This is an ordinary, slower-than-light influence, which is hardy a controversial discovery.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
This is an ordinary, slower-than-light influence, which is hardy a controversial discovery.
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Math. The simple improbability of our universe's fine tuning to an extremely narrow set of parameters that allow for any type of life to arise (from magnetic field strength to gravity to planetary distance from the sun to the very concept of water and more), compounded by the odds then for abiogenesis, then further compounded by the odds for simple chemical compounds (amino acids, proteins, whatnot) to give rise to irreducibly complex organic, biological systems...all by chance...puts the existence and agency in life origins of a tangibly unprovable creative force at equal, if not better, odds, giving the fundamental argument of Pascal's Wager even more weight.
Skwim
Veteran Member
That you accept irreducibly complexity as an argument is noted. Thing is, it has never been shown to be the case. Every example that's been brought up science has shown to be false---probably one of the reasons it isn't used much anymore. Now, how Pascal's Wager figures into any of this is puzzling. Care to explain?
.
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Excuse my poor choice of words. "Irreducible" complexity has been sort of hijacked by the Intelligence Design folks; I should have just more clearly focused on the probability involved in a change from simple chemical compounds to complex biological systems. Mea culpa.
As for the rest, it is back to math. Pascal, whose name we all remember from our early school years sitting in arithmetic class, was the father of Pascal's Wager, considered "groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory," according to Wikipedia's account. In a nut shell, "Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)." (Again, Wiki).
When you look at the three tiers of probability that you must navigate (compounding as they add up) to get to a universe, simple life, then complex life forms absent a creative force (as thinly laid out in my previous post), and the numbers become so great that the probability of considering a creative force at work has at least equally remote chances, then Pascal's Wager (the probability-driven argument that "a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God" (extrapolated: creationism) has a new heft to it.
In other words, Pascal's famous wager tells us that--all things being equal--if you believe in God (allow me to stretch that to "creationism"), you have nothing to loose, but if you do not believe in God ("evolution"), you have everything to lose. That "all things being equal" part (my injection) comes into focus better when you compare the improbability of a creative force and the three-tiered improbability of universe, simple life, then complex biological systems absent a creative force.
Stated differently, if it is improbable that a creative force led us to advanced life forms, and there are three separate levels of compounded improbability to get to those life forms absent such a force, a betting person (or an actuary) would go with the former. And...Pascal's Wager tells us that you face gaining everything if you do so (even if the odds were not so stacked).
So...the single argument that I put forward is simple math (probability, more precisely). When you look at the actual numbers tossed about in the current writings on "fine tuning," the 10 to the nth, where n is so many zeros it crosses your eyes, it is a very hard argument to dismiss without the employment of logical fallacies.
Skwim
Veteran Member
First of all, I haven't the faintest idea of what your "three tiers of probability" refers to. Nor do I have any idea what the "three separate levels of compounded improbability" are. And I don't I really care.
Secondly, not believing in creationism has no consequences, whereas according to Christians not believing in god does. So I don't see the correspondences you claim, stretching or not.
Sorry but gibberish doesn't impress.
.
.
Last edited:
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
It proves your prior statement to be incorrect. Since you stated that entanglement is limited only to initial conditions, that no further influences can be imparted. Which is not true. Regardless of light speed limitation.
Last edited:
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
If the universe is one of an infinite number of universes, in an infinite multiverse, then the probability of our universe existing with it's apparent fine tuning, is 100%. In an infinite set.
The entanglement forms from some initial conditions. There is no faster-then-light transfer of information between entangled particles. I certainly didn't mean to imply that slower-then-light influences cannot transfer information between the particles.
What are the possible ranges of those parameters? By what processes can they change? How do you know that, if they can change, they are not driven to their current values? Why do you assume that life is a goal?
Do you realize that some of your parameters (like the distance from the Earth to the sun) are trivially going to be the case elsewhere in the universe?
How do you compute the odds of abiogenesis? How do you compute the odds of the important compounds forming?
And finally, why would a low probability imply a creative force outside of the universe?
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Fair enough. I misinterpreted your response to the other poster.
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Indeed, given the two trillion galaxies in our universe, estimated. Given that the average galaxy contains around 200 million stars, of which around half are main sequence generation 2 stars with planetary systems. Roll the dice enough times, and you will get your watery world in a habitable zone around a stable star.
The puddle finds it incredibly improbable that the hole it is in matches its outlines so perfectly.
Pascal's Wager was silly in Pascal's time and it is even sillier now. The basic problem is that it assumes there to be only two options: a God exists or a God does not exist and that the existence of God requires one particular way of living life. Even in Pascal's time it was clear that there is more than one concept of God that could be believed in and more than one set of morality because of that. So, if you choose the Christian God and the Islamic God is correct, you still get infinite punishment. If there is a God that doesn't want to be followed, you get punished for following. Given the multiple alternatives, it is much better to not believe in any of them that to dangerously choose one over another.
And this also assumes that any God who wants to be followed cannot tell that you are simply hedging your bets. Why assume such a hedge would not be offensive and obvious to such a deity?
But, then we get to the meat of *your* argument, that the universe as we see it is so improbable that it could only reasonably be from a creative intelligence. How does that follow? Isn't the exisence of a creative intelligence outside of the universe even more improbable than the universe as it exists? How did such an intelligence arise? What conditions for 'outside the universe' were such that such an intelligence could arise? And, if such an intelligence could arise, either by being uncaused or through some process, what is to say that ordinary life like ours in a universe like ours isn't likely to arise in the same way?
You *assume* that life is a 'goal' for universes. I find it much morelikely that we are simply a by-product of the laws of nature as they are. And, as I see it, to ask a cause for the laws of nature is contradictory. Causes only exist when such laws already exist. Hence the laws themselves are uncaused.
We already know of several cases of planets the correct distances from their stars. We haven't detected water at such a distance, but I have little doubt that will happen.
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Oxford professor Dr. Roger Penrose's work is a good place to start, if you are interested in the compound probability dilemma.
I concede that a creationist position has no consequences in some areas--it's not a salvinic issue, as some would argue--but it has consequences in others (significant ones on the exegesis front, and in terms of the unintended consequences that can come out of bad exegesis, for instance).
My incorporation of Pascals Wager was a bit forced,and seems to have distracted attention away from the core argument. Thank you for shining a light on that. So...forget about the mathmatician and his gambit; just look at the math (back to Penrose).
Skwim
Veteran Member
You're new here so let me clue you into how people work around here. No one is going to take the time to read outside works in order to understand a point or argument. Either make the point yourself or quote the relevant information---Just to note, quoting is always subject to fair use restrictions and attribution protocols.
.
Last edited:
Which specific works of Penrose? While his early stuff had to do with singularity results in general relativity, and was quite good, much of his later stuff (consciousness being related to the quantum state of microtubules) is, frankly, nutty.
Show or give a reference to the specific calculations of the probabilities you mention.
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
On the cosmology side of his work. I believe it was in The Road to Reality, which came out back in the 2006-2009 timeframe, that lays out his calculations showing that the odds of our universe’s low entropy conditions (needed for life) by chance alone are 1 to the 10th to the 10th to 123 (1:1010(123)), which he paints as an inconceivable number. He goes into other relevant calculations in there as well.
Of course, there are other cosmologist/physicists/mathematicians/biologists (going back at least to the 60's) who have put out similar calculations of improbability for many events that need to occur to allow for life as we know it, pointing out that the then current estimates for age of the universe, the rise of man, etc. do/did not allow enough time to overcome the odds (and many of these are/were honest evolutionists or Big Bang advocates trying to better understand their side of argument and who published results that made things more challenging for their own camp).
Looking at the multi-tiered, compounded levels of improbability are nothing new. I think I first tripped across the idea in dorm discussions back in the late 80s, and there's been more work that has come out along the way since then (per above).
Of course, there are other cosmologist/physicists/mathematicians/biologists (going back at least to the 60's) who have put out similar calculations of improbability for many events that need to occur to allow for life as we know it, pointing out that the then current estimates for age of the universe, the rise of man, etc. do/did not allow enough time to overcome the odds (and many of these are/were honest evolutionists or Big Bang advocates trying to better understand their side of argument and who published results that made things more challenging for their own camp).
Looking at the multi-tiered, compounded levels of improbability are nothing new. I think I first tripped across the idea in dorm discussions back in the late 80s, and there's been more work that has come out along the way since then (per above).
I reflexively doubt any calculation that gives odds like that for something that we know is true. It shows that we don't know what is really going on. In particular, his calculations are based on the entropy of black holes, which at this point is purely theoretic (not that black holes are, but their entropy value is).
Exactly what is involved in getting the initial state of the universe into a low entropy state is simply not known. Was it driven there by some physical process? We don't know. Is it a local variation in a much, much larger universe? We don't know.
This is a puzzle, but such a puzzle doesn't immediately mean there is an intelligence designing things. THAT is the leap that is made that is completely fabricated.
Yes, I have also seen the Hoyle calculation and that one is completely wrong. it assumes independence when it simply isn't the case. And that is what gives the incredibly low probabilities.
What if the constants for the universe are driven to values that maximize complexity? It is certainly *possible* that the 'fine-tuning' is simply the action of natural laws that we have not yet uncovered. If anything, that is the default.
And, if complexity is maximized, then life would be fairly common and not the result of a rare coincidence for the Earth. This is my considered opinion based on the commonality of the basic building blocks of life and the commonality of planets the right distances from their stars. In this case, no further 'tuning' is required once the constants are settle to values that give complexity naturally.
Of course, this supposes that the values of the constants *can* change. Of that, there is no evidence. It assumes that universes *can* start out with high values of entropy. Until we know the process (requiring quantum gravity), that is an assumption that is not justified. Like the low value of the cosmological constant (dark energy), it is a puzzle showing what we don't know.
And, finally, the modern view of the universe is to regard it as all of space and all of time (together with all matter and energy) as a single entity. It just *is*. It doesn't pop into existence because time is part of the structure. The *whole* structure consists of all of time also.
stevevw
Member
o
It makes sense considering that the answer is going to be based in the quantum world and that is associated with things like the observer effect and aspects of the quantum world fit so well with something like our conscious which can be applied to the non material world and possibly be something that is independent of our physical body that can affect the material world. Though science says that our consciousness is a product of evolution and physiological there is evidence that points to consciousness and states of mind breaching physical parameters. This has only become an area of study as the attitude was to not even consider it in the past. here is just a few of the many well known, rational and non religious sccientists who are thinking along these lines.
In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.
An economist has studied the data and concluded God exists
"Max Tegmark leads us on an astonishing journey through past, present, and future, and through the physics, astronomy and mathematics that are the foundation of his work, most particularly his hypothesis that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and his theory of the ultimate multiverse.
Our Mathematical Universe
Thomas Nagel is not crazy
The philosopher's new book has been fiercely criticised, but he is right to doubt science's ability to explain everything
Thomas Nagel is not crazy | Prospect Magazine
Existence-of-god-rational-arguments-mathematics-human-consciousness
An economist has studied the data and concluded God exists
That’s why I think if science is going to propose these complex and farfetched ideas then something like a conscious or intelligent agent is just as good if not better as it simplifies things and fits the observations better because it just means that there is a force which is beyond scientific explanation that allows the physics to be defied. It is not completely beyond reach as we know it is something to do with a conscious mind that can manipulate the physics. We just can put a mathematical equation to it after a certain point. It seems that science is heading in this direction by appealing to these types of ideas as mentioned above.
Quantum fluctuations may be verified but its a pretty big jump from that to say that this created the universe as this has not been verified. Though it is said that quantum fluctuations have been discovered there are some who question the results as being interference so there needs to be more investigation. But still even if this is verified it still doesnt lead to the cause of the universe. The point is a quantum field with fluctuations of energy and the laws of quantum physics to make it all happen needs to be accounted for. They are something and it may be that this situation can only happen in our reality as we see it now and not in some pre- quantum and classical physical realm.
Kaku is just one of many scientists who have proposed ideas like this and more and more are doing the same as time goes by. That is because the observations are demanding this type of thinking. These are not all kooky scientists who are just trying to promote their religious or pseudo-science beliefs but see genuine reason to propose these ideas. But the ironic thing is that the ideas that are being accepted as being better are just as spectulative.
That paper was presented by two great scientists and one being Penrose who shared the wolf prize with Stephen Hawkins for their work on understanding the universe. They put a lot of reasoning and maths into their proposal so it is not all speculation or at least calculated spectualtion. But once again as you have said all ideas associated with the quantum world will have an element of speculation. The point is the ideas about consciousness being something behind our material world is proposed by many scientists in one way or another and is something that is being considered more and more.
It makes sense considering that the answer is going to be based in the quantum world and that is associated with things like the observer effect and aspects of the quantum world fit so well with something like our conscious which can be applied to the non material world and possibly be something that is independent of our physical body that can affect the material world. Though science says that our consciousness is a product of evolution and physiological there is evidence that points to consciousness and states of mind breaching physical parameters. This has only become an area of study as the attitude was to not even consider it in the past. here is just a few of the many well known, rational and non religious sccientists who are thinking along these lines.
In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.
An economist has studied the data and concluded God exists
"Max Tegmark leads us on an astonishing journey through past, present, and future, and through the physics, astronomy and mathematics that are the foundation of his work, most particularly his hypothesis that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and his theory of the ultimate multiverse.
Our Mathematical Universe
Thomas Nagel is not crazy
The philosopher's new book has been fiercely criticised, but he is right to doubt science's ability to explain everything
Thomas Nagel is not crazy | Prospect Magazine
Existence-of-god-rational-arguments-mathematics-human-consciousness
An economist has studied the data and concluded God exists
I think it is more to do with the act of measuring one particle which then dictates the state of the other particle. But this is supporting the observer effect once again which seems to be more related to the act of a conscious being looking and measuring things and this supports consciousness as being associated with the physical world.
But things like the beginning of the universe are associated with the quantum world which is supposed to have produced all the physics of the macro world. So basically, all the macro world stems from the quantum world which is really where things originate and can be truly understood going right back to thee beginning of the universe. There is a conflict in being able to unite the two worlds so either the physics are off for the macro world or there is something yet to be discovered which will unite things. That is why science is coming up with elaborate ideas like string theory and paraelle and hologram worlds which seem too farfetched and are impossible to verify directly.
That’s why I think if science is going to propose these complex and farfetched ideas then something like a conscious or intelligent agent is just as good if not better as it simplifies things and fits the observations better because it just means that there is a force which is beyond scientific explanation that allows the physics to be defied. It is not completely beyond reach as we know it is something to do with a conscious mind that can manipulate the physics. We just can put a mathematical equation to it after a certain point. It seems that science is heading in this direction by appealing to these types of ideas as mentioned above.
The early inflation of the big bang defies the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light so this is explained by some by saying that relativity did not apply to the beginning of the big bang. So all the laws of physics breaks down as we move closer to the point of creating the universe and time as we know will not apply and our understanding of cause and effect will also not apply. So what we understand as being a cause may not apply and therefore something can still be caused by another act but it is just not measured in time. The very act of virtual particles are subject to time being very quick as they would not exist and yet this was before time as well.
Multiverses just push the problem of the creation of the universe back. I would have though that becuase each paraele world has its own set of physics then time would be different in each universe. But this is all spectualtion anyway.
Which may be never be the case and so people can go on speculating. That is why some scientists have said that they may have to lower the criteria for verification as they will never be able to verify these ideas.
My point is not so much about directly proving the existence of a God or divine entity but to show that when it comes to the tough questions about how existence came into being that all the ideas that have been presented are speculative and based on ideas that hard to directly prove and therefore none are scientifically validated. The observations demand that even science use speculative ideas because as you have pointed out it is based in the quantum world. So, my point is why can’t ideas such as an intelligent agent that is behind some of the hard to explain things be one idea in among many ideas that are all speculative as the idea for a God or intelligent agent can be presented with just as much reasoning as most other ideas.