Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Design at many levels

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the popular media, the picture that we get of the ID controversy is this: primitive man attributed many phenomena in Nature to design, science has progressively removed the need for the design hypothesis from these phenomena one by one, and now a group of religious fanatics is trying to make a last stand in biological origins, where things are most difficult to explain. The true story is very different; in fact, we are discovering that primitive man was NOT wrong in attributing many phenomena to design, the design just dates back much futher than he imagined, to the origin of the universe. Science is discovering that not only life itself, but a wealth of chemical phenomena that makes life interesting, owes its existence to the astronomically improbable and finely tuned values of the basic constants of physics, such as Planck’s constant, the charge and mass of the electron, the speed of light, the gravitational constant and on and on. Michael Behe, in “The Edge of Evolution,” wisely devotes several pages to this topic, and quotes a National Academy of Science report which acknowledges that it is not unreasonable to see design in the “remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe”.

But design in the universe can be seen at yet another level. Those who want to avoid the obvious conclusions from fine-tuning argue that there must be a large number of other universes with the same laws, but random values for the physical constants, and one was bound to get the values right. But even this truly unscientific hypothesis fails to address the question of why the basic laws of physics and mathematics are what they are. The assumption seems to be that the fundamental laws of mathematics, and even of physics, could not have been different and therefore need no explanation. But why, for example, are the effects of the fundamental forces of physics on the fundamental particles of physics given by solutions to a (complex-valued!!) eigenvalue partial differential equation, the Schrodinger equation? I can only see two possible “explanations”: 1) it produces the wealth of chemical phenomena (given the right values for the constants) that makes life possible and interesting and 2) it provides some very interesting mathematical problems to keep partial differential equations experts like me entertained. I don’t know of any alternative explanations, do you?

Comments
The infinite multiverse is an exercise in absurdity. Everything imaginable not only can happen, but must happen, an infinite number of times. The most absurd thing that must happen with a frequency greater than any other universe with a conscious entity in it is a lone Boltzmann brain with a false memory of the universe. It's far less complex for a single brain with false, limited memories of a universe to form than it is for an entire intricate universe with billions of brains in it. In the infinite multiverse scenario it's most likely you, dear reader, are the only conscious entity in the universe and this missive you are reading is not real but a false perception embedded in your brain.DaveScot
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
By the way, I think you could make a good case for denying that mathematical structures must be instantiated in a mind in order to exist. On at least one time-honored view, mathematical and logical laws tell us how we ought to think, not how we do think. Thoughts are dependent on minds, but the laws grasped by means of those thoughts are not. Of course one might argue that mathematical and logical laws are dependent on God's mind in a way that they are not dependent on created, finite minds. But this merely gets us into an epistemological version of divine command theory, with all the problems that goes with it. Consider: is 2+2=4 because God says so? Could God decide that 2+2=5? If He could, then the objectivity of mathematics actually depends on divine whim, which doesn't look much like objectivity at all. But if He could not -- if even God is constrained by the requirements of rationality -- then it doesn't matter if mathematics depends on Him or not. I'm not saying that there aren't good and sophisticated responses to these objections -- I'm sure there are! -- but that there are problems here worth taking seriously, if one wants one's faith to be reasonable and consistent.Carl Sachs
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
OK, I have to admit, I need some help here. It seems to be a widely shared assumption that positing the existence a single, transcendent creator -- with all the traditional theological attributes, right? -- is a more rational solution to the fine-tuning problem than is positing the existence of infinitely many universes. From where I sit, both positings are equally rational -- or equally irrational, if you prefer! -- that is, I don't see what empirical or conceptual basis one could have for preferring one over the other. Now, I personally don't have a problem with that -- since I do think that faith must play a role. But since there are, I would think, some people here who do think that believe in a Creator is somehow more rational than is believe in infinitely many universes, I'd very much like to see that argument spelled out. If this has been hashed out elsewhere on UD or on the Web, I'll happily follow up. And you can also feel free to email me at carl.sachs@gmail.com, if you'd like.Carl Sachs
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Thank you, Magnan, for expounding on Tagmark's article. I share your view on his misguided materialistic commitments. I personally find it hard, ok impossible, to make a rational argument in support of any hypothesis that presuppose an infinite causal regression. But there are very clever people out there... Multiverses just bend the fabric of any conceivable form of rationality beyond any means of relating anything. You can say it will not be "music" in any possible world, regardless of the observers. I also like your "thought" approach, it rings much more harmonious than - infinite causal regression.mullerpr
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
I don't know guys, from what I've seen with God restoring broken lives..I would have to say that God is either a mechanic or a repairman.bornagain77
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Tim/Dave/Gran': You are all onto something, but He's definately a carpenter.JGuy
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
I think the article referred to by mullerpr was an interesting concept of objective reality proposed by physicist Tegmark in the cover story of a recent issue of New Scientist (Reality by Numbers, Sept. 15-21 2007 issue). He says a complete description of an external reality that is really independent of humans must be expressible in a form that is free of human concepts like "particle", "observatiion", and so on. So he asks if it is possible to find a description of external reality that involves no use of words explaining how mathematical equations are connected to human observables. This would have to be completely abstract - "the only properties of these (abstract) entities would be those embodied by the relations between them." A mathematical structure is precisely this, "a set of abstract entities with relations between them". So he then argues that if there is an external reality independent of humans, then this reality must necessarily be a mathematical structure - "Everything in our world is purely mathematical - including you." He goes on to propose a couple of tests for the mathematical universe hypothesis. The most important is that he claims his hypothesis predicts the existence of multiple universes with fundamentally different laws of physics. Of course the problem with this test is that there is no way to accomplish it - such universes are unobservable and uncommunicable. I think this is clever theorizing, but is fundamentally misguided in its conclusions about multiple universes. For mathematical structures to have reality they must be embodied in something, and that something must be thought. The universe is ultimately mathematical, therefore metaphysical, and is a great thought not a great thing. This article actually proposes something like this, a literally real Platonic world of ideas, in the mind of (?). But Tegmark with the usual materialist motivation builds an elaborate hypothetical structure of multiple universes probably in part to avoid the need to propose any existence of mind stuff underlying existence. Multiple universe concepts also beg the question of why there is anything at all instead of absolutely nothing.magnan
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Mathematics is metaphysics as it must be present before anything physical comes into being. Maths is thus religion not science. As such it should not be taught in schools.idnet.com.au
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
There was a recent article in the New Scientist that argue reality from mathematics and now this post. I can see one serious problem with "God as a mathematician or engineer" - The fact that maths presupposes entities with relationships that can be described by mathematics. To me it is more logically coherent to talk about God the Creator.mullerpr
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Granville, Thanks for the post. I've been having a thought that needs an appropriate thread to carry it. Actually Dr. Dembski, I would love your critique of this argument. As we know, the standard solution to the dilemma of the finely tuned universe is to postulate a multiverse. The theory is that if there are an infinite number of universes, then every possible combination of universal constants will have been tried eventually, ours included. With an infinite number of universes, any inconceivable combination must have had a chance to come up somewhere. However, I have recently been recalling my basic calculus. In calculus, as I recall, infinity (I'll use oo) * 1/oo = some value. This causes me to think that an infinite number of universes isn't enough. Let me clarify my reasoning. If we consider, in calculus we solve the problem of getting our minds around infinity by calculating N as N -> oo. We should well be able to use the same algorithm to determine whether an infinite number of universes is enough to produce the finely tuned universe that we know of. My understanding is that in what might be called super-space (because the big bang creates its own three-dimentional space) there are an infinite number of universes being spawned at any given moment. Further, there was infinite time past, but only time to the present day, whereas there is infinite time future that has not yet seen universes. I therefore contend that time only qualifies as oo^1/2. We then see that we have oo universes spawning at any given moment, * oo^1/2 moments to spawn them. So there is a total of oo^3/2 universes spawned so far. Let's calculusize it (new word) to become N^3/2 lim N->oo. Now, there are multiple constants that must be "just right". Consider only the four primary forces. For each value that "works" there is an infinite number of values that will not work. If we only consider these four forces, and not other factors such as the speed of light or the planct constant, we already have oo^4 possible variations which would not produce a life-sustaining universe. Where I come from oo^4 is much more than oo^3/2. Again, to calculusize it, N^4 > N^3/2 lim N->oo. If my calculations are correct, the multiverse hypothesis will not realistically account for the finely tuned universe that we live in.bFast
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Not if you believe in the theory of chaos. He then would be a software engineer, no doubt…Timothee
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Dave: Actually, according to British physicist Sir James Jeans, "The Great Architect of the Universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician."Granville Sewell
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Granville You seem to be implying that God is a mathematician or physicist. Those are just the hired help. God is an engineer. Everyone knows that. Nice try though.DaveScot
September 30, 2007
September
09
Sep
30
30
2007
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply