Posted on 10/27/2003 7:38:33 PM PST by Brilliant
CLEVELAND — Cosmology used to be a heartless science, all about dark matter lost in mind-bending abysses and exploding stars. But whenever physicists and astronomers gather, the subject that roils lunch, coffee breaks or renegade cigarette breaks tends to be not dark matter or the fate of the universe. Rather it is about the role and meaning of life in the cosmos.
Cosmologists held an unusual debate on the question during a recent conference, "The Future of Cosmology," at Case Western Reserve University here.
According to a controversial notion known as the anthropic principle, certain otherwise baffling features of the universe can only be understood by including ourselves in the equation. The universe must be suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it.
The features in question are mysterious numbers in the equations of physics and cosmology, denoting, say, the amount of matter in the universe or the number of dimensions, which don't seem predictable by any known theory — yet. They are like the knobs on God's control console, and they seem almost miraculously tuned to allow life.
A slight tweak one way or another from the present settings could cause all stars to collapse into black holes or atoms to evaporate, negating the possibility of biology.
If there were only one universe, theorists would have their hands full trying to explain why it is such a lucky one.
But supporters of the anthropic principle argue that there could be zillions of possible universes, many different possible settings ruled by chance. Their view has been bolstered in recent years by a theory of the Big Bang, known as inflation, which implies that our universe is only one bubble in an endless chain of them, and by string theory — the so-called theory of everything — whose equations seem to have an almost uncountable number of solutions, each representing a different possible universe.
Only a few of these will be conducive to life, the anthropic argument goes, but it is no more surprise to find ourselves in one of them than it is to find ourselves on the moist warm Earth rather than on Pluto.
In short we live where we can live, but those can be fighting words.
Scientists agree that the name "anthropic principle," is pretentious, but that's all they agree on. Some of them regard the idea as more philosophy than science. Others regard it as a betrayal of the Einsteinian dream of predicting everything about the universe.
Dr. David Gross regards it as a virus. "Once you get the bug you can't get rid of it," he complained at the conference.
Dr. Gross, director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif., had agreed to lead a panel discussion on the notorious principle. Often found puffing on a cigar, he is not known to be shy about expressing his opinion.
"I was chosen because I hate the anthropic principle," he said.
But playing a central role in defending the need for what he called "anthropic reasoning" was Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate from the University of Texas. Like Dr. Gross, Dr. Weinberg is a particle physicist who is known for being a hard-core reductionist in his approach to science, but he evinces a gloomy streak in his writings and his talks. He is still famous for writing in his 1977 book, "The First Three Minutes," "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
Dr. Weinberg is among the most prominent of theorists who have reluctantly accepted, at least provisionally, the anthropic principle as a kind of tragic necessity in order to explain the gnarliest knob of all.
Called the cosmological constant, it is a number that measures the amount of cosmic repulsion caused by the energy in empty space. That empty space should be boiling with such energy is predicted by quantum theory, and astronomers in the last few years have discovered that some cosmic repulsion seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. But theoretical attempts to calculate this constant, also known as lambda, result in numbers 1060 times as high as those astronomers have measured.
So despairing are physicists of understanding the cosmological constant that Dr. Weinberg joked earlier at the meeting that he would no longer read papers about it.
Back in 1989, before any cosmological constant had been discovered, Dr. Weinberg used the anthropic principle to set limits on the value of the constant. Suppose instead of being fixed by theory, it was random from universe to universe. In that case the value of the cosmological constant in our universe may just be an "environmental effect," he explained, and we shouldn't expect to be able to predict it exactly any more than you can calculate how much rain will fall in Seattle this Christmas.
In his paper, Dr. Weinberg argued that lambda in our universe could not be too big or the repulsive force would have prevented the formation of galaxies, stars and us. Since we are here, the constant should be small.
The recently discovered "dark energy" causing the cosmic acceleration fits comfortably inside Dr. Weinberg's limits, vindicating in a way the anthropic approach.
In his talk, Dr. Weinberg described the anthropic principle as "the sort of historical realization scientists have been forced to make from time to time."
"Our hope was to explain everything," he said. "Part of progress is we learn what we can explain on fundamental grounds and what we cannot."
Other panelists, including Dr. Alex Vilenkin, a physicist from Tufts University, suggested that the anthropic reasoning was a logical attempt to apply probabilities to cosmology, using all the data, including the fact of our own existence. Dr. John Peacock, a cosmologist at the University of Edinburgh, argued that the anthropic principle was not a retreat from physics, but an advance. The existence of an ensemble of universes with different properties, he explained, implies a mechanism to produce variation, a kind of cosmic genetic code, the way that evolution implies the existence of genes.
"You gain new physics," Dr. Peacock said.
But when his own turn came, Dr. Gross questioned whether the rules of the anthropic game were precise enough. What were the parameters that could vary from universe to universe? How many could vary at once? What was the probability distribution of their values, and what was necessary for "life"?
Anthropic calculations are inherently vague and imprecise, he said. As a result, the principle could not be disproved. But he was only getting warmed up. His real objection, he said, was "totally emotional."
Ascribing the parameters of physics to mere chance or vagaries of cosmic weather is defeatist, discouraging people from undertaking the difficult calculations that would actually explain why things are they way they are. Moreover, it is also dangerous, he declared to ringing applause.
"It smells of religion and intelligent design," he said, referring to a variety of creationism that argues that the universe is too complex to have evolved by chance.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, the astrophysicist from Case Western who had organized the conference and recruited the panel, characterized the anthropic principle as "a way of killing time" when physicists didn't have a better idea. Dr. Krauss, who has battled creationists over biology instruction in the public schools in Ohio, said he had encountered anthropic arguments as an argument for fine-tuning, the idea that God had fixed the universe just for us.
Dr. Weinberg replied that the anthropic principle was not really a part of science, but rather "a guess about the future shape of science."
"If we didn't have things in our universe that seem peculiar, like the value of the cosmological constant, we wouldn't worry about it," he said.
Dr. Weinberg compared the situation to a person who is dealt a royal flush in a poker tournament. It may be chance, he said, but there is another explanation: "Namely, is the organizer of the tournament our friend?"
"But that leads to the argument about religion," he said to much laughter.
In fact, Dr. Weinberg said, the anthropic principle was "a nice nontheistic explanation of why things are as nice as they are."
By then the audience was squirming to get in on the action. Hands were waving as Dr. Gross called the session to an end. "Clearly there is a diversity of opinion," he intoned. "Some people find the small value of cosmological constant so bizarre that only the anthropic principle will pick it out."
Nobody who adheres to the anthropic principle, he said, would hold on if there were "an honest old-fashioned calculation," that explained the cosmological constant.
Given the floor for the last word, Dr. Weinberg agreed that it was too soon to give up hope for such a breakthrough. "I'm prepared to go on hoping that one will be found," he said. "But after the passage of time one begins to entertain other possibilities, and the anthropic explanation is another possibility."
Applying that mode of reasoning, he said, could help make the cosmological constant less peculiar,
"But we don't know if that's the help that we really deserve to get," he concluded.
And it was time for lunch.
Dr. Gross reported later that younger physicists had thanked him for his stand.
Dr. Weinberg said the panel had generated more fuss than the subject deserved.
"Those who favor taking the anthropic principle seriously don't really like it," he said, "and those who argue against it recognize that it may be unavoidable."
"Appears" is the key word, but postulating that "Godditit for mysterious and spooky reasons" answers no questions and leads to no answers. Scientists don't like "solutions" that go nowhere and provide no clues, gods or not.
I think that the version of the weak anthropic principle that is most interesting is, "no matter how unlikely a universe suitable for life might have been in theory, if ours hadn't turned out to be suitable, we wouldn't be here wondering how we got so 'lucky' that it was".
You forgot to point out what you thought some of them might be.
and those scientists who are atheists and their Creationist counterparts on the opposite side of spectrum are simply blind to them.
What a... convenient way to not have to face the fact that people can look at the same things you do and honestly come to different conclusions than yourself.
It doesn't take faith, it takes understanding.
Two problems with that:
1. Then who created god's reality? No one, you say, it didn't need to be created? Then consider that the universe didn't need to be created either.
You can't invoke god as a "necessary" thing to create the universe (since, the argument goes, things *can't* exist without causes), then immediately turn around and say, "but god didn't need a cause". At least not without shooting the first half of your argument in the foot in a record-breaking 3.5 seconds after making it.
2. Actually, the Invisible Pink Unicorns created god's reality. Let's see you try to prove me wrong.
I think the trouble humans have is that we insist on using our finite ability and knowledge as the yardstick of measurement for truth.
That's right.
How do you know?
Because reproduction is necessary for the process of evolution to take place, and watches don't reproduce themselves. Therefore any watch you may have found has not evolved, "from rocks" or otherwise. QED.
Simply because you haven't seen it done proves nothing.
See above.
I find rocks with strange designs in them a lot. Surely this is just a step up from that.
Surely you are in error.
Is it TOO COMPLICATED TO BE PRODUCED BY CHANCE?
No, not if watches (or watch precursors) were subject to reproduction, variation, and selection. Then the process of evolution would act upon them, and evolution can produce extremely complicated results eventually, far more complicated than a mere wristwatch.
What if I found a simple stainless steel fork, would THAT be simple enough to have been produced naturally given enough time.
If it reproduced, etc., sure. See above.
So why is the human body, infinitely more complicated than a watch or a spoon,
You need to get a better understanding of the word "infinitely" before you attempt to use it in a sentence again.
simply a chance product of combinations of protoplasmic goo and an almost infinite number of chance combinations that somehow bettered the being?
Because that's what the mountains of evidence along dozens of different lines of independent confirmation have indicated happened.
The eveloutionists biggest argument is Emmense Time + Chance = Mankind.
That's sort like trying to sum up Physics by saying, "physicists say that things sometimes move and sometimes stand still". It leaves out a great deal.
Why MUST a watch found on the beach be designed.
Because we know that we designed it.
After all, hasn't the earth had 4.5 billion (or whatever) years to produce one by chance?
"By chance" is a very poor (and misleading) description of the evolutionary process. But evolution *has* produced "watches" several times in different families of living things (including both plant and animal), in the form of internal chemical "clocks" that help synchronize the species to the Earth's day/night cycles.
If on the other hand you mean "a Timex wristwatch", see my points earlier in this post.
The bottom dollar is that evolution has NEVER been observed.
You are quite mistaken. Just out of curiosity, though, from what source did you learn such a whopping big error? The answer may be instructive.
Not even the bacteria that have become drug resistant are genetically different from the previous 10,000,000 generations that spawned them.
I challenge you to a $10,000 bet that you're wrong on that. Please, please take me up on it.
While you're thinking up excuses for refusing, I direct you to post #199. If you're not going to accept my bet challenge, I shall at least expect you to address the contents of that post, then either refute it, or admit that your above claim was in error.
Why do you believe that they do? That certainly hasn't been *my* experience.
They are doing it purely for political reasons.
You have not yet established that they are "doing it" at all.
They don't want religion to infect the subject matter that is taught in our schools.
No, they don't want religiously-inspired pseudoscience to be presented *as* science in the schools.
Is this division really necessary?
Asks the anti-evolutionists, they're driving most of the "division".
Why is teaching evolution so important?
Why is attempting to remove it, or insert creationism, "so important"?
I read not too long ago that our grade schools have pretty much cut physics out of the ciricullum. Why are we teadching evolution, but not physics?
I don't think we *are* teaching evolution *in gradeschool*. Physics is pretty advanced for gradeschool too, which is probably why it's being phased out at that level (it wasn't taught in *my* gradeschool, and that was long ago). Plenty of time for that in middle school and high school, after the kids have spent their gradeschool years learning at least enough mathematics to begin to understand it. Physics without at least algebra is likely to be pretty devoid of any real content.
Physics is far more important than evolution. Not too many of our children are going to go into fields that require more than a basic knowledge that evolution exists as a theory.
How many are really going to be using physics?
Both are important (at the high school level, at least) as necessary prerequisites to understanding any type of work in technical fields or engineering. And both are far more useful to "regular life" (if you know them) than most people would realize.
Why create civil disorder over that?
Why create civil disorder to fight it?
In real science, God for the gaps is unacceptable.
Science deals in natural events, not supernatural ones.
You want to learn about God, look to religion.
Jesus Christ is God. He also happens to be the most influential historical figure ever. He is supernatural. From the miricles he preformed, to His resurrection from the dead.
Deny reality all you want, but God will continue to dominate anything and everything to do with His universe.
Consider these supernatural facts:
1. The Jewish culture was preserved for 2000 years despite the Jewish people not having a homeland, and being scattered to the ends of the earth. (No other culture has survived more than three generations without a homeland).
2. The Old Testament Scriptures contain a multitude of Prophetic passages where God promised to sustain His chosen people and regather them back in the land in the end times. (We could go on and on and on about this one).
3. Evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Holy Scriptures of Judeo-Christian origin have proven to have been preserved for all generations supernaturally for 2000 years.
4. The United States of America was the first nation in history where the citizens were required to be Biblically Literate in order to progress to Higher Education. (This is no longer true and is evidenced by the Liberal Socialists running our Universities).
5. The Biblical Literacy of American Citizens led to the biggest group of Missionaries who shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Gospel's sake. The gals trapped in Afghanistan being the most resent example.(As opposed to Missionaries as regents for their political or religious leaders).
6. Humanistic relativists who believe there are no absolute truths except the truth that "right wing Christians" are absolutely wrong in their positions. (Modern Scientists have paved the way for this form of thought by reducing Human Beings to mere animals. Inalienable rights come from God, not according to the scientists and their humanist friends.)
These are all examples of Supernatural truths having a major impact on every area of this worlds reality.
I heard a quote recently; Any lack of information increases the likelyhood of mistakes. I call it the Three's Company Syndrome. It makes for humorous mishaps, however anyone who takes it seriously doesn't see the big picture. Don't miss out on the Big Picture until the conclusion of the show. It comes across as silly.
Become Biblically Literate as your forefathers would suggest, don't listen to these anti-God historical revisionists. If you personally check into it, you may get some answers you didn't expect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.