You Are On The Jury

H'mm: Pardon a bit of housekeeping and a few points esp on 44 above by VJT. 1] Bob O'H, in 14, points to a case on probability improperly used to convict. What Bob failed to do was to cite the reason the conviction was overturned, as was stated in the Wiki article he cited:

Sally Clark (15 August 1964 – 15 March 2007)[1] was a British lawyer. She was the victim of a miscarriage of justice; her convictions in 1999 for the murder of two of her sons were quashed in 2003. Clark's first son died suddenly within a few weeks of his birth in 1996. After her second son died in a similar manner, she was arrested in 1998 and tried for the murder of both sons. Her prosecution was controversial due to statistical evidence presented by paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering cot death was 1 in 73 million, when in fact it was closer to 1 in 200. [2] In an unusual intervention, the Royal Statistical Society wrote to the Lord Chancellor saying there was "no statistical basis" for Meadow's figure.

This has utterly nothing to do with a situation where the probabilistic resources of the observed universe -- the only one we have ACTUALLY observed to date -- are exhausted by the outcomes in view that are complex and functionally specified. In short, the ID issue is unaddressed by the sad case of Ms Sally Clarke and her children, save to underscore the significance of available probabilistic resources. That's not cricket, Bob. Worse, the case is also one of blatant abuse of claimed scientific authority to manipulate the laypeople who sit on a Jury or even in a Magistrate's bench. At least, the relevant Institution at length spoke out in protest. I ain't holding my breath on a similar outcome for NDT and OOL models. 2] VJT, 44: I completely agree with kairosfocus . . . . The fact is that even if there is a multiverse, we don’t know WHICH universe in that multiverse we are actually in. That’s an epistemological question, and if the multiverse theory is true, then what we have to decide, as members of the jury. Are we in one where Harry got incredibly lucky? Or are we in one where Harry pulled a fast one? The Powerball Committee might be pretty hard to fool, but I’m sure the chance that someone could fool them is higher than the very low probability of Harry’s getting a five-peat. That’s why I’d vote to convict Harry. Thanks. You will also note that I consistently speak of a Quasi-Infinite array of sub-cosmi [or, metagalaxies]in the cosmos as a whole. This is because I take the contradictions of Hilbert's Hotel seriously. (NB: Wiki's gratuitous dismissal attempt on WLC, that arriving at the present from an infinite past does not implicate a supertask is also unimpressive. Has it occurred to them that if we set NOW = zero time, an infinite past of say seconds [i.e. finite, discrete increments acquired in succession] is of course a count-down "from" negative infinity and thus implicates a conundrum [however labelled], as WLC long since pointed out in his work on the area? That is, at what point does one exhaust a temporal, sequential countdown from negative infinity so to speak? And that is no Supertask, "a task occurring within a finite interval of time involving infinitely many steps (subtasks)," it is a need to incrementally in finite discrete steps taking a certain specified amount of time, traverse the countable infinity of negative integers from infinitely many negative to zero. If one can't get TO infinity by such a traverse, one cannot get FROM negative infinity by such a traverse either; let's for convenience call such an attempted traverse requiring infinite time to do a countably infinite traverse an ULTRA-task. That has nothing to do with traversing a finite continuum in time and space that one may mathematically divide up into a quasi-infinite cumulation of increments that in the limit go to "zero." Notice, in the latter case, one does not actually go to zero-width slices, but exploits the properties of sequences and series, namely that in certain interesting cases, they converge to a limit as one increases the number of terms imaginatively without limit, i.e the "infinity" in question arrives all at once, not in finite, incremental succession. Thence calculus and its applications.) So, IMHCO, it is unreasonable to speak in terms of a truly infinite set of sub-cosmi, especially if we are also talking of such arising at random at random points and enduring a finite quantum of time. (It begins to look like putting up an incredible, Russell 5-minute old universe-style proposed cosmos: explaining away our experience at the expense of discrediting the very minds and senses that one has to use to infer to such a cosmos.] 3] The reason why we rejected Harry’s plea was that we judged the likelihood of Harry’s tampering with the Lotto balls to be much higher than that of his getting a lucky five-peat. The analogy of abiogenesis with ID fails at just this point, because we simply cannot estimate the likelihood that some higher intelligence tampered with the organic molecules swirling around on the early Earth, and created a living cell. But, VJT, we are NOT dealing with Likelihoods! Instead, we start with a well-known fact: designers are possible and in every case where we directly observe the causal story, functionally specified complex information beyond the Dembski-type bound arises from such agent action, NOT from chance + necessity only. [Of course, wise design reckons with and may even exploit C + N in its work, as I discuss in my always linked.] Second, we have relevant, highly reliable background knowledge on the world of molecules and similar particles, namely statistical mechanics. In that world, we easily see that the assemblage of complex, multi-part machines constituting a system that functions as a fine-tuned integrated whole, is statistically well beyond the reach of C + N in the observed cosmos. [Cf my Appendix A.] Third, we know that the nanotechnology of the cell constitutes a self-replicating, self-maintaining highly complex automaton embedding a highly sophisticated information system. Simple estimates for even the minor components of such systems immediately run well beyond the Dembski-type bound, and that does not begin to address the force of the integrated, 3-D interlocking nature of the involved multitude of elements and of the related computer languages and algorithms. We can therefore see rapidly that OOL by C + N only on the scope of our observed cosmos is a hypothesis maintained in the teeth of abundant empirical data and knowledge. And, the multiverse hyp is in effect a resort to naked metaphysics to try to save the phenomena for a worldview that is in deep trouble on this front. [As I have pointed out elsewhere in this blog in recent months, and summarise here, it is in even deeper trouble on the front of trying to account for the origin of a credible mind relative to forces tracing to C + N only. And so it becomes self-referentially incoherent thus false by logical necessity.] The required extensions of such a system to create the body-plan level biodiversity by C + N only on the gasmut of the cosmos [leave alone the Earth] runs into the same barrier over and over. Thus, on a very confident inference to best explanation, design is implicated. Of course, once one provides an adequate empirical demonstration that such a task is feasible by C + N only, then it would be overthrown. But, relative to abundant empirical data [cf. here Behe's Edge of Evolution] and well-tested models and theories related thereto, I ain't holdin my breath waiting for that. In fact, things look more and more like a desperate doomed defence of a worldview now long past its sell-by date [Evolutionary Materialism] and its major intellectual and rhetorical prop, NDT. That explains the shrill polemics and resort to utterly indefensible behaviour as Expelled (for instance) documents. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 16, 2007

October

10

Oct

16

16

2007

01:54 AM

1

01

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Magnan: Invocation of MWI is a tacit admission that non-directed natural forces in this universe cannot account for the phenomena in question; that leaves teleological models. I agree with your assessment of MWI, but I differ in your terms. Hypothetically, MWI explains everything, but describes nothing. What is required is a descriptive model; regardless of, for example, if gravity is different or nonexistent in other universes, MWI explains all such instances, but describes no individual universe's gravity. Or any other emergent phenomena or natural law in any particular universe. In THIS universe, we have what seems to be big sets of very unlikely sequences of phenomena that are not adequately described by any non-directed model, and are easily described via teleolgical models. Whether or not they really were designed is irrelevant; what gravity "really is" is irrelevant ... to the success and validity of the model that descrbes the behavior. This is why MWI isn't worth fighting, and is actually a good thing for ID theory.William J. Murray

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

08:51 PM

8

08

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ProfessorSmith: I'm not sure what argument you think I'm trying to make that you believe I'm contradicting myself. MWI is a hypothetical explanation of how interesting sequences exist in our universe, not a scientific description of those sequences. If MWI must be invoked for a sequence, then it is a de facto admission that models of non-directed forces and laws in our universe cannot describe the sequences; however, MWI itself has no descriptive power inside our particular universe. So, if there is a de-facto admission that non-directed forces cannot explain the sequence, the only other kind of model is a design one - one that describes the sequence in terms of the result - a teleological model. In this way, any invocation of MWI directly implicates ID theory. In other words (as it relates to the jury example) as a jury member if the defense attorney claimed MWI - that doesn't have descriptive power, because it's just a framework for why any model exists anywhere in any universe. But the only applicable model that describes the defendants behavior **in our universe** isn't gravity, or chance (as it exists in this particlar universe), or inertia, or conservation of energy .. it's Inteligent Design ... goal oriented behavior. Verdict: guilty.William J. Murray

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

08:36 PM

8

08

36

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William J. Murray: "MWI necessarily destroys RM & NS as a meaningfully explanatory model, and necessarily validates a teleological model as the only viable descriptive model." I agree with the first statement, but I don't see the second as following. With MWI our world is one of an infinite array in which just the right functional macromutations ("punctuated equilibrium") or micromutations occurred in just the right individuals under just the right environmental conditions at just the right times to result in the present array of living organisms. This is regardless of probabilities calculated from the equal likelihood of vast numbers of alternate events. It doesn't matter whether the improbability of this series of mutations and other genetic changes is way beyond Dembski's universal probability bound, or if Darwinian truly random variation plus NS really can do the whole job. If the infinite multiple universe concept is valid there must even be an infinite number of other universes with other different varyingly unlikely series of events leading to different living organisms. Infinity is very large, so it is also possible that our world came into being ten years ago from a vast galactic dust cloud by a purely random chance coincidence of molecular motions. Of course with all the multiple apparent evidences of the past evolutionary history of the world, including the fossil record. Even for ID, if the teleological cause behind or intervening in evolution is part of this universe, then we just happen to be in one which contains a designer and in which this designer just happened to decide this way. This type of "explanation" seemingly explains absolutely anything (except logical impossibilities or miracles) and cannot therefore be falsified. So it really explains nothing in any scientific sense - it is just nebulous speculation.magnan

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

07:53 PM

7

07

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William J Murray, "Funny, that’s exactly what fanatical materialists keep saying about ID. In both cases, it’s untrue." Let's not resort to such tactics as tarring our opponents with such a broad brush. There's no need to keep trying to link my and other's argument to the psycho-babble of the "funda-materialists." "Sure it can; in fact, it very elegantly explains it, at least from a materialist viewpoint; “everything exists”. However, “everything exists” would be the materialist version of “god did it”; the question is, so what, where do you go from there? That’s when ID theory beats RM & NS as a descriptive model inside our particular universe." Thus, you defeat your own argument. The best case (for you) scenario you have given us is that MWI can say nothing about this universe, so it is irrelevant as to whether ID or RM + NS is a better explanation. "As to the last couple of parapgraphs, my point about MWI has been that it necessarily supports design theory - not the implication of a designer, but design theory itself, that many of the features of biology and the universe are only explicable in terms of being designed to accomplish what what we now observe. This is apparently the difficult aspect of the MWI argument to understand; while it is an interesting and possible hypothesis that “explains” how such an interesting universe such as ours came to be, it offers no descriptive power over what we actually observe in this universe - it’s just a “chance of the gaps” model that has no real meaning or practical, functional, scientific power." In the space of two paragraphs, you contradict yourself. MWI supports design, but also has no descriptive power for our universe? Make up your mind already. "So, if MWI is true, then the only models that are going to be practical, functional, and meangingful descriptors of what has gone on in our interesting universe are teleological models like ID." No, MWI does nothing of the sort. If we have multiple universes to choose from, then there is no need to invoke a designer to overcome the extremely long odds against fine-tuning, OOL, etc. You've provided no support for your position beyond your say-so. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. "You’re making incorrect inferences about what I’ve stated." Then explain it better. Simply stating that I'm not getting your meaning does nothing to expand my understanding. If you have an argument to present, then present it. As far as I can see, all you've said is that MWI supports ID because ID is the best explanation for what we observe in this universe. In this case, MWI is, at best, superfluous. MWI would not lend any support to ID. At worst, you aren't interpreting the implications of MWI correctly.professorsmith

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

04:58 PM

4

04

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ID theory is the only model with sufficient explantory power to predict the existence of either watch in this particular universe, by starting with the watch (the goal) and describing it’s “coming-to-existence” in terms of a telological process towards the existence of the watch. No, John Wheeler already did it, and Paul Davies supports this approach. Let's see... theirs is not the only alternative causality-responsible approach that doesn't require an intelligent designer.AnthropicsPrinciple

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

04:37 PM

4

04

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William J. Murray Hey, thanks for the links. But I dunno. Biologists like worms, don't they? I imagine that MWI will remain a boon to those engaged in the speculative arts -- such as science-fiction writing and NDE -- for as long as it remains untestable. Actually the Stanford article looks to me like it's trying to put a happy face on a whole lot of bad news about the theory's experimental viability. Viz:

The collapse leads to effects that are, in principle, observable; these effects do not exist if the MWI is the correct theory. To observe the collapse we would need a super technology, which allows "undoing" a quantum experiment, including a reversal of the detection process by macroscopic devices. See Lockwood 1989 (p. 223), Vaidman 1998 (p. 257), and other proposals in Deutsch 1986. These proposals are all for gedanken experiments that cannot be performed with current or any foreseen future technology. Indeed, in these experiments an interference of different worlds has to be observed. Worlds are different when at least one macroscopic object is in macroscopically distinguishable states. Thus, what is needed is an interference experiment with a macroscopic body. Today there are interference experiments with larger and larger objects (e.g., fullerene molecules C60), but these objects are still not large enough to be considered "macroscopic". Such experiments can only refine the constraints on the boundary where the collapse might take place. A decisive experiment should involve the interference of states which differ in a macroscopic number of degrees of freedom: an impossible task for today's technology.[8]

Gee. That doesn't sound so good. Then it talks about experiments that have been attempted.

The collapse mechanism seems to be in contradiction with basic physical principles such as relativistic covariance, but nevertheless, some ingenious concrete proposals have been made (see Pearle 1986 and the entry on collapse theories). These proposals (and Weissman's 1999 non-linear MW idea) have additional observable effects, such as a tiny energy non-conservation, that were tested in several experiments. The effects were not found and some (but not all!) of these models have been ruled out.

So keep on smilin', folks!

An apparent candidate for such an experiment is a setup proposed in Englert et al. 1992 in which a Bohmian world is different from the worlds of the MWI (see also Aharonov and Vaidman 1996). In this example, the Bohmian trajectory of a particle in the past is contrary to the records of seemingly good measuring devices (such trajectories were named surrealistic). However, at present, there are no memory records that can determine unambiguously (without deduction from a particular theory) the particle trajectory in the past. Thus, this difference does not lead to an experimental way of distinguishing between the MWI and Bohmian mechanics. I believe that no other experiment can distinguish between the MWI and other no-collapse theories either, except for some perhaps exotic modifications, e.g., Bohmian mechanics with initial particle position distribution deviating from the quantum distribution.

Gee. That doesn't sound very promising either. But fear not!

There are other opinions about the possibility of testing the MWI. It has frequently been claimed, e.g. by De Witt 1970, that the MWI is in principle indistinguishable from the ideal collapse theory. On the other hand, Plaga 1997 claims to have a realistic proposal for testing the MWI, and Page 2000 argues that certain cosmological observations might support the MWI.

Sounds optimistic, except for those words like "possiblility," "claims to have," and "might support." Fifty years is a long time for a physics theory (as opposed to an origins theory) to live with zero experimental confirmation. Given the facts -- as divorced from the rhetoric -- I'd guess that most candidates, pondering their dissertations in experimental physics, smell out that trying to devise experiments to test MWI is a project from which to steer wide away.jstanley01

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

02:06 PM

2

02

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BarryA, many people who try to wrap their heads around infinity do eventually "blow up their heads," as you have put it. If you haven't read Rudy Rucker's book "Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite" get it, it's a great book for those who can follow it. In a nutshell the book could be summarized as: "It is in the realm of infinity, he maintains, that mathematics, science, and logic merge with the fantastic." see http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5656.htmlrockyr

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

01:53 PM

1

01

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#51 DaveScot: Let's look at it this way; if you have two wristwatches, identical in every respect except one was created by a watchmaker, and the other was the product of the most astounding lineage of chance occurrences imaginable, how would you discern which one was **actually** intelligently designed, and which one just appears to be so designed? To the actual theory of ID, there is no meaningful difference, because ID theory is the only model with sufficient explantory power to predict the existence of either watch in this particular universe, by starting with the watch (the goal) and describing it's "coming-to-existence" in terms of a telological process towards the existence of the watch. "Watchmaker made it" or "MWI chance made it" are both irrelevant scientific descriptions of the "making of the watch" process. To answer your question, the only practical way I can think of to find out if a watchmaker made that particular watch, would be to find and ask the watchmaker.William J. Murray

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

01:48 PM

1

01

48

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

wjm If there are multiple universes then are we in a universe where life on earth was intelligently designed or one where it wasn't? How can we tell which it is?DaveScot

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

01:30 PM

1

01

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

jstanley01: the MWI is also called the Everett interpretation and has been around 50 years. You can read several scientific efforts to examine this hypothesis here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/abstracts.htm - also, a more comprehensive examination of the hypothesis and who supports it can be found here http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html#believes%20in - they also describe some empirical tests that might be possible, as far as proving that other universes exist. Materialists (at least, those in physics) by and large abhor the Everett Interpretation (MWI) because of the potential consequences - it breaks down any meaning to the term "materialism" and introduces all sorts of spiritual and non-material implications. I seriously doubt biologists really comprehend the can of worms they are opening by resorting to MWI to bolster NDE.William J. Murray

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

01:17 PM

1

01

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William J. Murray You're point is noteworthy, that MWI originated in theoretical physics. I always assumed it was cooked up by a bunch of neo-Darwinists sitting around the living room bong with nothing to do on a Saturday night. Wikipedia is worth consulting on the issue. It looks to me like MWI was postulated to try to account mathematically for the contradictions observed in quantum physics. However, as far as I can tell as a non-scientist, a fair reading of the canvass of possible tests of MWI which you linked at a Stanford website -- especially those that would verify MWI's denial of wave function collapse -- fully justifies BarryA's and ProfessorSmith's skepticism about a workable hypothesis forthcoming from experimental physics.jstanley01

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

12:52 PM

12

12

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If one wants to posit a "multiverse" scenario to get around any "fine-tuning" argument then one has to demonstrate a causal connection between the systems. If that cannot be accomplished then the multiverse scenario is akin to the odds of hitting the jackpot with one ticket per lottery but on a daily basis- as opposed to the odds with just one ticket and one lottery (as would be the case if ours was the the only universe). So if I was on the jury I would ask for the testimony that demonstrated such a connection.Joseph

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

12:44 PM

12

12

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

gpuccio: Stating that, in your opinion there is no current evidence that supports a theory, is far different than your claim that " It can never be falsified, nor verified." I posit that the latter - your statement - can only be construed as ideological certainty. If you wish to rescind that certainty, no problemo. As far as MWI being a weak explanation - more of a hail-mary pass "chance of the gaps" hypothesis, I fully agree; however, my argument here isn't in support of MWI as a reasonable component of evolutionary theory, but rather that ID supporters must be wary of falling into the same ideological trap that funda-materialists have fallen into; i.e., ridiculing and attacking a hypothesis or theory because one dislikes the philosophical ramifications. As to the last couple of parapgraphs, my point about MWI has been that it necessarily supports design theory - not the implication of a designer, but design theory itself, that many of the features of biology and the universe are only explicable in terms of being designed to accomplish what what we now observe. This is apparently the difficult aspect of the MWI argument to understand; while it is an interesting and possible hypothesis that "explains" how such an interesting universe such as ours came to be, it offers no descriptive power over what we actually observe in this universe - it's just a "chance of the gaps" model that has no real meaning or practical, functional, scientific power. So, if MWI is true, then the only models that are going to be practical, functional, and meangingful descriptors of what has gone on in our interesting universe are teleological models like ID. MWI isn't the enemy of ID theory; it's just the enemy of ID idealogues that demand the theory imply a designer. Also, while funda-materialists might initially embrace MWI as a NDE savior, in the end MWI destroys materialism. MWI is going to backfire on them because they can't see far enough ahead to see the actual consequences of embracing MWI.William J. Murray

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

11:50 AM

11

11

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William J. Murray: I appreciate your arguments, but have to disagree on many points. You say: "Funny, that’s exactly what fanatical materialists keep saying about ID. In both cases, it’s untrue. There have been several such experiments, and there are more in the works. Why would you claim that it can “never be falsified or verified”, unless it is an ideological assumption on your part?" First of all, it is not an ideological assumption: it could be a false assumption (I don't think I am always right), but it is not ideological in any way. And it is not only mine, or of ID in general: I cite here from wikipedia, which is not usually an ID think tank: "Critics claim that these theories lack empirical correlation and testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove; and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature". Besides, I can very well accept the idea that many universes may exist, although I still think that we have no evidence for that. I just think that assuming the idea of multiple, or infinite, universes, never observed and probably never observable, just to "explain" what we observe in ours, is certainly not scientific. I would be very interested in knowing which are the experiments which have verified or falsified any multiple universe theory. I think it is exactly the opposite. Existing theories about our universe have given rise to the hypothesis of multiple universes, in various forms, esepcially as a possible interpretation of some aspects of quantum mechanincs. This is correct, because at a speculative level we can postulate everything we want, but it is only if those assumptions can predict or explain something observable in our universe, and which cannot be explained in any other reasonable way, that those comcepts begin to be really interesting. I don't think that's the state of the multiverse hypothesis. Therefore, while we are waiting for a possible testable aspect of some particular multiverse theory, which could never be found, it is absolutely incorrect to use such a feeble theory as an "explanation" of fundamental contradictions between observed facts and existing sicentific theories. So, it is methodologically incorrect to use the multicerse hypothesis to explain the ever more astounding evidence of fine tuning in physical laws, and above all it is a very mean intellectual trick to use the multiverse hypothesis, in its most metaphysical formulation, a la Borges, that "everything that can exist exists" to "explain" the emergence of design not only at OOL, but repeatedly, million of times, at different ages. On the contrary, the affirmation, by those who you yourself call "fanatical materialists", that ID is not testable, is completely false. ID consists of two levels of arguments, strictly connected. The first is the demonstration that all traditional darwinian ways of explaining design are false. This level includes arguments mathematical, statistical, biological, biochemical, paleontological and so on. The second is the inference of design. That is based on the similarity between design as observed in the products of human intelligence and design as observed in the natural world. It is not true that these leves of the ID theory cannot be falsified: they can both be falsified by "any" demonstration of the existence of a reasonable mechanical way that can generate, and has generated, those results which appear to be designed, without making use of design. In other words, evolutionary darwinian theory, if true, is a falsification of ID. What a pity that evolutionary darwinian theory is not true...gpuccio

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

11:21 AM

11

11

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Rockyr, are you suggesting that people who try to wrap their heads around infinity wind up blowing their heads up (figuratively speaking)?BarryA

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

10:47 AM

10

10

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Re Harry: I completely agree with kairosfocus. Throw the book at him. Some contributors have suggested, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that we could let Harry go free with a clear conscience on the grounds that the multiverse theory itself entails that if we let Harry off, that's only because we happen to live in a universe where we decide (for good reasons or bad ones) to let him off. And in some other universe, Harry is rotting in jail (or gaol, depending on your spelling preference). But this argument won't wash. It confuses ontology with epistemology. The fact is that even if there is a multiverse, we don't know WHICH universe in that multiverse we are actually in. That's an epistemological question, and if the multiverse theory is true, then what we have to decide, as members of the jury. Are we in one where Harry got incredibly lucky? Or are we in one where Harry pulled a fast one? The Powerball Committee might be pretty hard to fool, but I'm sure the chance that someone could fool them is higher than the very low probability of Harry's getting a five-peat. That's why I'd vote to convict Harry. The counter-argument, that it doesn't matter what decision I make, because the universe will branch into different forks where the full range of judicial outcomes is realised (guilty, innocent, and other more bizarre possibilities where a verdict is never delivered), is only valid if one assumes the truth of reductionist materialism, which posits that all our mental states (including my decision to convict Harry) are determined in a bottom-up fashion by their underlying material states - in other words, mind supervenes upon matter. However, one could still believe in a multiverse without believing in this kind of materialism. The philosopher Richard Cameron has convincingly argued in his Ph.D. dissertation (available at http://web.archive.org/web/20010101-20050101re_/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac/cameron/diss/diss.pdf) that top-down materialism is perfectly compatible with our current body of scientific knowledge. If he is right, then I shouldn't just sit around and wait for my brain states to determine my choice. Causality can go both ways: my choice can determine the state of my neurons. Another alternative would be to simply reject materialism altogether - in which case, the objection clearly has no merit. Of course, my case for convicting Harry WOULD be undermined if the multiverse turned out to be what I shall call an INFINIVERSE - a multiverse with an infinite number of universes. In that case, I could no longer argue that the number of universes in which Harry cheated is substantially larger than the number in which he got lucky. If the multiverse is an infiniverse, then BOTH numbers are infinite, and NEITHER is larger than the other (I'm appealing to Hilbert's "infinity hotel" argument here), so then I could no longer vote to convict, in all good conscience. Of course, the absurdity of this situation - in an infiniverse, by the same logic, I could never vote to convict ANYONE - could be said to constitute a reductio ad absurdum argument against an infiniverse. Re abiogenesis and ID: Unfortunately, the fact that Harry's argument that he just "got lucky" would be rightly rejected by any sensible court in the land does NOT, by itself, entail that we should reject the far less probable theory that life arose by chance. The reason why we rejected Harry's plea was that we judged the likelihood of Harry's tampering with the Lotto balls to be much higher than that of his getting a lucky five-peat. The analogy of abiogenesis with ID fails at just this point, because we simply cannot estimate the likelihood that some higher intelligence tampered with the organic molecules swirling around on the early Earth, and created a living cell. (To make that kind of estimate, we'd have to know: (a) whether higher intelligences exist, (b) what kind of intelligences they are, and (c) what their behavioural dispositions are likely to be. Aside from philosophical arguments and/or a direct religious experience, we know NONE of these things.) All we can say is that IF the first cell originated by a combination of chance and necessity, then it was an astronomically improbable event. The only way to escape this impasse is to construct a metaphysical argument for the existence of a Higher Reality (let's call it God), which is independent of all probability considerations. Right now, the best candidates seem to be Dr. Greg Bahnsen's transcendental argument and Dr. Robert Koons' modal ontological argument. Re the multiverse: I don't think we should be overly alarmed if it turns out that the multiverse is real. Mathematically, the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics DOES look pretty elegant, and some researchers argue that parallel processing can be better explained by positing other "worlds." I don't know who's right here, but the fact that MWI has some pretty able defenders suggests that it deserves a second look. What WOULD really worry me is if the multiverse turned out to be infinite, with a replica of me somewhere out there. It would be difficult to think straight in such an infiniverse: paradoxes relating to multiple "selves" (even worse, imagine if they met), and infinities that balance each other out (rendering probability judgements impossible - see my exmaple above) would make a mess of our reasoning. For that very reason, we should regard these paradoxes as a reductio ad absurdum against an infiniverse. Re simulation: Well OF COURSE we're living in a simulation: God's! This idea is by no means an original one. Consider the following quote from Hugh McCann's article (at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/providence-divine/ ) in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on Divine Providence: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/providence-divine/ "A useful analogy that may be drawn here is to the relationship between the author of a story, and the characters within it. The author does not enter into the story herself, nor does she act upon the characters in such a way as to force them to do the things they do. Rather, she creates them in their doings, so that they are able to behave freely in the world of the novel. On the traditional account, God's relation to his creatures is similar. As creator, he is the 'first cause' of us and of our actions, but his causality works in such a way that we are not acted upon, and so are able to exercise our wills freely in deciding and acting. If this is correct, then as Augustine and Aquinas both insist, God's creative activity does not violate libertarian freedom, for it does not count as an independent determining condition of creaturely decision and action." What I am proposing is that the relationship of God to the world is precisely that of an author to a story - the only difference being that in contemporary novels, the author does not interact with the characters, and the characters do not attempt to communicate with the author. However, future advances in computer games are likely to instantiate both of these features (if they do not do so already - I have no idea, as I don't play the silly things). In that case, the analogy would be a perfect one. Would anyone like to prove me wrong?vjtorley

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

10:24 AM

10

10

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The multiverses and invoking infinity is the last trick of materialists. (They have invoked, and keep invoking the same tricks condemned long time ago!) Re: "Materialists attempt to get around the math be invoking the “multiverse.” The term “multiverse” means a system that contains infinite universes. Anytime an infinity is used in an argument, the proponents and arguers ought to be well versed in the meaning(s) of "infinity", since such an misapplication can easily lead to fallacies and controversies. This is a really cheap trick of the last resort and many foolish errors and fallacies have been introduced in the history of philosophy by such "reasoning." Consider what Aristotle, the "father of infinity", (or the father of the correct way of thinking about infinity), who was well acquainted with the various notions of other philosophers, had to say on the subject: "Belief in the existence of the infinite comes mainly from five considerations: (1) From the nature of time-for it is infinite. (2) From the division of magnitudes-for the mathematicians also use the notion of the infinite. (3) If coming to be and passing away do not give out, it is only because that from which things come to be is infinite. (4) Because the limited always finds its limit in something, so that there must be no limit, if everything is always limited by something different from itself. (5) Most of all, a reason which is peculiarly appropriate and presents the difficulty that is felt by everybody-not only number but also mathematical magnitudes and what is outside the heaven are supposed to be infinite because they never give out in our thought. The last fact (that what is outside is infinite) leads people to suppose that body also is infinite, and that there is an infinite number of worlds." ( http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.3.iii.html ) Please, let's stick to the basic common sense Physics and Science! Anything else is babbling and daydreaming, and the materialists should be often reminded of that! Also remember, that the modern proponent of the modern "revised" concept of infinity, Georg Cantor, finally ended up and died in the mental institution.rockyr

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

09:37 AM

9

09

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Even if you could find a way to test for other universes, you could never test for an infinite number of universes.Lurker

October 15, 2007

October

10

Oct

15

15

2007

09:21 AM

9

09

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Since I haven't seen this mentioned yet I thought I would point it out, Since materialism requires an infinite number of universe's of infinitely varying parameters both known and unknown, to explain the extreme fine tuning of this universe found in the anthropic principle, the they open themselves up to the possibility of it being infinitely possible for Almighty God to exist! If it is infinitely possible for Almighty God to exist then He certainly does exist, and since Almighty God certainly does exist all infinite possibilities automatically become subject to Him, for He is, by primary definition Omnipotent!bornagain77

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

06:20 PM

6

06

20

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I hate to tell ya's, but you will find out very fast if you are ever successful at making your case in a peer reviewed journal, that evidence for non-random occurrence alone does not constitute evidence for ID, without proof that this is the case.AnthropicsPrinciple

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

06:01 PM

6

06

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

drel A reporter for the Gray Lady herself, in an article in the Science Section titled Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch, proclaims that:

In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s [Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University], it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation.

Wow. I've long suspected a variant of this theory. Namely, that I'm the only real person in existence in this world, and that everyone and everything else is the product of a dream induced by an incorporeal evil wizard sent to torment me. Either that, or too-liberal policies of loans, grants and tenure in higher education have produced cohorts of people with way too much education, and way way too much time on their hands, who would make more of a contribution to the world if they all got jobs balancing tires at NTB.jstanley01

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

05:34 PM

5

05

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Let's say the average number of simulated realities in multiverses that chose to create them is N. Now let's say the probability of a multiverse with observers to create simulated realities is S. So there are S*N simulated realities for every "real" reality. Depending on the values for S and N, invoking the multiverse argument can imply that most realities are simulated and designed.drel

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

05:32 PM

5

05

32

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bFast, yes it implies ID at this level, but in a multi-leveled reality (simulation within simulation), how did the original simulation come about?drel

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

05:13 PM

5

05

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

gpuccio: Quote: "The multiverse hypothesis, instead, has nothing, absolutely nothing observable in its support. It can never be falsified, nor verified, regarding non observable universes which exist only in the minds of its supporters. " Funny, that's exactly what fanatical materialists keep saying about ID. In both cases, it's untrue. There have been several such experiments, and there are more in the works. Why would you claim that it can "never be falsified or verified", unless it is an ideological assumption on your part? Not to be contentious, but several responses here - including yours - sound exactly like the kind of ideological dismissals that ID gets from materialists. Quote: "Even if it were true, thr multiverse hypothesis can at best explain cosmological fine tuning, not certainly the repeated occurrence of millioms of totally unexplainable designs “in the same universe”." Sure it can; in fact, it very elegantly explains it, at least from a materialist viewpoint; "everything exists". However, "everything exists" would be the materialist version of "god did it"; the question is, so what, where do you go from there? That's when ID theory beats RM & NS as a descriptive model inside our particular universe. Quote: "The only truth is that the multiverse hypothesis is only an alibi to avoid facing the unsurmountable evidence accumulating in favour of design." Sigh. When we start claiming to know the "only truth" about the motives of everyone who supports a hypothesis/theory, we've ventured into demagoguery - just as it is demagoguery for materialist to claim that all IDers are really Christians trying to get God put into science. MWI did not gain initial support in the scientific world as an explanation for the anthropic principle or problems with NDE; many theoretical physicists adopted it because it was in their mind the best interpretative consequence of quantum physics and what actual experimentation revealed. ProfessorSmith: You're making incorrect inferences about what I've stated.William J. Murray

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

05:07 PM

5

05

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I've heard scientists discussing potential experiments to test for a multiverse in general. But how do you test to see if the multiverse is infinite? If we're living in a limited finite multiverse that's another issue altogether. Oh, and if you dislike the concept of a multiverse in general due to your religious beliefs, all I have to say is that God does exist on another plane, so we're at least a 2 level finite multiverse, right?Patrick

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

05:06 PM

5

05

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Drel, the digital simulation hypthesis would be an ID hypthesis, would it not?bFast

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

05:00 PM

5

05

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Some people think that there is a good chance that we live in a digital simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com). Invoking the multiverse argument, there would be universes where this is true. But this only moves the design vs. random chance issue up to the top of the simulation tree. I think the multiverse and simulation arguments overlap in their explanatary power, but I rarely see them discussed at the same time.drel

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

04:52 PM

4

04

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William J. Murray: Let's try to stay simple. ID is a model to explain something which we daily observe: biological beings. It is a model based on the concept of design, which too we daily observe, in all things designed by humans. It can explain with ease not only the origin of life from inorganic matter, but also the complex and rich evolution of life, the many designs and body plans observed both in fossils and in today's world. It can easily (but will not) be falsified by showing and proving a true natural pathway of non directed evolution. It opens a scenario where a lot of new lines of research can unfold, as we have recently discussed on another thread. The multiverse hypothesis, instead, has nothing, absolutely nothing observable in its support. It can never be falsified, nor verified, regarding non observable universes which exist only in the minds of its supporters. Even if it were true, thr multiverse hypothesis can at best explain cosmological fine tuning, not certainly the repeated occurrence of millioms of totally unexplainable designs "in the same universe". The only truth is that the multiverse hypothesis is only an alibi to avoid facing the unsurmountable evidence accumulating in favour of design.gpuccio

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

12:56 PM

12

12

56

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"You can’t test for other universes yet..." Well, good luck with that. Let us all know when we can actually test for it and then I'll reconsider. "IMO, MWI necessarily destroys RM & NS as a meaningfully explanatory model, and necessarily validates a teleological model as the only viable descriptive model." Considering that you said that MWI is irrelevant to the model of this world/universe, I find it surprising that you can also assert that it is not irrelevant when it comes to destroying RM + NS. That is an inherent contradiction. "...if MWI is true, then ID is the only model that can describe our universe, because its history could only be adequately described in terms of what it has produced, and not by what chance - as defined by the parameters of this universe - could provide for." This makes no sense. You seem to be mixing two arguments that do not go together. Chance does not provide for the universe or living beings. MWI is an attempt to get around that problem by invoking so many attempts that the chance of life becomes more likely. You've got it backwards. "Whether or not MWI or ID points towards something “true” is irrelevant; outside of the realm of ideology and philosophy, they would essentially be the same model and say the same things about this universe - that it can only be described in terms of things happening in order to produce this goal - what we now observe." No, ID has no need to invoke multiple worlds/universes. They are not the same model.professorsmith

October 14, 2007

October

10

Oct

14

14

2007

12:54 PM

12

12

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link