The Scientific Miracle

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I understand your point, but it really doesn't strike me as much of a counterargument. It certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of design. After all, were the initial cosmological conditions of the universe in fact designed, your argument would still sound plausible and eminently rational.

It doesnt rule out design, but it does set straight a common misconception.

The common misconception is that it is very unlikely that the universe would have conditions just right for us to exist, therefore it must be designed for us. In fact there is a 100% chance that any universe we observe will have conditions which are suitable for us.

It also tells us that the fact that the conditions in our universe are exatly right for us adds no weight at all to the notion that the universe was designed.

You are also forgetting that the correct answere for "How was the universe created and why?" is simply "We don't know".
There is no evidence from which to get to a deffinate answere.

When people say that the universe was designed, that need to prove that hypothersis - it is not for other people to disprove it. If design advocates then use the "it is unlikely that all the Laws of Nature would randomly arise in such a way to make the universe suitable for us" argument as evidence for their claims then they are incorrect and missleading.
But you are correct that it does not rule out design, but it is wrong when people use the delicate ballance of universal constants and conditions to assert that design is probable. This was my point.

Okay, I'll be the one to ask. On that list on page 1, number 34, is written the :cosmological constant". What IS that? From my limited studies on the subject, I thought that it was something Einstein dreamed up to make an equation work, and he later admitted it was bogus. So, has it been resurrected?

Originally posted by MattP
It doesnt rule out design, but it does set straight a common misconception.

The common misconception is that it is very unlikely that the universe would have conditions just right for us to exist, therefore it must be designed for us. In fact there is a 100% chance that any universe we observe will have conditions which are suitable for us.

It also te universal constants and conditions to assert that design is probable. This was my point.

You are also forgetting that the correct answere for "How was the universe created and why?" is simply "We don't know".

Thanks, but I haven't forgotten. My aim here is to highlight the fact that we don't know for sure. A person has the right to take a hard line one way or the other, accident or design, but either way it wouldn't be justified. As Stephen Hawking put it,

"If we discover a complex theory (the TOE), it should in time be understandable in broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussions of why it is that we and the universe exist."

This discussion may not be entirely relevant yet, since we haven't found the Theory of Everything, but it's definitely in the mail.

But you are correct that it does not rule out design, but it is wrong when people use the delicate ballance of universal constants and conditions to assert that design is probable. This was my point.

Well said, and point well taken.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I recognize the integrity of the arguments here against the anthropic principle. But what I find interesting is the general willingness to disregard the fact that even slight changes in the way things are might render the universe unobservable.

In other words you probably do not understand the anthropic principle.

After all, we're not talking about the evolution of our species, nor the confluence of events which led to the ideal position of our planet, etc., but the very laws which underly and make these evolutionary events possible in the first place, i.e., the initial cosmological conditions unique to our universe.
Yes. And your point is? Whatever universe we might find ourselves in could not exist if the 'very laws' were changed. Your argument rests solely on the claim that our universe is unique and special in the realm of all possible universes - and that is is unique and special in some way other than that it exists.

.... hardly stands up to Occam's razor, ....

The bottom line is, if the initial cosmological conditions are truly "fine-tuned" for the existence of life, the hypothesis for design, then, is indeed a compelling one, rather than simply fodder for ridicule.
So you discard one argument with Occam's razor then introduce another that fails Occam's razor to an even higher degree?

I do not think your argument is 'fodder for ridicule' but that does not make it compelling. It has a number of obvious flaws, and until you address those flaws, it remains uncompelling. If you refuse to address the flaws yet still push the argument and claim that it is valid then you more than the argument will be 'fodder for ridicule' as it will become obvious that you do not infact think it is a good argument but rather have some ulterior motive for trying to persuade others that it is.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Okay, I'll be the one to ask. On that list on page 1, number 34, is written the :cosmological constant". What IS that? From my limited studies on the subject, I thought that it was something Einstein dreamed up to make an equation work, and he later admitted it was bogus. So, has it been resurrected?

The cosmological constant (if it's that we really mean) is a term Einstein introduced to have a equation give a steady state universe, a repelling force in order to not make the universe collapse. The general idea at that time (before Hubble) was that the Universe has been forever, and it would be strange that the universe would not still be there forever. So the cosmological constant was invented to make universe remain stable.

Now we know that the universe is expanding and does this without any force except the initial big bang, outward force. So there is no use for the cosmological constant to be anything but zero. Einstein thought this cosmological term to be his biggest mistake in his career. (Well, he did some other stupid things too, but I'm not sure he was aware of that himself, but that is another story.)

Since the discovery of the 'dark energy' thing, showing that there is a repelling force acting outwards, the cosmological constant begins to be in the spotlight again. But for another reason that Einstein didn't know about. The universe is not only expanding, it's also accelerating. ("Fan tro't", as I would say in plain Swedish...) But the funny thing is that this constant is not a constant at all, it's changing. In a few tens of billions of years the whole universe will be ripped apart, from galaxies down to individual atoms. (Again: "Fan tro't".)

But are we really talking about the cosmological constant? Perhaps we're talking about the Hubble constant? Not the same, but also have to do with the expansion of the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words you probably do not understand the anthropic principle.

After all, we're not talking about the evolution of our species, nor the confluence of events which led to the ideal position of our planet, etc., but the very laws which underly and make these evolutionary events possible in the first place, i.e., the initial cosmological condit ument but rather have some ulterior motive for trying to persuade others that it is.

Yes. And your point is?

My point was quite plain, I'm surprised you missed it.

Your argument rests solely on the claim that our universe is unique and special in the realm of all possible universes.

Yes, but there is ample evidence that our universe actually exists. You speak of the "realm of all possible universes" as if their existence were already a foregone conclusion. But where is this "realm" of possible universes of which you speak?

We mustn't stretch the notion of natural selection beyond its prescribed means. It's worked well in the past at proving God, if he does exist, at least employed a hands-off approach to the evolution of species. But understanding that certain characteristics arise from a vast pool of organisms is one thing, inventing a vast pool of universes from which our universe arose is quite another.

The initial cosmological conditions which have governed the proliferation of complex systems throughout our universe since the beginning are only susceptible to Darwinist explanations if we introduce a "realm" of infinite universes, out of which our universe might arise.

But such a "realm" is pure fantasy; in my opinion, the result of an overextended use of Darwin's theory. Frankly, I'm surprised you're not as hostile to the notion of a "realm" of infinite universes as you are to the idea of a Designer.

If you refuse to address the flaws yet still push the argument and claim that it is valid then you more than the argument will be 'fodder for ridicule' as it will become obvious that you do not infact think it is a good argument but rather have some ulterior motive for trying to persuade others that it is.

If by "flaw" you are referring to the fact that I don't have the means to prove that the initial cosmological conditions of our universe were no accident, then I, of course, acquiesce.

However, I disagree with the accusation that I have an ulterior motive for discussing this issue, since people like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies, both atheists as far as I know, have broached this subject as well.

Anyway, it's not an argument, per se, which I'm pandering, but a suggestion, or a possibility. One which, whether you like it or not, you must consider, if getting at the truth is your ultimate goal. As Stephen Hawking pointed out, at some point we're going to have to grapple with this issue head-on - scientists, philosophers and laymen alike - the day someone finally hits upon the T.O.E. Even after we've figured out how everything works, we're still going to have the same questions about why the universe exists, and why the universe is as it is, staring us in the face - unanswered.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Yes. And your point is?

My point was quite plain, I'm surprised you missed it.

Your argument rests solely on the claim that our universe is unique and special in the realm of all possible universes.

Yes, but there is ample evidence that our universe actually exists. You speak of the "realm of all possible universes" as if and why the universe is as it is, staring us in the face - unanswered.[/b]

You speak of the "realm of all possible universes" as if their existence were already a foregone conclusion. But where is this "realm" of possible universes of which you speak?

Have you heard of the library of Babel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel

"Though the order and content of the books is random and apparently completely meaningless, the inhabitants believe that the books contain every possible ordering of just a few basic characters (letters, spaces and punctuation marks). Though the majority of the books in this universe are pure gibberish, the library also must contain, somewhere, every coherent book ever written, or that might ever be written, and every possible permutation or slightly erroneous version of every one of those books. The narrator notes that the library must contain all useful information, including predictions of the future, biographies of any person, and translations of every book in all languages. Conversely, for any given text some language could be devised that would make it readable with any of an infinite number of different contents."

I believe twhitehead is referring to the "realm of all possible universes" in this manner. Many, many universes are possible, but this is the one that arose, whether by design or by chance.

I do not believe whitey was referring to anything to do with natural selection. One thing is for certain, life does not have the opportunity to choose which universe it would arise in, it just either would or wouldn't.

like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies, both atheists as far as I know, have broached this subject as well.

I certainly do not think that either of them has ever made the suggestion that our universe is so unlikely that it must be designed. They both realise that any given universe arising would be unlikely, but neither suggests that our universe is anything special, or that it had to arise....


I think both twhitehead and I would be quite open to the possibility of a designer; that said, there is no evidence for one, and Occam's razor, applied to this situation, would suggest that there is unlikely to be a creator, therefore.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, but there is ample evidence that our universe actually exists. You speak of the "realm of all possible universes" as if their existence were already a foregone conclusion. But where is this "realm" of possible universes of which you speak?[/b]

You missed my point altogether. I never said that our universe was selected out of others via Darwinist methods etc etc.
What I said was that you are claiming:
It is highly unlikely that when a random number is chosen out of the integers 1 to 1 million that the number chosen is 5839.
What I am saying is that if you start with 5839 then yes, it is highly unlikely, but if you do not, then whichever number is chosen is just as likely as the next number. The fact that we are in universe 5839, does not mean we should go "wow, there is no way we could land on this number by accident, God did it". The only way you can support your argument is by showing that our universe is special. You must show that if we ended up in universes 5840 or 5838, then we would be saying "Wow, what bad luck that we did not end up in universe 5839, it must be the work of the devil".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]You speak of the "realm of all possible universes" as if their existence were already a foregone conclusion. But where is this "realm" of possible universes of which you speak?

Have you heard of the library of Babel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel

"Though the order and content of the books is random and apparently com ed to this situation, would suggest that there is unlikely to be a creator, therefore.[/b]

I may be mistaken, but the multiple universes theory associated with quantum cosmology I don't think posits universes governed by different laws and dimensions, etc., from our own. The possible, or actual, universes involved are each governed by the same (astoundingly) rational laws which govern ours.

I think the "realm of possible universes" described in the Library of Babel is conjecture at best, not science. Either quantum cosmology is correct and we inhabit one of many mother and child universes, each without beginning or end, or we are stuck with the big bang conundrum (i.e., a universe in need of an explanation for its existence).

EDIT: I'm still studying these concepts, so bear with me.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I may be mistaken, but the multiple universes theory associated with quantum cosmology I don't think posits universes governed by different laws and dimensions, etc., from our own. The possible, or actual, universes involved are each governed by the same (astoundingly) rational laws which govern ours.

I think the "realm of possible universes" ...[text shortened]... explanation for its existence).

EDIT: I'm still studying these concepts, so bear with me.

No worries, I will endeavour to be patient!

I think the "realm of all possible universes" is a statistical treatment of the problem, a philosopher's toy, if you will. It shows us that there are many, many possible universes in which life could pop up in. They are far fewer than the ones in which life could not arise in, but that's neither here nor there, we DO live in one where life can exist. In another reality, there is amirror image me and you having the same conversation, proclaiming so loudly that our universe is the only one in which life could have arisen.

Dawkins, in one of his books, The Blind Watchmaker, if memory serves me correctly puts it succinctly. "We shall die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people will never even exist".

How different your fate might have been had another sperm swam a little faster. Do you think that the motility of individual sperm requires a conscious entity to guide it, or is your existence merely a semi-random event? Who knows? There is much to explore and understand, but we must do that with a very clear head, and a very good understanding of the difference between improbable, and impossible.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No worries, I will endeavour to be patient!

I think the "realm of all possible universes" is a statistical treatment of the problem, a philosopher's toy, if you will. It shows us that there are many, many possible universes in which life could pop up in. They are far fewer than the ones in which life could not arise in, but that's neither here nor head, and a very good understanding of the difference between improbable, and impossible.

I get the "realm of all possible universes" idea. I get it, I do, but it still strikes me as fantastical. Statistics are usually based on data, but where is the data required for a statistical treatment of the probability of our universe arising exactly as it is? Is the data gleaned from observation? No. The data is imaginary. The "realm of all possible universes" remains an infinite complexity conjured to explain the regularities of the only observable universe.

________

What I find vital is the discussion about whether the laws of physics are real or imaginary.

The argument for laws being imaginary is basically that the laws of physics are merely descriptions of how nature works. The implication being that we can never bridge the gap between our model or representation of reality and reality itself, i.e., the universe works, and it works a certain way, but it doesn't function in accord with any discoverable law. Which is really another way of saying that the way the universe works is incomprehensible.

The notion underlying this assertion is understandable, as it takes into consideration the limitations of our current theoretical models, but it also undercuts the ultimate aim of scientific inquiry:

Einstein once wrote, "What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

In other words, the drive which produces the leaps and bounds in the understanding of our universe has been, and is, spurned on by the dangling carrot of possibly discovering exactly how the universe works.

The laws of physics may currently only imperfectly reflect how nature works, and this fact may lead certain of us to assume that this will always be the case, i.e., that our laws of physics will always be artificial and imperfect reflections of nature. However, we mustn't forget that these imperfect representations were designed to reflect actually existing properties of nature. As Paul Davies asserts, "Without this assumption that the regularities are real, science is reduced to a meaningless charade." The assumption being that one day science will create a perfect rational model of how the universe works, i.e., the Theory of Everything, at which point the objective laws which invisibly govern the universe will be known.

What we have, then, is a rationally comprehensible universe. Even more so if quantum cosmology is correct. If so, then we are capable of rationally explaining how our universe came into being without the necessity of a Creator. However, within quantum cosmology the laws of physics are taken for granted as being unchanging and eternal, and this introduces a profound existential mystery. We may be able to explain how the universe came into being according to the laws of physics, but we are completely unable to explain how the laws of physics themselves have come into being.

In light of this, it is no wonder that brilliant theoretical physicists like Albert Einstein refer to the "mind revealed in the world," as their primary inspiration. "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible" ~ Albert Einstein
__________

Where did the laws of nature come from?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]What reason is there to suspect we are not? YOU are making the positive claim (the universe was specifically designed for life), it's up to you to back that statement up.

I've merely alluded to the possibility that the universe was designed for life. Here are some evidences:

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larg ogical constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars[/b]

There is a fundamental problem with your argument.
You intuitively assume that each physical constant ‘could’ have had any one of a wide range of values with about equal probability for each and therefore it is a absurd coincidence that each just happened to be within the unlikely narrow range of values necessary for life. But how do you know that? That assumption may or may not be true and I am not saying it definitely isn’t true but I am saying there is no particular reason to believe it must be true.
I mean, how do you know that the nature of reality is such that each physical constant could not have any other value other than what it has in our universe I.e. how do you know that it inevitably had those values in which case there would be no absurd coincidence? (and therefore saying a ‘god’ chose those values wouldn’t explain them, -not that saying a ‘god’ had something to do with something ever explains anything anyway).

Also, if each physical constant ‘could’ have had any one of a range of values, exactly what is that range of values? Is it an infinite range or a finite range? If it is a finite range then what is that range? Without being able to deduce the possible range, there would be no way of mathematically estimating the probability of the value of each constant being what it is in our universe.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I get the "realm of all possible universes" idea. I get it, I do, but it still strikes me as fantastical. Statistics are usually based on data, but where is the data required for a statistical treatment of the probability of our universe arising exactly as it is? Is the data gleaned from observation? No. The data is imaginary. The "realm of ...[text shortened]... ensible" ~ Albert Einstein
__________

Where did the laws of nature come from?

If I may make an observation based on your own text.

Statistics are usually based on data, but where is the data required for a statistical treatment of the probability of our universe arising exactly as it is?

Where did the laws of nature come from?

As you yourself point out we cannot know the likelihood of our universe coming into being, nor can we know if this is only one of many universes, nor, indeed, can we know if "Goddunit". In light of this, we don't know how many universes exist, or how many "failed" universes (if we take life as success) there have been. All we know is that we DO live in a universe with rules which allows for the development of life.