Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theoretical physicist: Multiverse not based on sound science reasoning

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Lost in Math From Sabine Hossenfelder, author of the forthcoming Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (June, 2018), at NPR:

For centuries, progress in the foundations of physics has been characterized by simplification. Complex processes — such as the multitude of chemical reactions — turned out to arise from stunningly simple underlying equations. And simplicity carried us a long way. According to physicists’ best theories today, everything in our universe emerges from merely 25 elementary particles and four types of forces.

So, yes, simplicity — often in the form of unification — has been extremely successful. For this reason, many physicists want to further simplify the existing theories. But you can always simplify a theory by removing an assumption. Like the assumption that the gravitational constant has a some value that you inferred from observation (up to some precision). Or similar assumptions about, say, the values of the masses of elementary particles, or the cosmological constant, or the strength of the four forces. These are assumptions some theoreticians are now throwing out.

If Ockham could see what physicists are doing here, he’d pray for God to bring reason back to Earth. You should remove unnecessary assumptions, alright. But certainly you shouldn’t remove assumptions that you need to describe observations. If you do, you’ll just get a useless theory, equations from which you can’t calculate anything. More.

Good points But what if multiverse theory is simply a means of fending off the impasses that fully naturalist theoretical physics is in? It doesn’t need to make sense, any more than bollards do.

See also: Theoretical physicist has a hard time convincing peers to accept reality

Sabine Hossenfelder asks at her blog “How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?”

Rob Sheldon: “Naturalness” in physics is dead, says Sabine Hossenfelder, and that’s a good thing

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Comments
PS: Do I really need to discuss "good cop"-"bad cop" tactics?kairosfocus
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
MB, a turnabout rhetorical tactic. There is something substantial on the table, if you have an objection to that kindly address it. That starts with, there is a major problem with a tendentious redefinition of science. And there are many other issues beyond. KFkairosfocus
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
“my observation is those who are closed minded, indoctrinated and hostile will simply flare up in anger at anything that threatens their favoured evolutionary materialistic scientism...” This is very true. But it also applies to those of us educated and indoctrinated in theistic beliefs. I am always trying to rein in my hostlility towards those who disagree with my viewpoints. I suggest that others here could benefit from that self examination.Molson Bleu
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
ET @6 & @9, I like your answers.Dionisio
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
EDTA @7, Interesting paper. Thanks.Dionisio
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Axel, I like your comments too.Dionisio
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Origenes, I like your comment.Dionisio
January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
KF @18, Valid point. Agree.Dionisio
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
An ideal naturalistic world is an utterly moronic world without any intelligent causation — everything proceeds mindlessly and deterministically. However, if there is a beginning of this moronic world, how can naturalism explain it without invoking intelligence? If the world is the inevitable result of the initial state of the universe, if all events were fully front-loaded in the initial state, if buildings full of intelligent beings, computers, TV sets, cell phones, libraries full of science texts and jet airplanes are all determined by the initial state, then how can naturalism avoid inferring intelligent design? The multiverse — Darwinism on steroids.Origenes
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Einstein warned not to oversimplify. But when 'a man of science' does something as imbecilic as to steal Einstein's Brain - as I believe happened - in order to discover the origin of his genius, it is surely the clearest of signs that the 'imbecilic intellectual (of sorts)' is by no means an urban myth, after the fashion of Bigfoot.Axel
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Everything is designed. There is no escaping it. We are totally immersed in it. Whether it's a watch or a lump of stone - everything breaks down to molecules, atoms, etc, doesn't it ? And what marvels of mystery the quantum level of matter constitutes, doesn't it ?Axel
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Dionisio, here's my yardstick. For nigh on seventy years, we have been looking at alphabetic code in extenso with algorithmic processing systems, in the heart of cell based life. Multiple Nobel Prize level work, this was not done in a corner and every child in school doing science has heard of DNA. If we cannot bring ourselves to acknowledge what that strongly points to, then the problem is neither evidence nor argument. It is a worldviews and ideologies problem. Hence the force with which I have argued and headlined. We are dealing with a crooked- yardstick- as- the- standard- for- straighness problem, not with oh there is "no evidence." KFkairosfocus
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
If the complex functionally specified informational organization we undoubtedly observe in biology can only be explained as the product of conscious agency, which is empirically demonstrated, then shouldn't the rest of the seemingly 'unsettled' discussions in other areas of science have to be reviewed accordingly?Dionisio
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
"You can believe that the seeming arbitrariness of the constants of nature is due to an infinite number of other universes. You can believe that, but you don't have to. Science cannot confirm that the other universes exist, but it also cannot rule them out. Just like science cannot rule out the gods and angels." Dr. Sabine HossenfelderDionisio
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
KF, Your well supported argument is very convincing. Thanks.Dionisio
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Dionisio, my observation is those who are closed minded, indoctrinated and hostile will simply flare up in anger at anything that threatens their favoured evolutionary materialistic scientism or their comfortable fellow-traveller views calibrated not to get them in hot water with the domineering atheists. The issue then is, how well cultured they are. The cultured play at subtle rhetorical games pivoting on evasions and how could you concern trolling which provide more or less respectable "good cop" cover. Then come the "bad cops" who try to run riot, bully, intimidate, slander and stalk. I say, toss over the whole rotten rhetorical game-board. The whole lot are corrupt, at minimum as enablers. Science seeks to accurately observe, describe, explain, predict and enable us to act effectively in our world. So truth-seeking is critical to science. Therefore we have to respect findings of related disciplines that support that work. Therefore, we must anchor on empirical observations and recognise that theories are inferences to the best current explanation and are inherently provisional. They remain theories so long as it is credible that they may be substantially true and no further. They are inherently provisional; subject to empirical testing and the requirement of well-tested empirical reliability. This holds for experimental sciences. It holds doubly for observational sciences and doubly again for scientific investigations of origins, where that deep past cannot itself be observed; we see traces and try to reconstruct and date past circumstances back to origins. All of this successively degrades strength of epistemic stance of relevant theories. All of this, the a priori materialist activists and their enablers will not acknowledge and have repeatedly tried to turn into accusations of stealth Creationism, "religion" inserting itself into the temple of science and the like. Such have media power and influence in governance up to a lot of state power. But that is different from having a good case, or being credible on the merits. If you cannot acknowledge the patent truth about the epistemological status of science i/l/o the pessimistic induction, you have no genuine credibility, period. That is settled. Going further, evolutionary materialistic scientism is self-referentially incoherent, amoral and open to nihilism. Indeed, by implying grand delusion of mind, it is profoundly anti-rational. Those who are its agit prop street or Internet cannon fodder are dupes of the ruthless and nihilistic. For them, some measure of sympathy is in order. Those who are ruthless manipulators and deceivers who wish to impose a crooked yardstick as the standard to assess what is straight/true, accurate and upright must now be named as enemies of sound civilisation and treated with stern resolve. So, I don't give 50c for their opinions once exposed. Yes, the fact that for nigh on 70 years we have known that ALPHABETIC TEXT IN CODE lies in the heart of cell based life is utterly blatant. The fact that these still want to argue that extensive text wrote itself out of lucky noise incrementally filtered for performance, over sixty years past 1953 now goes to character. But design of life from OOL up to us is not the whole story. We also find that on evidence of the sol system and the wider cosmos, the observed universe was set up for that life. Design, design not of life that could be effected in a molecular nanotech lab. Design and construction of a universe. Involving vast power, super-intellect and capability. Design beyond and antecedent to cosmos. Where, logic of being points to a finitely remote necessary being world-root capable of being the causal source of our world. A world that happens to contain reasoning, knowing, responsibly and rationally free, morally governed creatures. Us. That challenges us to rethink worldviews, ideologies and cultural agendas. And those making a noise and a row know it. Know it deep inside. And they are desperately afraid. So now, it is time. Time, to provide real leadership in rethinking origins across the board. And that is why I do not shun to put the whole picture on the table, including as above:
The situation is, that we have inferred on evidence and reasoning a system of analysis termed cosmology. This contains a considerable mathematical apparatus. In that apparatus we find many specific values and no indication that there are such as they must be as say pi is an exact value tied to the nature of circles. What is not fixed is at least potentially contingent per the logic of being and the concept of possible worlds, so it is worth exploring on that contingency. And yes, here we are looking at possible worlds and the logic of structure and quantity as connected to such. A reasonable exercise at the triple-point border between Science, Philosophy and Mathematics. What emerged was astonishing: the values we see as a cluster are astonishingly fine tuned in ways that set our observed world at a fine-tuned operating point in parameter and structure of laws space. This is remarkable already. John Leslie observed a further matter that is also just as interesting: “One striking thing about the fine tuning is that a force strength or a particle mass often appears to require accurate tuning for several reasons at once. Look at electromagnetism. Electromagnetism seems to require tuning for there to be any clear-cut distinction between matter and radiation; for stars to burn neither too fast nor too slowly for life’s requirements; for protons to be stable; for complex chemistry to be possible; for chemical changes not to be extremely sluggish; and for carbon synthesis inside stars (carbon being quite probably crucial to life). Universes all obeying the same fundamental laws could still differ in the strengths of their physical forces, as was explained earlier, and random variations in electromagnetism from universe to universe might then ensure that it took on any particular strength sooner or later. Yet how could they possibly account for the fact that the same one strength satisfied many potentially conflicting requirements, each of them a requirement for impressively accurate tuning?” [Our Place in the Cosmos, The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 1998 (courtesy Wayback Machine) Emphases added.] AND: “. . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.” Such is of course amenable to computer sims. And now we see something that is confronting us with a well-known characteristic of design: multiple components synthesised into a coherent whole that requires the mutual adaptation of the parts to work. Where, the alternative, oh we are just one bit out of a vast, quasi-infinite multiverse has many, many peculiarities and challenges. Not least, if you are doing that while wearing a lab coat you need to provide empirical observational data on the multiverse. That seems to be missing in fact and on many ways of thought in principle too. If you slip across the border into highly mathematical philosophy [and much of this stuff is actually clearly across that border], you are looking at the point that in phil you cannot rule out any serious worldview option without a legitimate comparative difficulties process and something like fatal incoherence. So, which is it: A: in science we see per obvious contingency of the mathematics, fine tuning and cannot find credible evidence of a multiverse OR B: we look at the issues freely, and cannot rule out all that phil would bring to the table, including much broader worldviews issues . . . . PS: If one suggests that the parameters we see are locked by higher order laws, so that our cosmos is explained on necessity, that simply postpones the contingency one level. And a fine tuning super-law is itself at least as fine tuned as what it specifies . . . . [M]y view is we need to look at both together, especially on the significance of a cosmos set up to produce H, He, O and C as first four elements in abundance, with N close by: stars, periodic table, water, organic chem, proteins. Bring in terrestrial planets in circumstellar and spiral arm galactic habitable zones with privileged planet fine tuning, and we are looking at setting the table for biological life based on C-chemistry, aqueous medium cells
It is time for grand synthesis and a challenge to a dying civilisation: stop, turn back from the unstable, crumbling brink of the precipice. Before it collapses, precipitating us into a dark age of horrors worse than anything seen before. Remember, nukes, bio weapons EMP and other weapons of mass devastation are now in play. KFkairosfocus
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
KF @12, I like the clarity and strength of the fine-tuning argument, with all its logical derivations. It's a very persuasive idea, no matter how we look at it. It simply makes much sense. However, daydreaming ideas like 'multiverse' can make some noise in a world increasingly accustomed to not testing everything and not holding what is good, a world where contextual meaning of words is irrelevant, where we hear OMG used so often as a conversational 'filler' to hide our poor vocabulary combined with our human habit of talking like parrots much more than it's necessary and thinking much less than we should. What does the multiverse do to the fine-tuning argument? It depends on how we look at it. Apparently -at least from my very ignorant perspective- it makes many people think that if the universal constants are tunable and we're in one of an infinite number of universes that have been popping up into existence through whatever explanations, then most probably those tunable parameters could take all kinds of values, including the ones we observe in this universe. Hence we happen to be in the "bingo!" universe. Many people take home that explanation at its face value, no questions asked. Actually, these days questions are not nicely perceived, as we have seen here in this website when dealing with some noisy objectors, even recently. Questions could be considered non politically correct in this world. Perhaps that's one reason why I agree with gpuccio's statement in his comment @10: "...the biological argument for design is in a way stronger than the fine tuning argument." Why do I agree with it? Because nowhere else, as far as I can see, we can easily perceive the increasing presence of mind-bogglingly complex functionally specified informational organization that can only result from conscious design, as it has been empirically corroborated. The OOL research field is turning more nightmarish with every new biology-related discovery. Distinguished scientists are jumping out of the sinking neo-Darwinian ship, creating an unpleasant spectacle of some folks in some anti-ID websites calling professor James Shapiro a 'closet creationist' for his third way ideas. Obviously a complete nonsense if we carefully read the opening paragraph in the third way webpage. Actually, that's why they call it 'third' way. Because they reject the first way, which to me is the only way, and they also (just recently) turned their back to the second way, i.e. modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism, or at least are trying to 'extend' it somehow. Nowhere else but in biology the ID objectors are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. Nowhere else but in biology we can find so many professionals from dissimilar backgrounds like electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics, physics, chemistry, all joining their knowledge and expertise, along with classic biologists, in multidisciplinary biology-related research teams in wet and dry labs all over the world. And against this whole scenario unfolding before us, what can the daydreaming idea of the multiverse do? Not much, if anything at all. Why? Because the OOL nightmarish situation won't get resolved by telling how we got the fine-tuned constant to begin with. Similarly, explaining how we got the 'bingo!' universal constants won't explain the evidently sudden appearance of huge amounts of quantifiable 'de novo' complex functionally specified information in proteins -an area gpuccio has clearly pushed so far ahead of the crowd right here in this website. BTW, I hope I'm not the only one in this website who has seen the tremendously significant situation where a distinguished biology professor started a discussion trying to punch a hole in an ID concept masterfully presented by gpuccio, but instead the academic objector apparently ran for the door, perhaps after realizing he couldn't even scratch gpuccio's ID presentation on the spliceosome. Some of us -despite our enormous scientific illiteracy- know the final score of this match. Because it has been graciously revealed to us by the Maker of everything. But still it's very enjoyable to watch the fascinating discoveries made at an increasing pace in biology research. I see the overwhelming amount of research papers all around and feel like a child in a huge toy store, completely hypnotized and undecided what to look at first. Is there another area of science where the "big data" crisis has turned so out of control in such a relatively short time? Why biology? Because it's also part of what's called 'life' sciences. Life. That's a fundamental question that has triggered the production of an uncountable amount of papers and debates all over. The 'multiverse' and all those daydreaming ideas are kept for the tabloid gossiping at social events. Biology is the leading battlefront in the scientific debate between irreconcilable opposite worldview positions. Physics, astronomy, astrophysics, remain behind. Those areas still allow for some speculations. Modern biology doesn't leave any room for speculative nonsense, because WYSIWYG. Explanations must be clearly unambiguous in order to be taken seriously in biology today. There are many folks from non-biology science and engineering backgrounds playing in the same biology-related research teams. Pseudoscientific hogwash doesn't last too long before being thrown away from biology discussions these days. In biology it's what we know -not what we don't- that clearly points to conscious design.Dionisio
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
GP, my view is we need to look at both together, especially on the significance of a cosmos set up to produce H, He, O and C as first four elements in abundance, with N close by: stars, periodic table, water, organic chem, proteins. Bring in terrestrial planets in circumstellar and spiral arm galactic habitable zones with privileged planet fine tuning, and we are looking at setting the table for biological life based on C-chemistry, aqueous medium cells. KFkairosfocus
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
MB: Actually, it is not just laws and constants but raw values of quantities etc. The situation is, that we have inferred on evidence and reasoning a system of analysis termed cosmology. This contains a considerable mathematical apparatus. In that apparatus we find many specific values and no indication that there are such as they must be as say pi is an exact value tied to the nature of circles. What is not fixed is at least potentially contingent per the logic of being and the concept of possible worlds, so it is worth exploring on that contingency. And yes, here we are looking at possible worlds and the logic of structure and quantity as connected to such. A reasonable exercise at the triple-point border between Science, Philosophy and Mathematics. What emerged was astonishing: the values we see as a cluster are astonishingly fine tuned in ways that set our observed world at a fine-tuned operating point in parameter and structure of laws space. This is remarkable already. John Leslie observed a further matter that is also just as interesting:
"One striking thing about the fine tuning is that a force strength or a particle mass often appears to require accurate tuning for several reasons at once. Look at electromagnetism. Electromagnetism seems to require tuning for there to be any clear-cut distinction between matter and radiation; for stars to burn neither too fast nor too slowly for life’s requirements; for protons to be stable; for complex chemistry to be possible; for chemical changes not to be extremely sluggish; and for carbon synthesis inside stars (carbon being quite probably crucial to life). Universes all obeying the same fundamental laws could still differ in the strengths of their physical forces, as was explained earlier, and random variations in electromagnetism from universe to universe might then ensure that it took on any particular strength sooner or later. Yet how could they possibly account for the fact that the same one strength satisfied many potentially conflicting requirements, each of them a requirement for impressively accurate tuning?" [Our Place in the Cosmos, The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 1998 (courtesy Wayback Machine) Emphases added.] AND: ". . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly."
Such is of course amenable to computer sims. And now we see something that is confronting us with a well-known characteristic of design: multiple components synthesised into a coherent whole that requires the mutual adaptation of the parts to work. Where, the alternative, oh we are just one bit out of a vast, quasi-infinite multiverse has many, many peculiarities and challenges. Not least, if you are doing that while wearing a lab coat you need to provide empirical observational data on the multiverse. That seems to be missing in fact and on many ways of thought in principle too. If you slip across the border into highly mathematical philosophy [and much of this stuff is actually clearly across that border], you are looking at the point that in phil you cannot rule out any serious worldview option without a legitimate comparative difficulties process and something like fatal incoherence. So, which is it: A: in science we see per obvious contingency of the mathematics, fine tuning and cannot find credible evidence of a multiverse OR B: we look at the issues freely, and cannot rule out all that phil would bring to the table, including much broader worldviews issues. KF PS: If one suggests that the parameters we see are locked by higher order laws, so that our cosmos is explained on necessity, that simply postpones the contingency one level. And a fine tuning super-law is itself at least as fine tuned as what it specifies.kairosfocus
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Molson Bleu: "It just seems to me that for something to be finely tuned, it should be tuneable. As far as I know, that hasn’t been demonstrated. It seems like we are just clutching at any straw that might support our views. It just makes us look pathetic. We should concentrate on the weaknesses of evolution and the strengths of the design inference, irreducible complexity, information and other things that can be tested." Well, I can partially agree with you that the biological argument for design is in a way stronger than the fine tuning argument. I have expressed the same idea many times here. However, that does not mean that the fine tuning argument is not important or valid. It is in essence the most detailed and scientifically consistent formulation of the classic cosmological argument, an argument that has always had great strength in the history of philosophy. You say: "It just seems to me that for something to be finely tuned, it should be tuneable. As far as I know, that hasn’t been demonstrated." Any form of the cosmological argument has a philosophical apsect, because we are denating the origin of the whole universe we know. The assumption that the specific mathematical values we observe in reality should have some explanation is not at all unreasonable. Indeed, most physiscists would agree about that. That assumption is enough to make the fine tuning argument valid. Therefore, while I agree that we should stick mainly to the biological argument, because it is so strong, and requires no philosophical assumptions, I also think that you are definitely unreasonable in criticizing the cosmological argument, and its modern form as fine tuning argument, which are strong cognitive arguments too.gpuccio
January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
Molson Bleu:
Is there any evidence that they can be anything other than they are?
Not for this universe but computer simulations have been made using other values.ET
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
“And is there any evidence the laws and constants have to be the way they are? ” Is there any evidence that they can be anything other than they are? It seems to me that you have to demonstrate this before you can claim fine tuning. Anything else is just pathetic pleading.Molson Bleu
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
MB @ 4, May I offer the following link to a paper that, for me anyway, made the fine-tuning argument more clear? (And perhaps show that a lot of thought goes into it.) http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/uploads/7/4/5/6/7456646/infraredbullseye-philstud-final-wtp.pdfEDTA
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu:
It just seems to me that for something to be finely tuned, it should be tuneable.
And is there any evidence the laws and constants have to be the way they are? No...ET
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
"It just seems to me that for something to be finely tuned, it should be tuneable. As far as I know, that hasn’t been demonstrated." To quote Weinberg (by no means a design proponent): "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."
Quote: “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. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
bornagain77
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
“Pardon, but kindly explain: and on what basis should your impressions be held decisive?” It just seems to me that for something to be finely tuned, it should be tuneable. As far as I know, that hasn’t been demonstrated. It seems like we are just clutching at any straw that might support our views. It just makes us look pathetic. We should concentrate on the weaknesses of evolution and the strengths of the design inference, irreducible complexity, information and other things that can be tested.Molson Bleu
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
MB, Pardon, but kindly explain: and on what basis should your impressions be held decisive? KF PS: Here are a few thoughts by a lifelong agnostic and Nobel-equivalent prize holder, Sir Fred Hoyle:
>>[Sir Fred Hoyle, In a talk at Caltech c 1981 (nb. this longstanding UD post):] From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]>> . . . also, in the same talk at Caltech: >>The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ --> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix. >> . . . and again: >> I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the [--> nuclear synthesis] consequences they produce within stars. ["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]>>
Much more has happened since then but it has only strengthened the basic point.kairosfocus
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
I have never been impressed by the fine tuning argument.Molson Bleu
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
a few notes:
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature. These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed. ,,, Tweaking the Constants Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves. You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws
At the 8:15 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins is set straight by Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, on just how big the 'problem' of the 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant is:
Quote: “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. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind - Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg - 1 in 10^120 - Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design - video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
bornagain77
January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply