Is Cool cosmology not getting results? Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, admittedly a critic, comments:
For quite a few years now, I’ve been mystified about what is going on in string theory, as the subject has become dominated by AdS/CFT inspired work which has nothing to do with either strings or any visible idea about a possible route to a unified fundamental theory. …
Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong
The fun part is this quote:
This superficial approach – in which people reduced their understanding of string theory and its amazing properties to some mundane, constantly repetitive ideas about AdS/CFT, especially those that are just small superconstructions added on top of 4D quantum field theories – got even worse in the recent decade when the “quantum information” began to be treated as a part of “our field”. Quantum information is a legitimate set of ideas and laws but I think that in general, this field adds nothing to the fundamental physics so far which would go beyond the basic postulates of quantum mechanics…
Lubos Motl, “Evolution, deterioration of the world’s thinking about the deepest stringy ideas” at The Reference Frame (July 11, 2021)
And Woit adds,
According to Lubos, he’s not the only one who feels this way, with an “anonymous Princeton big shot” agreeing with him (hard to think of anyone else this could be other than Nima Arkani-Hamed)
Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong
Nima Armani-Hamed has crossed our screen before.
Some of us think string theory only existed in order to give a bizarre twist to the fine-tuning of our universe and to create a basis for believing that there is an uncountable infinity of universes out there instead. Apart from that, it may be hard to see much point. We shall see.
Gossip is fun when it doesn’t hurt anyone.
Peter Woit starts out his article with this,
And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it).
I googled “Peter Woit, Godel’s incompleteness” and came up with zilch as to him acknowledging just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness actually is to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything.
I did find this though,
In other words, and as the following article succinctly states, “we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.”
The only hint that I have ever seen, from any leading theoretical Physicist, as to just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness ‘might’ be, (as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything), has been from Hawking himself. And it reads as such,
And it is not as if Godel’s Incompleteness has been sitting on the sidelines as far as theoretical physics is concerned. In fact, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.
One leading mathematician, (not theoretical physicist), who understands just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness actually is, is Gregory Chaitin. Gregory Chaitin has found that “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”
This presents an insurmountable problem for atheists since, as Steven Weinberg himself pointed out, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”
Of course the correct solution to the question of ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ is, as Bruce Gordon succinctly explained, “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.””
The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
Mathematically speaking, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are separated by an unbridgeable ‘infinite mathematical divide’.
Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.”
And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
So the burning question becomes, “how can we possibly bridge this ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?”
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
,, then that VERY reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of physics originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
In short, the Shroud of Turin, (which is THE most scientifically scrutinized artifact ever from ancient history), provides evidence that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
Here are a few notes to that effect:
Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt, (and the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ between the two theories was bridged), with Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
Supplemental notes:
BA77, Really enjoy reading your stuff. Do you have a massive document ready for all of these posts with all the evidence lined out? Would love to take a peek at a version of it!
Bornagain77/1
My impression is a that scientists are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything but it is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones.
We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God, certainly the incoherent version of Christianity.
Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves. All that would mean is that there is more to reality than we were previously aware.
Gordon’s response, however, perfectly illustrates the vacuous nature of the religious account. He acknowledges that there are mysteries about the nature of observable reality which may only be explicable by postulating a transcendent realm inhabited by some intelligent causal agency – meaning God. And that is as far as his curiosity takes him, apparently. He is content with that speculation. Does it occur to him to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins? How does he grapple with problem of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem which should also apply to the theories or explanations of this being? The whole thing raises just as many questions as it answers.
Sev, I notice you didn’t address anything regarding “convergent evolution.”
: )
:))
:)))
PS:
You can’t make this thing up:
Definition of God: Immaterial Uncreated Being.
Atheists: How was created that material god?
Bornagain77/2
We don’t know that it is unresolvable and we don’t know that a theory which unifies quantum and relativity theories would also be a Theory of Everything. People are far to willing to leap to premature conclusions about things which are beyond our knowledge at this time. I understand that people find unsatisfactory the simple – but more accurate – answer of “We don’t know” but the reality is that we don’t know.
Very poetic and no doubt emotionally satisfying to believers but scientifically vacuous. Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities – except when it’s their God. Then it’s fine.
As you were told before, Zeilinger’s work technically narrows the free-will loophole, It doesn’t close it.
As for allowing the “Agent Causality of God” back into physics, that would be a science killer.
For those who remember it, Arthur C Clarke’s novel Childhood’s End explored the devastating impact an immeasurably more advanced culture – even if their intentions were entirely peaceful – could have on human culture, creativity and scientific curiosity. Why bother with years of grinding research to solve a problem when you could just go an ask the Overlords for the answer?
As the novel illustrates, the obvious problem, if you allow the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator who can account for everything, then what is the point of us doing anything, what is the point of us at all?. We cannot be some sort of experiment because we only run experiments when we aren’t sure of the answer. This Creator is presumed to already know the answer to any possible experiment that could be run. Are we there to provide companionship, like pets? But this Creator is assumed to be a necessary being, in direct contradiction of the Incompleteness Theorem, not dependent on anything outside of Himself. “What does God need with a starship?”
In other words, allowing an incoherent concept such as the “Agent Causality of God” into science would be crippling. It would almost inevitably lead to a form of religious Lysenkoism wherein any form of scientific exploration or explanation would be judged by whether it was consonant with the prevailing religious orthodoxy.
Now, that might not be so bad if we could ask this Creator for guidance on what specific tweaks we would to need to apply to modify our genome in order to eradicate cancers or degenerative neurological disorders, for example. But that option is apparently not available. So how does allowing the “Agent Causality of God” back into science help us at all?
Zweston, Thanks and yes I do have fairly large files of notes. I’m sorry, they are not loaded up on the web for other people to see, and I really wouldn’t want to load them up anyway since, although I know where to find specific citations within my notes, they most likely would not make much sense to anyone else.
My notes, are very much like a messy office in which only the person who made the mess in the office actually knows where everything is.. 🙂
BA77… I would love to connect, but I saw your post about being burned in the past, and understand. I just so appreciate your resources, your packaging of the information, and your well informed faith. This world pushes hard on those who desire to follow Christ and hold to the eternal truth of scripture, but your light shines bright.
What will happen if science accepts creationism / intelligent design
1. The culture in academics will improve dramatically. Harvard will be Harvard again, and Cambridge university, will be Cambridge university again. Meaning they would get the good feeling again associated to their name, instead of as now, that they have the feel of a mental institution.
You cannot do emotions, good judgement, with materialism, materialism is solely about facts. You require creationism for good judgement.
2. More advancement in knowledge about decisionmaking processes, because choice is the mechanism of intelligent design.
In response to the fact that Theoretical Physicists, for the most part, completely ignore just how devastating Godel’s incompleteness is to finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it), Seversky responds thusly,
Well that is not my impression, and if you can find any quotes other than the quote from Hawking that I already provided, that shows that theoretical physicists “are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything”, I would certainly appreciate it.
My impression is that Godel’s incompleteness is the proverbial ‘elephant in the living room’ that theoretical physicists would much rather ignore than acknowledge the presence of.
Personally, I have rarely seen Godel’s incompleteness discussed, and if it is discussed, it is discussed only in passing as Hawking discussed it only in passing in his book “The Grand Design”.
Although I have to admit that, earlier in his career, Hawking did take Godel’s incompleteness much more seriously than he did in his 2010 book ‘The Grand Design”.
Seversky you also stated that,
I agree whole heartedly.
In fact, I personally was very happy when Nima Arkani-Hamed discovered the amplituhedron which is “as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman (diagrams) was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices.
But no matter how much we ‘improve’ the mathematics that describe this universe, we will still be left with the burning question of “why do such ‘perfect mathematical descriptions’ even describe the universe in the first place?”.
As Nima Arkani-Hamed himself put it, “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?”
Of course the explanation for ‘perfect mathematical descriptions’ is that, as Edward Feser explains, “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world.”
But hey, you don’t have to take Edward Feser’s word for it, both Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are on record as the regarding it as a ‘miracle’ that mathematics should even be applicable the the universe in the first place.
Eugene Wigner even went so far as to disparage Darwinian evolution when he called it a ‘miracle’.
And Albert Einstein himself even went so far as to castigate ‘professional atheists’ when he called it a ‘miracle’.
So there you have it. From two of the biggest giants in modern physics, it should be considered ‘miraculous’ that the universe is describable by mathematics.
Seversky went on to claim,
Well actually, as Godel, Wigner, and Einstein all made clear, no you do not have an ontology that can dispense with God. , (at least you do not have, and cannot have, a ‘mathematically scientific’ ontology that dispenses with God),
Seversky went on,
🙂 Hmmm, You don’t say?!? Seems to me that Christians have been claiming that very thing for a couple of thousand years now.
Seversky finishes with,
It might interest you know that Christians have grappled with questions of this sort for centuries, (successfully grappled with them I might add).
Seversky went to say some other things in another post. Perhaps I will address some of them tomorrow if time permits. But suffice it for now to note that Godel, Einstein, and Wigner, all disagree with Seversky in his claim that we can have a mathematically ‘scientific’ ontology that ‘dispenses with God’.
This failing of his atheistic worldbview to be able to ground ‘mathematical science’ in the first place should be no small burr in the saddle of Seversky, who considers ‘science’ to be his safe haven away from God. (at least a safe haven away from God as Seversky has falsely envisioned him to be, i.e. an evil tyrant who is out to ‘get him’, rather than Seversky envisioning God as God truly is, i.e. a loving father who only wants the best for him.)
Quote and verse
I really hate to reappear, but here is a point I have made before that I think BA doesn’t get.
BA writes,
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem’s are about purely mathematical axiomatic systems. Theoretical physicists are not trying to create a purely axiomatic system: they are trying to crate a descriptive system which maps completely to real-world phenomena, especially one which unifies general relativity and the quantum mechanics.
These are two different things. Godel’s Theorems says that there are undecidable propositions, and establishes this in an esoteric way. Here is a fairly good layman’s explanation: Link
However a theory about the physical world would be complete if it could explain and predict every possible real-world phenomena. However, if one were to consider the theory as a pure axiomatic system (which is not what the theoretical physicists is trying to do) the undecidable propositions that Godel’s theorem says must exist might not in fact map to any real-world phenomena, and thus be irrelevant.
The key idea here is between an purely abstract mathematical system, which is self contained and only looks to itself for its content, and a physical theory which maps mathematical content to real-world phenomena, and then looks to its fit with real-world phenomena for its validity.
Godel’s Theorem does not rule out the possibility of a theory of everything in the sense of a mathematical model which accurately describes, in an unifying way, general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Over and out. Take it away, BA, but keep it under 5000 words. Others may also have something to say about whether they think I’m right or not.
Viola Lee tried to distance Godel’s incompleteness from theoretical physics.
Yet, as was already referenced in post 1,
,,,it is not as if Godel’s Incompleteness has been sitting on the sidelines as far as theoretical physics is concerned. In fact, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.
In fact, the preceding proof was made even more robust in 2020,
At 7 Seversky tries to further address my posts 1 and 2,
I claimed,
Seversky responded thusly,
Well actually we do know that it is irresolvable,,, see post 13.
Seversky continues,
Well actually I agree with you that simply mathematically unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity into a “Theory of Everything’ would leave many very important things about what it means to be human on the cutting floor,,,,, but be that as it may be, none-the-less, the search for the “Theory of Everything” today takes the form of theoretical physicists trying to mathematically unify gravity, as it is described by General Relativity, with quantum mechanics into a single overarching mathematical framework that, in principle, would be capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.
To put it mildly, describing all phenomena in the universe is a rather ambitious goal for any single mathematical theory of science to ever hope to achieve. For instance, will this hypothetical mathematical theory of everything be able explain why Seversky dedicates a large part of his life fighting against the God that he inevitably will have to face one day? Or will this theory explain why I prefer Ice Cream to Sherbert? Or will it be able to describe, etc.. etc.., ad infinitum?
Anyways, Seversky continues,
Hmm, such as you, and other atheists, prematurely concluding that methodological naturalism must be true prior to any examination of the evidence, and despite the fact the conclusions of methodological naturalism are patently absurd, (R. Lewontin, billions of demons), and despite the fact that science itself is inextricably wedded to Theistic presuppositions about the rationality of the universe, (S. Meyer, The Return of the God Hypothesis)?
Seversky then goes on,
Perhaps you should take your own advice and be a little more circumspect and humble in your dogmatic claims about God’s non-existence, and/or His character, and admit that you yourself “don’t know’? Or would you find that honest admittance of your ignorance about God existence and character “unsatisfactory?”
Seversky, after quoting me,,,
,,, after quoting me, Seversky goes on,
Seversky is correct in saying “Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities”
But Seversky is incorrect to imply that it is only Christians who are comfortable postulating an infinity “when it’s their God. Then it’s fine.”
Atheists have no problem whatsoever postulating a epistemologically self-defeating ‘random infinity’ when it will help them avoid the ‘rational infinity’ that is only to be found in God.
For instance, Atheists have had no problem whatsoever postulating an infinity of other universes, (via a multiverse, and the veritable infinity of hypothetical ‘bubble universes continually being generated in inflationary cosmology), to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe.
Nor do Atheists have any problem whatsoever postulating a veritable infinity of parallel universes, i.e. Many Worlds”, to ‘explain away’ quantum wave collapse, just so as to avoid any implication of God.
Small problem for Seversky and other atheists, all these ‘random infinities’, that Atheists have postulated so as to try to avoid any implication of God, are all epistemologically self-defeating and therefore scientifically ‘worse than useless’ (Penrose).
In other words, contrary to what Seversky claimed, it is not only Christians who are ‘comfortable’ with infinity, atheists apparently are also very comfortable postulating infinities whenever it will help them avoid any implication of God. ,,, “small’ problem for atheists though, all their ‘random infinities’ are epistemologically self-defeating. Which is a nice way of saying that they are all insane.
I will try to address the rest of Seversky’s post later on today if time permits
Next Seversky quotes me
Seversky responds thusly,
Well, contrary to Seversky trying to play it off as no big deal, that ‘technical’ narrowing, since it excludes all ‘local’ deterministic models, happens to exclude Darwinian evolution itself since Darwinian evolution holds that all our thoughts and decisions were ‘locally’ determined by the prior state of the material particles in our brain.
That is exactly why Sabine Hossenfelder herself appealed to ‘super-determinism’ in order to deal with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole by Zeilinger and company. Which was basically Hossenfelder saying that she didn’t care what the empirical evidence said to the contrary about the existence of free will, she was “determined’ 🙂 to still believe in ‘local’ determinism.
And, as should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are telling us about reality, and insist on believing in things even when they contradict experimental results, then science is, for all practical purposes, dead.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-physicist-sean-carroll-rejects-logic-when-he-rejects-free-will/#comment-701634
As to any hypothetical ‘non-local’ models that try to deal with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loop-hole, (perhaps Seversky is alluding to “Many Worlds”?), well, I think such a scenario is absurd on its face since, (besides believing that you exist in an infinite number of places being a completely insane belief to hold), free will, by definition, simply cannot be based on any type of mathematical formalism. Whereas on the other hand, Immaterial minds, via free will, create mathematical axioms.
Seversky then claims,,
Actually the shoe is squarely on the other foot. Seversky own atheistic worldview is, not only a science killer, but is a science mass murderer!
Although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Next Seversky goes into some type of bizarre Theological Argument, based on some work of fiction by
Arthur C Clarke. as to why allowing God ‘back’ into science might be a science killer.
All I have to say about that entire bizarre line of ‘Theological’ reasoning is that the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science just did not magically evaporate into thin air and disappear into nothingness, but those necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science are still very much required for the continued practice, and success, of modern science.
Science simply is impossible without assuming certain Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true!
Perhaps it was only possible from the Judeo-Christian perspective given know available perspectives at the time; that doesn’t mean that only the Judeo-Christian perspective out of all possible perspectives was up to the task. That’s a case that can’t be made.
As far as theistic metaphysics being necessary to properly understand reality, that may or not be a good way of characterizing what is necessary to the task. Obviously, consciousness and information are essential commodities, and the question is: what can be said to be the ground for the existence of information and consciousness?
Regardless of what you label it with, the potential for both specific, structured information and individual consciousness must exist at the root of both. Is that potential “God,” or adequately labeled with that term? I think that more than just “infinite potential” would be required to make a case for basic, much less any particular kind of, theism. I think that BA77 has said and argued, and I think any such label would require some kind of individual agency, such as creating a specific world out of all the potential.
Do we have evidence that “a” specific world was in fact chosen/created by such an agency?
It seems to me that the evidence indicates this is not so, or perhaps there is an argument to be made that the agency created a world where a specific range of potentials was available for beings with free will to “choose” from, giving us the range of potentials available in quantum experimentation. It’s not like we can shoot an electron through a double-slit board and the result being a tomato hitting the target or music being heard by the observers.
^^^^^^
HUH??? Whatever WJM. The facts are what they are. Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.
And I certainly don’t consider your MRT, IRT, (or whatever you are calling it today), to be a serious contender to ever replace the Judeo-Christian worldview, and its symbiotic relationship with science, anytime soon.
Shoot, it is fairly obvious, via your recent switching of acronyms for your pet theory, that you yourself don’t really have all the bugs worked out of your own theory yet.
But hey, let’s give it a few thousand years and see where your theory goes eh?
🙂
BA77: “Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.”
To what “presuppositions” do you refer? (Not cherry picked “accomplishments”.) But actual grounding. Because from what I can glean, the Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands. And please, no copy and paste. Just a few bullet points in your own words. Thanks.
Jack, if you have not noticed, I do not tailor my comments to please the whims of atheists.
As to Jack’s (false) claim that the “Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands”, Jack could not be more wrong in his belief.
Francis Bacon, (via his championing of the inductive form of reasoning over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around since the times of the ancient Greeks), was the devout Christian who brought forth the scientific method.
As Henry Schaefer explained, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
“Bottom up” inductive reasoning is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in which they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.
In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was actually championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive reasoning, (where one’s priori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.
And it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning of Francis Bacon, over and above deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory.
Dr. Richard Nelson, in his book Darwin, Then and Now, has noted that Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.
And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”
Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.
Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method!
And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists who proclaim ‘I believe in science”. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,
As Dr Richard Nelson noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides not having any real time empirical evidence establishing that it is true, or even that it is feasible), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology.
As Adam Wilkins noted, “”While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
And as Marc Kirschner of Harvard stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”?
In fact, is so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle in science it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, eugenics, etc.. etc…
In society at large, the consequences of Darwinian evolution have been far worse than they have been for the biological sciences.
The scale of horror these men unleashed on the world is truly unimaginable.
Here’s is a conservative estimate of the deaths that were inflicted upon mankind by these Godless men when they took control of their respective countries:
This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there actually were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world that are conducted annually.
As a scientific and political philosophy, Darwinian evolution has simply been a complete, horrific, disaster.
Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
And 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinism, we can now accurately surmise that, scientifically and politically speaking, Darwinism has been, to repeat myself, a complete, horrific, disaster that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
Of supplemental note
And exactly what Christian presupposition drove Bacon to champion inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks? Well, it was none other than ‘original sin’, i.e. human fallibility!
Further note as to the essential Christian Presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science:
Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
BA77: “Jack, if you have not noticed, I do not tailor my comments to please the whims of atheists. ”
I’m not an atheist.
“As to Jack’s (false) claim that the “Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands”, Jack could not be more wrong in his belief.”
Apparently you’ve never heard of Aristotle, Chrysippus and the Stoics. Are you of the opininion that they they did not make a substantial and essential contribution to science?
At any rate, you said: “BA77: “Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.”
I asked, “to what “presuppositions” do you refer?” I saw a lot of words in your replies but no answer to that question. Maybe I missed it. My eyes ain’t so good.
By the way, why wouldn’t it be more proper and fair to refer to the “Hebrew worldview.” “Judeo/Christian” worldview is actually the Hebrew worldview. Both Christianity and Islam depend on the Hebrew worldview for their worldviews.
Jack claims, “I’m not an atheist.”,,,
Yes, I’ve seen you claim that before. But then again, why do you keep getting confused with atheists?
Could it be, “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck???”
But anyways, whatever Jack is or whatever he claims to be, Jack then reiterates his false claim that science was essentially an outgrowth of Greek philosophy.
Yet, as I have now shown in post 19, the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks actually impeded the rise of modern science in that they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
,,, It was only when Francis Bacon set forth ‘inductive reasoning’, over and above the ‘deductive reasoning’ of the ancient Greeks, a form of reasoning where repeated experimentation played a central role in ones reasoning to a general truth, (instead of ‘deductively’ reasoning down from a presupposed truth), that the scientific method was born. (See post 19)
Jack, apparently did not bother to read anything of what I had written, and simply reiterated his false claim.
Jack himself even admitted that he did not bother to read my post(s) before he restated his false claim when he stated this,, ‘I asked,“to what “presuppositions” do you refer?” I saw a lot of words in your replies but no answer to that question. Maybe I missed it. My eyes ain’t so good.”
Yet in post 21 I specifically said,,,,
And exactly what Christian presupposition drove Bacon to champion inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks? Well, it was none other than ‘original sin’, i.e. human fallibility!
Further note as to the essential Christian Presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science:
Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
And please note that the preceding clip on the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science is taken from directly above Jack’s post at 22 claiming that I did not list the necessary presuppositions.
I can’t force Jack, or anyone else, to be reasonable, but it certainly looks very bad for Jack when he denies I wrote something directly and immediately after I had written it.
Verse:
BA77: Yes, I’ve seen you claim that before. But then again, why do you keep getting confused with atheists? Could it be, “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck???”
A bizarre statement.
As for induction, for a move from particular to universal, Aristotle in the 300s BCE used the Greek word epagogé, which Cicero translated into the Latin word inductio. The concept has have modifications down through the centuries, but Bacon didn’t invent it, and no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it.
https://www.johnmccaskey.com/history-of-induction/
From what I can tell in my dealings with him, Jack acts just like an atheist, and then he finds it bizarre that he keeps getting confused with atheists here on UD? Now I find it bizarre that he would find it bizarre,,,, but such is par for the course,,, for atheists! 🙂
Jack tries to distance Bacon from the inductive, i.e. scientific, method, and states, “Bacon didn’t invent it (the inductive method), and no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it.
First I never said that Bacon ‘invented it’ so that is a false claim right off the bat from Jack.
I said that Bacon ‘championed it’. Specifically I stated that,
Moreover, in Jack’s very own citation, which he himself linked to, we find that,
So Jack’s very own link readily admits that Bacon made the inductive form of reasoning mainstream and ‘even stated “Baconian induction dominated experimental science for the next two hundred years.”
That is hardly contrary to what I claimed. In fact, it is perfectly consistent to what I had claimed about Bacon ‘championing inductive reasoning’.
Jack also claimed that,,, “no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it”
Well, for crying out loud, You just can’t make this stuff up,,, I NEVER said that original sin was required to ‘ground it’ (the inductive method). I said that original sin was Bacon’s motivation for championing the inductive method! PERIOD!
And as to the idea of ‘original sin’ being one of the primary motivations for Bacon championing the inductive method over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning up until that time, Jack’s very own link doesn’t even mention what Bacon’s exact motivations were in championing the inductive method, (so Jack is apparently now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick).
But anyways, as I already referenced, (and Jack apparently did not even bother to read), Bacon’s primary motivation for championing the inductive method over and above the deductive method was that, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration.”
And to go even further, and via Morales’ citation of the Cambridge University Press book, “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” – Peter Harrison – 2007, we find this,,,
And if Jack thinks that Peter Harrison is just making all that up about Bacon’s motivations, (to try to sell a few books to a few Christians), well here are a few of Peter’s credentials:
Not too shabby! Not too shabby at all for credentials!
Nor is it in the least bit helpful for Jack who is apparently disingenuously trying to distance modern science from its essential Christian roots, no matter how badly he has to distort and mangle words and concepts, in order to try to do it..
ZW, actually, uncreated or uncaused is the back way around. Through logic of being and linked possible worlds, recognising that to be rational we must be free and so responsible starting with first duties of reason [to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] etc], we can find a positive framing of the idea of God. God is the inherently good, utterly wise, creator, a NECESSARY and maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Necessary being implies present in any actual world, framework to such a world being possible or actualised, similar to how we cannot have any distinct world without two-ness in it: 2 neither began, nor can it cease — cf here on how that leads to pervasiveness and power of mathematics in possible worlds. That is, God among other attributes is inherently the eternal creator whose being is utterly reasonable, inherently and maximally good and wise etc. KF
PS: To profess atheism is to implicitly claim that God is impossible of being or not a serious candidate necessary being. No atheist has ever shown either of those things. The problem of evils route was shattered nearly 50 years ago by Plantinga’s free will defence [as opposed to theodicy], which shows that God as described is logically consistent with a world in which creatures [through freedom, which enables moral powers and virtues opening up higher orders of goodness if only we do duty] can and do abuse freedom, i.e. act to do evil.
Well, BA77, I’ve read a lot of your posts, and listened to some of your Youtube videos, and you seem to me to be a bit unhinged and mentally ill. You’re just not worthy of my time. I’m not interested in dialog with you.
Peace and Joy
So Jack was shown to be wrong in his claim that Christian presuppositions were not necessary for the rise of modern science. . Then, Instead of honestly admitting that he was wrong in trying to distance Christian presuppositions from modern science, as he should of done, he instead issues an ad hominem against me personally, i.e. “you seem to me to be a bit unhinged and mentally ill”?
First it is funny that Jack has denied being an atheist, but that he is now resorting to an ad hominem attack against me personally when his arguments fails. ,,,, As most regulars here on UD know, resorting to ad hominem as a last resort is a typical debating style of atheists.
Secondly, and Ironically, the disingenuous, even ‘sinful’, nature of Jack’s debating style against me buttresses the claim that Bacon championed “Baconian induction”, (as Jack’s own link called it), because the fallen human mind, tainted by sin as it were, “could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias”,
Jack, thanks for so clearly proving my point, (in real time), about Christian presuppositions about human fallibility. and bias, were, and are, necessary for the rise, and continued practice, of modern empirical science. You are a real sport. 🙂
Right on the nose, BA.
Well, Jack, I have read very few of your posts because you seem unhinged and mentally ill. You are not worthy of anyone’s time.
My suspicions as well, ET.
When confronted with unsupported assertions, non sequiturs, and contradictions to statements in previous messages, these sorts of people make what I call “homework assignments” where we’re asked to come up with proofs and references, none of which will be sufficient, of course.
Then there are what I call “dictionary attacks” where you’re supposed to define some common term such as:
Self references from such people also typically take the plural form such as
I’ve never been certain whether the plural refers to their tapeworms or the voices in their heads.
The final resort are ad hominem attacks, after which they abandon the thread and simply start over on a new one.
Quote honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these personages are simply chatbots (or more precisely trollbots) simply intended to waste everyone’s time here.
Something to consider if deciding whether to bother replying.
-Q
Querius, It is very telling that as soon as one sock is banned new people start showing up. It seems to always be evos posing as someone who accepts ID.
Haha!
Yeah, I noticed that, too. They always seem to start out neutral and polite.
-Q
UD used to be a pretty good site back when DaveScot was the moderator. My my how things have changed since the nuts and kooks took over. Denise stays out of the fray, and Barry jumps in from time to time, but basically it’s a bunch of extreme religious nutjobs, with a few rational posters (WJM) thrown in.
Sad state of affairs.
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/davescot-responds-to-barrya/
Now keep in mind, dear readers, there are those here that think it’s sometimes ok for babies to be murdered as long as “God commanded it.” That’s the kind of nutjobs you’re dealing with.
Wow. Nutjobs, like Jack, erect and attack straw men.
Would it be OK to kill soulless demon babies? What about in Aliens? Would it be OK to kill the little alien babies or do you have to wait until it grows and wipes out 99% of the population?
Jack @ 34: Well then, I guess this is the last time we will be hearing from you. A smart guy like you wouldn’t continue to visit and comment in a forum administered by nut jobs, would he? I sure wouldn’t waste my time commenting in a forum run by atheist nut jobs.
Jack, your remarks above are beyond the pale, actually suggestive of a concern troll. I suggest you walk back if you are interested in serious discussion. KF
F/N: Those not aware should realise that because UD is a leading ID blog, it is surrounded by a penumbra of often utterly vicious attack sites and at least one relatively good cop front site for such. Attacks have included cyber stalking and on the ground stalking, that is the sort of objection to design thought that gives rise to the steady drip of trolls seeking to derail and disrupt. Concern trolls pretending to be supporters and seeking to undermine through said “concerns” are now a known standard tactic. Multiple sock puppets acting in concert are another, and more. Because of the calculated slander that ID is a stalking horse for some imagined Christofascist, theocratic, “far-right” [read, Nazi . . . itself a gross error as the National socialist german worker’s party clearly understood itself to be socialist*] tyrannical takeover of civilisation, there is often an attempt to pull UD off topic into debates over village atheist anti-Bible rants. A sign of this is insistence on such derailing even when the off-topic focus is pointed out and as a courtesy sites or links that actually address such concerns are given. meanwhile, as we have had a period in which someone who has been a significant contributor has advocated a personal worldview, that is used as a rhetorical wedge to try to create perceived discredit. On that, for cause we can stand on the point that while our senses and reasoning are prone to error, we have adequate means to think through and we can be confident in taking common sense seriously rather than resorting to views that invite or advocate what boils down to the absurdity that our picture of ourselves in our world is a plato’s cave style shadow show, a grand delusion. To discuss rationally we cannot start by self-referentially discrediting rationality, a typical error of hyperskepticism. And of course it is increasingly clear that errors at this level are driving the errors we see in ever so many objections to the design inference on reliable signs. KF
* Stalin saw himself as the centre of politics so everyone to his “right” was some sort of right wing fascist. That’s a clue as to how useless the left vs right political spectrum now is. The right was originally traditionalist monarchy, which has not been a viable view for 100 years since four major empires collapsed through the catastrophic great war.
Jack labels practically everyone here as “religious nut jobs’ with a few ‘rational posters’. And he gives WJM as an example of a ‘rational poster’. 🙂
How does he differentiate “religious nut jobs’ from the few ‘rational posters’?
Well he holds that if you “think it’s sometimes ok for babies to be murdered as long as “God commanded it”, then you are a ‘religious nut job’. And apparently he also believes that if you are given to some type of mystical New Age mumbo jumbo, like WJM is, where basically we become gods unto ourselves, then you are a ‘rational poster’. I guess Shirley MacLaine, if she commented here, would be considered a ‘rational poster’ in Jack’s book? 🙂
And while, on the surface, (for anyone not familiar with the apologetics for exactly why God commanded some of these evil ancient cultures to be destroyed),,,
And while, on the surface, (for anyone not familiar with the apologetics), being against ‘murdering babies’ certainly seems like a very reasonable and sensible criteria for differentiating “religious nut jobs’ from the few ‘rational posters’ here on UD, it seems to me, in Jack’s rush to label God as a “Moral Monster” for destroying evil ancient cultures, that Jack is forgetting that we currently live in a ‘evil’ culture where ‘murdering babies’ is, practically speaking, conducted on an industrial scale.
Where is Jack’s moral outrage for that industrial scale murdering of babies?
It appears to be readily apparent that if Jack were to be consistent in his moral outrage, rather than just being selectively outraged at God for destroying evil ancient cultures, then Jack should be even more morally outraged at God for allowing the ‘murdering of babies’ on such an industrial scale, and demand that God destroy such evil cultures that practice the murdering of babies on such an industrial scale.
But alas, that would defeat Jack’s entire argument since God destroyed these evil ancient cultures for, among other evil deeds, widespread child sacrifice, i.e. exactly for ‘murdering babies’.
Thus in short, God rendered judgment against these evil ancient cultures, and commanded that they be completely and utterly destroyed, for, (among other evil things), the very thing that Jack is morally outraged at God about, i.e. ‘murdering babies’.
Perhaps Jack should be a little less superficial and hypocritical in his assessment of God’s nature and actions?
Just a suggestion Jack.
Verse:
ET, there is no need to entertain village atheist anti-bible rants. Those perplexed are advised to see Paul Copan and WL Craig etc. KF
Q, you are right. The general rhetorical strategy is to find red herring distractors, drag away from an inconvenient focus and lead away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems. Set alight, to cloud, poison, polarise and confuse the issue, frustrating serious discussion. If you are getting heavy flak, you are over the target, aim and drop bombs, though that takes a real effort. KF
Jack, I will be direct:
1: Kindly provide a single actually observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have caused functionally specific configuration based function beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complexity: __________
2: I confidently assert that you cannot do so, nor can any objector to the design inference, you will know that such were tried for years and failed consistently.
3: I further assert Newton’s rule, if we cannot directly observe a causal factor and can only observe traces, then we have a right to insist that candidate causes be shown to have ability to generate the effects in question, in our observation.
4: Observe that cell based life has in it D/RNA technology, exhibiting digital code [4-state, GCAT/U], expressing complex algorithms, a technology central to life.
5: This is language, and algorithms. These have precisely one known and plausible cause, design. That is inteligently directed configuration.
6: We confidently infer, life, based on core technologies involved, is designed.
7: Needless distractions are utterly irrelevant and indeed trying to stir up distractive toxic quarrels simply shows that there is intent to evade and suppress a core point that is most inconvenient to a preferred agenda.
KF
I was just pointing out that “Jack” argues from extreme ignorance.
Thanks for your observations, Kairosfocus. ET, arguing from extreme ignorance is unfortunately not uncommon, just embarrassing.
But as they say, “Two can play at this game.” If I were as disingenuous as some of the sock puppets here, I could incarnate as an innocent victim of Darwinist indoctrination–a sort of Little Red Riding Hood in the dark forest of scientific controversy and a failed 19th century racist theory. It might start like this . . .
Then, 81 comments later, “Kyra” responds with
Then, 114 comments later she writes
At this point, several sock puppets are acting like stark raving lunatics in their comments, but Little Red Riding Kyra is slowly moving forward toward Intelligent Design, apparently being convinced by the persuasive posts and insightful information presented . . . LOL
-Q
Q, why did you spoil the fun… should have went for it.
Heh. Sorry, just can’t make myself do it, ZWeston. How about you?
-Q
Q, attn Jack [et al]: coming a full day on and nary a nibble on the fat juicy worm. One wonders why, but let’s see. KF
News, well it was an interesting idea to see particles as tiny vibrating strings in m/n dimensions and where that takes you. Now, it may be approaching a pre-Copernican moment, or at least the young turks may be hoping for something new. KF
BA77 – your responses throughout this thread are excellent. Put all together they’re a masterful argument. Great resources for further study also – quotes right from the credentialed science. Thank you.