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

_{Caspian
December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

PM1 & JVL, the paper openly confesses its inconclusive and apparently irrelevant nature to the origin of actual, observed life. Note how it admits to falling short of the relevant coded information, much less the integrated molecular nanotech that uses it. This is directly relevant to my observation on the issue of interaction, organisation and information in system behaviour and function. Emergence is still poof magic. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

PM1 @ I retract my second question in post #100. Deacon is certainly not talking about RNA. He has abandoned the RNA-world hypothesis and criticizes it. Instead, he does not propose molecules by name at all. His whole storyline of chemical reactions is abstract, hypothetical; a "model."
The sequence of hypothetical molecular models discussed here falls well short of explaining the origins of the “genetic code.” Indeed, it posits an evolutionary sequence that assumes that protein-like molecules are present long before nucleic acids ...
Deacon posits hypothetical "protein-like molecules", which can do catalytic reactions in a pre-RNA world. No concrete candidates are proposed. However, Kaufmann has reported that finding such a molecule is extremely difficult. Why didn't Deacon mention this problem?
Those who have abandoned the RNA-world hypothesis still seek a self-replicating molecule to qualify as the climax of chemical-origin of life scenarios–the “pre-RNA world.” However, Shapiro observes not only that “no trace of this hypothetical primal replicator and catalyst has been recognized so far in modern biology,” but also that “the spontaneous appearance of any such replicator without the assistance of a chemist faces implausibilities that dwarf those involved in the preparation of a mere nucleotide soup.” The reason that producing such a special self-replicator is so difficult is that a self-replicating molecule would have to incorporate nothing but the right nucleotides (or nucleotide-analog molecules) in a long chain, never splitting into two chains and never incorporating other random organic molecules which would mess up replication. He explains: “There is no reason to presume than an indifferent nature would not combine units at random, producing an immense variety of hybrid short, terminated chains, rather than the much longer one of uniform backbone geometry needed to support replicator and catalytic functions.” Shapiro doesn’t even begin to address the problem of getting the “nucleotides” of this “pre-RNA” molecule in an order such that self-replication is possible. (more)
Origenes_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

"The model I will use for this purpose is a hypothetical but physically realizable minimally complex molecular process" ,,, hypothetical but physically realizable???... Really?? So we have what exactly? A promise of experimental proof sometime later???? You guys are kidding right??? Again, call me when Deacon does the experimental work, falsifies ID, and actually collects the 10 million dollar OOL prize, (not to mention the Nobel prize).
Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating.” The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
bornagain77_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

PM1 @ Some initial questions and remarks concerning Deacon's paper.
The model I will use for this purpose is a hypothetical but physically realizable minimally complex molecular process. I first introduced this sort of molecular model in a 2006 paper and have modified it slightly in the years since to ensure that it is both empirically realizable and adequate to its explanatory purpose.
In the meantime, has an attempt been made to test it empirically?
One candidate process is reciprocal catalysis. The simplest form of reciprocal catalysis occurs when one catalytic reaction produces a product that catalyzes a second reaction which produces a product that catalyzes the first, and so on.
I take it that Deacon is talking about catalytic RNA. So, this is simply RNA-world “origin of life” stuff right? Pick any article and weep.
Viral capsids self-assemble (as do cell membranes, microtubules, and many other complex molecular structures within cells). Self-assembly is essentially a variant of the process of crystalization. Because of the way that the regular geometries and affinities of these molecules cause them to associate with one another they can spontaneously form into sheets, polyhedrons, or tubes.
How am I to read this? Is the process of crystalization offered as an explanation for the incredibly complicated information-rich self-assembly of complex molecular structures in the cell? In effect, is Deacon saying here that "self-assembly" doesn’t require any further explanation; it is …. “spontaneous”?Origenes_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

KF: SG, you know exactly what is confessed by Wikipedia, and you know precisely the list of alternative proposals for how they could have been built. Your strawman tactics are on display yet again:
; My strawman tactics? Turnabout projection, thy name is Gordon. Your misrepresentations of what people say is epic. I never said that we knew all the details of how they were built. I said that we knew they were designed without relying on ID’s design detection tools. But rather than address this claim, you choose to raise a strawman based on a lie, so that you can topple it. You should be ashamed of yourself.Sir Giles_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

"Does that mean you don’t actually have a scientific counter-argument?" JVL, IF I was presented with science, I might respond with a scientific counter-argument. Andrewasauber_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

@94
If you can find any error in the paper please point it out.
They need this stuff spoon-fed to them. I don't mind too much -- it's a useful exercise. @95
Does that mean you don’t actually have a scientific counter-argument?
Of course they don't. They just know with absolute certainty that emergence is nonsense, so it would be a waste of their time to try to understand it.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

@89
Do present Deacon’s argument, so it can be refuted.
I read the paper but I'll need to think about how to convey his ideas with a bit less jargon. He's building on the information theory developed by Charles S. Peirce, which is not for the faint of heart. The gist of "How Molecules Became Signs" has to do with the origin of a genetic template given a very simplistic kind of teleological system -- basically a theoretical non-parasitic virus that he calls an autogen. Autogens themselves require two distinct constraints: a reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly. In reciprocal catalysis, the product of one reaction acts as a catalyst for a second reaction that produces a product that catalyzes the first reaction. (As the number of molecules increases linearly, the number of possible combinations increases geometrically, but very few of those combinations will allow the autogen to persist. So it becomes mathematically intractable to hit upon the right reactions. This is where genetic information becomes crucial: by vastly constraining the possible reaction types.) The other constraint is self-assembly, where minimizing free energy leads to the spontaneous formation of sheets, tubules, polyhedra, etc. Reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly are interlocking processes, because each constrains the other: self-assembling structures are necessary for driving up the concentration of molecules so that reciprocal catalysis can take place, and reciprocal catalysis is necessary for generating the components that are used for self-assembly. In other words, an autogen is a hypothetical self-organizing structure that is precisely on the cusp between non-life and life: it is vastly more simple than even the simplest known cell, but exhibits the recursive self-maintenance that distinguishes life from crystals, flames, and dissipative structures. More on this later -- need to think about how to explain why Deacon thinks that Peirce has the right way of thinking about what information is.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Asauber: This is incorrect. You’ve presented what some of us assume to be the best you have, which are just wordy flights of fancy. There’s no reason to dig deeper. We would just slip farther down in the latrine pit. Does that mean you don't actually have a scientific counter-argument?JVL_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Origenes: Do present Deacon’s argument, so it can be refuted. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9 How Molecules Became Signs
To explore how molecules became signs I will ask: “What sort of process is necessary and sufficient to treat a molecule as a sign?” This requires focusing on the interpreting system and its interpretive competence. To avoid assuming any properties that need to be explained I develop what I consider to be a simplest possible molecular model system which only assumes known physics and chemistry but nevertheless exemplifies the interpretive properties of interest. Three progressively more complex variants of this model of interpretive competence are developed that roughly parallel an icon-index-symbol hierarchic scaffolding logic. The implication of this analysis is a reversal of the current dogma of molecular and evolutionary biology which treats molecules like DNA and RNA as the original sources of biological information. Instead I argue that the structural characteristics of these molecules have provided semiotic affordances that the interpretive dynamics of viruses and cells have taken advantage of. These molecules are not the source of biological information but are instead semiotic artifacts onto which dynamical functional constraints have been progressively offloaded during the course of evolution.
I assume you can read and understand the paper but I shall post the conclusion:
The sequence of hypothetical molecular models discussed here falls well short of explaining the origins of the “genetic code.” Indeed, it posits an evolutionary sequence that assumes that protein-like molecules are present long before nucleic acids (possibly arising from the prebiotic formation of hydrogen cyanide polymers; see Das et al. (2019) for a current review). This inverts the currently popular view that replicating molecules intrinsically constitute biological information. This popular assumption has implicitly reduced the concept of information to pattern replication without reference. As a result it begs the question of the origin of functional significance. The logic of the autogenic approach, though not able to directly account for the evolution of the DNA-to-amino acid “code,” provides something more basic. It provides a “proof of principle” of a sort, showing step-by-chemically-realistic-step how a molecule like RNA or DNA could acquire the property of recording and instructing the dynamical molecular relationships that constitute and maintain the molecular system of which it is a part. In short, it explains how a molecule can become about other molecules. Importantly, this analysis inverts the logic that treats RNA and DNA replication as intrinsically informational and instead shows how the information-bearing function of nucleic acids is due to their ability to embody constraints inherited from the codependent dynamics of an open molecular` system able to repair itself. This may point the way to an alternative strategy for exploring the origin of the genetic code. Rather than thinking of the problem from an information molecule first perspective (how nucleic acid structure came to inform protein dynamics), it might be instructive to ask the question the other way around (how protein dynamics came to be reflected in nucleic acid structure). In other words, it might make sense to invert the order of Crick’s central dogma when considering the evolution of the genetic code.
If you can find any error in the paper please point it out.JVL_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

PM1: "In addition, Kairosfocus’s response would need to be revised in light of Deacon’s argument that one can generate complex functionally specified information from unintelligent material processes in a step-by-step chemically realistic scenario." Call me when Deacon collects the 10 million dollar Origin of Life prize.
Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
bornagain77_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Origenes, insofar as Deacon actually carried out experiments, predictably, experimenter intervention will be highly material as Tour has pointed out (as the latest observer to notice the problem). If instead we have mainly a paper chemistry argument, tracing it will predictably lead to the same concerns. Let PM1 provide an answer to these concerns and tell us when Deacon will take up Tour's offer. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

PM1, whether or no there are borderline cases, there is a highly recognisable OBSERVED -- not question begged -- difference between crystal structure like order and Wicken wiring diagram configuration to achieve function. The implicit information in order is low, e.g. set up unit cell, replicate n times. That in a functionally organised system is far more complex, and leads to growing description length as complexity rises. Note, there is an identified threshold where necessity and/or chance become utterly implausible, 500 - 1,000 bits, implying that there is an approact towards it but that it cannot credibly pass that band on blind processes. Thus, you have set up and knocked over a strawman caricature, description of an OBSERVATION is not at all the same as a question begging verbal assertion. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

SG, you know exactly what is confessed by Wikipedia, and you know precisely the list of alternative proposals for how they could have been built. Your strawman tactics are on display yet again:
Egyptian pyramid construction techniques are the controversial subject of many hypotheses. These techniques seem to have developed over time; later pyramids were not constructed in the same way as earlier ones. Most of the construction hypotheses are based on the belief that huge stones were carved from quarries with copper chisels, and these blocks were then dragged and lifted into position. Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move and place the stones. In addition to the many unresolved arguments about the construction techniques, there have been disagreements as to the kind of workforce used.
Details follow there and some were excerpted in the previous thread. What remains is that I was demonstrably right to highlight that on sign we know the pyramids were designed, even though we do not know the how of their construction (and that logistics challenges are pivotal, see the debate on how blocks were brought to be put in place and the proposal on casting a primitive concrete). Thus, we can see that we may indeed aptly infer design on sign even absent knowledge of precise technique, management, organisation etc. Of course, you have further extended an unenviable track record. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

@PM1, Kairosfocus
Kairosofocus (here) just begs the question against emergentism by assuming a strict dichotomy between “order” and “organization” (his terms), which is precisely what emergentism rejects. In addition, Kairosfocus’s response would need to be revised in light of Deacon’s argument that one can generate complex functionally specified information from unintelligent material processes in a step-by-step chemically realistic scenario.
Do present Deacon's argument, so it can be refuted.Origenes_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

"It does bother me that people assume that emergence is nonsense because it just has to be." PM1, This is incorrect. You've presented what some of us assume to be the best you have, which are just wordy flights of fancy. There's no reason to dig deeper. We would just slip farther down in the latrine pit. Andrewasauber_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

@83 <blockquote<No one can explain an incoherent concept. Well, if one insists on assuming a priori that a concept is incoherent, then one will be unable to grasp any explanation of it, no matter how lucid.
Secondly, your attempts have been meticulously taken apart by Kairosfocus — here.
Kairosofocus (here) just begs the question against emergentism by assuming a strict dichotomy between "order" and "organization" (his terms), which is precisely what emergentism rejects. In addition, Kairosfocus's response would need to be revised in light of Deacon's argument that one can generate complex functionally specified information from unintelligent material processes in a step-by-step chemically realistic scenario.
Your strategy seems to be to keep at it and completely ignore the fact that your position is untenable. Why is that?
So far, no one at Uncommon Descent has taken the time and energy necessary to understand the theoretical basis of emergence. I've seen a lot of mockery, condescension, and plenty of red herrings, but no real effort at understanding. Which is fine, I guess -- it doesn't bother me that people have trouble understanding emergence. There are lots of things I don't understand myself, which is why I'm always trying to learn more (especially from people I disagree with). It does bother me that people assume that emergence is nonsense because it just has to be. And it bothers me when people assume that naturalism must be reductive, because non-reductive naturalism is incoherent, because it just has to be. And that people assume that naturalism must be incompatible with libertarian freedom and God because it just has to be.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Origenes at 83, that was humorous, thanks for putting a smile on my face this morning. :)bornagain77_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

PM1 @83, Kairosfocus
Well, I’ve explained the concept of emergence as best I know how ...
No one can explain an incoherent concept. Secondly, your attempts have been meticulously taken apart by Kairosfocus — here. Your strategy seems to be to keep at it and completely ignore the fact that your position is untenable. Why is that?Origenes_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

@83 Well, I've explained the concept of emergence as best I know how, and I've linked to several theorists who explain it better than I can. So I've done all I can there. Nevertheless, the point remains that she rejects determinism, or more precisely, rejects the idea that determinism as metaphysics is a direct consequence of physics. She argues that thinking carefully about biology and why biology is irreducible to physics shows the way to naturalizing agent causation. So while there are (I think) very good arguments for why should reject supernatural agent causation (both epistemological and ethical), that doesn't rule out naturalistic agent causation -- no more than arguments against a supernatural conception of God rule out an expansive naturalism that allows for God. I would add that there's a lot of growing interest in naturalistic theories of teleology, esp with recent work by Kaufman and Deacon.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

PM1: "A Metaphysics for Freedom" (this is the sort of view I would endorse)
Helen Steward is her name. I can understand why PM1 doesn’t come up with a summary, because her ‘theory’ is, frankly, an incoherent mess. She clings to naturalism like there is no tomorrow, but wants real self-moving agent causality nonetheless. In her (inevitably) incoherent attempts to get there she, amongst other things, invokes, of course, ‘emergence’ (whirlpool’s emergence, the whirlpool is an agent; yes really). Incomprehensibly, in a world with only particles in the void obeying mindless regularities, she posits pluralistic causality, where causation is separated no less than THREE ontological categories: ‘movers’, ‘matterers’, ‘makers-happen’. Yes, I kid you not. She also argues that science is fallible, and that agent causality is a brute fact as if these make her position any less unintelligible. Admittedly, I cannot stomach Steward’s texts; almost every sentence screams **incoherence.** So, I leave it to PM1.Origenes_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Which is very interesting seeing that it is coming from an atheistic naturalist who, just the other day, claimed that we are not in control of our thoughts
And I then proceeded to explain how we can be held responsible for our actions and assertions even though we're not in control of everything that we think. A crucial point that you missed.
Number 1, Atheistic naturalism, due to its appeal to ‘pure chance, i.e. chaos, as the ultimate creator of all things cannot possibly ground a rational universe.
I don't know any version of naturalism that appeals to 'pure chance' or 'chaos' as "the ultimate creator of all things." This is just a strawman, not to be taken seriously.
Number 2 atheistic naturalism, due to its denial of the reality of free will, cannot possibly ground our ability to make rational arguments.
Some versions of naturalism exclude free will. Other versions of naturalism accept it. I'm with the naturalists who accept it. If you want to argue against naturalists who deny free will, by all means feel free to do so, and good luck finding one.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

KF: SG, yes you obviously did fail to attend to the investigations starting with Hoyle in the 1950s, and your posing collapses again.
You are incorrect. I have read a fair amount on the subject but what o fail to see is any experiment altering any of these physical constants, even in a localized area, to see what the impact would be.
Just as with oh we know how the pyramids were built.
I didn’t say that we know how they were built, although we know some of the details and have hypotheses on others. I just said that we know that they were built and that we didn’t need any FSCO/I calculations to determine this.
The laws of physics, quantities and many other things are, independently in many cases, fine tuned;
Assume your conclusion much?
we have good reason to trust these laws, and the mathematics they are expressed in.
Agreed. But you do realize that “law” and “fine tuned” are just terms that are used, sloppily in my opinion. It is not intended to be interpreted as being imposed by intelligent beings, as human laws and the tuning of instruments are.
That tells us what happens with fairly minor perturbations.
Yet you can’t demonstrate that any perturbations are even possible. If perturbations aren’t possible then there is no tuning involved.
Even if there were an as yet unknown forcing super law, that too would then be a case of super fine tuning.
Cart before the horse. First prove that the physical constants can be changed.
PPS, I notice you are still missing in action in the pregnancy thread, now that I have cited Wiki’s confessions on just what we do not know about how the pyramids were built, even as we obviously know they are designed on key signs.
Yes, tool marks and tools, written records of parts of the construction, comparisons with other smaller pyramids, continuous habitation in the area and documented history of the area, etc. none of which required ID’s bragged about powerful tools to detect design.Sir Giles_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

SG, yes you obviously did fail to attend to the investigations starting with Hoyle in the 1950s, and your posing collapses again. Just as with oh we know how the pyramids were built. The laws of physics, quantities and many other things are, independently in many cases, fine tuned; we have good reason to trust these laws, and the mathematics they are expressed in. That tells us what happens with fairly minor perturbations. Even if there were an as yet unknown forcing super law, that too would then be a case of super fine tuning. Similarly, if you demand that we create separate universes, you know we cannot yet do that and so are setting a hyperskeptical demand. By contrast we are quite capable of testing for blind chance and necessity causing FSCO/I see PS; that anticipates what you likely imagine is a clever rhetorical trap. [And, onlookers, we see why we have to give so many details and nuances in argument, based on what sort of objectors we are dealing with.] There is a significant body of literature on the topic that is readily accessible so your remarks are irresponsible. Here is a simple summary with a key diagram: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws KF PS, The infinite monkeys theorem:
[Wikipedia confesses regarding the infinite monkeys theorem:] The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed,
"VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t"
The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[26] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:
RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d...
[ACC: Dec 17, 2019. NB: Where, also, as this is a digital age, we will readily see that we can compose a description language and then create a string of yes/no questions to specify any reasonable object -- as say AutoCAD etc do. Thus, our seemingly simplistic discussion on bit strings *-*-*- . . . is in fact without loss of generality [WLOG].] [Comment: 16 - 24 ASCII characters is far short of the relevant thresholds, at best, a factor of about 1 in 10^100. Yes, the article goes on to note that "instead of simply generating random characters one restricts the generator to a meaningful vocabulary and conservatively following grammar rules, like using a context-free grammar, then a random document generated this way can even fool some humans." But, that is simply implicitly conceding that design makes a big difference to what can be done. ]
PPS, I notice you are still missing in action in the pregnancy thread, now that I have cited Wiki's confessions on just what we do not know about how the pyramids were built, even as we obviously know they are designed on key signs.kairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

KF: SG, we both know I referred to a significant body of literature coming from competent investigators as I spoke of fine tuning…
My apologies. I must have missed the research that tested tuning any of these constants to a different value, resulting in a universe incompatible with life. Could you please provide me a link.Sir Giles_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

And whereas PMI is stuck appealing to overhyped atheistic philosophers to try to defend the insanity of his position, I can appeal directly to the empirical evidence itself to defend my position. Which is to say, Empirically speaking, the Atheist’s denial of free will is now shown, experimentally, to be false. As brain surgeon Michael Egnor has shown, neuroscience itself, despite the atheist’s constant denial to the contrary, shows that we most certainly do have free will,
Michael Egnor Shows You’re Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIk Michael Egnor: Is free will a dangerous myth? – October 6, 2018 Excerpt: 4.,,, the neuroscientific evidence unequivocally supports the existence of free will. The first neuroscientist to map the brains of conscious subjects, Wilder Penfield, noted that there is an immaterial power of volition in the human mind that he could not stimulate with electrodes. The pioneer in the neuroscience of free will was Benjamin Libet, who demonstrated clearly that, while there is an unconscious material predisposition to acts as shown by electrical brain activity, we retain an immaterial “free won’t,” which is the ability to veto an unconscious urge to act. Many experiments have followed on Libet’s work, most of which use fMRI imaging of brain activity. They all confirm Libet’s observations by showing what is at most a loose correlation between brain activity and volition (for example, nearly half the time the brain activity that precedes the act is on the wrong side of the brain for the activity to determine the will)—the looseness of correlation being best explained as evidence for libertarian free will. Modern neuroscience clearly demonstrates an immaterial component to volition. Harari is wrong about free will. It is not a myth. Free will is a real and fundamental aspect of being human, and the denial of free will is junk science and self-refuting logical nonsense. https://mindmatters.ai/2018/10/is-free-will-a-dangerous-myth/
In further scientifically demonstrating that the atheist’s denial of the reality of free will does not “reflect reality as it really is’, in quantum mechanics we also find that, via their free will, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
As newly minted Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” – Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
Moreover, the belief in the reality of free will, especially the free will of God, (via ‘contingency”), played a central role in founding of modern science in medieval Christian Europe,
“That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.” – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science https://idthefuture.com/1530/ ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,, – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49). https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Oct. 2022 – And although there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory if everything’.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

PM1 at 75, issues the usual ad hominems of the people I cited. And then goes off on tangents as to the birth of modern science. i.e. PM1 still has not directly addressed the arguments I presented in 61 and 62. After not directly addressing the arguments I presented, PM1 even states "I’m encouraging you to think for yourself and stop taking the word of second-rate apologists." Which is very interesting seeing that it is coming from an atheistic naturalist who, just the other day, claimed that we are not in control of our thoughts
Origenes: 1. Does rationality require a person who is in control of his thoughts? PM1: "No, I don’t think so." https://uncommondescent.com/mind/the-thought-that-stops-thought/#comment-771074 also see Origenes response to PMI at post 72 of the same thread
Might it be too obvious to point out that PM1 is not nearly as smart as he think he is? Anyways, my arguments at 61 and 62 are simple. Number 1, Atheistic naturalism, due to its appeal to 'pure chance, i.e. chaos, as the ultimate creator of all things cannot possibly ground a rational universe. As Einstein himself stated, under atheistic naturalism, "a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way",,, "There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles."
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
Number 2 atheistic naturalism, due to its denial of the reality of free will, cannot possibly ground our ability to make rational arguments. Again, I appeal to Einstein to make my case. “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
To further illustrate just how insane the Atheistic Naturalist’s position is, in their denial of free will, atheists are forced to hold that, “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.”
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
If denying that you are the author of your very own writing is not an irrational position for a person to hold, then nothing else is to be considered irrational. Moreover, nobody, not even atheists themselves, actually live their lives as if they had no free will,
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. https://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him
Even leading Darwinian atheists themselves have honestly admitted that it impossible for them to actually live their lives as if they did not have free will,
Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.” An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.” One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.” Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Even Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true and that he had no free will, i.e. no moral agency,
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to consistently live your life as if your worldview were actually true, (and as if you don’t actually have free will in some real and meaningful sense), then your worldview can’t possibly reflect reality as it really is, but instead your worldview must be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. – per answers for hope
bornagain77_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

SG, we both know I referred to a significant body of literature coming from competent investigators as I spoke of fine tuning, starting with the likes of Sir Fred Hoyle and continuing down to the present. Summary reference is not sloppy. It is time for you to cease from your seemingly habitual, supercilious, sneering dismissiveness, especially given the parallel case of pyramid construction. KF PS, you and those like you need to answer to Lehninger et al on your desperation to not acknowledge what is otherwise uncontroversial regarding coded algorithmic information in D/RNA:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

@61 Your "facts" include a neurosurgeon's interpretation of a 13th century theologian (Egnor), some remarks about logic by homicide detective who became a Christian apologist (Wallace), and a sloppy argument by a private high school teacher with a MA in in Christian Apologetics (Cothran). Apparently the word "facts" means something different to you than it does to me.
PMI goes on to throw out a bunch of other references to try to say free will, and even Theism itself, is somehow not incompatible with his atheistic naturalism. No where does PM1 actually address any of the arguments that I presented in 61 and 62, but he instead expects me to dig through his references to see if there might be any argument in them that refutes the arguments I have presented.
I'm encouraging you to think for yourself and stop taking the word of second-rate apologists. I'm inviting you to take seriously the adage of John Stuart Mill: "he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that". If you only your own own position, and you've never considered the strongest, most plausible presentations of the opposing side, you don't really understand the reasons for why you're right and the other side is wrong. I've studied Plato, and Aristotle, and Aquinas, plus Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and a lot of other philosophers. Now, you might look down on the study of philosophy, and that's your prerogative. But if you had studied it, perhaps you would not commit such laughable errors in reasoning as you constantly do. To identify but two: 1. You like to identify the medieval Scholastic worldview as the birth of modern science, but you also like to credit the birth of modern science to Bacon's rejection of Scholastic reasoning. The birth of modern science can be credited to Scholasticism, or to its rejection, but not both at the same time, as you insist. 2. You like to champion Bacon's inductivism, even though inductivism has ceased to be the method of contemporary science. Yet you also like to champion Popper's falsificationism. The problem here is that Popper developed falsificationism precisely because he rejected induction as a basis for science. So you can be an inductivisit, or an anti-inductivist, but not both. And needless to say, you constantly cite the papers that agree with your assumptions, but it seemingly never occurs to you to inquire into whether anyone has made plausible counter-arguments. This is not the behavior of someone who truly values careful reasoning and sound argument. I don't really care if you take my advice seriously, or not. To quote Captain Reynolds, "My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." I'm sure the feeling is mutual and that's fine with me.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

SG at 73, So you speak for everyone? A sloppy bit of usage on your part.relatd_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply