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."
You are incorrect, sir.
since the natural response is to open one's eyes and see that everything around us, fitting together so beautifully into a whole, came from an intelligent Designer, not brutal, random, processes.
I keep asking, but I don't see an answer yet -- do you base your conclusion on anything more than, "the world is beautiful, therefore it must have been designed"? Is that your whole argument in a nutshell, or is there more to it than meets the eye?
While you're at it, please explain why this "design" just happens to have been done in a way that is 100% consistent with an evolutionary origin, and why the designer (the IPU's again, I'll bet) seems to have gone out of the way to avoid any design features that were inconsistent with an evolutionary origin.
I await elucidation.
I would ask you: Is not the proposition absurd that life sprang from non-life without any guiding purpose, intelligence sprang from nonintelligence, culture from non-culture?
No, it is not, because I've seen overwhelming amounts of evidence that it has, and understand a great deal about the processes by which such things can occur. I've even watched such processes achieve amazing results with my own eyes, so I can personally verify that they actually work and aren't just some "what if" hypothesis.
This (to me) seems to require a great deal more faith than belief in the biblical account, with a sovereign God who created all things.
I don't see how it is somehow a greater leap of faith to accept what the massive amounts of evidence indicates, rather than believing that an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing, infinitely loving entity manages to exist because, well, he does, and he hides from any attempt to actually examine his existence, so there.
Sounds a lot like believing in Hank to me, and I don't find that one really convincing either.
You want to discuss religion, go to a religion thread.
We are discussing science, which is neither proreligion, nor antireligion. It doesn't bother with ther question.
It asks how, and comes up with answers(theories) based on the evidence it finds.
I have no trouble with religion, I have no trouble with science.
It seems that you have a problem with separating the 2.
Zillions of Universes? Or Did Ours Get Lucky? [Scientists Won't Entertain Theories that Support God]
I am in bounds. Who would want to exclude the most reasonable e,pxplaination from science anyway? Human thought can only be explained in SUPERNATURAL TERMS. Science is an expression of the Human discoveries of the world that God created for us. Scientists aren't coming up with anything new, just discovering how awesome their Creator made things around them.
Check out William Calvin's throwing theory of human thought. I'm not sure it's the last word, but it's certainly an interesting speculation. (We are, after all, the only animals who can accurately throw things, and in times past that may very well have been the difference between eating and starving)
And it shows that your statement is false. (It's a nonsupernatural explanation)
William Calvin's homepage. An interesting thinker, imo.
I'm sorry, that rebuttal is inadequate. Would you care to make another attempt?
No matter how many words they print and fancy terms they use, I still see terms like "somehow x gave rise to y" (magic probably).
...which was specifically labeled the hypothesis, and then *immediately* followed by the evidence which was found to support the hypothesis -- no claims of "magic" were invoked, that's just your own straw man. Perhaps you'd care to actually read it next time, and address its contents, intead of trying to sidestep it with an empty "blah blah blah". Here is the most relevant portion since you seem to have overlooked it in your first attempt:
Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.It has been PROVEN that drug resistant bacteria didn't "evolve" but were a tiny number of the normal culture of bacteria that always existed and the drugs simply killed the weaker bacteria.For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.
The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.
What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.
"PROVEN", eh? Then you should have no trouble producing such proof here (or a link to it). Please do so.
I hereby make yet another $10,000 bet (in addition to the one I made in a previous post) that I can "PROVE" your above claim absolutely false. Please accept my bet, my house taxes will be due in a few months and it would be nice to prepay them.
I try to stay out of these threads because of the people who are so arrogant that they are absolutely convinced that the all the knowledge in the universe is locked between their ears but sometimes I get sucked in anyway.
As opposed to those who are "so arrogant" that they are "absolutely convinced" of things which are trivially easy to disprove (e.g., your above assertion about bacterial resistance), but feel the need to "inform" us about with capital letters when we've been working directly with such things for decades and while you've apparently read a few erroneous creationist pamphlets on the topic and now consider yourself an authority?
Don't bother to respond, I won't answer.
Not even to admit your mistakes?
You won't be changed and neither will I.
I can be changed by demonstrations that I am in error. Can you?
The only difference is that I believe that I am more than a random product of billions of years of chance whose only purpose is to reproduce and you don't.
That's not the "only" difference. Another difference is that we have huge amounts of evidence for our views, and we have not made confident blanket claims on this thread which are conclusively known to be false.
Um, what? How is my asking you for clarification of your statement somehow "subjecting God to human limitations"?
Let's try that one again... You said that "the sun will rise in the morning" because the universe is "goverened by a sovereign God". This could be mean several things, so I was asking you for clarification: Are you or are you not saying that god himself is involved in each sunrise? I.e., in your view does that part of his creation continue like clockwork if he leaves it unattended, or (conversely) is he a necessary component of the Earth continuing to revolve every moment?
You've done this throughout this discussion, and have unwittingly revealed your own humanistic worldview in which you believe almighty Man is God. Since Man is God, all things must bow to him.
Let me know when you're done with your tangent and return to addressing something I actually wrote, or some position I actually hold.
As to your earlier statement about believing if there was proof, you are living and breathing in the overwhelming proof this very instant - and every instant.
Oh? Perhaps you could point out some of it to me.
Halibut: "If you can show me some empircal evidence that water exists, I will believe it." Tuna: "The evidence is pervasive all around you. You cannot escape the evidence."
Nice sock puppets. The scriptwriter was clearly slacking off, though.
What you are asking us to believe -
I'm not asking you to believe anything.
that reality as we know it is the product of an epic cosmic accident -
And where did you get the impression that I held such a position?
requires a great deal more faith than belief in the biblical account.
No it doesn't, actually, since it rests on evidence and processes which I can personally verify, unlike the biblical account.
It requires mathematical miracles.
Oooh, math! I love math. Why don't you show us your calculations on why, you believe, a mathematical "miracle" would be required. Show your work, and neatness counts.
In short, your position, and that of all atheists, is one of absurdity.
Repeating that doesn't make it any more convincing. Feel free to provide actual evidence for why it must be absurd. And no, "it's all around you, can't you see it you fool!?" doesn't count as evidence, on account of terminal vagueness.
You cannot even participate in this debate without borrowing from the notion of truth and falsehood,
"Borrowing"? Are you again going to try to claim that Christianity somehow originated those concepts and owns the copyrights? That's certainly an... interesting belief.
the very ideas of which make no sense in a senseless, meaningless, accidental universe.
Several times it has been explained to you why that impression of yours does not follow. Simply repeating your original assertion unaltered without properly dealing with those rebuttals is rather disingenuous, is it not?
First, don't flatter yourself. You've hardly "undercut everything" we've learned in decades of learning and hands-on experience, and the closest you've come to "ripping the rug out from under us" has been to hang around nearby as we stand on our rug and proclaim to us, "there's no rug under you, why can't you see that?!"
Second, he wasn't referring to you specifically (despite your penchant for condescension, we've encountered far ruder people than yourself in the recent past), so no need to be defensive. Again, don't presume it's all about you.
You cannot make sense of anything in a random universe because truth itself makes no sense if it does not derive from a higher Absoulte Principle.
And yet, oddly enough, I continue to make sense of things. Perhaps your reasoning is faulty somewhere.
And *again* you have failed to consider the explanations of why there is indeed still such a thing as truth in a natural universe.
The only rebuttal I've heard to this point from evolutionists is "it's true because I observe it", effectively making man the arbiter of truth.
If that's the only rebuttal you've "heard", then it can only because you choose not to hear. Numerous more specific rebuttals have been offered here. Posts #199, #55, #127, #192, for example (and #397, although that was posted after this current post of yours).
If that's the case, why should we believe anything about which we have no firsthand experience?
You mean... like the Nth-hand stories in the bible?
Most of us have not been to space, so how do we know the world is round? How do we know the moon is dry and rocky? You take these matters as truth as a matter of faith.
Hardly. I can test for myself that the Earth is round, and that the Moon is dry and rocky, if for any reason I might tend to doubt the clear and verified evidence of others.
Lastly, of course you will feel more at ease with those who share your humanistic worldview than those who believe the Bible.
"Of course" you again presume things which turn out not to be the case. I feel equally at ease with both (as well as other types of folks, such as Buddhists and Hindus, etc.)
But that's not why I agree with RWP about how Christians unfortunately all too often fail to live up to their own high opinions of their own civility -- *that* is based on ordinary experience.
Darkness and light cannot have fellowship.
Ooh, speaking of being rude... Or did you somehow intend that as a compliment?
Hmm, I note that you weren't specific about who might be the "darkness" and who might be the "light" in your comparison. So since you leave me to guess which one you mean, I'd have to go with the obvious...
| Darkness: That which brought us the Dark Ages | Light: That which brought us the Age of Enlightenment |
| By the end of the 5th century, Christian rulers were forcibly abolishing the study of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, and geography. "...lest its secular literature distract the faithful from the contemplation of heaven" - Pope Gregory the Great (AD 540-604), explaining his order to burn the contents of the ancient Palatine Apollo Library. "For we would not suffer any of those things so much as to come to men's ears which tend to provoke God to wrath and offend the minds of the pious." - Emperor Constantine "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. ... It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets that are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which men should not wish to learn..." - (St. Augustine of Hippo d. 430 CE) "Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth." – St. John Chrysostom (354?-407), Father of the early Christian Church, Bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople, rejoicing that the Christians had destroyed the writings of the Greeks and most other collections of secular human knowledge. "Pythagoras... practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery.... but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful." – St. John Chrysostom |
1. autonomy of reason 2. perfectibility and progress 3. confidence in the ability to discover causality 4. principles governing nature, man and society - Voltaire's appeals to reason "The 18th Century proudly referred to itself as the "Age of Enlightenment" and rightfully so for Europe had dwelled in the dim glow of the Middle Ages when suddenly the lights began to come on in men's minds and humankind moved forward." "To understand the natural world and humankind's place in it solely on the basis of reason and without turning to religious belief was the goal of the wide-ranging intellectual movement called the Enlightenment. The movement claimed the allegiance of a majority of thinkers during the 17th and 18th centuries, a period that Thomas Paine called the Age of Reason. At its heart it became a conflict between religion and the inquiring mind that wanted to know and understand through reason based on evidence and proof." - The Age of Enlightenment |
If our investigations reveal that the universe is absolutely unsuited for life, we would have to conclude that our existence is evidence of something miraculous, because it would be contrary to the laws of nature.
On the other hand, if the universe is suited for life, the anthropic principle crowd says that this too is evidence of something miraculous.
I have a bias against "theories" that never lose.
Here's the logic. I know God is. You may not, but I do. He says He's everlasting. That would imply that his reality was not created but always was. You of course ask, "How can that be". And my response is, "Heck if I know. But I think it has something to do with God may not perceive time the same way we do." We think of time as linear. God however already knows the future and he often speaks of future events in the past tense as well as past events in future tense. Thus while we look for a beginning, He simply says, "I AM".
"2. Actually, the Invisible Pink Unicorns created god's reality. Let's see you try to prove me wrong. "
I cannot prove you wrong. Since the only thing I know about creation is what God has said. However, if the Invisible Pink Unicorns start telling you to do bad things. DON'T LISTEN TO THEM!!!
That's a good one. Sounds like a refinement of the tenets of Bobism. I was going to post a link but I have found that the Church of Bob has undergone a few schisms since I last visited, previously heretical doctrines now dominate the internet Church of Bob, and competing faiths of (different) Bob's are proliferating beyond measure. Arg, it's too much for me to contemplate right now - another bastion of civilized society has fallen.
What you've really said is that the trouble humans have is insisting on being human.
Meanwhile, you've mentioned an ability within humans that has to do with finding truth, you've classifed that ability as "finite", and you've neglected to name the ability.
I'll do it for you: it's the human ability to reason.
The faculty of reason is that which distinguishes the human from other species, and using that faculty is man's way to find and know truth.
In addition, your use of the word "finite" might be wrong -- humans have a seemingly boundless ability to create ideas, art, literature, etc..
Would you mind explaining why you dislike reason?
So did Popper.
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.