Posted on 05/20/2009 5:35:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Universe: Order without design by Carlos I. Calle
IN THIS excellent book, NASA physicist Carlos Calle tackles the question of whether the universe requires a supernatural "designer" or whether our cosmological theories can explain the wondrous reality around us.
The standard model of cosmology, in which a tiny piece of inflating "false vacuum" decays into a fireball, and stars and galaxies congeal out of the cooling debris, has passed many tests, but problems remain. Where did the false vacuum come from in the first place? And how do the supposedly enormous quantum convulsions of our current vacuum manage to cancel out to almost - but not exactly - zero, leaving behind a piddling "dark energy" that lies in the tiny range of values that allow life to exist?
Physics and cosmology alone may have the answers, says Calle. Combine eternal inflation, in which the primordial false vacuum continuously grows and decays, with string theory and you end up with a multiverse - a vast collection of universes, each of which has a different amount of dark energy. We find ourselves in one where it has just the right value for stars, planets and life because... well, we couldn't find ourselves anywhere else.
Another cosmological model that has emerged from string theory has our universe living on the surface of a "brane" floating in a higher-dimensional space. Our brane collides with a nearby brane over and over again for eternity, triggering an endless sequence of big bangs. This cyclic model may home in on the exact value of the dark energy we measure.
The model doesn't require a beginning, and some theorists suspect that eternal inflation may not either. Certainly, neither requires a designer. Cosmology still has a lot to figure out, Calle contends, but it is in good shape.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
First, does description equal causation?
Second, is the invoking of billions of theoretical and eternally undetectable other universes simply to give an atheistic explaination of our one tuned universe, more scientific or rational than believing in an Intelligent Fine Tuner?
That's correct. Strict materialists have to adopt the position that there exist unthinkable infinities of rigidly unknowable and undetectable Universes covering the gamut of all possible physical constants in order for us to have become self-selected observers of this “one” Universe - the one that happens to have the right conditions for life.
Now this position “might” be true - but by its very nature it cannot be proven (”Hey! I've detected a Universe which by definition is totally orthogonal from this one” is a statement that cannot be true). Materialists have to move to a position not readily distinguishable from religious belief in order to contest the logical consequence of the strong Anthropic Principle - which is that this Universe has been extremely precisely tailored to the existence of life.
When the human mind departs from The Word of God, it wanders in pretzel-shaped paths in a wilderness of nonsense.
God is alleged to be infinite, infinite knowledge, infinite power, infinite presence.
So of what relevance is the infinity of the universe to the discussion?
One can examine infinite levels of space, or of matter, or of forces. What is gravity? centrifugal force? inertia? Are they the result of an intelligent design or not?
Ultimately, facts and logic cannot provide the answer. Ultimately whether one believes one way or the other ... it is a belief.
And there is a difference between description and causation. Being able to describe more about the infinite in no way brings us any closer to understanding the infinite.
1/infinity does equal 2/infinity
Geeeeeeeeeeez, more cosmological blather from the pinheads. Ok, let’s assume they’re correct. Where did the brane come from? It’s like they don’t get it. Unlike their fantastical universe, which gets it right at least once after an infinite number of tries, the pinheads get it wrong every time. They would rather embarass themselves an infinite number of times than admit that there is some intelligent source for all this. Hey, pinheads, your intellectual fly is open!
Bingo! And if there are an infinite number of universes, then how do they know there isn’t one in which God exists?
ML/NJ
Second, is the invoking of billions of theoretical and eternally undetectable other universes simply to give an atheistic explaination of our one tuned universe, more scientific or rational than believing in an Intelligent Fine Tuner?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
As a friend of mine used to say, “Six dozen of one, half of the other”.
Why is the appearance of a brane out of nothing any more problematic than the appearance of God out of nothing? Unless God elects to show him/her/itself directly—as opposed to through inference, such as using the anthropic principle (which by no means proves there is a God, but could be used to infer support for a creator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)—science will never be able to “prove” there is (or isn’t) a God.
Thus, those who believe in God believe that something perfect, infinite, omniscient (add any further wonderful characteristics you like) came out of nothing and then elected to create an admittedly wonderful universe, but populated it with eminently imperfect human beings (including those such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, whose evil is so vast that it has resulted in the deaths of literally millions of people).
Conversely, those who don’t believe in God believe that something highly imperfect came out of nothing. Over a process lasting billions of years, life naturally evolved from processes that can be explained scientifically and culminated eventually in human beings. These humans happen to have the highest level of animal intelligence today, but there is nothing to think humans won’t evolve over the next million years into something far more intelligent and capable than we are right now.
Of these 2 possibilities, which sounds most probable?
And while so wandering, suppresses the truth. Exchanging the truth for a lie, their foolish hearts are darkened. Lord, give me a heart of compassion for the lost and perishing.
“Bingo! And if there are an infinite number of universes, then how do they know there isn’t one in which God exists?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I like that! The theory would indeed seem to demand that at least one universe would have to be created by a God. But then it would also seem to demand that at least one was created by you and one by me and so on. I don’t really claim to understand the theory anyway. Would it also demand that at least one universe was created by our beloved old Border Collie who lies sleeping on a pillow next to my chair?
Do you mean a “brain”? Don’t know what a brane is.
Of these 2 possibilities, which sounds most probable?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
To my limited mind either one sounds equally impossible if considered in the way that you have outlined them. But we are aware of our own existence so there must be some explanation not available to me at my current state of development. The only way I could put it is that SOMETHING MUST have always existed. Of course I don’t have an education in quantum physics or a doctorate in mathematics but I don’t think I would be any closer to knowing the answer if I did.
Some of my very earliest memories involve pondering these same questions with my older brother when I was barely old enough to form permanent memories. We pondered all sorts of questions, I wish I could remember all of it but I think those talks were very similiar to the exchanges seen on threads such as this one. One thing I do remember is wondering just how did I get here and is all this real? Did I come from somewhere else to wind up here? Why do I so often seem to be reliving events as if I had lived the same day before? It seemed that there were moments in every day that had a sort of “Groundhog Day” quality about them.
I don’t know just when I started to suppress all those questions but I know that many of my classmates who had less ability in their studies than I seemed to be convinced that THEY knew how everything came into being even if I didn’t.
“brane” as in membrane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branes
It isn't, but we're told that one is scientific and the other isn't.
Of these 2 possibilities, which sounds most probable?
It's a matter of opinion. When you wonder why God created an imperfect universe (crime, murder, etc.), you're using faculties which you believe evolved out of nothing to analyze the medium in which those faculties exist, and from which they evolved (if, indeed, they did). How do know scientifically that your assessment of probability on this matter is the correct one if the universe in which that assessment evolved is imperfect, and if there are people who disagree with you? You can't. It's a matter of faith on your part, just as religion is a matter of faith.
Either the universe exists, with its laws and properties, because God created it or it exists by happenstance. We're free to believe whichever we want, but to pretend that one is scientific and objective and other is irrational and subjective is merely a bias. I'm not criticizing that, since I have a bias, too, in favor of theism. Just noting it.
Which would mean the none of those universes are in fact universal?
This fellow has great faith to believe that there can be order without design.
“It’s a matter of faith on your part, just as religion is a matter of faith.”
With or without a creator, we’ve ended up with a world in which humans exist. There’s an infinite set of possibilities for how that occurred, so think of these as being on a continuum, running from “worst” (from a human perspective), e.g., a world in which the entire world is populated by Hitlers, to “best”, e.g., a world populated entirely by Mother Theresas (or Virgin Marys or any other saintly character you’d prefer to substitute). Our present condition is somewhere in the middle.
We’re merely human, so if God exists, I concur we can’t never know his/her/its intentions. Thus, we don’t know whether the world is exactly as intended or the equivalent of a botched first draft. For all we know, God has made millions of universes, each of which got better and better as God experimented with the “stuff” of nature. But the very notion of God “experimenting” suggests a far less omnipotent/omniscient being than is posited by most religions. So for the sake of argument, I will stipulate there can only be one God and that this being is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient etc. etc.
So going back to the continuum, science doesn’t demand that we started out at any particular point on the continuum. That is, the “something” that emerged from nothing could have as easily been been made of uranium instead of carbon. So science’s task is simply to deduce backwards to which particular point on that continuum we emerged, recognizing there were infinite possibilities (including for example the possibility that life itself emerged from nothing). Admittedly, wherever science lands, it unavoidably has to assume that the “stuff” at that point in the continuum was created from nothing.
From what we know about biochemistry, “life” is much more complicated than simple elements. Indeed, life is made up of simple elements, but marvelously assembled. So in terms of probabilities, it seems intuitively obvious to me that it’s more likely that the something that emerged from nothing was non-life rather than life. So a theory in which non-life emerged and then evolved (in ways we can explain scientifically) into life seems more plausible (to me) than one in which life itself mysteriously emerged out of nothing already formed.
For the same reason, it seems more plausible (to me) to think that imperfect life evolved from non-life that emerged from nothing than to think that Pure Perfection emerged from nothing. And part of that has to do with the fact that on the infinite continuum, there is only 1 single point at the far end in which Pure Perfection (rather than any of an infinite varieties of imperfection) arose out of nothing.
I don’t know anyone of any religious persuasion who thinks that life on earth is perfect. In God’s light, it is certainly possible that every human on the planet misunderstands and that everything actually is perfect. Alternatively, it may be that imperfection on earth is part of God’s plan (which we presumably will never understand, but e.g., perhaps we all need to experience the imperfection of earth so that we better appreciate the perfection of heaven in an eternal afterlife). But if we posit a Perfect beginning, what kind of God would ever introduce imperfection into the universe?
Not unlike the subject at hand. Casting about for more lies than possible to even describe by invoking infinity and then claiming that there must be an answer he just cannot see it, is intellectual laziness.
By grasping for a invisible infinity, he seeks to reject observable science in the very name of science. Science is observation, faith is belief without observation.
Clearly, the pattern of thought alone indicates faith in a lie, over understanding by observation of his subject. If he is incapable of discovering the meaning of creation with creation itself to explore, how can he think he has found an answer in the lack of evidence of an unobservable creation that cannot be studied?! He has found an excuse at best in his inability to explore his own thesis.
Thinking himself to be wise, he worships creation rather than a creator and is given over to his foolishness. How embarrassing to see him posture his foolishness in public, print it for all to see and then find others worshiping him in turn.
Which brings another canard to mind, there is none so blind at those who refuse to see.
The folks at New Scientist do not hesitate to say that Science follows methodological naturalism. They also say that to invoke a supernatural designer falls out of the scope of the philosophy of science.
But then, so does the multiverse theory. It is purely metaphysical, as it cannot be objectively studied. It was only conceived to make atheism reasonable.
Some say that to invoke a supernatural ( i.e. Intelligent Designer) explanation is a little too hasty.
Well, the question then becomes — how long should we wait for “science” to try to prove materialism before following the evidence where it actually leads (as Anthony Flew did), which is: Biological design (brilliance is a better word), cosmological fine-tuning, and the fact that anything exists at all point to an Intelligent Designer.
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.