EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY: APPROACHES AND LIMITS
alschroeder on Sept. 7, 2014
Continuing down the list of six possible explanations for the “anthropic” coincidences in nature which allow intelligent life to evolve…largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING. He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it.
It's true that the Design explanation gives an extra layer of meaning to it. That doesn't make it true, of course.
This Originating Intelligence is perfectly content to let natural selection take its course. In the broad details, it's close to a Deist view–that this Originating Intelligence started the universe in the broadest terms, and lets the laws developed take their course. Theologians, of course, have covered such ground for centuries, long before Hume voiced doubts on Design on such grounds. Still, I don't think the Designer need be aloof or uncaring. But I'll get to that later.
Again, the anthropic coincidences only apply to the development of life, and eventually, intelligent life in the universe as a whole. Earth may be an oddity; but surely there are thousands more similarly as odd, given the great number of planets we have found circling other stars, and the presumption that stars far beyond our capacity to measure the possibility of planets also have planets—that we don't live in a planet-bearing “bubble” of stars– in a great planetless “desert” of galaxies.
The inability of strict science to decide between the explanations isn't because the question is meaningless. It's because science is extremely successful because, by its very nature, it restricts itself to what it can test and predict. The universe, being unique, is unable to be tested, either in varying its intial conditions, or comparing it with similar objects (because there's nothing similar to the entire universe we can reach) and science thus cannot decide on ultimate causation. Science is great in describing how, but is not successful, in the large picture, in explaining why.
How this higher reality—with or without an Originating Intelligence–came about is unanswered in ANY of the six explanations. For instance, if you favor the “bulk” and “brane” theory of String Theory, there is no ultimate explanation for the Bulk. If the “many worlds” explanation of quantum mechanics is correct, then there is no explanation of how the state of affairs–mindlessly multiplying existence a billionfold every second (an unintelligent creationism far in excess than any dreamed of by any theologian)–came about. If it's just chance, there's nothing that explains what “breathed life in the equations”, in Hawking's phrase. So any criticism that the Designer's origins isn't explained applies equally to any OTHER explanation.
But if you just cut out the middleman and say the universe we observe is the foundation of everything, then you have to explain the anthropic coincidences…
Many mathematical theories are not testable by science, but can be proved by logical grounds–Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, for instance.
I think there are (much less involved) logical grounds that can allow us to pick among the six explanations, but next week I'm going to discuss theories that our universe is created by civilizations from other universes–and the week after that I want to clear up some misconceptions in the Designer argument. The week after that, I'll explain why I think a choice can be made among the six explanations on logical grounds. After that, I'll discuss what I consider areas of knowledge which are made more understandable by that explanation.
Next time: THINKING CREATIVELY: SOMEONE ELSE'S LAB EXPERIMENT?
alschroeder at 3:59AM, Sept. 16, 2014
I don't know if I would concede that what doesn't seem to be "intuitively true" is the same as "philosophically true". I'm definitely going to have to move into matters of philosophy, simply because past a certain point, science isn't equipped to answer some questions--as scientists as diverse from Hawking to Ellis have conceded, by its very methodology. (Testing and duplication of experiments, for instance.)
El Cid at 6:30PM, Sept. 12, 2014
I was using the double slit experiment, which I'm aware you already brought up, to illustrate the science-philosophy dichotomy in its proper context. Simply saying something "has been brought up" is not an adequate response. You may have missed the gist of my post. It sounds like we both agree that you're moving into areas of philosophy, not science, and I was pointing out that we can be pretty certain that philosophy is incapable of accurately describing the physical world at the quantum level (though it is capable of creating internally consistent logical frameworks). As far as your probability argument, I'll reserve comment until I've seen it.
alschroeder at 4:06AM, Sept. 8, 2014
Also, I'm not discussing ANYTHING different from standard cosmology. What I AM pointing out, as many have before me, how utterly UNLIKELY the universe we observe IS. That's what the whole anthropic coincidences bit that I started out with describes. I could have piled on many more--but I think I did enough to make my point. I am arguing that the physics we observe are odd enough that they deserve "special explanation"--to use Dawkins' phrase for the fitness of the natural BIOLOGICAL world in the first chapter of the BLIND WATCHMAKER. To concede that the natural laws proceed after the setting of the constants is merely to acknowledge reality. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is not any further influence, as I'll get to later.
alschroeder at 3:35AM, Sept. 8, 2014
I think I've addressed Penrose in other matters, and I've certainly addressed the double-slit experiment previously when talking about many-worlds (in fact, devoted an entire strip to it). If you've not read this whole series, you might want to backtrack a bit. I've certainly conceded to science everything that is provable, since science is about proving stuff--but "hasn't penetrated yet" argues that science CAN get into ultimate causes---which both Kant and Hume argued it couldn't, and Ellis (himself a cosmologist of no small reknown) points out the limits of. To think that science can go into places that are not testable is a misservice to science, and argues a "science in the gaps" which you can neither prove nor--by its very nature---is ill-equipped to do. Not criticizing, El Cid. Some of this stuff HAS been brought up, and some WILL be brought up.
El Cid at 6:58PM, Sept. 7, 2014
I also have to ask, in part because you suggested it here: What is the substantive difference between the universe you're describing here and the universe described by standard cosmology? You've conveniently taken the weak position of "Our Creator didn't necessarily create us for a purpose, but rather created the universe in a manner which allows for intelligent life to emerge, and then let the magic happen over billions of years." It seems like you're arguing a point you cannot prove, and which has no impact on anyone's life. Also it seems to me you've conceded to science everything that is provable, and left your "God" lurking comfortably in the gaps that science hasn't penetrated yet.
El Cid at 6:56PM, Sept. 7, 2014
Especially when trying to come to grips with weirdness at the quantum level, you just can't go by what makes intuitive sense. The double slit experiment is a perfect example of that. When you work the equations, they actually do predict a different result with and without an observer (Roger Penrose gives a very good explanation of this in his 'The Emperor's New Brain'). This is, of course, subsequently confirmed by experiment. Nothing mystical going on there. That it's philosophically unsatisfying doesn't make it any less true. That quantum phenomena don't make intuitive sense does not debunk the science; instead it's proof positive that our contrived parochial philosophy is inadequate for describing the universe as it actually is.
El Cid at 6:53PM, Sept. 7, 2014
I think you hit on something very important, in your notes. There are some things which can be addressed by science, and others which cannot. We can try to come to grips with those questions through philosophy, but I think it's important not to conflate the two approaches. The condition that there must be an external First Cause is a philosophical requirement, not a scientific one. It may or may not prove a valid assumption that nothingness is a stable state. If it turns out that it is not, as some theories suggest, then it would actually require an outside influence to *prevent* the universe from coming into being, not to initiate it. We simply don't have enough information to say which the case is scientifically at this point, and may not ever.
KimLuster at 6:45PM, Sept. 7, 2014
Awesome! We're starting to move toward the philosophy of it all!