don't.)
Actually, this highlights an interesting point. For those who think it’s dishonest for ID’ers to not identify the designer, there’s a good answer – you don’t want to do an injustice to the Spinozists – or people of similar philosophic persuasion.
That seems right to me. For one thing, pantheists can hold that there's an immanent cosmic teleology -- that the universe itself 'evolves' towards increasingly complexity and that it in some mysterious sense the universe itself is alive and wants to become self-conscious. So a pantheist of that variety could agree with ID that teleology is real and needs to be accounted for, but deny that the source of teleology is something that transcends the universe (i.e. a Creator).PyrrhoManiac1_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

I think that the recognition of teleology is common ground between theism and Spinozism. A Spinozist should definitely support teaching the evidence for teleology in schools along with Darwinism. Actually, this highlights an interesting point. For those who think it's dishonest for ID'ers to not identify the designer, there's a good answer - you don't want to do an injustice to the Spinozists - or people of similar philosophic persuasion.hnorman42_{January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

@263
PM1 @254 In your view, does Spinoza’s philosophy harmonize with ID? My impression is that ID is not obligatory for a follower of Spinoza but there’s definitely some compatibility there.
I think it would depend entirely on how broadly or narrowly ID is defined, and how strict one is in following Spinoza. Spinoza helps inspire a 19th century Naturphilosophie, like Schelling in Germany and Coleridge in England. That movement might seem sympathetic to ID insofar as it insists on an immanent teleology at work in nature that brings about increasingly complex forms of organization: life, mind, and reason. That could look ID-friendly insofar as it accepts the reality of teleology and the idea that nature has an immanent spiritual dimension. But no Spinozist would accept that God is wholly transcendent with regard to the physical universe, whereas most ID supporters seem to embrace a version of traditional monotheism.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 262 With respect to life naturalists sure hate the idea that everything is fully determined by physical laws because that would point to front-loaded intelligent design. So, they desperately want randomness for their ‘explanation’ of life. I see that you quote Pattee’s transparent efforts to get randomness. So far, they do not convince me.
Since all the basic laws of physics are expressed in terms of energy, systems with two or more states with the same energy are lawfully indeterminate. However, in many cases we can distinguish these states by measurements of their initial conditions. These law-equivalent states are often called degeneracies or symmetries.
Mr. Pattee, if a system can be in two or more same energy states, what explains that it is in state A and not in state B, if not the laws of physics & prior conditions that brought it into existence?
A common example is chirality, or left and right handedness. Chemically, amino acids and proteins can be left or right handed, and they cannot be distinguished by the laws that they both obey.
Perhaps they cannot be distinguished by the laws that they both obey, but does that also go for the laws & prior conditions that brought them into existence?Origenes_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Sandy @ 253, Kairosfocus @250
Every thought has a tag/sign/symbol attached that make it “identifiable” by the mind.
The other day I tried to remember the name of an old school friend, but the name refused to pop up. However, somehow I did know what the name ‘felt’ like, if that makes sense. The name itself was beyond my grasp, but ‘how the name felt like’ was not. BTW a feeling that I cannot put into words. Later that day, the old school friend’s name came to me unannounced (how does that work?) and it was in perfect harmony with how I remembered what it felt like earlier that day.Origenes_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Randomness can't produce stability . Language has stability and durability. Therefore randomness can't produce language (because need the quality of stability that is opposite to randomness.)Sandy_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

PM1 @254 In your view, does Spinoza's philosophy harmonize with ID? My impression is that ID is not obligatory for a follower of Spinoza but there's definitely some compatibility there.hnorman42_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

PM1, Pattee on how physical law can readily become non deterministic:
[H . . . ]The physical basis of the immense number of forms is a con- sequence of the immense number of linear sequences of material units that laws cannot distinguish because of their similar energy or similar stability. This is the genetic memory. Only some form of “frozen acci- dent” or higher level selection process affects which memory sequen- ces survive over time. Not only are the initial sequences unpredictable, but their physical structure appears to be largely arbitrary. Natural selection is also unpredictable because of its complexity and the inde- finite time period over which selection continues to work. The most obvious, and I would say the most important, similarities of genetic language and human natural, formal, and computer languages is their expression by such discrete, linear strings using only a small, materially arbitrary alphabet. It is just these properties that allow simple and reliable writing, reading, and storage in a memory that is lawfully undetermined, and that allows practically unlimited information capacity. K. The consistency with physical laws means that everything is depen- dent on the laws — none of biological or mental processes is in- consistent with any physical law. However, as you say, this does not mean that everything is determined by the laws. 3 The “regions of indeterminacy” are supposedly those in which life can establish itself and evolve. Is it possible to describe these regions of indeterminacy and how they arise? H. The inexorable character of physical law is often misunderstood to imply determinism. This is not the case. There are innumerable struc- tures in the universe that physical laws do not determine. [ --> High contingency on similar start conditions, so chance, chaos, design] It is also important to understand why lawfully indeterminate does not mean physically indistinguishable. Since all the basic laws of physics are expressed in terms of energy, systems with two or more states with the same energy are lawfully indeterminate. However, in many cases we can distinguish these states by measurements of their initial conditions. These law-equivalent states are often called degeneracies or symmetries. A common example is chirality, or left and right handedness. Chemically, amino acids and proteins can be left or right handed, and they cannot be distinguished by the laws that they both obey. Nevertheless, most types of biochemicals in living organisms must stick with one or the other. This is like our driving on one side of the road. Either side would work just as well as the other, but we have to choose one for traffic to function efficiently. Such symmetry-breaking events that persist for structural, functional, or selective reasons are appropriately called “frozen accidents”. [ --> which, obviously can be by design choice, i.e, established convention, thence, symbolisation, language, code etc] [A biosemiotic conversation: Between physics and semiotics Howard H. Pattee Kalevi Kull]
This puts us into a rather special regime for cause, mechanical necessity is off the table, a result can be by blind chance and/or intelligently directed configuration. Where, often, design intentionally conceives, constructs or contrives complex, information rich [ cf Wicken's wiring diagram concept] systematic configurations of components to achieve function. Text in English, computer code, a dot-dwg CAD file for AutoCAD, a fishing reel, Paley's time keeping self replicating watch in his Ch 2, an oil refinery, a 747 [now out of production] etc all exemplify this, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I. What is interesting is, this is also seen in the world of life from the cell up. Refocussing cause. I start from a weak, inquiry form principle of sufficient reason. Consider some A, which is, or is not or may be or may not be or is inevitable in any possible world. We may freely ask, why or why not A, etc, and seek an answer. We find, 2 as something that is, cannot begin, cannot cease, it is necessary once there are distinct possible worlds W distinguishable from neighbours W' etc. And yes this can be extended to NZQRCR* etc being present in any possible world, lending core math universal power. These are necessary beings. By contrast, let A be a possible or actual fire, and yes I am using the same case as Copi. The fire may begin, it may be, it can be sustained through the fire tetrahedron that has heat, oxidiser, fuel, a combustion chain reaction. (Recall, a Fluorine fire will burn bricks etc. Oxidiser is not just oxygen.) A is a possible but not necessary being, it is contingent on antecedent and sustaining conditions. We may contemplate two close neighbour worlds W, W' where in W fire A exists but not in W, this helps us identify causal factors that contribute to or extended may block A. This is commonplace, cause is not a strange, dubious notion. Next, a further extension. What if W vs W' was about probability, A is more likely in W than in its neighbour but could become actual in either. Here, cause moves up a level, where what is caused is a probability distribution, not determination that A. A simple case is a fair die where say the 5 is made of magnetic particles, so if a B field is induced, the likelihood of faces shifts, possibly all the way to 1 [the opposite face to 6] is inevitable. Of course we may also set a die to a value by design. So, of course, this brings in quantum effects, radioactivity etc. Cause is a subtle concept. Now, coming back to the notion you have been pushing, strong emergentism. As has been highlighted previously, system behaviour depends on parts, orientation, coupling, organisation or architecture, thus interaction. This weak form emergence may surprise us but is due to potentially intelligible interactions. In a simple case Na and Cl ions arrange in a crystal lattice and in solution the ions are surrounded by water molecules. With brine, electrolysis can form bleach, or it may cause deadly Cl2 gases to be given off as has happened with some submarines. The interaction gives the properties and the organisation is informational. Not particularly complex for salt, much more so for proteins. That is where the issue is, the information to create FSCO/I is not plausibly a result from blind chance and mechanical necessity. KFkairosfocus_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

“IF anyone said otherwise then they were clearly mistaken” If I’m not mistaken that would be Biden, Fauci and MSM commentators. Probably Trump as well. Vividvividbleau_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

JVL @189,
Oh dear, the old ID wheeze.
Thank you! Adding that to my collection of TrollBot Tropes (tm).
NO ONE thinks that human bodies or even cells were assembled at random
Hah! Glad you’re admitting that your automobile analogy is crap! I was just trying to fix it up a bit to conform to an evolutionary model of automobiles by a succession of small undirected random genome changes.
Your clip is over 14 years old now.
Well, 14 years apparently invalidates the documented discrimination for you, which is still going on. So, do you think that racial discrimination, which has persisted for centuries is also invalidated by how old it is, or do your thought processes only proceed on a case-by-case basis?
Are any pro-ID people doing any of that research? Nope. Let’s try this: can you point to a specific case where a researcher was prevented from researching something because it went against the common paradigm? In one of the above areas would be interesting.
Wrong again. Here’s a case where a researcher was fired as a result of his investigations: https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ Finding stretchy tissue in “fossilized” dinosaur bones has been known for over 50 years now, but has largely been ignored and occasionally been suppressed: https://youtu.be/MqDV_MTQSxg?t=218 Here’s Mark Armitage’s original 2013 paper for which he was fired: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065128113000020 Here’s the result of the lawsuit, including a “smoking gun” email that resulted in a “six-figure” settlement against the university for blatant religious discrimination: https://www.godreports.com/2017/08/university-settles-lawsuit-with-scientist-fired-after-he-found-soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones/
Well gosh, I know how vaccines work, that is they prime your immune system to help fight off a pathogen when you get exposed to it. Which means you have a lower viral load when you do get infected. Which means you are less likely to infect someone else and you’re less likely to have severe symptoms. Everyone knows that. IF anyone said otherwise then they were clearly mistaken. But you know all about vaccines so you would never be taken in by someone mis-speaking or shading the truth would you? So, what’s your problem?
Haha! You don’t have a clue how the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines” screw up people’s immune system. I know of multiple vaccine injuries among my family, neighbors, and friends, including one death. You probably don’t know that . . . • In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn due to 1 serious event per 100,000 vaccinees. • In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine, Rotashield, was withdrawn due to 1-2 serious events per 10,000 vaccinees. • The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was NOT withdrawn despite 1 serious event per 800 vaccinees. The mRNA debacle was published online in the peer reviewed journal, Vaccine, on August 31, 2022 using the publicly available, original Pfizer and Moderna mRNA trial data upon which their authorization was based. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ So, now that I’ve done a bunch of “homework” for you, how about you answering a question from me: “Why has COVID-19 largely disappeared from African nations with low mRNA vaccine coverage (~20%), such as Uganda as evidenced from hospital data?” -QQuerius_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 we shouldn’t imagine God as some being distinct from ourselves
:) Poppycock with Taradiddle and Pretentious nonsense were boating...whistler_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

@256 I don't think so. The issue lies in the relation between causation and prediction: if X causes Y, does it follow that having a reliable model of X would allow one to predict that Y would follow from X under specific conditions? There's something promising about how Kaufmann presents the issue: the laws of physics do not entail the emergence of life and subsequent evolution of the biosphere, because the dynamical systems studied by physicists are ergodic and the dynamical systems studied by biologists are non-ergodic. But this is neither a gap in the causal order (contra what the critics here insist) nor a violation of the laws of physics. An emergentist can agree with a reductionist that the universe is causally closed and they would further agree that nothing in this universe can violate the laws of fundamental physics of this universe (i.e. the laws of quantum mechanics, of general relativity, and of whatever theory succeeds either or both of those). Where they disagree is whether the weak claim ("no process in this universe can violate the laws of fundamental physics") entails the strong claim ("every process in this universe can be predicted from the laws of fundamental physics"). A coherently formulated reductionism would be committed to the strong claim. (I do not think that Rosenberg's naturalism is even coherently formulated.)PyrrhoManiac1_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

@255
Your conclusion is that God lie and kill .So…if I got it right you say that is not you, is God’s fault for your wrong actions in this world. Haha!
Not quite. Spinoza would say that we shouldn't imagine God as some being distinct from ourselves who controls us like a puppetmaster tugging on a puppet's strings. Instead, he would say that we must reject the false belief that there are any distinct beings at all. In other words, you and I and quasars and quarks -- none of us exist as fully separate, distinct beings. We -- of all us and everything else -- exist only as aspects of the single, unitary, indivisible divine being that is also the universe.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Couldn't we say that emergence and reductionism are the same process viewed from opposite directions? "Emergence" is the label we paste over the gap in the causal chain that may exist between the substrate and the emergent property or behavior. Heirarchical reductionism runs into the same gap in our knowledge when trying to explain observed phenomena by tracing the causal chain backwards. We do not have an unbroken chain of causation linking the conscious mind to the physical brain so we call it an emergent property. But calling something an emergent property implies that it is emerging from something else. If that property were entirely discontinuous from the precursor, why call it emergent at all? If, on the other hand, "emergence" is just a placeholder for an explanation we do not yet have then it is not in itself an explanation.Seversky_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

WJM The conclusion is not that God must exist, but that only God exists
:) Your conclusion is that God lie and kill .So...if I got it right you say that is not you, is God's fault for your wrong actions in this world. Haha!Sandy_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

@240
At the end of the day, there is only two options. Either your ontology implies that at bottom, our reality is a mindless and purposeless brute fact, which means that there is no reason and no explanation for anything, or it implies that our reality has a reason and explanation for its existence and this can only be a transcendant mindlike and purposeful intentional creative act. It’s clear to me that the former cannot account for the totally of our reality, which includes intentionality, qualia, subjectivity, free will, creativity, symbolism, morality, etc…, while the latter obviously can, so the latter is the only rational ontology from my point of view.
I see the emergence/reduction issue as separate from the question whether the universe is a brute fact or has a rational explanation. The question about reduction vs emergence is a question about how "the special sciences" (esp. biology) relate to physics (esp fundamental physics, which is distinct from lots of other disciplines within physics that are not fundamental). I am fully persuaded that the metaphysics of biology should be anti-reductionist, non-mechanistic and process-oriented. The only reason why I am interested in emergentism is because there is no other path forward for unifying biology with physics. Reductionism is a dead-end. It would be a separate issue as to whether our commitment to the principle of sufficient reason would allow us to accept the existence of the physical universe as a brute fact. Here I think it is important to distinguish between a merely 'local' PSR and a global PSR. The local PSR says only, "for any given phenomena, don't accept it as given but inquire into what explains it". The global PSR says, "for all phenomena, look for the explanation of everything". (It would be a quantifier shift to deduce the global from the local, hence logically invalid.) Nevertheless I can dimly intuit an argument that would take us from the local PSR to the global PSR. It would exploit the fact that we can raise the PSR at a higher order by asking "given some explanation for a phenomena, why is it the case that these phenomena are intelligible?" That is, what explains the fact of explainability? If we refuse to take the intelligibility or explainability of the universe as itself a brute fact, then we need to pose the question, "what explains the fact that the universe is explainable?" I do not think that question leads us to a transcendent, personal Creator. Here is why. Suppose we were to begin with the conception of God as defined by classical theism as a being of absolutely unlimited power and knowledge. Why would such a being choose to create the physical universe? If the act of Creation is itself a mystery, then we must abandon the principle of sufficient reason, and just say that God acts in mysterious ways. But if we were to insist on the PSR, and yet concede that it would be a mystery as to why God created the physical universe as something distinct from Himself, then we should accept the following conclusion: He did not create the physical universe as something distinct from Himself. The conclusion is not that God must exist, but that only God exists, and that is why the principle of sufficient reason is a global principle that applies to all possible phenomena: because everything that exists, exists only as an aspect of God. As a Spinozist myself, I fully embrace this conclusion.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply