Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Multiverse Gods, part 1

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

G-d, the failed hypothesisThe Fallacy of Fine-TuningVictor Stenger, a retired physics prof from the University of Hawaii, has given us two books that explain both atheism and “multiverses”, and behold, they are one. Few other proponents of multiverses are quite as forthcoming with their logic, but clearly something besides data must motivate the science of multiverses, because by definition multiverses are not observable. Stenger makes the connection explicit, whereas Hawking or Susskind is a little more coy with their metaphysics. Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.

In Stenger’s first book, G-d: the failed hypothesis, he argues that Science is an independent and more reliable way to truth than metaphysics. And in his second book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, he argues that metaphysics (multiverse theory) is a more reliable guide than science (design-detection). With these two books then, we can get anything we want, except ethics. And metaphysics. And science.

Read more…

Comments
no data can falsify the multiverse
Premature. There are hints at testability already. Again from Sean Carroll's blog: Observing the multiverse You will find few scientists who believe in the multiverse. It's a hypothesis. If you read the first link I posted you will see Sean Caroll saying IF "we do manage to construct a theory that makes a set of specific and unambiguous testable predictions, and those predictions are tested and the theory comes through with flying colors, and that theory also predicts unambiguously that inflation happened or there are multiple universes or extra dimensions, I will be very happy to believe in the reality of those ideas." You see, it is not necessary to believe in an idea in order to explore an idea.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Science and unobservable things From the article: The next thing to understand is that all of these crazy speculations about multiverses and extra dimensions originate in the attempt to understand phenomena that we observe right here in the nearby world. The same can be said of any number of philosophical views and metaphysical systems. And therein lies the problem. I get the impression that some people are going through this chain of thought: A) I want to learn about reality, or at least be able to pontificate about it with authority, B) But philosophy and metaphysics is unpopular and lacks authority, therefore C) I'll just call the speculations I like science, even if they involve that which is unobservable and untestable even in principle. Though I have to admit, it's pretty amusing to see defenders and admirers of science trying to defend gross speculations about the unobservable and untestable as science. In fact, when Dover II rolls around, I'd love to see a multiverse proponent called to the stand to testify that just because something is unobservable or untestable does not mean inferences about its existence or nature are unscientific.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Oh, but you mentioned Sheldrake - now that really is "pseudo science". Not because it concerns psi effects (you can do perfectly good science on psi effects) but because his methodology is appalling. Really, it is.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Nullasalus, at this point, I suggest you read the essay linked in Driver's post. It says all that I was trying to say, much more clearly than I could, and with far more specifics. All I will say myself is to repeat what I have said before that I think that any inference made about God on the basis of science is fallacious. I don't think that science can either prove or disprove God. Or, at least, not an omnipotent creator of all that is - the reason there is something rather than nothing. Atheist arguments on those lines seem to me to be straw men, or at least attacks on what is already bad theology. I'm not going to "believe in" multiverse theory or any other theory. Which is correct interests me, but I have no vested interest in the matter, and I'm curious to see where the current thinking seems to be leading. I'm certainly watching the results of the LHC with interest. But I don't "believe" in scientific propositions anyway. I "evaluate" them. Perhaps that's because I'm a scientist :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Of course they aren’t. What stops us making bad inferences is the requirement that our data support our hypotheses. That’s what a testable hypothesis is – one that generates a prediction that can be verified (or falsified) by data. Obviously if the data don’t support your hypothesis then you can’t make the inference. First, no data can falsify the multiverse - that's part of the problem here. Any and all data is in principle consistent with a multiverse's existence. I point out again that simply making reference to data does not make an inference scientific. Likewise, a 'bad' inference is not necessarily unscientific. Well, you can’t infer anything from a hypothesis that doesn’t make a differential prediction. If two different hypotheses make the same prediction, you can’t use data from that prediction to decide between one or the other. And if a given hypothetical entity - the multiverse - is consistent with all possible empirical data, it does not become scientific merely by tacking on a stipulation. Can you provide an example of empirical data that would falsify the existence of a multiverse? Let's see it. Well sort of. Did you read my post? We can, in effect, observe the remnants of the Big Bang. That tells us a heck of a lot about what it spawned, and may tell us something, eventually about how it was itself spawned. If it was. Did you read my response? The "big bang" in question was part of our observable universe. At no point did I deny we can make inferences about our universe, given data within our universe. It's these things that are outside of our universe, unobservable and unexperimentable in principle that the problem comes in. No, I don’t think so. Well, not reasonably. Postulating something in the absence of any evidence or argument for it would be in the category of teapots orbiting Mars. We can’t know there isn’t one there, but there’s no good reason to think there is. And once again: The mere existence of argument and evidence for something is not sufficient to make assertions of that something's existence or non-existence 'scientific'. Ellis does not say "There is no evidence nor argument for the multiverse" - in fact, he treats it as a respectable philosophical position. But it's philosophical, not scientific. A multiverse is unfalsifiable. Any data we get is consistent with the existence of a multiverse. This doesn't strike you as problematic? My point is that if you know (as we do) something about the way the universe inflated shortly after the Big Bang, then it isn’t actually very difficult to figure out that a lot of it must already be beyond our sight, and, indeed, approximately how much. Yeah, 'a lot of it and approximately how much', it's just that our conclusions can be wildly wrong, and there's no way to check our approximations and extrapolations. One of the selling points of science was supposed to be the reliance on observation and experimentation in order to make inferences and reach conclusions. That requirement seems to be relaxed, dramatically relaxed, more and more nowadays. But apparently in some fields, it's now considered alright to take some observations and a whole lot of unempirical assumptions and make inferences based on those. I'll just call it what it is: Philosophy. Metaphysics. Even (a)theology. Science, it ain't. They don’t seem to just sit around thinking “hey, maybe there are multiple universes, that would get us out of this fine-tuning business”. They do lots of math and chunk lots of data, and set up experiments to test hypothesis arising from their theories. That’s how science works. They do say 'the multiverse would explain away the apparent fine-tuning'. And yes, some go further with obvious motivations - look at Stenger and others. Further, Dembski and Behe do a lot of math and chunk lots of data. What they do is, by many, argued not to be science. Rupert Sheldrake likewise performs experiments and makes inferences. People who believe in telekinesis and psychic powers perform experiments and make inferences based on them. That does not save them from the pseudoscience label, nor does it automatically make what they do science. There's more to science than doing math, or even making some, any, hypothesis. It's possible for a hypothesis to be an unscientific one. It's possible to engage in doing a lot of math, and for the motivation to be wrongheaded, to say nothing of the inference. If I come up with a hypothesis about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and refer to some empirical data (say, the average size of the head of a pin), the question of "Is this science or not?" is not contingent on the answer to the question "Well, how much math have you done, how much data have you gone over?" Believe in the multiverse if you like. Heck, believe in Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble if you wish. You're welcome to whatever theology, philosophy, and metaphysics you wish - you just won't be doing science anymore.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Thanks Driver. That's a nice essay!Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Thanks, PaV. I also need to read vjtorley's link too. And The Signature in the Cell :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Science and unobservable thingsDriver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
There's a new book out entitled: "New Proofs for God's Existence". It's by Robert Spitzer. He's a Jesuit priest. He has a section on "multi-verses", and has Dr. Bruce Gordon evaluate the problems with thee "multiverse" hypotheses. I'm reading it now. Here's the link. They don't stand up to scrutiny, it seems.PaV
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Nullusalus:
No-one has ever seen an electron, or a photon, or an exo-planet, and it was only recently that anyone had directly observed that the earth was (roughly) spherical. In my field we observe neural activity, but it is far from direct. But that does not stop us making good inferences about what underlies the effect we see.
Nor does it stop you from making bad inferences, or non-scientific inferences – “the ability to make an inference” is not what’s under question here. Not all inferences are scientific – and they aren’t magically made such just because you refer to empirical data in your inference.
Of course they aren't. What stops us making bad inferences is the requirement that our data support our hypotheses. That's what a testable hypothesis is - one that generates a prediction that can be verified (or falsified) by data. Obviously if the data don't support your hypothesis then you can't make the inference.
That seems to be a problem you can’t appreciate: The fact that you’re referring to empirical data in the course of your speculations does not suffice to make your speculations scientific. Just as my for-example statement about fine-tuning does not make God’s existence or activity scientific. Unless you agree that, actually, it does – I mean, given a multiverse, it’s possible we live in a universe that was created by an intelligent being. So clearly it’s scientific to infer that our universe was designed after all, right?
Well, you can't infer anything from a hypothesis that doesn't make a differential prediction. If two different hypotheses make the same prediction, you can't use data from that prediction to decide between one or the other. To make a scientific decision, you'd have to devise a hypothesis that differentiated between the two.
Likewise, photons and electrons help my case rather than yours. These are things ‘within our observable universe’, and yet how to treat them is a debate itself (see scientific realism versus anti-realism). In the case of multiverses, we’re not even dealing with something within our observable universe but defying direct observation. It’s outside our scope.
I don't see why. As I said, often we observe effects of unobservables, not the thing itself. If multiverses leave observable traces within our universe, then we can study them.
So when I say that a multiverse theory makes testable predictions about observable data, I do not mean we will observe another universe. I mean that we will observe what is predicted to be observable should another universe exist.
And we know this how? Because we’ve gone beyond the observable universe, tallied up the data, and now know what some of the signs are? Well, clearly it can’t be that.
Well sort of. Did you read my post? We can, in effect, observe the remnants of the Big Bang. That tells us a heck of a lot about what it spawned, and may tell us something, eventually about how it was itself spawned. If it was.
Or maybe it’s that if we don’t see certain things in our universe, then we know we don’t exist in a multiverse? Oops, wait a moment – it can’t be that either. The multiverse remains possible regardless of any data we encounter.
No, I don't think so. Well, not reasonably. Postulating something in the absence of any evidence or argument for it would be in the category of teapots orbiting Mars. We can't know there isn't one there, but there's no good reason to think there is.
Or maybe it’s that someone makes a grand metaphysical model partly inspired by some observations within our universe, and tries to connect those observations to that which is unobservable and untestable even in principle. But the standard response to that until recently was “well, then only the inferences about our observable universe have any hope of being scientific – the rest is beyond science”. I’ll say again: Would you like for me to make a prediction that’s consistent with a multiverse model? Here it is: “All observation and experiment will be consistent with the observable universe being the only universe.”
We can even have a shot at calcuating its size – 10^(10^30) times the size of the observable universe according to this (quite interesting) blog post, but I haven’t checked the sources:
Yes, I too can google “how big is the unobservable universe” and paste one of the first links I see. Can you realize the problem of saying “We can estimate the size of the thing that is not observable, even in principle, and also this estimate can be completely wrong”?
Well, I gave you the first link because it seemed to be reasonably informative. Obviously you could check out some scholarly sources. My point is that if you know (as we do) something about the way the universe inflated shortly after the Big Bang, then it isn't actually very difficult to figure out that a lot of it must already be beyond our sight, and, indeed, approximately how much. I mean, I couldn't do it, but it doesn't seem to be intrinsically difficult.
762 angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is scientific, but… it’s just that we may be wildly out until we get more data. ..Right? At no point will we ever have the data to check whether our estimates are correct, because there is no saying ‘Alright, time to go look at the unobservable universe and compare our notes’. Just as at no point do we get to say ‘Alright, time to go check out God and see if our universe is really fine-tuned after all’.
But that isn’t the same as saying that no more data is obtainable – it is. Now that we can actually see “back in time” to the early stages of the Big Bang (using Hubble and other satellites) we have ever more data to tell us how far and how fast we have come since then.
Of course we do, because that’s actually part of our observable universe! No, the unobservable universe is not about to become observable – by your own admission. At best – at our absolute finest – we’ll have wildly incomplete data that some people, scientists and not, use to make conjectures about that which is unobservable and untestable in principle. And insofar as that which they are conjecturing about is untestable and unobservable, their conjectures will remain exactly that: Conjectures. Extra-scientific assumptions and extrapolations from very limited data. It’s possible for some things to be possible, even true, and for science to be helpless to demonstrate such. It’s a limited tool, and the fact that some people really, really would like to call their every thought and inference ‘scientific’ should not give them license to abuse and warp science.
Well, Nullasalus, as I said, I'm no cosmologist or theoretical physicist, and I assume you aren't either, so we'd have to ask others to weigh in here. But from what I've read (and I'm interested in cosmology, as you probably are, and I've read a few books on the subject - Paul Davies' book, and the Steinhardt and Turok one, and Hawking of course, as well as the odd article in Nature and the Science press, including bulletins from the LHC, and it seems to me that you maybe aren't giving cosmologists quite the credit they deserve. They don't seem to just sit around thinking "hey, maybe there are multiple universes, that would get us out of this fine-tuning business". They do lots of math and chunk lots of data, and set up experiments to test hypothesis arising from their theories. That's how science works. So I'd say it was science :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
No-one has ever seen an electron, or a photon, or an exo-planet, and it was only recently that anyone had directly observed that the earth was (roughly) spherical. In my field we observe neural activity, but it is far from direct. But that does not stop us making good inferences about what underlies the effect we see. Nor does it stop you from making bad inferences, or non-scientific inferences - "the ability to make an inference" is not what's under question here. Not all inferences are scientific - and they aren't magically made such just because you refer to empirical data in your inference. That seems to be a problem you can't appreciate: The fact that you're referring to empirical data in the course of your speculations does not suffice to make your speculations scientific. Just as my for-example statement about fine-tuning does not make God's existence or activity scientific. Unless you agree that, actually, it does - I mean, given a multiverse, it's possible we live in a universe that was created by an intelligent being. So clearly it's scientific to infer that our universe was designed after all, right? Likewise, photons and electrons help my case rather than yours. These are things 'within our observable universe', and yet how to treat them is a debate itself (see scientific realism versus anti-realism). In the case of multiverses, we're not even dealing with something within our observable universe but defying direct observation. It's outside our scope. So when I say that a multiverse theory makes testable predictions about observable data, I do not mean we will observe another universe. I mean that we will observe what is predicted to be observable should another universe exist. And we know this how? Because we've gone beyond the observable universe, tallied up the data, and now know what some of the signs are? Well, clearly it can't be that. Or maybe it's that if we don't see certain things in our universe, then we know we don't exist in a multiverse? Oops, wait a moment - it can't be that either. The multiverse remains possible regardless of any data we encounter. Or maybe it's that someone makes a grand metaphysical model partly inspired by some observations within our universe, and tries to connect those observations to that which is unobservable and untestable even in principle. But the standard response to that until recently was "well, then only the inferences about our observable universe have any hope of being scientific - the rest is beyond science". I'll say again: Would you like for me to make a prediction that's consistent with a multiverse model? Here it is: "All observation and experiment will be consistent with the observable universe being the only universe." We can even have a shot at calcuating its size – 10^(10^30) times the size of the observable universe according to this (quite interesting) blog post, but I haven’t checked the sources: Yes, I too can google "how big is the unobservable universe" and paste one of the first links I see. Can you realize the problem of saying "We can estimate the size of the thing that is not observable, even in principle, and also this estimate can be completely wrong"? 762 angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is scientific, but... it’s just that we may be wildly out until we get more data. ..Right? At no point will we ever have the data to check whether our estimates are correct, because there is no saying 'Alright, time to go look at the unobservable universe and compare our notes'. Just as at no point do we get to say 'Alright, time to go check out God and see if our universe is really fine-tuned after all'. But that isn’t the same as saying that no more data is obtainable – it is. Now that we can actually see “back in time” to the early stages of the Big Bang (using Hubble and other satellites) we have ever more data to tell us how far and how fast we have come since then. Of course we do, because that's actually part of our observable universe! No, the unobservable universe is not about to become observable - by your own admission. At best - at our absolute finest - we'll have wildly incomplete data that some people, scientists and not, use to make conjectures about that which is unobservable and untestable in principle. And insofar as that which they are conjecturing about is untestable and unobservable, their conjectures will remain exactly that: Conjectures. Extra-scientific assumptions and extrapolations from very limited data. It's possible for some things to be possible, even true, and for science to be helpless to demonstrate such. It's a limited tool, and the fact that some people really, really would like to call their every thought and inference 'scientific' should not give them license to abuse and warp science.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
"Nullasalus has addressed this quite sufficiently, as well as given some more insight into the former issue at 73, 76 and 77." Correction: That was Dr. Torley at 73 and Nullasalus at 76 and 77. BTW, I've gotten through much of the work cited by Dr. Torley, and it really is well done. Very significant.CannuckianYankee
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
OK, well, thank you for that clarification, Nullasalus. But as I see it, it just doesn't reflect the way that science actually works. Most of what we study in science is "unobservable" - we measure the effects of things, not the things themselves. No-one has ever seen an electron, or a photon, or an exo-planet, and it was only recently that anyone had directly observed that the earth was (roughly) spherical. In my field we observe neural activity, but it is far from direct. But that does not stop us making good inferences about what underlies the effect we see. So when I say that a multiverse theory makes testable predictions about observable data, I do not mean we will observe another universe. I mean that we will observe what is predicted to be observable should another universe exist. Just as, it is clear, from what we know about the speed of light, that our own "observable universe" can only be a subset of the entire universe, which, by definition, we can't observe. But we can deduce that it must be there. We can even have a shot at calcuating its size - 10^(10^30) times the size of the observable universe according to this (quite interesting) blog post, but I haven't checked the sources:]]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/how_big_is_the_unobservable_un.php But I expect that's subject to revision every time we get new data about inflation in the early universe. Until we are more confident of the size of the Bang, it's going to be difficult to figure out how far the bits we can no longer see have got to. And to answer your question: all estimates of the size of the unobservable universe are "scientific", it's just that we may be wildly out until we get more data. But that isn't the same as saying that no more data is obtainable - it is. Now that we can actually see "back in time" to the early stages of the Big Bang (using Hubble and other satellites) we have ever more data to tell us how far and how fast we have come since then.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
As I understand it, multiverse theory leads to potentially testable predictions. If I am wrong, and it doesn’t, then I agree, it is, at least at present, Philosophy rather than Science. But if it does, then I take it you would agree that it is science? No, because it would depend on what the "testable predictions" entail. No other universe but our own will ever be observable, no tests are suggested which would lead to us experimenting on these multiverses. If I argued that the existence of God 'leads to testable predictions' - let's say fine-tuning - and lo and behold, we discover fine tuning, has God's existence become scientific on that basis? And if not, why not? I suppose "because God remains unobservable within the realm of science and not open to being experimented on" would be one reason. And I also take it that you would agree that the knowable universe is a small subset of the entire universe (in other words that there may be quite different regions elsewhere in the universe that resulted from Big Bang)? And I take it you would agree that approximately 742 angels can dance on the head of a pin? After all, that's what the best science of our day tells us. Really, you know the size of the unknowable universe? Think about what you're writing here. I can - and already did - grant that there is a limit to our observable universe. I can grant the logical possibility of something (perhaps 'more universe') existing beyond our observable universe. On what grounds does speculation about the size and makeup of that unobservable universe become scientific? The vague hopes that perhaps someday maybe someone will kinda-sorta develop a test they'll think maybe infers something about it? Or better yet, the suggestion that if the fact that something is unobservable and unable to be experimented on makes something unscientific, then potentially many things are beyond science's reach, and therefore we have to alter the definition of science? I'll supply your own reasoning for this case: Just because we're unable to ever observe universes other than our own or perform experiments on them does not mean they don't exist. Why, the existence of a multiverse remains logically possible and consistent with all evidence we have in science - and all evidence we could ever get. So you are free to believe in it if you wish. Just don't call it science.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Lizzie, EL: "I didn’t! I don’t think they are. That’s why I think that Stenger’s argument (as I understand it) is silly. But I haven’t read his book, so he may be making a different point to the one he is regarded here as making." Most of Rob's (Dr. Sheldon's) post in the OP is not actually posted. He links to his article from "The Procrustean." I'm not sure if you read the entire article, but I think one particular passage calls for a mention here: RS: "And precisely because I think good physics requires good metaphysics, I believe in critiquing metaphysics to understand what it is saying about reality and our interaction with reality. For example, a Gnostic metaphysics that considers reality to be only spiritual will not endeavor to find the causes of disease or the medicines that cure it. This is why we didn't get our penicillin from Mary Baker Eddy, our Hippocratic oath from India, or our physiology from China. Am I saying that acupuncture doesn't work? No, I'm saying that focussing on the pain doesn't really solve the underlying cancer, so that there is a world of difference between defining disease as the perception of pain or the cause of pain. Likewise there is a world of difference between defining science as the perception of order or the cause of order. Multiverse-theory, like acupuncture, focuses on perception as reality, whereas theism focuses on perception as a result of reality." Easing the pain does not cure the cancer in the same way that positing a multiverse does not solve a major metaphysical problem; that of the absurdity of infinite regresses, and it doesn't matter if your hypothetical multiverse is an infinite set or a finite set. Actually the infinite set is more immediately absurd than the finite, but the finite only gives you exponentially more universes to explain; particularly when it comes to the genesis of a universe. At one time in my past I was involved in a lot of discussion with atheists on interfaith forums. At that time I was less understanding of the implications of a multiverse. It wasn't until I started reading more on philosophy and metaphysics that I began to understand why actual infinities are absurd. They are not so absurd in an abstract sense, but once you try to tie them to time and space, logic pretty much goes out the door. There are some who disagree with this, but I keep sensing that they are allowing some unknowns into the equation that are not warranted; such as some of the unknown properties hypothetically attributed in string theory, etc. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I believe my doubts are rightly placed. CY: "They just aren’t needed if God exists. If God does not exist, they are apparently needed. I think it has something to do with increasing the probabilistic resources for a chance/necessity scenario for the genesis of life, coupled with a need to explain away the uniqueness of finely tuned habitable zones. I doubt if we would have any multiverse theories if there were not first a Darwinian theory, and increased genuine doubts about it’s probabilistic resources." EL: "Ah. OK. Thanks for spelling this out. I don’t think the reasoning is correct, but I now see the argument There are several reasons why I don’t think the reasoning is correct: 1) I don’t think a Darwinian account of the evolution of life depends on a highly improbable event." We keep suggesting books for you to read. I hope you have something like a Kindle. It could save you a lot of money in the long run. Anyway, when you get through with Chapter 10 in SITC, see if you still feel the same way. And if you do, I would highly recommend that you also read Dr. Dembski's "No Free Lunch" if you haven't already. EL: "This is where I disagree with IDists, and perhaps may demonstrate in my proposed simulation. We’ll see. But we can agree to differ on this for now, I hope" I think if you were to come up with a new simulation akin to EV, there are some people on here who would be very interested in your work. Expect some constructive criticisms. In fact, this might be a very good place to get some sort of peer review; because not everyone here is going to be gung-ho with the methodology and with what you're attempting to demonstrate. I'm not at all suggesting me; I'm not qualified. :) EL: "2) Even if it were found to be the case that our universe were as “finely tuned” for life (essentially, to have the initial conditions that made the emergence of heavy elements possible), I think the argument for God from fine-tuning suffers from a logical flaw, which is, ironically, the flaw of drawing the target round the arrow instead of the arrow round the target." I don't think this is a legitimate comparison. Again, I highly urge you to consider both Dr. Dembski's and Dr. Meyer's arguments. EL: "Let’s say that the universe might have hit any value, including the fine-tuning value, with equal probability, but the fine-tuning value was in fact the value it hit. Now if it had hit any other value, there would have been nobody in that universe to ask why the values were what they were. But, given that it hit the value it did, there were in fact people to ask why it hit that value. So it is not valid to sat “how extraordinary that our universe happened to have the values that allow us to ask the question!” because had it any other values we would not be here to ask it!" Your argument is similar to a much more simplistic non-argument that Dr. Dawkins makes (I think he made it in "The Blind Watchmaker") that we shouldn't be at all surprised at the improbability factor in the genesis of life, because; low and behold, here we are. That is hardly intellectually satisfying. It says nothing. It's like saying: "We shouldn't at all be surprised that Boston won the Stanley Cup, because, low and behold, they did. This does not take into account that Boston could have lost the Stanley Cup, and that it took some effort on their part to do so. So no, we shouldn't be surprised when we consider the conditions (the work) that led to their win. Your argument ignores the conditions (the work) that are (is) necessary for life, and says, we still shouldn't be surprised. Well, yes we should be surprised that mere chance and necessity led to life, and your argument does not at all address those necessary conditions (work). It merely tautologizes that the conditions were met. You discount the work that is involved. If there is no work, you don't get anywhere. Fine tuning is the work that you discount. Your argument is also similar to a common Darwinist fallacy about emergence. Nobody really has a mechanism for "emergence," it just magically happens. EL: "A better analogy than the arrow-target analogy is the problem of self-selection in statistics: For example, an internet questionnaire about computer knowledge in the population may show very high mean levels of expertise, whereas a random direct dialing poll does not. Is it an extraordinary coincidence that those polled by internet just happened to be computer nerds? Of course not. Without some degree of computer literacy you don’t even get as far as responding to the poll. So with the universe – the fact that we are here to ask the question indicates that we are necessarily in a universe in which that question can be asked. It doesn’t matter how improbable any one set of initial values were, only if the set was that which allowed the question could be asked could the question be asked! I'm afraid this argument isn't any better than the first. It may be a bit more sophisticated, but it too discounts the work. If probabilities as factors are not important, we should expect that anything is possible and in fact should be a reality, and this is simply not a scientific way of looking at things. Things don't just magically happen in defiance of the probabilities and the work involved - and I find it interesting that a theist can recognize this, but a naturalist who claims to be careful about the laws of physics, thinks magical things happening are nothing special. EL: "3) Some evidence suggests that the fine tuning isn’t all that fine" Nullasalus has addressed this quite sufficiently, as well as given some more insight into the former issue at 73, 76 and 77. EL: "4) It is already clear that the observable universe is a tiny subset of the entire universe, and we have no way of knowing whether the conditions that obtain in our region (the region at which we are the centre) obtain elsewhere, and every reason to suppose (see above) that the fact that the tuning values we observe in our region is compatible with the emergence of life and intelligence had to be that way if there was to be an us capable of asking the question about the spherical region of which we are the centre." KF addresses this at: 80. EL: "5) Independently of all the above problems above, there remain copious questions to be asked about the nature of the early universe that are perfectly investigatable by science, and some of these simply lead to multiverse theories." They don't have to lead to multiverse theories. People choose to have multiverse theories because they are satisfying on a plane that is quite beyond science. Do they answer some questions? Perhaps; but those questions can also be answered elsewhere. A multiverse is not necessary to answer them. Pay attention to Dr. Sheldon's quote again. EL: "There are at least two reasons for this that I know of: one is that inflation remains a bit of a kludge (and that seemed to be the subject of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper) and the second is that the big challenge in theoretical physics is unifying Relativity with Quantum theory, and, as ba77 often says, Quantum theory can lead to some weird ontological conclusions! Much of the interest in multiverses (horrible word) has been motivated, AFAICT, by the desire to unify these two theories. They can’t both be right, and, indeed, in some senses, they must both be wrong." Well I'm not anywhere even close to being an expert on cosmology, although it interests me greatly. I have read Dr. Guth's "The Inflationary Universe," and I'm not certain I understand it completely.CannuckianYankee
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Well, kairosfocus, as I keep saying I am neither a theoretical physicist nor a cosmologist, so I am not equipped to evaluate your own assessments, nor, indeed the work of theoretical physicists and cosmologists. But I note that many disagree with your assessment :) I also note that some present testable hypotheses (i.e. testable against observation) arising from their theories. So I must remain agnostic, as my only alternative is to make an arbitrary subjective decision about whose math to trust. You may be right. I just can't know that :) But, regarding (1) above - yes. But isn't that the point? That the "fine tuning" argument no longer works if we have reason to believe that we can only characterise that tuning in the part of the universe we happen to inhabit? Obviously the one we inhabit must be the right tuning for us, or we wouldn't be able to figure out the tuning. But why should we assume it is the same in the parts of the universe we cannot observe?Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: It is much more complex than that, pardon. On a few points: 1: The observed cosmos -- notice my frequent usage -- issue is that at the horizon where the recessional velocity relative to us is c, it marks the limit of physical interaction with us per Relativity. 2: Oscillating cosmi models, run into accumulation of entropy, and so bounces will run out of steam, these have been largely abandoned. 3: Bubbles forming sub cosmi in a wider manifold run into the problem of infinite time meaning that once probability is nonzero, expansions should overlap considerably. (Infinite past time is also very problematic.) 4: Independent manifolds are inherently non-interactive. 5: A population of bubbling up cosmi, faces the problem of LOCAL fine tuning, i.e. the cosmos we inhabit is so fine tuned that the degree of sampling to hit on it by chance is maximally implausible, and intent is a much better explanation. 6: Super-laws that force cosmi like ours, simply put the fine tuning up to the next level. In short, we are looking at a situation of speculation beyond what is reasonably observable, and in service largely to an a priori metaphysical agenda of materialism, as the alternative is perceived to be incredible. Multiverse speculation is metaphysics, not science but by presenting itself in scientific garb, it is enabled to exclude otherwise credible alternatives from the comparative difficulties process. Worldview level question begging, in short. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Nullasalus: as I've said I'm neither a cosmologist nor a theoretical physicist, so bear that in mind, but I think we have gleaned different ideas about what "multiverse theory" is. As I understand it, multiverse theory leads to potentially testable predictions. If I am wrong, and it doesn't, then I agree, it is, at least at present, Philosophy rather than Science. But if it does, then I take it you would agree that it is science? And I also take it that you would agree that the knowable universe is a small subset of the entire universe (in other words that there may be quite different regions elsewhere in the universe that resulted from Big Bang)? This is, as I understand it, one variant of "multiverse theory". Others concern "bubble universes" either generated within our own, or a kind of bubbling set potential Big Bangs. Yet others posit cyclical universes. Yes, all these are no more than philosophical speculation unless they can generate testable hypotheses, but that's just part of the scientific process - going from an idea to a theory to a testable hypothesis to an actual experiment. Wouldn't you agree?Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
It’s to be eternally separated from love. I’d call that a very bad thing.
What does that mean? I still love my mother, even though she is dead. She doesn't know that she is separated from my love, she knows she had it right up to the moment she died. Your answer only makes sense if you assume that you remain conscious after death, yet unable to know you are loved. I don't think that is a given.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
So it is not valid to sat “how extraordinary that our universe happened to have the values that allow us to ask the question!” because had it any other values we would not be here to ask it! 1) First, the idea that 'there would have been nobody in the universe to ask the question' is false. Boltzmann Brains could be possible, for example. (They're certain, given a multiverse, or enough time.) 2) The analogy doesn't work. If A) There's only one universe with one fixed set of values (and as near as we can tell - sans metaphysical and philosophical speculation - this is the case), B) The range to support life is in a vanishingly small array of values, and C) that range happens to be the values fall, we're left with a situation in need of an explanation. Notice a few things. 1) 'Gosh, this isn't very surprising at all! If the values were anything else we wouldn't be here, so there's no need to explain the values' isn't flying - even with many multiverse proponents. The fine-tuning of the values is treated as one reason to infer a multiverse. In other words, the fine-tuning is taken as something which needs to be explained, and not just by people who are inferring a designer. 2) This old example is worth considering: If a person is lined up for execution and 50 men take aim at him with rifles, all 50 aim and shoot, and he remains unharmed - is it really reasonable for him to say, "Well, there's nothing unusual about this situation. Granted, apparently the odds of my still being alive are vanishingly small - but if I didn't meet those odds, I wouldn't be here to ask that question, so the whole thing is moot!"? Or does he have a reason to explain his current situation? It is already clear that the observable universe is a tiny subset of the entire universe No, it's already clear that there is a limit to our observable universe, and that what is beyond it is an open question - and possibly an unanswerable one, as far as science is concerned. That our observable universe comprises a 'tiny subset' is speculation. Maybe we comprise a large subset. Maybe 'tiny' means '1/10th the size'. That some scientists are willing to speculate about what lies beyond the observable universe - even if this speculation were popular - would not change speculation into certain knowledge.nullasalus
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Absolutely. We do not reject the possibility of things that are possible We test them. That’s how science works. And you won't be going out and observing, or testing, the multiverse. Ellis recognizes that. Even many proponents of multiverse theories recognize that. Maybe you should consider that as well. Now, notice that Ellis is not arguing that people are not free to infer a multiverse if they so choose. He grants it. He just calls it exactly what it is: Philosophy. Metaphysics. Science, it ain't. Unless we're changing the definition of science. And if making inferences about what cannot be observed or experimented on, and what is largely rooted in metaphysical and philosophical assumption and speculation, can not qualify as science... then few things can't. And that includes ID. As another said here - want to call multiverse speculations science? You do that. It will make it all the more obvious that ID is science as well. I’m not talking about “speculations”, Nullasalus. I’m talking about people whose life’s work is figuring out the math, deriving testable hypotheses, and testing them. No, you are talking about speculations. Once again: There are no observations of universes other than our own. There are no experiments done on them. Even your own references are not of experiments on these things, but of observations which particular people - some scientists, some not - interpret so as to speculate about multiverses. And Ellis explains some of the problems with that in his article, as does Woit. Believe it or not, scientists can and do speculate at times. In fact, sometimes scientists engage in philosophy and metaphysics rather than science. Maybe you should devote more time and thought to recognizing the differences, rather than making broad claims about your 'almost certainty' of motivations based on having read a couple of books and talked to a couple of people in the field. Well, they are silly, then. Aren’t they? If someone demonstrated to you tomorrow that multiverse theory explained cosmological data better than universe theory, would you cease to believe in God? It certainly wouldn’t make one iota of difference to me. I don't care what would 'make a difference' to you emotionally. What I do care about is when what are philosophical and theological speculations are bandied about as science - and that is exactly what's happening in the case of multiverses. I do care when theological and philosophical commitments are driving science, and this isn't recognized, or is actively downplayed. Point of comparison: If a person walks up to a body covered with a tarp and shoots 3 bullets into the head - thinking a living person was under there, rather than a dead body - a reply of 'Well golly, they didn't kill anyone. This is nothing to be concerned about.' would be naive. Saying 'Well, even if some prominent scientists are seemingly motivated in their multiverse speculations by atheism or anti-theism, God can still exist even if a multiverse is true - so there's nothing to see here' is equally naive. Moreso, really, since even numerous atheists see the multiverse as removing an argument for God's existence. "Well, God's existence is still logically possible so it's all okay! :)" is inane. You don’t get a paper into Nature because it supports atheism. You get a paper into nature because it makes sense, or has the potential to make sense, of the data. Or your friends with some of the people at Nature who are in charge of selecting the papers. Or they happen to like your idea. Or they want to generate a discussion whether or not your idea is good. Or... Scientists are subject to bias, even groupthink, as much as anyone else. I know you've met some fellow scientists and consider yourself to be able to talk about the motivations of whole fields of people with almost-certainty, but do pardon me if I'm skeptical based on other data.nullasalus
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
What is so bad about death?
It's to be eternally separated from love. I'd call that a very bad thing.Mung
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
No, I haven't, thanks for the link :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Just a quick question. Have you read this paper by Robin Collins? The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe It's the most up-to-date refinement of the fine-tuning argument that I've seen, and it's impressively comprehensive in its scope and very rigorously argued.vjtorley
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Well, I'm glad we are together on something, ba77 :) Let's build on that, eh? Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Why, ba77? What is so bad about death? Actually, I'm kind of with you on that one; WADE HAWTHORNE - THE OLD MAN IS DEAD - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HQ-eJpdwNY ,,,but none-the-less, many people find death quite 'unnatural' and spend their entire life savings trying to avoid it,,, In fact I've heard it lamented, by those in favor of hospice care for terminal illnesses, that modern hospitals are geared solely to prevent death at all costs, and have lost complete sight of the essential 'process of dying' that each of us must go through; Glimpses Of Heaven - A Hospice Worker Tells Of End Of Life Experiences - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198022/ ,,, Thus your 'what's so bad about death?' remark seems to miss the point. Moreover, I hold that since Jesus Christ actually did die on the cross to save us from not only death, but from what awaited us beyond death if we died without reconciliation afforded by Christ to God, then death is not a simple 'turning out of the lights',, Bill Wiese - 23 Minutes In Hell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5391398/ ================= The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627 ======================= Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Elizabeth; And should not a infinite, personal, God who is, according to your own reasoning, best expressed as love, not save us from death???
Why, ba77? What is so bad about death? Hatred is far worse IMO.Elizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee:
Lizzie, “But my main point is that I don’t see what the big deal is. Why would multiverses be incompatible with God?” Multiverses, if they exist aren’t incompatible with God. Where did you get that idea?
! I didn't! I don't think they are. That's why I think that Stenger's argument (as I understand it) is silly. But I haven't read his book, so he may be making a different point to the one he is regarded here as making.
They just aren’t needed if God exists. If God does not exist, they are apparently needed. I think it has something to do with increasing the probabilistic resources for a chance/necessity scenario for the genesis of life, coupled with a need to explain away the uniqueness of finely tuned habitable zones. I doubt if we would have any multiverse theories if there were not first a Darwinian theory, and increased genuine doubts about it’s probabilistic resources.
Ah. OK. Thanks for spelling this out. I don't think the reasoning is correct, but I now see the argument :) There are several reasons why I don't think the reasoning is correct: 1) I don't think a Darwinian account of the evolution of life depends on a highly improbable event. This is where I disagree with IDists, and perhaps may demonstrate in my proposed simulation. We'll see. But we can agree to differ on this for now, I hope :) 2) Even if it were found to be the case that our universe were as "finely tuned" for life (essentially, to have the initial conditions that made the emergence of heavy elements possible), I think the argument for God from fine-tuning suffers from a logical flaw, which is, ironically, the flaw of drawing the target round the arrow instead of the arrow round the target. Let's say that the universe might have hit any value, including the fine-tuning value, with equal probability, but the fine-tuning value was in fact the value it hit. Now if it had hit any other value, there would have been nobody in that universe to ask why the values were what they were. But, given that it hit the value it did, there were in fact people to ask why it hit that value. So it is not valid to sat "how extraordinary that our universe happened to have the values that allow us to ask the question!" because had it any other values we would not be here to ask it! A better analogy than the arrow-target analogy is the problem of self-selection in statistics: For example, an internet questionnaire about computer knowledge in the population may show very high mean levels of expertise, whereas a random direct dialing poll does not. Is it an extraordinary coincidence that those polled by internet just happened to be computer nerds? Of course not. Without some degree of computer literacy you don't even get as far as responding to the poll. So with the universe - the fact that we are here to ask the question indicates that we are necessarily in a universe in which that question can be asked. It doesn't matter how improbable any one set of initial values were, only if the set was that which allowed the question could be asked could the question be asked! 3) Some evidence suggests that the fine tuning isn't all that fine 4) It is already clear that the observable universe is a tiny subset of the entire universe, and we have no way of knowing whether the conditions that obtain in our region (the region at which we are the centre) obtain elsewhere, and every reason to suppose (see above) that the fact that the tuning values we observe in our region is compatible with the emergence of life and intelligence had to be that way if there was to be an us capable of asking the question about the spherical region of which we are the centre. 5) Independently of all the above problems above, there remain copious questions to be asked about the nature of the early universe that are perfectly investigatable by science, and some of these simply lead to multiverse theories. There are at least two reasons for this that I know of: one is that inflation remains a bit of a kludge (and that seemed to be the subject of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper) and the second is that the big challenge in theoretical physics is unifying Relativity with Quantum theory, and, as ba77 often says, Quantum theory can lead to some weird ontological conclusions! Much of the interest in multiverses (horrible word) has been motivated, AFAICT, by the desire to unify these two theories. They can't both be right, and, indeed, in some senses, they must both be wrong.Elizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
And Elizabeth, to solidify that God cares 'personally' for each of us, I, once again, point out that reality itself reflects this 'caring' attribute of God; ================== ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back; The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U ,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,, 4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ ,,, yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a 'mental experiment' of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so i dug around a bit and found this; The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf and also 'serendipitously' found this,,, THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,, This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous': Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm ,, and to make universal quantum Wave collapse much more 'personal' I found this,,, "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/ Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries: Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.bornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
,,,The following is particularly interesting,,, “Most people think that the matter is empty, but for internal self consistency of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, there is required to be the equivalent of 10 to 94 grams of mass energy, each gram being E=MC2 kind of energy. Now, that’s a huge number, but what does it mean practically? Practically, if I can assume that the universe is flat, and more and more astronomical data is showing that it’s pretty darn flat, if I can assume that, then if I take the volume or take the vacuum within a single hydrogen atom, that’s about 10 to the minus 23 cubic centimeters. If I take that amount of vacuum and I take the latent energy in that, there is a trillion times more energy there than in all of the mass of all of the stars and all of the planets out to 20 billion light-years. That’s big, that’s big. And if consciousness allows you to control even a small fraction of that, creating a big bang is no problem.” – Dr. William Tiller – has been a professor at Stanford U. in the Department of materials science & Engineering ,,,The following offers a ‘hint’ as well,,,, though Dr. Dembski, in the following quote, does not directly address the zero/infinity conflict of QM and GR, he does offer interesting insight that, ‘serendipitously’, parallels the problem we find for reconciling QM and GR; The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. 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.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf ,,,Moreover, unlike Quantum Gravity, String Theory and M-Theory, there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Jesus Christ:,,, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 ,,,Thus I firmly believe that the evidence we have in hand clearly indicates that God’s crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe, but that God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the death and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something which should fill anyone who reads this with awe. The wonder that science and ‘religion’ would intersect so dramatically is of no small consequence. ================ Hebrews 2:14-15 “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.” Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.” further note: If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the “3D – photographic negative” image on the Shroud of Turin, I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright ‘Light’ or ‘Being of Light’ who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of ‘The Being of Light’ while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the ‘The Being of Light’ they were in the presence of is none other than ‘The Lord God Almighty’ of heaven and earth. In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences – Dr Jeffery Long – Melvin Morse M.D. – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627 The Extremely Monitored NDE of Pam Reynolds – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 There are a few more detailed notes, in first part of this following site, on the spiritual/material split between GR and QM and Jesus Christ’s reconciliation of the two frameworks: Intelligent Design – The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply