Arthur Stanley Eddington, Darwinists, and Repugnant Notions
| April 26, 2007 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
I have no “philosophical axe to grind” in this discussion. Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. I am simply stating the dilemma to which our present fundamental conception of physical law leads us. I see no way round it; but whether future developments of science will find an escape I cannot predict. The dilemma is this: Surveying our surroundings, we find them to be far from a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”. The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories shows arrangements of the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance. Some people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it non-committally anti-chance. We are unwilling in physics that anti-chance plays any part in the reactions between the systems of billions of atoms and quanta that we study; and indeed all our experimental evidence goes to show that these are governed by the laws of chance. Accordingly, we sweep anti-chance out of the laws of physics–out of the differential equations. Naturally, therefore, it reappears in the boundary conditions, for it must be got into the scheme somewhere. By sweeping it far enough away from the sphere of our current physical problems, we fancy we have got rid of it. It is only when some of us are so misguided as to try to get back billions of years into the past that we find the sweepings all piled up like a high wall and forming a boundary–a beginning of time–which we cannot climb over.
A way out of the dilemma has been proposed which seems to have found favour with a number of scientific workers. I oppose it because I think it is untenable, not because of any desire to retain the present dilemma, I should like to find a genuine loophole. But that does not alter my conviction that the loophole that is at present being advocated is a blind alley.
Eddington AS. 1931. The end of the world: from the standpoint of mathematical physics. Nature 127:447-453.
The “way out of the dilemma” that Eddington references, and which he rejects, is: “If we have a number of particles moving about at random, they will in the course of time go through every possible configuration, so that even the most orderly, the most non-chance configuration, will occur by chance if only we wait long enough.”
Eddington was clearly conflicted, and if I understand him correctly, he recognizes that when physics is pushed back to the origin of the universe, design (or “anti-chance”) seems to rear its ugly head in the form of physical law, and he would like to find a way out of this, because he finds the idea repugnant (despite his seemingly contradictory claim that he has no “philosophical axe to grind”).
Here’s an interesting thought (at least to me): When life is pushed back to its origins, design (or “anti-chance”) seems to rear its ugly head. This idea might be philosophically repugnant to some, but what if it is true?
It appears to me that Eddington was desperate to find an excuse to deny that design underlies the physical universe, despite the fact that evidence was making it increasingly clear.
Are Darwinists doing the same thing with the origin of life?
49 Responses to Arthur Stanley Eddington, Darwinists, and Repugnant Notions
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bornagain77: “3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.”
Indeed, “God is light” – absolute, pure, undefiled, life-giving. Physical light is the shadow of God.
What I find quite interesting is that it was not until Einstein that we discovered that space and time are related to each other in a way that is bound with the speed of light. We also know that this space-time continuum had a beginning.
Yet, over 2800 years ealier, David, king of Israel and the writer of many Psalms, expressed in a single Psalm (139, verses 1-16) that God and God’s knowledge was not limited by space, not limited by time, and not limited by light. IOW, God’s knowing does not depend on waiting for sensory information (which would be bound by the speed of light) to reach him.
Of all the things he could have written, he was inspired to write about light along with space and time. Only know do we appreciate why this would matter to the Creator of a space-time continuum.
ericb
re “the universe had a beginning”
To avoid confusion that should be qualified to the observable universe. Even then “the beginning” is really not the beginning of the universe but rather the beginning of where our understanding of the laws of physics is able to describe it. Our theories of physics, you see, are unable to describe the singularity the observable universe was thought to be. We can only describe it beginning in the moment following the singularity. We have no idea and no way of telling what lies beyond or within the singularity or what lies beyond the limits of observation imposed by the speed of light. The universe we can observe today might only be a portion of the universe that actually exists.
Moreover the big bang theory isn’t quite as robust as most people believe. It’s been fudged to fit the observations. One of the most egregious fudge factors is the so-called inflationary period where the observable universe had to have expanded at an exponentially increasing rate far faster than the speed of light.
DaveScot, I wouldn’t disagree with the technical truth of what you are saying, but I would think it more appropriate to say “Reality is more than this universe” — something that just about everyone agrees on.
IOW, I would say that the normal use of “universe” is to refer to this observable space-time continuum.
That is why some speculate about multi-verse, i.e. that there may be other universes. It is also why we say “The age of the universe is …”. We couldn’t make such statements at all if “universe” meant something other than this observable space-time continuum.
So “the universe had a beginning” is on exactly the same semantic footing as saying “the universe is X years old”.
Reality is more than this universe† something that just about everyone agrees on.
That’s absurd. There are a great many realists in the world. In the scientific community it’s a majority.
Eric you stated;
God’s knowing does not depend on waiting for sensory information (which would be bound by the speed of light) to reach him.
I just want to point out that this Theistic presumption you pointed out has empirical validation in quantum non-locality. The spooky action at a distance, Einstein alluded too, that defies the speed of light.
Actually the evidence of quantum non-locality provides a much deeper and compelling evidence that the “truth” of the spiritual realm does indeed have dominion over what we call the physical realm. If you want I’ll send you a paper, I’ve written, that goes through the details and makes a strong argument for the Theistic position of “spiritual realms’” dominion over the physical realm.
bornagain77, I don’t know about Eric, but I’ll take you up on that paper. Is it available by email?
Perhaps you are assuming I’m saying something other than what I am. I didn’t say everyone agrees on what it is that is beyond this universe.
Even most of the “realists” you mention probably do not maintain that this incredibly-fine-tuned-for-life universe popped into existence from absolutely nothing, being caused by absolutely nothing, and just being unbelievably lucky that it is so well suited for life.
Skeptic Hume wrote “But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause”. I expect most would agree with the principle that
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The typical non-theistic answer, both to the causal need of our universe and the improbable fine tuning, is that there is some (non-theistic) reality beyond this universe that brings universes into existence, perhaps a Great many different universes.
Whether one appeals to theistic or non-theistic answers, both agree that there is more to reality than this one universe that we can observe.
Barrett,
Yes, I can send you my paper on Quantum non-locality from the Theistic perspective as a pdf. attachment, If pdf. is ok. Just send a request for it to my e-mail address.
my e-mail address is;
[email protected]
ericb
Even most of the “realists†you mention probably do not maintain that this incredibly-fine-tuned-for-life universe popped into existence from absolutely nothing, being caused by absolutely nothing, and just being unbelievably lucky that it is so well suited for life.
Particles come into and out of existence from nothing. It was predicted by quantum theory and has been experimentally confirmed many times. It has been thought for a long time that the universe is a quantum fluctuation. Given the nature of infinity if quantum universes have been popping in and out of existence forever then one of that infinite number of universes must be just like ours.
atom
I ordered Spetner’s book. If I don’t like it you know that means for you, right? j/k
To DaveScot, I think then that we can agree that anyone who holds that there are an infinite number of universes would thereby also concede my point, i.e. “Whether one appeals to theistic or non-theistic answers, both agree that there is more to reality than this one universe that we can observe.” With either type of answer, it also makes sense to talk about the fact that our universe had a beginning.
As a clarifying side point, knowing of idea of particles and quantum fluctuations, I was careful to specify “absolutely nothing”. Space is not absolutely nothing. In particular, the experimental confirmation you mention is with regard to the false vacuum of our non-empty space-time.
“Quantum theory says that space, though it appears to be empty, is actually filled with virtual particle pairs which may “fluctuate” or appear for extremely short periods of time. However, Ed Tryon, the physicist who originated the above much-quoted proposal in a 1973 article for Nature, apparently recognizes a problem with how even this theory could explain creation from true nothingness, since the quantum effects he describes require something more than nothing–they require space, something all physicists now carefully distinguish from “nothing.”
“Fred Hoyle says, “The physical properties of the vacuum would still be needed, and this would be something.” The space in our universe is called a “false vacuum” because it contains properties that make it much more than “nothing”–it contains quantum particles and is not truly empty. Thus a false vacuum also demands a cause.”
Excerpt from Show Me God, by Fred Heeren, p. 93.
True nothing is not merely the absence of matter, but the absence of matter, energy, fields, properties, space, time, and all quantum relationships. A false vacuum that is pregnant with mathematical relationships that can yield short lived particles is not nothing.
If anything preceded our universe, including (infinite) time, so as to give rise to an “infinite number of universes”, then in that case it is again clear that “there is more to reality than this one universe that we can observe.”
Dave Scot you stated;
Particles come into and out of existence from nothing.
I don’t mean to be contrary, but how do you conclusively disprove the fact that the particles may be fluctuating from another universe or even from a higher dimension? To me that seems a very more reasonable proposition for particles coming into and out of existence than to boldly state the absurd proposition that something arose from nothing.
bornagain77, Actually we don’t even need to speculate about other universe’s or higher dimensions, because even taken at face value the idea of quantum fluctuations yielding particles does not claim to create particles out of true “nothing”. That would be a misconception. See my previous post, which was made about the same time as yours. Here is another excerpt:
“Moreover, general relativity shows that the space in our universe is not just nothing. Einstein wrote: “There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of a field.” ”
Excerpt from Show Me God, by Fred Heeren, p. 93.
All empirical confirmations concerning quantum fluctuations obviously take place within our property rich, mathematically related space-time, not within “nothing”.
DS, I look forward to your thoughts on it. Just don’t moderate me if you don’t like it.
Atom
What, me moderate anyone? I’ll have you know I’m a paragon of tolerance and receptive to all opinions no matter how trite, misinformed, or illogical!
LOL. Ok, just don’t throw me in the moderation queue, that’s all I’m saying.
But in all realness, I think that you’ll find some useful ideas in his book, especially dealing with a Front-Loaded perspective.
bornagain
Quantum field theory predicts particles coming into existence from nothing. Energy may be negative or positive and may manifest in equal amounts. A pair of particles, one negative and the other positive, may spring into existence and continue to exist until they meet, where they cancel each other out to zero again. It’s been experimentally demonstrated beyond any doubt and is used in practical applications.
So really the net energy is always zero because negative and positive appear in equal amounts in discrete fixed units (quanta). Nothing from nothing is still nothing.
On a cosmological scale the math works out the same way. Positive energy equals negative energy. The observable universe is all just a quantum fluctuation and will eventually return to the nothing from whence it came. I’m not saying I believe the cosmological interpretation I’m just saying others do and it’s reputedly copasetic with modern physics.
Can it be proved the particles from nothing aren’t really coming from somewhere? Probably not. This is where Occam’s Razor comes in – it’s not good practice to add things that aren’t needed. Quantum field theory positively explains particles and antiparticles appearing in pairs briefly before cancelling each other back out of existence. It doesn’t need to call upon additional dimensions or whatever to explain the phenomenon. Are additional dimensions possible? Sure. Anything’s possible. It’s possible we’re computer programs in a simulated universe like the movie “The Matrix”. The question is what reason do we have to believe that it might be not just a possibility but the actual state of things? No reason that I know of. Occam’s Razor cuts away the unnecessary here too.
Dave Scot,
To me this seems to further the case for the spiritual realms dominion over the physical realm. Just as in quantum non-locality, the “invisible truth” of a probable anthropic requirement is being enforced. Yet, this difference is more exciting since it shows the creation of “material”. For in quantum non-locality the “truth” of a detected entangled particle directly effects its partner particle at faster than SOL limits, I remind you this is not the result of memory.
It is interesting how they discovered particles coming into and out of existence from nothing. Though I’m not familiar with the details, I’m sure it was deduced mathematically by Paul Dirac, before it was observed in reality. Thus I would further venture that this particle fluctuation is a required condition of “invisible truth”.
This makes three hard evidences in physics, which i know of, which point to “invisible truths” dominion over the “material” realm.
1 Quantum non-locality proves that “invisible truth” is an active govenor of the universe.
2 Particles appearing out of nowhere to fulfill an “invisible truths” requirement, proves that “invisible truth” can indeed create “material”.
3 The unchanging nature of universal constants throughout the history of the universe proves that “Invisible truth” is not subject to what the material does but dictates what the material can and can’t do.
I think the evidence for the invisible “spiritual” realms over the physical is getting pretty solid Dave. Would not you agree?
Quantum field theory is a theory concerning quantum fields, not a theory about true nothing. The fact that the “net energy” is zero, does not mean we are starting from nothing.
Please see my posts 41 and 43. Space is not the same thing as nothing. The empirical verification you allude to takes place within a space-time continuum, not starting from nothing. It would be incorrect to confuse space with nothing.
The mathematics of fields is itself an indication that one is still starting with essential relationships and properties. You must first have fields and space.
An additional problem with trying to apply this concept as an explanation of the universe is that the universe has lasted billions of years, whereas quantum fluctuations are limited to Planck time, an incredibly short interval of time.
“According to quantum mechanics, once space is created, a quantum fluctuation can produce particles from space (instantaneous creation), but these particles must disappear within an incredibly small fraction of a second, called Planck time (10^-43 second). Every fraction of a second that transpires beyond that first instant of creation adds to the miracle of a universe that, according to quantum physics, never should have lasted beyond Planck time.”
op cit. p. 222