Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2010

theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments

The thing about MWI is that it only makes the possibility for the existence of God as likely as anything else it seeks to explain, doesn't it?Phaedros_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, I’d strongly suggest otherwise, and have provided numerious examples to illustrate why. Any theory can make any prediction and empirical evidence is insufficient on it’s own. There is such a thing as bad explanation. You'd strongly suggest otherwise that the "empirical data of nature" can't decide the question Dembski is asking, then you turn around and say the "empirical evidence is insufficient on its own"? Go figure. This is doubling amusing considering in MWI, all things that are in fact possible do come to pass. I'd be a strong agnostic on more than God if I believed that. It does interesting things to probabilities. Deutsch digs in his heals and suggest theories that do not provide hard to vary explanations blight progress and should be discarded. Deutsch talking about the importance of "hard to vary explanations" while cheerfully endorsing both MWI and the Omega Point is comedy writ large. That you bring this up while frantically trying to find a way to insist that Omega Points and undetectable parallel-universe intelligent agents co-working on lab experiments is not ID makes it doubly so.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, So, the MWI of quantum mechanics is “supernatural” because it’s nonsensical? That’s a rather interesting criteria you have there. Wow, what a completely dishonest, avoidance-based rewording of what I said. You know, strawmen like this don't work when anyone can just scroll back and read my comments. “Tenable” is a woefully simplistic summary of comment #202. Hard to vary explanations are, well, hard. If you’re going to claim the bar is low, what is your solution to the problem of induction? It's not a very "hard to vary" explanation when your explanation amounts to "this thing I can't demonstrate or falsify, sprung forth from my imagination, but trust me, it can do the job". You’re assuming I had not read Tipler’s response and did not anticipate it in my comment. You’re also assuming Tiplers’ response addressed all of Deutsch’s arguments. You didn't "anticipate" anything, because you're acting as if I haven't given any response to this question, when I've been referencing Tipler repeatedly. If we gain the technical ability to create a world, have we become Gods? Again, apparently “physical” isn’t the only thing that is “obnoxiously” open. Ask the people in the world we created, veils. What do you think they'll say? Have Zeus and Thor and such ceased to be thought of as gods because all they were, really, were really powerful beings? You don't get it: When "physical", "material", and "natural" become obnoxiously - yes, obnoxiously! - open, then so too does "non-physical", "immaterial", and "supernatural". That those latter three words are now practically meaningless is a direct result OF changing the former three. You're not even arguing with me now. You're just agreeing in a more huffy manner. First, this is NOT the reality Tipler claims it will create. One of his arguments of why the Omega Point is “God” is that it will resurrect us in a realty familiar to ours, but without suffering, illnesses, death, etc. Does this describe the reality we currently observe? No, Tipler argues that the Omega Point will by necessity 'resurrect' via simulations, and create infinitely more. Simulating *this* reality is entirely within the realm of possibility for the Omega Point, and would perfectly fit with it - so long as we are eventually "saved" by it. We don't need to be saved immediately. Read what the man himself and Deutsch both say about what this OP is capable of. Would any entity that intentionally created the realty we observe deserve your worshiped? And here we get to the heart of the matter. Yes, Veils, I say so. Of course, you probably don't understand what worship is, or the sort of God I speak of. I don't subscribe to the MWI or OP idea, interesting as it is. More of a classical theist. A. Such a situation is possible because of the Turning principle, among others. This is quite different that claims made by 99.99% of all theists. Great, we're making up numbers now. Fine, I'll make up some of my own: 99.9% of all theists believe God is beyond them in many ways, infinite and unknowable, and don't inquire as to "how" God does what He does. Even the boldest scholastics made this much clear. What's more, ID != theism, and certainly not any specific or traditional theism. Again, I quoted Dembski on this subject. B. The omega point requires the universe to end in a very specific way to provide the necessary computational resources. Given that we no longer think our universe will end in a big crunch, it’s unclear if such resources will be available. According to Tipler, the way the universe 'has' to end will be forced upon it by intelligent beings. C. That MWI is true does not guarantee the Omega Point will occur. The Omega Point does not need to be brought up to illustrate that MWI is an ID hypothesis. It does, however, really help to show what these supposedly supernatural-rejecting, 'materialist' thinkers are really saying. Deutsch is about as atheistic and naturalistic as someone sacrificing chickens to keep a volcano dormant. And you know what? That's fine. If that's where "critical reason" takes him, go for it. But I'm going to happily point out what his views really entail in the process. The inhabitancies of the omega point will not have created the universe or the laws of physics. Nor could the violate them if they wanted to. Instead, they are harnessed to perform computations. Actually, they WILL have created the universe or the laws of physics. Just of different worlds. Were their laws, in turn, created? Good question. But considering they will have demonstrated without a doubt that such a thing is possible, what will they do? Say "Oh, sure, these infinite numbers of simulations we've created we have omnipotent, omniscient control over. Ours, however - which we can and do also simulate - was obviously created by utter blind chance."? Again, MWI, the Omega Point, and transhumanism in general is just non-mainstream ID. Are you really going to argue one has to accept Darwin’s metaphysics to be a Darwinist, then turn around and claim Deutsch agrees with Tipler’s claim that the omega point is God? I expressly did not say that Deutsch agrees with Tipler's claim. I cited the damn article with Tipler arguing with Deutsch's denial! You asked me, how can a deity front-load evolution, or make sure certain mutations happen, and I answered. Or rather, Bostrom, Tipler, and Deutsch answered for me. Don't like the answer? Take it up with them. Are you really going to argue from a position that apparently no one here, including yourself, actually believes in and what likely represents a fraction of the views of ID proponents as a whole? It’s one thing to say that Dembski classifies a simulated universe is as ID, but does he really believe we live in a computer simulation? He doesn't need to, nor did I say he did. I pointed out that Dembski - not exactly a small name in ID debates - has pointed out exactly how broad the ID net stretches, and it absolutely swallows up MWI, the Omega Point, and with it the speculations of Tipler, Deutsch, and Bostrom. I have repeatedly said that this would be a non-mainstream ID view, but it would be an ID view all the same. My "position" doesn't require one to personally believe any of these guys, any more than ID requires one to be a YEC or a TE. You're trying to change the subject because you don't like the idea of being thought of as an ID proponent. Too damn bad. You're the one supporting Deutsch, MWI, and apparently other transhumanist shenanigans. Not me. Again, I’d ask anyone here to answer the questions I posed based on what they actually believe to be true. An irrelevant and desperate attempt to change the subject. I never once said, nor do I believe, that most ID proponents "believe" we live in a simulation, or in the Omega Point. I said that arguments to such effect, like it or not, are ID arguments. You're an ID proponent, veils. Just accept it and join the club already. I'm sure they won't force you to be a Christian so long as you don't force them to watch The Matrix or play .hack/sign.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

@ Nullasalus (#292)
The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide.
I'd strongly suggest otherwise, and have provided numerious examples to illustrate why. Any theory can make any prediction and empirical evidence is insufficient on it's own. There is such a thing as bad explanation.
Now, as I said, Bostrom and Deutsch will probably dig in their heels and insist that – despite the word being so empty – their views are “materialist”
Deutsch digs in his heals and suggest theories that do not provide hard to vary explanations blight progress and should be discarded. And if you've read Deutsch, you'd have a clear idea of how he defines reality. The qualifier "probably" would be unnecessary.veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

@Nullasalus (#285) So, the MWI of quantum mechanics is "supernatural" because it's nonsensical? That's a rather interesting criteria you have there. "Tenable" is a woefully simplistic summary of comment #202. Hard to vary explanations are, well, hard. If you're going to claim the bar is low, what is your solution to the problem of induction? You're assuming I had not read Tipler's response and did not anticipate it in my comment. You're also assuming Tiplers' response addressed all of Deutsch's arguments. If we gain the technical ability to create a world, have we become Gods? Again, apparently "physical" isn't the only thing that is "obnoxiously" open.
For one thing, because Tipler himself cops to one problem with his view: The “Omega Point” is capable of creating exactly this reality we are experiencing now
First, this is NOT the reality Tipler claims it will create. One of his arguments of why the Omega Point is "God" is that it will resurrect us in a realty familiar to ours, but without suffering, illnesses, death, etc. Does this describe the reality we currently observe? Would any entity that intentionally created the realty we observe deserve your worshiped? Note, I'm not suggesting that we would not be able to create an virtual reality simulation in proportion to available computational resources. Neither is Deutsch. I'm suggesting that A. Such a situation is possible because of the Turning principle, among others. This is quite different that claims made by 99.99% of all theists. B. The omega point requires the universe to end in a very specific way to provide the necessary computational resources. Given that we no longer think our universe will end in a big crunch, it's unclear if such resources will be available. C. That MWI is true does not guarantee the Omega Point will occur. Again, if we gain the technical ability to create a Star Trek like holo-deck, have we become Gods? If not, when do we qualify?
Cosmological fine tuning and otherwise is regularly discussed, and is part of the ID program.
As I wrote in my supposedly absent response…. The inhabitancies of the omega point will not have created the universe or the laws of physics. Nor could the violate them if they wanted to. Instead, they are harnessed to perform computations.
My friend, you have a tremendously incomplete and incorrect view both of Intelligent Design, and a view of “god”, “physical” and “natural” that is downright amusing
My friend, you have a tremendously open and vague view both of Intelligent Design, and a view of “god”, “physical” and “natural” that is downright obnoxious. Your point is?
Ask Deutsch and Tipler, veils. Because according to their views on the Omega Point, this was and/or can be accomplished via straight up ID: Computer simulations, or something analogous to it. Which opens the possibilities from front-loading to direct intervention to otherwise.
Nullasalus, Are you really going to argue one has to accept Darwin's metaphysics to be a Darwinist, then turn around and claim Deutsch agrees with Tipler's claim that the omega point is God? Are you really going to argue from a position that apparently no one here, including yourself, actually believes in and what likely represents a fraction of the views of ID proponents as a whole? It's one thing to say that Dembski classifies a simulated universe is as ID, but does he really believe we live in a computer simulation? For example, if the resurrected Jesus is a simulation, it's unclear how believing this is true ensures an omnipotent entity at the omega point will resurrect me at all - let alone that it will put me in a pleasant simulation rather than one that is extremely unpleasant. If anything is non-sensical, this would be it. Again, I'd ask anyone here to answer the questions I posed based on what they actually believe to be true.
veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

above, Well, I think I've elaborated on it here already, at least the gist of it. So let me zero in on what I think is the real problem: Words like "materialist" and "naturalist" get thrown around left and right nowadays, despite those words meaning next to nothing anymore. Materialist had a meaning pre-20th century: The material half of cartesian's dualism, the 'little odorless, colorless pebbles bouncing off each other' view. That view went away in the 20th century. It's gone, the model failed. Let me give what I think is an even better example: Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, where speculates on the possibility we're living in a computer simulation. The actual argument isn't important here, but this part is: Bostrom claims that, if we're living in a simulation, that this is a 'naturalist' (and I bet he would say 'materialist') hypothesis. Deutsch wrote about accepting the idea that eventually the Omega Point would come to fruition, this quantum computer sci-fi entity that would be omniscient and omnipotent, simulating worlds left and right. Now, keep all this in mind. Here's Dembski himself on ID: ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. Now, as I said, Bostrom and Deutsch will probably dig in their heels and insist that - despite the word being so empty - their views are "materialist". I think the word is nonsense now, but put it aside. Once we're talking about Omega Points and parallel universe beings who we in principle can never see nor directly interact whose existence and actions are necessary to explain what goes on in *our* world, I fail to see how these can be anything but ID theories, hypotheses, and explanations. ID casts a wide net, and that big tent really is big. It can and does even scoop up some guys who stomp their feet and insist their views are 'naturalist' or 'materialist'. I say, don't be fooled by those labels. Realize what others are arguing, what they mean, and what their implications are.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

above, I believe the last part of the Strauss video touches a little on that subject: The Anthropic Principle – Fine Tuning Of The Universe – Michael Strauss PhD. – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus You said that the MWI has a connection to ID. Do you mind elaborating a little bit on that. From what I read it is purely a materialistic sci-fi scenario.above_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Gaz actually the is a law of decay: Boltzmann equation An important equation in statistical mechanics that connects entropy (S) with molecular disorder (W). It can be written: S = k log W where k is Boltzmann's constant. The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann's constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. Nothing can better illustrate the positive and hectic pace of progress which the art of experimenters has made over the past twenty years, than the fact that since that time, not only one, but a great number of methods have been discovered for measuring the mass of a molecule with practically the same accuracy as that attained for a planet. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html Gaz,, If instead we ask from whence this law of decay came? instead of saying that decay is uncaused, as you insist on doing, we find: according to esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the “original phase-space volume” of the universe, required such precision that the “Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it. Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989) http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ As well, contrary to speculation, Black Hole singularities are completely opposite the singularity of the Big Bang in terms of the ordered physics of entropic thermodynamics. i.e. Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order. “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” (R. Penrose - How Special Was The Big Bang?) Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ This 1 in 10^10^123 number, for the time-asymmetry of the initial state of the "ordered entropy" for the universe, also lends strong support for "highly specified infinite information" creating the universe since; "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis Did the Universe Hyperinflate? - Hugh Ross - April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe's curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, A "flat universe", which is actually another surprising very finely-tuned "coincidence" of the universe, means this universe, left to its own present course of accelerating expansion due to "Dark Energy", will continue to expand forever, thus fulfilling the thermodynamic equilibrium of the second law to its fullest extent (entropic "Heat Death" of the universe). The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending. Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488 entire video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV3WWDfGsX4 Does God Exist? The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708 Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Does God Exist? - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708 etc.. etc.. etc.. Thus there does appear to be a cause Gaz that you have totally missed because of your "non-interested" position of denying causality:bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
“You cannot have it both ways.” Sure I can, Clive – it’s called a superposition of states!
So you think a "superposition of states" applied to causes, means that there both can and cannot be a cause of particles "poofing" at the same time? Do you think that superpostions gets the situation of cause and effect out of the dilemma? You cannot have it both ways, either "poof" is scientific, or there was a cause; a superposition of states once there is something that exists is totally irrelevant. If you're just trying to be humorous, I appreciate it, because QM is odd, I totally agree, but we cannot both claim that there is no cause and that poof is not scientific. Clive Hayden_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

@StephenB (#152) You wrote:
Inasmuch as this is the third time I find it necessary to explain to you that the purpose for creating life takes logical precedence over the goal of creating life,
That I have a purpose for anything in particular does not necessitate creating it in a particular way. Before something can fulfill it's purpose it must exist. What is God's purpose for all living things and how does it exclude TE?veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, if you haven't seen this video Michael Strauss touches on Tipler's "omega hypothesis" and book in it: The Anthropic Principle - Fine Tuning Of The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 Gaz so when something defying time and space is encountered in science we just throw up our hands and say there is no cause? well isn't that special,,, Your method of practicing science reminds me of this song,,, Doris Day - Que Sera Sera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrcbornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, So, you’re not implying they are both “supernatural” because they make similar predictions? If not then please elaborate on why the MWI is “supernatural.” Because MWI interprets quantum physics as saying that undetectable, unreachable beings from universes distinct from ours are popping into existence and/or interact with our world and experiments? Because Deutsch's entire explanation of 'quantum computation' explicitly relies on these beings working in parallel with "us"? Suggest the existence of other worlds and agents within them that cannot be directly detected empirically and you're making supernatural claims. Unless you're wearing a lab coat at the time. Then it's physical. I'm calling that out as nonsense. And I’m suggesting Deutsch’s explanation is the very thing that makes MWI tenable. Again, see comment (#202) which illustrates my point. "Tenable" is easy. That's like saying the results of science are "consistent with" metaphysical views A-Z. Low bar. So God is anything that creates worlds? Apparently “physical” isn’t the only thing that is “obnoxiously” open. Then you should have no problem showing exactly how he makes the argument, rather than asserting it. I have repeatedly given a link where Frank Tipler himself argues against Deutsch on that topic - I ain't just "asserting". You're not responding. What's more, look at what you just said: Beings capable of creating worlds are not gods? Apparently, the greek and norse pantheons, all those ideas, were naturalist hypotheses. Who knew! This is the new naturalism/physicalism, folks: Parallel dimensions where undetectable intelligent agents cooperate to eventually create an omniscient, omnipotent entity that creates worlds. Be still my freaking heart. First, I’m referring to ID in the context of this blog: biological complexity. Please explain how Tipler’s Omega Point “designed” us despite being a future singularity. Saying the omega point is an eventual necessity which we are a part of is not the same as having been intentionally designed by an existing agent. For one thing, because Tipler himself cops to one problem with his view: The "Omega Point" is capable of creating exactly this reality we are experiencing now. In fact, according to Tipler (and seemingly, Deutsch), this will happen practically by necessity. At which point we have to wonder, is this Omega Point "going to occur"? Or did it already? Empirical results are compatible with either view. And frankly, given that lineup, we can discard "non-ID" as a needless hypothesis. Second, this blog - and ID in general - goes far beyond "biological complexity". Cosmological fine tuning and otherwise is regularly discussed, and is part of the ID program. If you think ID is only about evolution, you haven't read up on it. Second, by what method did the designer use to determine which mutations to make, in what sequence and when to make them? Certainly, this knowledge would be extremely helpful in, synthesizing proteins, creating organisms which can provide new energy sources and clean up oil spills, etc. How did he cause just the precise mutations he wanted and not others? This would be incredibly useful gene therapy, repairing genetic damage, targeting cancer and viruses that mutate rapidly, etc. When will ID provide these answers? Ask Deutsch and Tipler, veils. Because according to their views on the Omega Point, this was and/or can be accomplished via straight up ID: Computer simulations, or something analogous to it. Which opens the possibilities from front-loading to direct intervention to otherwise. That's the great thing about throwing out induction as Deutsch wants to, Veils. ID comes storming in, fast. But Deutsch should know this, because he's adhering to a non-mainstream version of it. I think you’d agree it’s no coincidence that biological ID stops abruptly and has no interest in answering these questions for reasons that are obvious. If God is the designer, we cannot understand how he did any of these things. Nor could we ever hope to reproduce his methods. This is not to say that we might not come up with ideas how to do things things our own – which we have before ID came along – but there is no equivalent to biogenesis for ID’s designer. My friend, you have a tremendously incomplete and incorrect view both of Intelligent Design, and a view of "god", "physical" and "natural" that is downright amusing. Look. You embrace MWI? You embrace the Omega Point? Then congratulations - you're an ID proponent. It's a great club, Veils, lots of diverse and interesting thinkers, and you'll fit right in. John Davison is wildly unorthodox, but they happily quote him. Bill Dembski flat out admits that simulated universe hypotheses are ID. As I said, welcome to the club. This isn't me being sarcastic either: Your views, Tipler's views, Deutsch's views, fall under ID as near as I can tell. Sure, it isn't the YEC stereotype peddled by most ID critics. Good thing the stereotype is false.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Thanks gpuccio - mind you, I don't think I'll take it on a tour of the comedy clubs!Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

mullerpr (264), No, I think we've gone as far as we acn on this one. I say there is no law of causality as StephenB claims, bearing in mind that such a law is violated by quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay and spontaneous electron transitions; whereas StephenB and other who share his views say there is some unknown cause, for which there is no evidence. We're at a dead end - one which has exercised better minds than ours - and there's no point going on. That said, I'm mindful of above's comments at 265, but question whether causality can be elevated to a position of "law" as StephenB claims.Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Gaz (#281): I have to give it to you: that was funny!gpuccio_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Cliv e Hayden (278), "You cannot have it both ways." Sure I can, Clive - it's called a superposition of states!Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus (#274) You wrote:
No, they aren’t 1:1 the same, nor did I say so. I said they are supernatural, period.
So, you're not implying they are both "supernatural" because they make similar predictions? If not then please elaborate on why the MWI is "supernatural."
MWI’s fundamental claim (ignoring Deutsch) is that explanation for nature are insufficient if they are completely confined to our observable universe.
And I'm suggesting Deutsch's explanation is the very thing that makes MWI tenable. Again, see comment (#202) which illustrates my point.
Deutsch’s elaborations, from the Omega Point to his insistence that inductionism must be a boundary science leaps past, only drives this point home. He is making the ID argument for ID proponents.

Deutsch’s refusal to identify the OP with God IS what I said it is.
So God is anything that creates worlds? Apparently "physical" isn't the only thing that is "obnoxiously" open. Then you should have no problem showing exactly how he makes the argument, rather than asserting it.
It “appears” to be no such thing,
First, I'm referring to ID in the context of this blog: biological complexity. Please explain how Tipler's Omega Point "designed" us despite being a future singularity. Saying the omega point is an eventual necessity which we are a part of is not the same as having been intentionally designed by an existing agent.
It “appears” to be no such thing, especially given that ID is not a single monolithic view but covers a wide range of views from front-loaded evolution to outright intervening acts of intelligent beings in our universe to MWI and Omega Points to Bostrom-style simulated universes to otherwise.
First, "physical" isn't the only thing that is "obnoxiously" open. Second, by what method did the designer use to determine which mutations to make, in what sequence and when to make them? Certainly, this knowledge would be extremely helpful in, synthesizing proteins, creating organisms which can provide new energy sources and clean up oil spills, etc. How did he cause just the precise mutations he wanted and not others? This would be incredibly useful gene therapy, repairing genetic damage, targeting cancer and viruses that mutate rapidly, etc. When will ID provide these answers? Surely, there are possible worlds where organisms have radically different forms of DNA, there are no significant variations in biological structures, such as the eye, and organisms that do not change or cannot be arranged in a tree. How does ID explain this? I think you'd agree it's no coincidence that biological ID stops abruptly and has no interest in answering these questions for reasons that are obvious. If God is the designer, we cannot understand how he did any of these things. Nor could we ever hope to reproduce his methods. This is not to say that we might not come up with ideas how to do things things our own - which we have before ID came along - but there is no equivalent to biogenesis for ID's designer. As such, ID does appear to be a convoluted elaboration of TOE.veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus (#269) You wrote:
That’s as preposterous as saying that historians who disagree about famous figures are all discussing utterly distinct people.
Nullasalus, This is a failed analogy. Famous figures are not God. They are finite beings who's nature has a limited scope. However, the implications of theses various conceptions of God would have massive implications should theism be true. Again, why is it that Olasky cannot integrate TE with Christianity?
Intentionally trying to fool us? According to most YECs I’ve heard, God could not be clearer about what His actions were. If anyone is ‘fooling’ anyone else, it’s agents other than God.
If Satan planted evidence then God is either not in control or allows said evidence to exist on a global scale. Again, expecting one to ignore such evidence could be a significant liability in believing God exists.
You aren’t denying that Deutsch accepted the Omega Point
First, you aren't denying that Deutsch may significant objections and qualifications. Nor are you denying that his current acceptance is unknown since we no longer think the universe will end in a big crunch. Nor are you denying that Tipler's claims about what the intelligence that inhabits the omega point will actually do, should it occur, seems to be speculative. Second, you mean, like one has to accept Darwin's views to accept Darwism?veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Gaz,
“Poof” isn’t scientific, but again I don’t concede QM is “poof”. Go back to my 112.
Sure you do, you concede exactly that poof is scientific. Either there is, or is not, a cause behind the poof. If not, then poof is scientific. If so, then QM is under exactly what StephenB claims it is under, CAUSE and EFFECT. Mentioning "conditions" of QM and "probabilities" of QM particles poofing into existence doesn't change that either there is, or is not, a cause. You cannot have it both ways.Clive Hayden_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

nullasalus I do like your method of inquiry!bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

BA77, One thing to keep in mind is that MWI's claim actually has some direct compatibility with ID, and even your claims as far as I see. Not necessarily the specific MWI interpretation, but this claim which leads to it: "Our" universe, our "physical" (whatever that word means anymore) reality, is insufficient to explain the results we see in quantum physics, among other areas. Thus, we have to go beyond it to explain it. There's various interpretations that accept this and can go on to offer an explanation, yours (as near as I can tell) included. But the reason those interpretations are called on is interesting enough.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

veils you state: "Futhermore, we know Shor’s algorithm runs in polynormal-time – O((log N)3)." So what, God is completely outside of time and created every dimension of time that can exist!!! as well He Created all dimensions of space that can exist!!! He Created every photon that exist in the universe, Named every star in the universe, or multiverse if He so chose to create a multiverse, and in His spare time, of which He has an infinity of, probably named every atom to boot. He knows every hair on your head. And when God was incarnate as Jesus, though He had no army, He conquered the entire world!!!bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, This seems to be your point of confusion. Since they seem to make similar predictions, they must be the same? No confusion here, veils. No, they aren't 1:1 the same, nor did I say so. I said they are supernatural, period. MWI's fundamental claim (ignoring Deutsch) is that explanation for nature are insufficient if they are completely confined to our observable universe. Deutsch's elaborations, from the Omega Point to his insistence that inductionism must be a boundary science leaps past, only drives this point home. He is making the ID argument for ID proponents. Then note how ID appears to be a convoluted elaboration of TOE. It "appears" to be no such thing, especially given that ID is not a single monolithic view but covers a wide range of views from front-loaded evolution to outright intervening acts of intelligent beings in our universe to MWI and Omega Points to Bostrom-style simulated universes to otherwise.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Transhumanists, in general, believe in eschatologies and futures that are downright indistinguishable from supernatural religious claims in most details.
This seems to be your point of confusion. Since they seem to make similar predictions, they must be the same? But, again, any theory can make any predication. See my response to gpuccio (#202) which shows how critical rationalism differentiates between competing theories that make similar predictions. Specifically, some explanations are better than others. Then note how ID appears to be a convoluted elaboration of TOE.veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

BA77, Thanks for the updated information, I'll take a look at it soon. Just wanted to leave a note saying I appreciate all the effort you put into the site, and your surprisingly fast response in assembling these notes. As for MWI, I stand by what I said. It's a supernatural hypothesis by any reasonable measure. The Omega Point is absolutely a supernatural hypothesis, and the entire thing - especially given Deutsch's specific remarks on and image of it - is better classified as esoteric ID than anything else. But hey, ID proponents can have disagreements with each other. And for all I know, MWI (of some form) + God is true. I have no idea how many universes God would create. But, I say all this without accepting MWI, and needing to read up on this transcendent information. Time for me to read!nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 (#237) Futhermore, we know Shor's algorithm runs in polynormal-time - O((log N)3). This is true whether factoring a two digit number or a 265 digit number. We know this because of the number additional operations necessary to factor each additional digit. This is in contrast to fastest known classical factorization algorithm that operates at sub-exponential time - about O(e(log N)1/3 (log log N)2/3)veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

veils do you see my point? without God you have no basis in which to claim the unchanging "truth" necessary to do math in the first place. You have merely tried to belittle the concept of God by insisting God would not be bothered to factor a number by quantum mechanical means, so this somehow makes your wildly speculative MWI more plausible, all the while ignoring the fact that without God you have a basis based totally in chaos.bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, Even if we remain within Christianity we can contrast Calvinism and Arminianism. [...] Note that I’m not suggesting that these difference could not be reconciled under the umbrella of Christianity via theology, as clearly they have. instead, I’m suggesting that the resulting beings they each refer to has a radically different nature. And that, veils, is precisely why it's nonsense to argue that everyone's running around insisting that all these different Gods exist. Calvinists and Arminians have major differences. As do catholics and protestants and orthodox and jews and, etc, etc. You say these beings have 'a radically different nature'. That's as preposterous as saying that historians who disagree about famous figures are all discussing utterly distinct people. The differences in school are considerable. The particular emphasis you're placing on it is exaggerated for effect. You’d have to assume that God is intentionally trying to fool us by planing false evidence. Again, this suggests a God that would intentionally present falsehoods that could ultimately cause a massive number of people not to believe he exists and be lost. Would a perfect being do this? How do you define a perfect being? Intentionally trying to fool us? According to most YECs I've heard, God could not be clearer about what His actions were. If anyone is 'fooling' anyone else, it's agents other than God. What's more, you seem to assume that YECs say anyone who doesn't accept YEC itself is 'lost'. Again, that's off-base from what I read. As for discussions about a perfect being, really. Just think about what you're saying here. You, strong agnostic, could tell a perfect being if you saw one? You may want to rethink that label. According to MWI, parallel universes do not ” zip into existence day to day.” They start out with identical conditions in the initial conditions of the qubits that well perform the calculations. ...And then proceed to diverge, otherwise no quantum calculations (among many other things) would get done. Veils, that is 'zipping into existence' under another name. It's a supernatural hypothesis. Believe it or not, just because a scientist proposes an idea doesn't make it non-supernatural by a once-upon-a-time normal use of the word. What's more, Deutsch's many-worlds model in particular makes the following claim: The only way we can explain certain results of nature is by proposing the existence of unseen, unseeable intelligent agents in parallel universes working in tandem with us on their own quantum computers. He explicitly writes about the need to rid science of pure inductionism (as in, making it 'scientific' to postulate the existence of unseen entities and beings). I hate to break it to you, veils, but given that - among many other things Deutsch has written - MWI is an ID proposal, and Deutsch is an ID proponent. The only difference is that Deutsch's ID is outside the norm. And frankly, it's not even THAT outside the norm, because Tipler himself hasn't exactly been tremendously distant from ID. So, welcome about the ID train my friend. Or at least, that's what I'd say if I were on it. If you had actually read David Deutsch, you’d know this is a gross misrepresentation of his views. Deutsch points out that much of Tipler’s conclusions are dependent on making broad assumptions regarding future history leading up to the omega point. He also ignores significant differences between religious views we hold today. I linked Tipler's response to Deutsch's writing on the Omega Point. It is not a "gross misrepresentation" of Deutsch's views. The Omega Point is what I said it is, given the particular explanation of Tipler (who DOES explicitly identify the OP with God). Deutsch's refusal to identify the OP with God IS what I said it is. You aren't denying that Deutsch accepted the Omega Point (a word popularized by Teilhard de Chardin, by the way, and likely selected by Tipler for no small reason due to such.) Your defense, and Deutsch's, comes down to "Well, sure, the Omega Point will be effectively omniscient, omnipotent, it will be 'resurrecting' people in various ways, it will be infinity. But, it will be different from the God most people talk about today, therefore it's not any kind of god/God". That's an accurate summary of Deutsch's move here - read that chapter yourself, with Tipler's responses. I find it even weaker than Tipler does, because the absolute best Deutsch can hope for is to argue that the Omega Point is not the specific God Tipler says it is (the Christian God). But arguing it's not any God at all? Now we're into word games. MWI is a supernatural hypothesis. The Omega Point is a supernatural hypothesis. Deutsch's arguments to promote the acceptance of MWI are eerily similar to ID arguments, and the scent of ID is all over his thinking. Which isn't surprising: Transhumanists, in general, believe in eschatologies and futures that are downright indistinguishable from supernatural religious claims in most details. The term strong agnostic, as I’m using it, is part of the commonly used series that runs from strong atheism, atheism, weak atheism, strong agnosticism, agnosticism, weak agnosticism, etc. Even if we leave the strong ambitious as to whether it suggests more or less likelihood, it still qualifies agnosticism in one direction or another. I didn't say it didn't. I said strong agnosticism precludes giving probability estimates of God's existence. That's the whole point of strong agnosticism. I think you’re confusing the conclusions Darwin reached (how things evolved) with the way that he reached those conclusions. Furthermore, Darwinism is not social Darwinism. I am *not* confusing Darwinism with social darwinism. I am confusing Darwin's own description of and demands about his theory with Darwinism - I say that's no confusion at all. The version of Darwinism YOU are talking about here - a Darwinism stripped of claims that amount to 'utterly unguided, proceeds with no foresight or intention' - would be a Darwinism many ID proponents and sympathizers can and do accept. I say that's not actually "Darwinism". Again: I used to have your view. In the end, I could no longer sustain it. I can't deny what Darwin wrote and thought about his theory. I can't deny the metaphysics he packed into it. It makes no sense to reject the metaphysics yet accept Darwinism. If it makes sense to you, go for it, but understand the problem there. It's considerable, and it's not like I'm just one guy who thinks this. Again, see Coyne. See Dawkins. See *Darwin*. The gaps in our knowledge are uncontroversial, which makes your continued repetition “obnoxious.” Again, I’d suggest you watch the online quantum computing lectures, which addresses many of these issues. I'm an obnoxious guy, what can I say. Alas, sometimes obnoxious guys are right. What's more, if you don't think what 'gaps in our knowledge' exist are controversial, then you, my friend, don't read enough philosophy. And if you think this is a question only for science, then your definition of science either includes philosophy, or you're misinformed.nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

veils you assume math to be true from your reliance on quantum computation, right? But you do not hold God, who is the highest conceivable being, to be true, right? But in order for you to assume math to be true in the first place you must also assume God to be true: To reiterate part of my post to nullasalus,,,, BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (The Math Of Infinity) (Part 1-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90
In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians – Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing – whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
nullasalus as you can see, somewhat from the video, mathematics cannot be held to be “true” unless this assumption for a highest infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God: Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume to be true but cannot "mathematically" prove to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply