Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Many worlds theory supports intelligent design?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The blog, Anarchic Harmony , operated by William J. Murray, is worth a look. About many world’s theory (= every time you turn right instead of left, a new universe is created in which you turned left) Murray writes,

I thought you might be interested in an argument I came up with in a new blog about how the MWI theory, which scientists are now starting to invoke in order to explain the anthropic principle and the origin of life, supports ID theory and indicates it would in fact be a better scientific model to use in many cases.

Say what? [also, links to Mindful Hack stories below]

The MWI argument is that out of infinite non-productive variations of universes we have one (or more, but we’re in this one) that by chance is so ordered and specific that it has generated product (intelligent, conscious life forms with incredibly specified, complex biologies that are manifest from coded instructions) that utterly defies random, non-directed modeling, as well as an anthropic universe that utterly defies random, non-directed modeling.

Even if our universe is the necessary chance result of infinite, many-world iterations of universes, intelligent design would necessarily be a far better model of description and analysis than non-directed models in many scientific ventures, because an ID model would more accurately described the incredibly ordered, improbable patterns of chance outcomes in this particular universe.

I wonder what Murray thinks of Frank Tipler and versa vice. Tipler is the only genuine Christian materialist I have ever heard of, and he is enthusiastic about many worlds theory.*

I myself am unconvinced by many-worlds theory in any form. One problem is, as Robb Mann, University of Waterloo physics chair, pointed out to me the other day, it means that absolutely every implausible thing must be true somewhere.

Think about it. It’s worse than the nihilists utter unyielding despair – you know, there is no truth, truth is unknowable and all that jazz: Rather, absolutely everything you have ever imagined actually exists somewhere! Sounds too much like magic to me.

I will eventually add Anarchic Harmony to the Post-Darwinist blogroll (Never a Dull Moment …). I will think about doing it today.

*Christian materialist: Not to be confused with the sort of “theistic evolutionist” who appears WITH materialist atheists in debates AGAINST Christian intelligent design apologists. George Hunter explains Darwin’s devout pretty well in Science’s Blind Spot. They seek to protect God’s honour by insisting that natural selection does all the nasty stuff, and God really doesn’t have much to do with it. As if.

Mindful Hack on the Lennox-Dawkins debate.

The Pharyngulite really, honestly, sincerely struggles with The Spiritual Brain

Canadian mystery novelist turns his brain disorder into winning plot idea

Brain disease research not necessarily wise spending choice

Mindfulness explored as aid in struggle against depression

Comments
Mrs. O'Leary, This is nothing new under the sun. The ancient Greeks knew about such "many world" theory. It's what one would today call a "perspective" on the world, since each of us sees the world from a slightly different "angle" physically, mentally and spiritually. No other or new universes are really "created" in such a theory, it is the same universe. It's just poor and misleading usage of the word "created" by Murray. Re: "About many world’s theory (= every time you turn right instead of left, a new universe is created in which you turned left) Murray writes,..." This isn't really what "hardcore" multiversists believe, i.e. in the real possibility of real parallel universes, like, for example, in the Stargate sci-fi. Such belief has far reaching consequences. In the case of Giordano Bruno's parallel worlds, it implied multiple Christs, not one Christ who redeemed the whole mankind, basically undermining and destroying Christianity. The same argument extends into contemporary Christian theology, (in case there may be other intelligent beings inhabiting planets in some far away galaxies), and it is amazing that some modern theologians are toying with such foolish ideas. Re: "Say what?... Even if our universe is the necessary chance result of infinite, many-world iterations of universes, intelligent design would necessarily be a far better model ..." Exactly, Say what !? -- It's just a bunch of incoherent babbling without respect for the big key words Murray uses or misuses -- just count them in this one loaded sentence: universe, chance, infinite, many-world, iterations, intelligent, design, model. Re: "I wonder what Murray thinks of Frank Tippler." I wrote some time ago (in response to Frank Tippler's new book) that I wasn't really interested in reading more of such ideas. However, I will keep an open mind if people like you and Mr. Dembski think there may be something interesting in it. But I need something really solid and novel to be convinced. I had a quick look in the wiki on Frank Tippler, and more red flags came up. "Prof. Tipler's 2007 book The Physics of Christianity analyzes the Omega Point Theory's pertinence to Christian theology.[8] In the book Tipler identifies the Omega Point as being the Judeo-Christian God,..." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler ) Again, nothing new under the sun -- this was the main idea of that "great" supposedly "Catholic" Darwinist and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin, whose books are still on the Vatican's Index of suspect and prohibited books, wasn't it? P.S. You may interested in reading the feature article "How Does Consciousness Happen" in the Oct 2007 Scientific American.rockyr
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
I just read the Tipler piece about christian materialism; once again, I think that the interpretation is everything. I think that the demarcation between "materialism" and "non-materialism" is really just an imaginary line drawn mostly by polemics, and if we can get past the rancor involved, we can have at least an agreement in science to dislodge from dogmatic anti-spiritualism, or anti-religion and recognize that scientific investigation can, in fact, explore and embrace previously shunned territory. I think what Tipler writes is a good step in that direction - not as truth per se, but as treaty.William J. Murray
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
bornagain77: "I really have a hard time reconciling entropy and God’s sovereignty of the universe? Does anyone have any thoughts to help me past this problem." A theistic but non-Christian perspective: Entropy appears to rule this physical world and universe. This does not mean it must rule human beings in their ultimate spiritual form. If souls exist manifesting in human physical form, such souls could partake of the infinite eternal nature of God, but not be ultimately limited and imperfect. It would be the experience of incarnated souls that is imperfect and limited in many ways including by entropy. I'm sure many reasons for this could be conceived. This is of course off-topic and metaphysical and theological speculation from a strictly rational point of view.magnan
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Denyse, George Hunter or Cornelius? (His middle name?)Atom
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Quote: "Think about it. It’s worse than the nihilists utter unyielding despair - you know, there is no truth, truth is unknowable and all that jazz: Rather, absolutely everything you have ever imagined actually exists somewhere! Sounds too much like magic to me." I understand this interpretation, but this is really just how most people normally interpret such a scenario from an "objective world", single-universe mindset. A further examination of the concept reveals that, if this particular interpretation is true, then even the materialists would have to admit that there is a Universe created by a God, and there is a human manifestation of that God named Jesus that died for your sins; that heaven and hell does exist. It's not that such things, or such a universe **could** exist; it would have to.William J. Murray
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
bornagain77 wrote: “I really have a hard time reconciling entropy and God’s sovereignty of the universe? Does anyone have any thoughts to help me past this problem?” This probably won’t be the response you want to hear, but the only explanation I’ve heard that could account for it is from “Christian Science” A religion started in the 1800’s in USA. If I remember correctly, the explanation it offers is that basically everything is mind, not matter, or rather, what we see as matter is really something like externalized thought. But there are also different levels of mind. The material universe is a conception of “mortal” thought about God – God (Mind) seen through a glass darkly. His universe is perfect, but “ours” is flawed and ends in death. This raises a lot of other questions (and also means God is not even aware of sin) but essentially entropy happens because it is a flawed conception of God caused by sin. I finally just said to hell with it all and just hope if there is a God He will reveal Himself to me in some way I can grasp w/out driving me insane.shaner74
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Any quantum mechanics theory which relies on observers causing something is unfriendly to materialism. If materialism is true, the observer/non-observer distinction is meaningless. Also, there must be a universe somewhere where they proved that there aren't multiple universes, right? So is that universe correct or those within this one?geoffrobinson
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
I had a thought about this topic yesterday. I believe in the Theistic interpretation for quantum mechanics, which states that the Infinite and Perfect Mind of God is ultimately in control of every quantum event in the universe, thus God retains His sovereignty and His omnipotence is retained,,,Yet the problem arises of entropy...We can see perfect information being inserted into the universe at the big bang and also see it at the level of parent species, but from then on the decay of the universe and life seems as if God allows the universe and life to decay with entropy although He retains control. Is God allowing this to happen for some greater purpose,,,such as teaching us,,His children,,,that it is absolutely essential to have a intimate relationship with him? I really have a hard time reconciling entropy and God's sovereignty of the universe? Does anyone have any thoughts to help me past this problem?bornagain77
October 4, 2007
October
10
Oct
4
04
2007
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply