Or do you just believe in a higher power than man who couldn't care less about how mankind acts and destroys each when the body dies. 
Posted on 08/07/2004 2:28:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
We are lucky to be alive. Extraordinarily lucky. So lucky, in fact, that some people can only see God's hand in our good fortune.
Creationists are fond of pointing out that if you mess with the physical laws of the Universe just a little, we wouldn't be here. For example, if the neutron were just 1% heavier, or the proton 1% lighter, or the electron were to have 20% more electrical charge, then atoms could not exist. There would be no stars, and no life.
But although creationists rejoice in the divine providence that has made the Universe exquisitely contrived to support life, science has long argued for an alternative explanation: the anthropic principle.
The theory has been supported by several leading physicists and astronomers, from Fred Hoyle to Steven Weinberg, who claim it reduces the mystery of our existence to a logical necessity.
Yet the whole idea is roundly trashed by Lee Smolin, a renowned quantum-gravity theorist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada. Smolin asserts, in a preprinted paper on Arxiv1, that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory at all, because it lacks the basic requirement of falsifiability. It is impossible to prove the anthropic principle wrong, hence it is outside the remit of science.
Circular argument
In truth, the idea always had an air of circularity about it. Crudely put, the anthropic principle states that our universe must look the way it does (that is, primed for life), because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to argue about it.
But there is a little more sophistication to the idea, which has enabled some researchers to claim that they have put the principle to the test.
The argument usually goes something like this. Let us assume that our Universe is in fact just one of many. This collection of universes is called the multiverse, and its members cannot affect each other in any way. Assume also that physics, by which we mean the fundamental constants of nature, such as Planck's constant and the speed of light, differs more or less at random in each universe.
Most of these universes would be unable to support life. But if there were enough universes, a tiny fraction of them should have just the right parameters to give rise to a cosmos like ours.
Then, the anthropic principle asserts, the intelligent beings in those lucky universes would marvel at how their universe seemed fine-tuned for life, unaware of the countless other universes that remain barren forever. There is no need to invoke God to explain our precarious existence; chance alone suffices.
How one arrives at the multiverse is another matter, but there are possible mechanisms for that. For example, an extension of inflationary theory called eternal inflation suggests that new universes could continually blossom from tiny regions of a precursor universe2.
Alternatively, new universes could be spawned by bouncing black holes. General relativity predicts that sufficiently large stars can collapse without limit under their own gravity to produce a point of space-time that is infinitely small and infinitely dense: the 'singularity' of a black hole. But the quantum-mechanical effects that must take hold at very small scales could in theory cause this collapse to reverse, so the black hole could rebound to form an entirely new universe, which would be a region of space isolated from the universe in which the black hole originally formed.
Put to the test
So in principle one can make new universes, and the anthropic principle could be true. But the real question is, does it actually predict or explain anything? This is what Smolin disputes. He thinks that not only has the idea failed to produce any testable predictions, it cannot do so even in principle.
That is quite a controversial view. Fred Hoyle, for example, used the anthropic principle to successfully predict the existence of a certain energetically excited state of the carbon nucleus. He argued that there would be no life as we know it without carbon, which can only be produced by stars. And he calculated that carbon atoms could only be made in stars in significant quantities if carbon possessed this particular state, which had never at that stage been observed.
Armed with his prediction, astronomers duly looked for the excited state, and found it. It sounds impressive. But Smolin points out that there is nothing anthropic about this reasoning. We know that carbon exists in the Universe irrespective of the existence of life, so life plays no essential role in the logic.
Look at it another way: suppose the predicted state of carbon had not been seen. Would we conclude that the anthropic principle was wrong? Clearly not, because carbon does, in fact, exist, and so do we. We would have to conclude instead that there must be some way of generating carbon other than the one Hoyle proposed, or that his calculations were wrong.
Much the same applies to a prediction of the value of the cosmological constant, made by Steven Weinberg in 1987. The cosmological constant was originally proposed by Einstein as a way of stopping his equations of relativity from predicting an expanding Universe (it was at that time assumed to be static). The idea of such a constant is now back in favour, because it might, this time, be used to rationalize the recently observed acceleration of the Universe's expansion.
Weinberg invoked the anthropic principle to argue that the constant could not be very large, or the Universe would expand too fast for galaxies, stars (or us) to form. A subsequent refinement of his argument predicted that the probability that the cosmological constant has the value suggested by current astrophysical observations is only around 10%.
In other words, the principle seems to make a prediction that, if not stunningly accurate, is certainly plausible. But again, Smolin says, "What is actually doing the work in the arguments is never the existence of life or intelligent observers, but only true observed facts about the universe, such as that carbon and galaxies are plentiful." Our own existence doesn't 'predict' anything.
"The anthropic principle is never going to give falsifiable predictions for the parameters of physics and cosmology," Smolin asserts.
No need for God
So are we forced back to the hypothesis of God? Not at all. Smolin adduces an alternative that, he claims, is scientifically falsifiable. He calls it 'cosmological natural selection'.
The most obvious scientific theory that accounts for a situation that, at first sight, seemed highly improbable is natural selection, points out Smolin. Darwin's idea abolished the need for the Reverend William Paley's heavenly 'watchmaker' to fashion the beautifully 'designed' products of biology.
Smolin believes that a similar principle could save us from making the same mistake about the Universe. This does not involve indulging in any "mysticism about living universes", he reassures us. Rather, he suggests that if there exists some process by which parent universes spawn new universes with small, random changes in their physical parameters, and if the characteristics of a universe determine how many progeny it produces, then fine-tuned universes like ours can arise by cosmological natural selection.
In particular, if new universes are produced by black-hole bounces, then universes in which stars (and thus black holes) can form are 'fitter' than others. After a period of time, you would expect the universes produced by this process to have a set of cosmological parameters that maximizes the number of black holes that can form.
That conclusion helps to explain why we are here, since universes in which complicated structures such as stars and black holes can form are also likely to be hospitable to life, Smolin argues. It also gives us a way to test the idea.
Smolin points to astrophysical measurements that we are able to make now, that could refute cosmological natural selection. For example, the existence of neutron stars with a mass greater than 1.6 times that of the Sun would scupper the idea. So, it could be wrong...but at least it's science.
Even if there weren't a beginning...
Hi RW,
Existence exists. There is no beginning of existence. Any thing a person could identify as having created or caused existence, the thing identified would have to already exist.
Existence is infinite. There is no beginning to identify. For, to identify any thing can only be done by differentiating it from at least one other thing. Each thing that has identity already exists within existence. Sated differently, absent existence, nothing exists to identify against the proposed beginning of existence.
Every event that occurs happens infinitely. For example, say an event that occurs once ever second, that event will happen infinitely. Now consider an even that happens once every billion years, that event will happen infinite times.
New universe are caused/created infinitely. Universes that beget conscious beings are created/caused infinitely.
Man is the only entity that has the power to interdict the laws of nature. He doesn't have to wait for a lightning bolt to start a forest fire. While early man used flint and stone, modern man reaches into his pocket for a butane lighter.
The laws of nature are preset so that every living entity succumbs to death. Yet conscious beings can interdict nature. Eventually man will mark the death of death with eternal life in the flesh. Always living in essentially youth rejuvinated immortality.
Just as infinite universes will be created that will beget infinite conscious beings, the normal state of conscious beings is youth rejuvenated immortality.
Who or what creates new universes? What entity can understand nature and then use that knowledge to control nature? Conscious beings. Conscious beings are the third macro component of existence. Einstein identified matter and energy as the two major components of existence yet missed the seemingly obvious third component--conscious beings.
There is no one God. Each man and women has the potential to be a God -- Go-Man and God Woman. It is each man's and woman's responsibility to mature into their natural God-self.
...
You think because you respect other's right to property that someone is not going to steal from you, right to life, somebody won't shoot you, the right to liberty that someone won't confine you? I fyou really believe that, then you believe in divine karma and spiritual law, and so believe in a higher power.
Get a grip. I believe our Constitutional system is the best way to stop all of what you list. You don't? -- Feel free to babble on..
______________________________________
Yes will, I'm talking about you, -- and your incredible hubris in assuming that I haven't the "moral strength" that you puff yourself up to possess. Get real.
It's where I get mine. That's just a fact. Nothing "puffed" up about it.
You have a chance to pass up a big one, you let me know.
Sure will, willy. [whatever it is you think you just made a point about]
Again, you seem to be claiming a knowledge of my character you simply cannot possess.
Yes, the same knowledge about the same aspect. Unless, youv'e been putting me on and you really have faith in higher power than man. Are you an atheist? Or jerking me around?
You really are getting personal & offensive willy. Why is that?
You claimed earlier I don't have "morals and honor, and ethics"? On what basis? You just 'know'?
On the basis that you are an atheist.
No, I'm not an atheist. Trying to tell you that I don't have to follow the 'rules' of your version of god does not establish atheism.
Although your response here certainly raises questions about your own claims to religious piety.
My life has no intrinsic value to you; I'm just a smarter animal with opposable thumbs.
Truly bizarre remark, willy. -- Where did that come from?
That is, if you're consistent in your beliefs or lack thereof. You're not a victim of unintegrated values, are you?
Unintegrated values? Are we on the same planet?
But, you see, your life is valuable and important to me, unless you seek to destroy me and mine, of course. It is simply because you are an expression from the same source as I. You don't, nor can you with any firm foundation, see mine the same way; you're not aware of the difference. If you think you do, it would have to be simply a surface facade from parental programing, and there's a good chance it won't hold up under a hard choice, because you can't follow it back to a firm foundation. Or, at least, you haven't here in this discussion. And it doesn't make me secure in my country, depending on my fellow citizens as they depend on me, to have those whose foundation for human value is that weak. It the same way I thnk of animal rights extremists. If I was drowning next to a puppy, they might just save the puppy instead of me. I get no security from living among folks like that.
That's all. I don't bear you any ill will, nor do I think I'm superior.
Your previous remarks belie your last line, willy. But feel free to keep ranting.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.
Where people strive to be a member of the group. And that becomes a formative ingredient to their identity -- to be accepted by the group, whatever the chosen group, is heavily weighted in determining a person's sense of identity. Some people take it further in that their identity is heightened when their group-identity/self-identity allows them to perceive themselves as having the moral high ground over people that are not members of the group. Lacking a true sense of self-identity, when a non-member criticize the person for their groupthink identity, in true groupthink mentality they often will dogmatically denounce the person. That is especially predominant with political and religious fundamentalism.
Ah. You had me going earlier -- one oddball data point and suddenly we're questioning the fundamental laws of -- and even the identity of -- the universe.
Or do you just believe in a higher power than man who couldn't care less about how mankind acts and destroys each when the body dies.
This -could- answer some of your questions, my boy.
-- But I doubt you'll bother to even try to understand.
What Is An Agnostic?
Address:http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm Changed:7:27 AM on Wednesday, January 24, 1996
One more time, then.
It's basic metaphysics. If you say there is no God, you are saying that all beings are similar to those in our experience: i.e., produced by some efficient cause outside of themselves. If EVERY being is like that, then NO being would exist. But clearly, there are beings which exist. Thus, some being exists which is not caused by some being outside of itself.Syllogism form:
Premise 2 also looks mightily like the whole syllogism in miniature, which is the no-no of circularity. Premise 2 also looks absurd. God caused Himself? So He didn't exist until He decided to?
Who's this "we", if "life plays no essential role in the logic"?
Nope -- you're advancing the argument, you have to prove it.
What signs tell you that an object is not the product of intelligent design?
(OK, I'll give you a hint. If, say, a creature had sinus drains that ran uphill, I'd call it a sign that it was not designed, at least not intelligently.)
Specificity would help - e.g., a Darwinist cannot be a Young Earth Creationist.
Science, even in it wildest and most speculative mode, has no basis for discussing origins.
It can, however, ala Steven Hawkings, discuss the "need" for specific kinds of origin theories -- namely the class of origin theories that derive from the extrapolation of observed phenomena.
Case in point: the theory that the universe is infinite in extent, eternal and unchanging. This can be falsified by observing that over time, all stars would become visible, regardless of their distance. If the universe extends to infinity in both space and time, the entire sky would be as radient as the sun.
This kind of reasoning is perfectly valid in science (even if my presentation of the example is flawed).
It is also valid for Hawking to reason about a universe that does not have a beginning in time. His theory may contain errors, but it is nevertheless within the bounds of reasonable speculation.
There is a tendency in these threads to conflate the individual scientist, who may be pig-headed, with the enterprise of science, which will eventually mow down the weeds. I see a constant stream of insulting "prayers" for the salvation of people who use their minds to contemplate the universe. The notion that we have to believe certain narrow interpretations of God, or say certain magic words to avoid damnation is abominable.
On the other hand, I do agree that scientists would be more effective in their arguments if they were more judicious in their language.
So, it could be wrong...but at least it's science."
Uh-huh. Scient if ic.
While that is PARTIALLY true, the facts are scientists like Hawking are just short of taking the next logical step in following their evidence - to conclude there is Divine inspiration for the Universe's existance. Many fields of science gather evidences and make fairly logical assumptions based upon the direction to which those evidences point. Yet, for scientists to do the same re: a Creator, they run the risk of their peers discrediting them - even when following their evidences to their conclusions.
It is certainly not, as claimed, necessary that they be their own cause.
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.
