Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

You Are On The Jury

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

My tongue-in-cheek response to Denyse’s last post got me to thinking seriously about a practical way to demonstrate the lunacy of materialists’ invoking the “multiverse” to get around the statistical impossibility of life arising though blind unguided natural forces through pure random chance . See here for an example of this hand waving in action. I came up with a thought experiment. See below for more.

First an explanation and a little math:

The materialists do not deny that the odds are stacked very heavily against them. For example, the peer-reviewed article cited above calculates the odds of the random unguided generation of life at 10^-1018. To put this number in context, many cosmologists estimate that the number of particles in the universe is between 10^72 to 10^87.

Materialists attempt to get around the math be invoking the “multiverse.” The term “multiverse” means a system that contains infinite universes. In other words, the thought is that the universe we live in is not the only universe. Instead, it is just one of an infinite number of universes. The materialist then says something like this: “Yes, if there were only one universe, the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter through blind unguided natural forces would be so wildly improbable as to be considered, for all practical purposes, impossible. But if there are infinite universes, then every universe that is not logically impossible actually exists, and we happen to live in a universe where this wildly improbable – though not logically impossible – event is instantiated.

My thought experiment involves the Powerball lottery. The chance of winning this lottery is approximately 1 in 150 million. The chance of winning the lottery five times in a row is approximately 1.32*10^-41.

Now that the stage is set, here is the thought experiment:

Assume you are on a jury in a criminal fraud trial. The defendant’s name is Harry. Harry is charged with defrauding the Powerball lottery. The following evidence is presented a trial.

The district attorney puts on only two witness. The first witness is the police detective who investigated the case, and he testifies that the ONLY evidence of fraud he has is that on September 1 Harry showed up at the Powerball office with the winning ticket. Harry also showed up with the winning ticket on September 8, September 15, September 22, and September 29, for five wins a row. On cross examination the detective admits that he does not have any evidence or even any plausible speculations as to how Harry committed the fraud.

Next, the district attorney calls a math expert, Dr. Iksbmed. Dr. Iksbmed’s testifies that the odds against winning Powerball five times in a row are 1.32*10^-41. On cross examination, Dr. Iksbmed is forced to admit that, while winning the Powerball five times in a row is wildly improbable, it is not, strictly speaking, logically impossible. The prosecution rests.

Harry exercises his 5th Amendment rights and does not take the stand. His lawyer calls a single witness, Dr. Snikwad. Dr. Snikwad does not dispute Dr. Iksbmed’s probability calculations. Instead, he testifies that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that life spontaneously arose through blind unguided natural forces. The probability of this event happening is 10^-1018. Therefore, the overwhelming number of scientists believe that we live in a universe in which an event occurred that is many hundreds of orders of magnitude more improbable than winning the lottery five times in a row. The explanation for this, explains Dr. Snikwad, is simple. We live in one of an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to live in a universe were the highly improbable event of the spontaneous generation of life was instantiated. Similarly, explains Dr. Snikwad in a condescending British accent, he has no doubt of Harry’s innocence. This poor, unfairly maligned, and falsely charged gentlemen simply lives in a universe where his winning the Powerball five times in a row, admittedly wildly improbably on its face, happens to be instantiated. But only stupid, insane, benighted or evil religious fundies would insist that Harry’s five-peat was anything other than the result of purely random unguided natural forces.

The defense rests; the prosecution elects not to put on a rebuttal case. The judge charges the jury and sends you and your fellow jurors to the jury room.

The comment thread of this post will substitute for your deliberations. Let the deliberations begin.

Comments
David Brennan The fact that we are here means that with infinite universes life is inevitable. With infinite universes, all the possibilities are realized due to the sheer number of universes out there, especially if they are all different. That's why the materialists pin their hopes on infinite universes. It reduces their long shot odds to certainty and relieves them of the need to invoke chance. As to your coin analogy, I got it, so don't worry about that. I'm afraid that you don't get it though. If you are flipping an infinite amount of coins, the probability that you will get zero heads is zero. In this case, we do have 1/inf and it is zero, not error.professorsmith
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
BarryA: I'm not a physicist, but some proposed methods of testing MWI can be found here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#5 and here http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aquant-ph%2F0010030 and there are other proposed experiments one can find online and in the literature. ProfessorSmith: You can't test for other universes yet (but who knows what you can do in the future); however there are empirical tests that can be done that favor the MWI over the Copenhagen Interpretation, such as the delayed double-slit photon experiment. As far as your arguments about what your tests reveal, or your belief that I have contradicted myself, I'll just have to differ. IMO, MWI necessarily destroys RM & NS as a meaningfully explanatory model, and necessarily validates a teleological model as the only viable descriptive model. I have to once again assert that the actual ID theory and Discover.org specifically state that no "designer" is necessary, that it purports the model of ID is a better descriptive model for our universe; 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. 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.William J. Murray
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
William J. Murray, "MWI is testable in exactly the same sense that ID is testable; where you refer to teleological design as the necessary implication of the existence of the virtually impossible, materialists would find MWI as the necessary implication." I disagree. MWI is not testable, ID is. I've already given examples as to how to test for ID. ID passed a major test with the appendix and with junk DNA (which turned out to not be junk.) What tests have MWI passed? "It’s not like biologists just invented MWI out of whole cloth." No, they stole it from the multiverse theories that were made up out of whole cloth as a way of attacking fine tuning. Really, there's not much difference between the two and I usually don't see a need to differentiate between them. Both of them are unscientific "explanations" made up to counter the fact that there are long odds to overcome in the realm of fine tuning and the origin of life. It's hand-waving and not much else. "Again, I don’t understand why IDers wish to make this fight when MWI can easily be co-opted as not only supportive of MWI, but would in fact establish teleology as the only way to effectively understand the historical lineage of our universe." For a couple reasons. One would be that we should not seek to rest ID science on unscientific principles. The second would be that your assertion is a non sequitor, it literally does not follow that MWI destroys RM + NS and installs ID in its place. I've already pointed that out to you and shown where your arguments were contradictory. "As far as I can tell, the only reason to make this fight is because one disagrees with the philosophical implications." Again, you can leave my philosophical implications out of this, because they have nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. The only reason that I can see you making your argument is that you want to co-opt the materialists' arguments into your own. Why would we want to do that, however? We might derive a bit of schadenfraude in cleverly turning their bad arguments into arguments for our position, but it should not rest on rhetorical flourishes, unscientific assertions, and non sequitor. That a materialist might not see through your argument does not mean that we should allow ourselves to stoop to their level of discourse.professorsmith
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
William J. Murray writes: "[Multiverse theory] isn’t unscientific pablum, it’s a hypothesis based upon a reasonable interpretation of quantum theory, one that many physicists believed to be the correct interpretation long before it was invoked in biology." Mr. Murray, please explain how one would test this hypothesis. Can it be falsified?BarryA
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
#21: MWI is testable in exactly the same sense that ID is testable; where you refer to teleological design as the necessary implication of the existence of the virtually impossible, materialists would find MWI as the necessary implication. There is no difference that I can see between the viewpoints. One might argue that it is more parsimonious to just have "one universe"; I would be more swayed by that if the MWI had not already been the most favored interpretation of a lot of theoretical physicists like Hawking and others. It's not like biologists just invented MWI out of whole cloth. Again, I don't understand why IDers wish to make this fight when MWI can easily be co-opted as not only supportive of MWI, but would in fact establish teleology as the only way to effectively understand the historical lineage of our universe. You're picking a fight with an idea that is in effect proving not only your biological argument, but also you anthropic argument and, at the end of the day, makes a case for whatever personal, philsophical beliefs you have about the universe. As far as I can tell, the only reason to make this fight is because one disagrees with the philosophical implications.William J. Murray
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
As a mathematician, I would like to point out that there is no definite evidence that the concept of infinity exists anywhere in the real world, it may exist ONLY as an abstract concept in mathematics. The equations of the general theory of relativity allow for two possibilities 1) our universe may be "finite but unbounded". In this case there is obviously not an infinite amount of anything in the universe; or it may be 2) infinite in size. But there is no conclusive evidence yet that the second possibility is the case and in my opinion it is a logical impossibility, and leads to all sorts of illogical and bizarre possibilities. Thus, I think the idea of an infinite number of universes--or of anything else--is not a real possibility. Of course I could be wrong--reality has a history of surprising us!Granville Sewell
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
professorsmith: Heh...jstanley01
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
jstanley01, You remind me of an episode of Futurama called, "The Farnsworth Parabox," where Professor Farnsworth creates a box that houses a parallel dimension where everything is the same, except that every decision made by coin flip comes up the exact opposite. Of course, in the other universe the other Prof. Farnsworth also creates a box that houses this universe.professorsmith
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
William J Murray, "Inevitability that our universe exists doesn’t provide the best model to use in this universe when interpreting evidence, it only describes a materialist, untestable hypothesis to explain how this universe might have come to exist." My thoughts exactly. "It isn’t unscientific pablum, it’s a hypothesis based upon a reasonable interpretation of quantum theory, one that many physicists believed to be the correct interpretation long before it was invoked in biology." You can't have it both ways. If it is untestable then it is not scientific. "Whether or not it “shortens the odds” for such a universe to exist is irrelevant when it comes to useful, meaningful models that can be applied to the historical sequences in this universe." Then it provides no support for ID. "While invoking MWI grants a materialist hypothesis for the existence of this universe, it also destroys RM & NS as a meaningful model, and renders any model other than one that begins with “what we have” (teleological) as an irrelevant description." Again, you can't have it both ways. If it is irrelevant in coming up with a model for this universe, then it can not destroy the model of RM + NS. "While I understand your ideological point of view, calling the MWI “unscientific” is like calling ID “unscientific”; IMO it’s only a defense mechanism because one doesn’t like the philosophical implications." You've not supported that at all. MWI is unscientific for the very reasons you mentioned above, it is untestable, whereas ID is testable as pointed out by Gonzalez in The Privileged Planet and by myself on my blog (See "A Reply to Mr. Darrell). MWI lends no support to ID. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I think your approach is mislaid. We should fight against unscientific ideas such as MWI, not co-opt them. And, BTW, this has nothing to do with ideology. This is a discussion about science and my ideology has nothing to do with it. If MWI is scientific or not is not determined by whether I like it or not.professorsmith
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Lately -- in addition to playing the lotto five times a week -- I've trying to get in touch with the "me" in the multiverse who actually won $100 million, on the chance that I might live in the multiverse where, by sending emails to myself, they will show up out of the blue in the multiverse where "I" not only won, but where "I" am willing to share $2 million of "my" winnings with the me in this particular multiverse. And, of course, that "we" both happen to live in multiverses where a monetary exchange between multiverses can be made by setting up Swiss Bank Accounts with matching numbers. So far, I've still got only $1 parked in Zurich. But BarryA has got me wondering whether that other multiverse may be the one in which "Harry" and his case aren't a thought exercise on Uncommon Descent, but are real, and, in addition, the one where "I" am actually on the jury. So, in my latest email to myself, I've asked "me" what I think about the case. After all, you never know. I'll be sure and report here what my deliberations actually were, just as soon as I hear from me.jstanley01
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Quote: "MWI does indeed destroy chance and replaces it with inevitability." Inevitability that our universe exists doesn't provide the best model to use in this universe when interpreting evidence, it only describes a materialist, untestable hypothesis to explain how this universe might have come to exist. Quote: "This is why the Materialists are enamored with it and why we should reject it as the unscientific pablum it is." It isn't unscientific pablum, it's a hypothesis based upon a reasonable interpretation of quantum theory, one that many physicists believed to be the correct interpretation long before it was invoked in biology. "With MWI, we don’t have “the goal” but rather multitudes of goals, where in one life was bound to happen and evolve to create humans." The hypothesis that there are infinite other universe has zero to do with what the best model is to describe and retrodict what happened - and how it happened - in this universe. You're refusing to see the tree by being focused on the forest. That the forest exists has nothing whatsoever to do with figuring out the history of one particular tree. "Materialists recognize the sheer improbability of it all and try to shorten the odds by invoking multitudes of tries." Whether or not it "shortens the odds" for such a universe to exist is irrelevant when it comes to useful, meaningful models that can be applied to the historical sequences in this universe. While invoking MWI grants a materialist hypothesis for the existence of this universe, it also destroys RM & NS as a meaningful model, and renders any model other than one that begins with "what we have" (teleological) as an irrelevant description. "It does not support ID, but luckily for us it is also rather unscienfitic." It not only supports ID, it makes ID - a goal-oriented model that describes a telelogical process - the only model that can possibly be useful in describing the historical narrative and retrodicting the sequences leading up to this point in this universe. While I understand your ideological point of view, calling the MWI "unscientific" is like calling ID "unscientific"; IMO it's only a defense mechanism because one doesn't like the philosophical implications.William J. Murray
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
David Brennan, I suggest you take a look at what I wrote. If the amount of universes is infinite, then all possibilities are realized due to the fact that so many attempts are made to realize each outcome. Further, there's no guarantee that a coin flip in each universe would result in a 50% probability on each flip. To say that each universe would have equal probabilities would be incorrect. William J. Murray, MWI does indeed destroy chance and replaces it with inevitability. This is why the Materialists are enamored with it and why we should reject it as the unscientific pablum it is. With MWI, we don't have "the goal" but rather multitudes of goals, where in one life was bound to happen and evolve to create humans. Materialists recognize the sheer improbability of it all and try to shorten the odds by invoking multitudes of tries. It does not support ID, but luckily for us it is also rather unscienfitic.professorsmith
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
This is what I don't understand about most IDers; it seems to me that their ideological bias against materialism is preventing them from seeing how the assertion of MWI in evolutionary biology is a good thing for ID theory. Let's posit that MWI is true; not only do you have this universe, but you also have every universe where everything exists and occurs. You haven't increased your pool of chance as a reasonable explanatory force, you've eliminated it. Random mutation, natural selection, and chance only have meaning in the context of one universe; the universe we have before bringing in MWI. Once you bring in MWI, what does "random mutation" mean? How does chance and natural selection explain anything, when literally everything happens no matter how improbable in some (read: ours) universe? In the context of MWI, random mutation & natural selection has no meaning. MWI destroys the Neo-Darwinistic interpretation, because it has no meaningful value. The only model that has value in MWI is one that begins with "what we have", which would be "the goal", and explains the particular historical sequences of events in relation to that goal. Under MWI, evolution can only be understood and properly modeled in terms of the goal - as a teleological process, because without expressing history in terms of reaching the goal, you have absolutely no means of explaining why one thing happened, and not another, in this particular universe.William J. Murray
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Hi Bob et al: THROW THE BOOK AT HIM! (The odds that we live in a sub-universe where Harry just happened to win by chance and/or necessity only vs one in which the result is by agency are negligibly different from zero, even on a quasi-infinite multiverse model! In short, he almost certainly cheated -- odds are far better than those on which I walk into this room confident the oxygen molecules have not all rushed to one end by chance, so it would asphyxiate me.) As to the injection of a conditional probability above, actually, nope: we want the odds on whether he or another agent (obviously collaborating with him) cheated vs won by C + N only [the only two relevant alternatives . . .], five times in rapid succession; which BTW, lengthens the odds considerably. The probability on cheating, even on a multiverse model, is negligibly different from 1. [In short, following John Leslie (cf. my always linked); if there is a very long wall, and locally there is just one fly on a 100 yard stretch that gets hit by a bullet, it probably happened by agency, even if a mile away there is a 100 yard section carpeted with flies; eek! Oddly, BTW, I once saw something like a 30-mile long stone wall by the main E-W highway in Cuba.] Harry-O, Harry-O, it's off to gaol you go . . . That's just how things are in this universe -- the only one that we actually observe! GEM of TKI PS: You may want to look at my discussion of such points in my always linked, thanks to earlier exchanges with a certain Boonton, over at EO.kairosfocus
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
I know this isn't Barry's main point, but convictions have been made based on this type of reasoning. Incidentally, the figure for winning 5 powerballs in a row is mathematically correct, but is not the relevant probability - we want the probability that Harry cheated, given he won 5 times is a row. If Dr. Iksbmed were a competent mathematician, he would be aware of this, as should the defence team. The prosecution is allowed not to be aware of it, otherwise how else could we call it the Prosecutor's Fallacy? BobBob O'H
October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
"This ... gentlemen simply lives in a universe where his winning the Powerball five times in a row ... happens to be instantiated." This is the claim, but it hasn't been proven. If all multiverse instances are equally likely, then the probability of this statement being true is still the same, 1.32*10^-41. The probability of a multiverse with Harry doing this is 10^-1018 * 1.32*10^-41, but given that there are multiverses like ours, the probability of an event like Harry's happening in one is still 1.32*10^-41.drel
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
The "many universes" theory proves too much, and therefore can be disregarded. For example, in some universe the water molecules underneath the sandals of a Galilean rabbi will be going up 50.0001% of the time for an extended period of time (it's statistically improbable but not impossible). Since we live in some universe, and we have reasonably reliable witnesses to the event, we are justified in believing that the person in question did walk on water, and that's just the universe we live in. In some universes all the statistics about smoking and cancer will happen by chance. We just happen to be in one of those universes, and smoking doesn't really cause cancer. And it is just pure chance, which is sure to happen in some universe, that I received a check from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. I'm with Matteo. In the universe that I happen to live in, I just happen to vote for conviction (actually, to be precise, conviction of someone. If Harry had only tried to throw the blame on someone else). Sorry again, Harry. When you ask me why, I'll give you some cockamamie theory about statistics. That's just the universe we live in.Paul Giem
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
oh, sorry I forgot - its simple logic after all.alan
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
but aren't we forgetting something? - he is innocent AND guilty!alan
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
It's quite simple. We happen to live in a universe where even though I accept that Harry is innocent due to the best reasonings of Science!, I vote to convict anyway, and with an absolutely clean conscience. It's weird what can happen if you have so many universes. Sorry, Harry.Matteo
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
I have just realized why, in at least several zillion universes, the judge throws himself on the mercy of the court cafeteria staff. How could I have been so foolish as not to have immediately understood? He and everyone else who eats there have been doing that every working day for like, forever.O'Leary
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
In real life: " . . .studies showed retailers in Atlantic [Lottery Corp.] Canada were winning 10 times more often than statistically probable over the last six years." See: Three-peat lotto win investigated Now "Carl Hallet, 49, won $100,000 in Atlantic TAG on Oct. 3. In 2005 he won $50,000 and in 2006 he won $5,000." Atlantic Lottery Corp. was skeptical enough over the 10 fold discrepancy that: "new security rules introduced in Atlantic Canada mean his win must be investigated for at least 30 days, and so far Hallet has not received his prize." In the hard reality of commercial enterprise, improbable lottery wins far less spectacular the 1.32*10^-41 of five in a row PowerBall wins are investigated for fraud and are not tolerated. When commercial reality will not tolerate a 10 fold deviation from random chance who is going to fund an hypothesis with a probability of 10^-1018? - other than gullible politicians! There is no evidence for multiverses. They are but a figment of torrid imaginations unwilling to face the music that the probability of their wishful thoughts is so unreasonably small as to be considered irrational. A single PowerBall win is very rare. Two in a row would raise an immediate investigation. After "winning" five in a row, Harry loses.DLH
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
BarryA, eligant rhetorical argument. Back in highschool, I was presented with Gallileo's simple rhetorical proof that all objects must fall at the same speed. His argument was simply this, "take a large ball and a small ball and drop them at the same time. You believe the small ball will drop slower than the large ball. Now tie the two balls together with a length of string. Will the two balls fall extra fast because they are now one ball?" Its a simple rhetorical case, no actual evidence is presented, yet it creates a logical canundrum that allows us to conclude that a consistent universe must have all objects falling at the same speed -- just so that it can be consistent. I, for one, am happy to conclude that anyone who wins the powerball five times in a row is the recipiant of cheating -- his own, or someone else's. Therefore, for the universe to be consistent, I must conclude that the multiverse theory is toast.bFast
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Jack, objection overuled. Rule of Evidence 702 provides that experts may base their opinions on hearsay.BarryA
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
I think the Snikwad testimony "the majority of scientists" is hearsay, so he's out.Jack Golightly
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Well, we live in a universe where Al Gore gets a Nobel Prize, an Academy Award, and $100 million from Google for doing absolutely nothing. What are the odds of that?! I think they are beyond the probability bound of any single Universe. I'm with Ricky Snikwad. The dude's innocent.StuartHarris
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Hey, wait a minute! According to the most advanced social theorists, everyone lives in their own universe now. So it's, like, 6.5 billion times whatever number ... And if everything can happen to anybody - and the What the Bleep ... ? film INSISTS on that - the probability he dunit is both zero and one, as well as everything in between. So, dude is innocent with extenuating circumstances. Judge is guilty, and throws self on mercy of ... court cafeteria staff. Don't ask me why. In another universe, the judge would get time off for bad behaviour.O'Leary
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
It is certainly true that if there are infinite universes, then there are bound to be some where life would occur and someone would win the powerball 5 times in a row in one of them. Just as infinite monkeys at infinite keyboards with infinite time would produce the works of Shakespeare....eventually. The problem, of course, is that the Materialists have no evidence for these supposed other universes. It is tied to their blind faith in materialism and a lame excuse for either not showing evidence for their wild conjectures about the origins of life, or a tacit admission that they have no evidence and are clinging blindly to their ideologies. Dude's guilty.professorsmith
October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply