Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

by Tim Folger

Discover

published online November 10, 2008

A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.

Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.

Read more…

Comments
Hi Tribune. I appreciate your curiosity. You wrote, “Hazel, my point was you said “I’m agnostic because I’m aware that I can’t really know what the nature of metaphysical reality is” and here you are discussing it.” Well first of all, as I think I made clear, a main point I’ve been arguing for is precisely that we can’t know about the meta-reality behind our universe, and so those that claim it is logical to be a theist and therefore illogical to be an atheist are wrong. As an atheist, I’m interested in discussing atheism with those who have negative and often, in my opinion, incorrect thoughts about atheism. And, as I’ve also tried to make clear, there are non-theistic metaphysical speculations that appeal to me much more than theism, and I’m interested in describing them. Theism is so embedded in our culture that many people, even if they aren’t particularly satisfied with their theistic beliefs, don’t have any clear ideas of alternatives. I like to provide those for people to think about. You also write, “There is a truth and we should seek it,” and “we can know there is a point to all this and we can know it is imperative to find out what the point is.” I am a believer in seeking truth, although I don’t believe there is “A Truth” that we can find, nor do I believe there is necessarily a cosmic Point to the existence of the universe or to our existence in it. I believe in meaning but not Meaning. I find being a human being a remarkably challenging opportunity within which the search for truth about our external world and our internal life is a vital part.hazel
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Hazel, my point was you said "I’m agnostic because I’m aware that I can’t really know what the nature of metaphysical reality is" and here you are discussing it. I guess you can be motivated by a desire for entertainment, but I don't think that about you. There is a truth and we should seek it. Now, I agree that there are some things we can't know i.e. what was the cause of the first cause, but we can know there was a cause, and we can know there is a point to all this and we can know it is imperative to find out what the point is.tribune7
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Hazel I must repeat, before signing off: laws specify conditions under which things are observed to happen, they are dynamically inert -- they do not create materials and events. Plato speaks of a world in which there are forms that are instantiated, not a world in which forms create themselves into imperfect instantiations. [Thence we deal with the doctrine of the demiurge and get into the world of Gnosticism.] For instance, reliably, when we have heat, fuel and air, we have a fire. That is a natural regularity, and it has the characteristic: LOW CONTINGENCY. Where we have high contingency, here, a fine tuned, highly complex, finitely old cosmos that is evidently adapted for cell-based, carbon chemistry based life, we are needing to account for the opposite: HIGH CONTINGENCY. That is traceable to one of two main sources, per induction on experience and the reasons why that ecpxperience makes sense. Namely, chance or agency. For chance, we are looking at a quasi-infinite multiverse of some form, which is inherently beyond empirical test. It is speculative metaphysics, not physics. Even if we find evidence of other universes, we would not be able to find evidence of a quasi-infinite cluster of such sufficient to give probabilistic resources to overcome the sort of cosmological and origin of life and life forms odds we are discussing. the otehr option is the directed contingency of a designing mind. And, as tot he notion that such minds can be physically accounted for without residue, I have already addressed that above, and in more details here. As to the attempt to confine inferences to mind to inferences to human minds, I excerpt from just above:
we have no good reason to confine the list of possible acting intelligences to humans. (For instance, many animals show at least limited intelligence, and extraterrestrial intelligences are at least possible. So are demons, gods, angels and even God.) So, we must let the circumstances tell us what the candidate intelligences credibly at work in a situation may be. But, that is very different from the epistemic status of — per reliable induction on signs of intelligence — accepting that intelligence is at work on observed CSI.
G'day all . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Tribune, I don't quite understand your question. I participate in internet discussions for the educational value: they are educational to me because I get to practice articulating my beliefs and because I learn things, some of which sometimes change my beliefs and sometimes which just help me understand people who think differently than I do; they are possible educational to those I discuss with for all the same reasons, and usually there are readers who also find them educational. Does that answer your question?hazel
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Hello GEM Most of what you wrote about has been covered above. However I will say that I am aware that in science laws are descriptions of the regularities we find in actual objects. The question as to whether laws can exist independent of the objects that manifest them is similar to the question as to whether a mind can exist independent of matter. These are questions, in a way, about whether Plato was right. I'll submit that the theist who wants to claim that a non-material mind-like being, God, could have created the universe, needs to acknowledge that analogously laws existing in some Platonic fashion could have created the universe. Conversely, if one wants to stick with the in-this-world understanding of laws as descriptions of things we find in matter, then we should stick with understanding likewise that minds are descriptions of things we find in matter.hazel
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Even though I have metaphysical preferences which make more sense to me than a belief in God, and which fit in with my overall understanding of my life, I have no strong sense that I know that I am right about any of the particulars of those preferences. Hazel, when you come on this board are you seeking to challenge your understanding or affirm it?tribune7
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Hazel: I too have been watching. Pardon a couple of notes: 1] Re, 69: The design inference takes certain characteristics of human beings as primary and extrapolates to speculations about other intelligent agents, including a God who created the universe The design inference, a methodology that extends Fisherian style statistical reasoning to situations of high contingency and observed functionally specific complexity does no such thing. The design inference first looks at an observed fact: some things in our world of experience show mechanically regular deterministic or stochastic patterns that can be reduced to descriptive statements that we term natural law. For instance, heavy objects fall through a natural regularity we characterise as gravity. It then contrasts that with situations where we have very high contingency: under apparently similar situations, we may have quite different outcomes. For instance, if the falling heavy object is a die, the uppermost face after it tumbles and settles is highly contingent. That sort of contingency may result in a credibly undirected outcome, or a credibly directed one. We term the first, chance, and the second intelligence or design. To discern teh two, it then applies the criterion of specified complexity: a sufficiently complex and specified outcome is far more credibly the product of intelligence than of chance. (For instance, the specification may. per Orgel 1973 on, be by virtue of configuration-based fine-tuned functionality.) And indeed, that is our general experience where we can directly experience or observe the causal process. That is, we now have a reliable induction, a "law" of experiential reality if you will -- CSI, especially FSCI, is the product of intelligence. (Such is of course provisional and open to refuting counter-example, just as is the epistemic status of all other scientific laws.) Next, we have no good reason to confine the list of possible acting intelligences to humans. (For instance, many animals show at least limited intelligence, and extraterrestrial intelligences are at least possible. So are demons, gods, angels and even God.) So, we must let the circumstances tell us what the candidate intelligences credibly at work in a situation may be. But, that is very different from the epistemic status of -- per reliable induction on signs of intelligence -- accepting that intelligence is at work on observed CSI. 2] . . . I have contrasted this with taking the natural laws that we find in the world as primary, and offered the extrapolation that similarly meta-processes are the cause of the universe. Boiling down, you are first implying that chance plus mechanical necessity are adequate to explain observed reality. [The directly experienced phenomenon and fact of the reasoning, communicating, acting mind, as discussed here, is sufficient to show that this is not credibly so. But, that's an aside.] You are in particular committed to the idea that lawlike necessity or stochastical processes characterised by law, are enough to account for the universe. Immediately, that raises the issue raised by Robin Collins et al: such an enormously complex and fine-tuned, functionally specific universe-generating law would be a capital instance of FSCI, crying out for a designer. But, more fundamentally, laws are DESCRIPTIONS that we provisionally make; what is primary is the existing objects that interact based on forces that reveal themselves through natural regularities. When we identify and describe then successfully test such a regularity, we call it a law. So, we must clarify our terms. When we do so, we come up against having to address existing objects in an observed physically existing cosmos that on the usual estimates dates to some 13.7 BYA. This leads us straight to the contingent/ necessary being point SB has been making all along. For, credibly, the OBSERVED universe is contingent, and had a beginning. Per rationality 101, "that which has a beginning has a cause." So, we see that a contingent universe points to a non-contingent cause rooted in a necessary being. What are the live option candidates? Patrick summarises:
. . . we got 2 options: a) a self-existent intelligent being with the capability manipulate energy (although it could be posited that this being was the original ‘verse in a limited multiverse and ‘evolved’ its intelligence out of an energetic form; whatever) b) an infinite or at least growing multiverse (which is necessary to generate the probabilistic resources) . . . . Both choices are “supernatural” in that its the superset of our natural universe. Both can potentially provide evidence for their existence via observable effects in our universe.
Aptly put. So, what is the evidence: massive fine-tuning that forms a knife-edge balanced cosmos suitable for life. [Summary here.] Most interesting of all, as Patrick hints at, the speculative, methaphysical possibility of a quasi-infinite multiverse does not eliminate the force of the point. For, LOCAL FINETUNING is just as wonderful as is global; as John Leslie's famous fly on the wall illustration shows:
. . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.
So, we are right back at the issue of the adequacy of explanations for the observed cosmos, including ourselves in it as intelligent beings. And, as linked in my first link above, chance plus necessity acting on material objects is not credibly adequate to explain the four big bangs: origin of a fine-tuned life facilitating, complex cosmos, of information-rich cell based life in it, of equally information rich body plan level biodiversity, and last but not least: of minds that are both rational and moral. On pain of self referential absurdity. But, an intelligent creator certainly is. So, we are well within our epistemic rights to think in such terms at worldview level. And, to use the explanatory filter when we think at the scientific level. And, to use the resulting inductive evidence on the reliable roots of signs of intelligence as we address not only scientific questions of origins of life and life forms, but also scientific questions on the origins of the universe of our experience and observation. G'day, all GEM of TKI.kairosfocus
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Thanks for the feedback, Patrick. You write, "I watched the whole conversation and really it comes down to personal choice of what the causeless cause is. Or as Hazel put it: “So I wouldn’t say I have faith in unknown laws, although I would say - have said - that that explanation is more appealing to me, and more likely to be true if I had to bet, than a divine being.” Sounds like faith rephrased to me, even though you object to that word. If you truly believed that “we need to live with uncertainty”–which is agnosticism–then you would not have a personal preference–which is atheism." I agree that this comes down to personal choice. I see myself as both an atheist and an agnostic, in the following sense. I am an atheist because I lack any positive belief in a God. I'm agnostic because I'm aware that I can't really know what the nature of metaphysical reality is. Even though I have metaphysical preferences which make more sense to me than a belief in God, and which fit in with my overall understanding of my life, I have no strong sense that I know that I am right about any of the particulars of those preferences. You quote Stephen as saying, "The proposition on the table is this: IF something exists, then a self-existent creator follows," and then you added, "Very true, and I don’t see why Hazel rejects it." You followed this with, "The real question is whether this “self-existent creator” has intelligence." Exactly. I have never argued for the proposition that our universe has no cause - the topic of the whole conversation has been about possibilities as to what that cause might be. My point has been that an intelligent, conscious, willful divine being is not the only possibility, and that a meta-verse of some sort of impersonal, lawful reality could create universes. The question of whether this "self-existent creator" has intelligence is indeed the issue. You conclude by saying, "We’re now back to considering the evidence on our own Earth." I think this is an important point. As I have argued, these metaphysical speculations are primarily fueled by analogies with our human experience. (This is one reason I think we could be totally wrong about the cause of the universe - because it might be something totally alien to our experience. It might be all these ideas of time, cause and effect, law, being, etc. are just not relevant concepts in the meta-verse.) The design inference takes certain characteristics of human beings as primary and extrapolates to speculations about other intelligent agents, including a God who created the universe (and who perhaps continues to be actively present.) I have contrasted this with taking the natural laws that we find in the world as primary, and offered the extrapolation that similarly meta-processes are the cause of the universe. This is actually the central issue, I think - what is going on in our universe and on our own Earth - and this philosophical discussion about the cause of the universe is secondary.hazel
November 22, 2008
November
11
Nov
22
22
2008
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
I watched the whole conversation and really for some people it comes down to personal choice of what the causeless cause is, not whether we should continue to investigate and keep an open mind. Or as Hazel put it: "So I wouldn’t say I have faith in unknown laws, although I would say - have said - that that explanation is more appealing to me, and more likely to be true if I had to bet, than a divine being." Sounds like faith rephrased to me, even though you object to that word. If you truly believed that "we need to live with uncertainty"--which is agnosticism--then you would not have a personal preference--which is atheism. Stephen said:
The proposition on the table is this: IF something exists, then a self-existent creator follows.
Very true, and I don't see why Hazel rejects it, since a multiverse is both self-existent and "presumably" a creator in the form of spawning off new universes with varying constraints on their energetic form. So the real question is whether this "self-existent creator" has intelligence. So we got 2 options: a) a self-existent intelligent being with the capability manipulate energy (although it could be posited that this being was the original 'verse in a limited multiverse and 'evolved' its intelligence out of an energetic form; whatever) b) an infinite or at least growing multiverse (which is necessary to generate the probabilistic resources)(when I say "growing" I mean for example that universes could be energetically degrading back to nothing but there is at least one stable self-existent universe creating new 'verses every so often; there could only be an average of 4 'verses in existence at any time but since the multiverse is itself timeless it would presumably eventually create a well-tuned 'verse like our own eventually...it's just that the whole Star Trek multiple dimensions with multiple yous and me existing at the same time is thrown out the door) Both choices are "supernatural" in that its the superset of our natural universe. Both can potentially provide evidence for their existence via observable effects in our universe. The problem is that even if we find evidence for another universe (I know some physicists are thinking of ways to potentially test this) we have no way of knowing whether it's an infinite multiverse. Even then a multiverse can co-exist with an intelligent self-existent being. For example, the multiverse could be endlessly spawning chaotic/non-balanced 'verses and the intelligence shapes them. But that's assuming we can even test this hypothesis, which many physicists admit is unlikely. So now we get back to considering finding effects of an intelligence, which is what ID is in a nutshell. The problem is that our own biological life could have been seeded by intelligence contained within this universe. But that's when people say, "Who designed them/it?" Personally I reject the assertion that our universe must be homogeneous. So while we know the laws in our tiny pocket of the universe there could a sector where an "unknown law" operates and intelligence(s) could evolve. So how could we reject that hypothesis? Analyze whether seeding via traveling over extra-solar distances is feasible (although there will be a degree of uncertainty since this unknown intelligence may come up with something we did not). If it's not then we're back to looking for other forms by which an intelligence could operate. I believe that wraps up the conversation. We're now back to considering the evidence on our own EarthPatrick
November 22, 2008
November
11
Nov
22
22
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Well, you think my belief that we need to live with uncertainty when there are things we can't really know is irrational and a sign of my lack of intellectual sophistication. I think your belief that your particular belief system is backed up by unassailable logic is presumptuous and wrong. This dead end sounds like a good place to stop to me.hazel
November 22, 2008
November
11
Nov
22
22
2008
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Hi Hazel: Post @65 is too hard to read, because the paragraphs are jumbled, so I reposted it on @66 with the necessary divisions. Meaning no disrespect, but, as a response to your lecture on the nature of logic, I must gently inform you that I already know what logic is, what it does, and what it cannot do. So, when you suggest that logic must contain a “proposition” as a starting point, I hasten to remind you, once again, that the proposition on the table has always been that “something exists,.” From that proposition, we can implement the reasoning process. It was to this same substantive proposition to which we applied the principle of “infinite regress” in order to arrive at the conclusion of a “causeless cause,” a conclusion, by the way, with which you agreed with wholeheartedly. It was only at the last stage of the reasoning process that prompted you decided to reject the argument. It was the final step which led to the conclusion of a self-existent being that created all the difficulties for you. So, it is a bit silly at this point to suggest that we had no raw materials (proposition) to work with in the first place. Obviously, your problem is with the conclusion that we arrived at, not with the lack of a working proposition. —–“Given that we do not have any direct experience with the meta-cause of the universe, we have no way to establish the truth of any beginning propositions about it. We can start with assumptions and reason from them, which is what the philosophy of metaphysics is all about, and consider what different schools of metaphysics entail. But we can’t determine which metaphysics is correct because pure logic without evidence can’t do that, and we have no evidence. We have evidence for what the world we live in is like, but we have no evidence of what is “outside” of this universe.” Again, with respect, I remind you that we are starting with the assumption that “something exists.” Your strawman strikes again. —–“I think the reason that people think pure logic can produce knowledge is because of the nature of words. When words are written down they look like well-defined things. But in our minds, words are merely centers of webs of denotation and connotation - they are hooked in nebulous ways to all sorts of other concepts. Articulating these webs of related meanings, and subjecting them to logical analysis, can feel like knowledge about the world when actually what we are getting is knowledge about our own belief system as embedded in the words we use to articulate that belief system." No one here is saying that pure logic can produce knowledge. That is the failure of the traditional ontological argument, which I am not using. Once again, your exposition on logic is unnecessary. You are subjecting this poor strawman to cruel and unusual punishment. —–“So Stephen, you do an admirable job of clearly and logically describing your metaphysical belief system, and no doubt it is important to structuring your understanding of who you are and how you fit into the world. On the other hand, others likewise can and do an admirable job of describing different metaphysical beliefs, which play a similar role in their lives.” Let’s take it once again from the top. The proposition on the table is this: IF something exists, then a self-existent creator follows. What is it about IF that you do not understand. —–“But these metaphysical beliefs are not “true” in the sense of accurately describing metaphysical reality, because we can’t really know what metaphysical reality is like. Your sense that logic validates and certifies your beliefs only, and not others, is both an mistake and an illusion.” Perhaps if I place the conclusion ahead of the premise it will help. The proposition that a self-existent creator exists is true IF, something exists. I will not go through all of the steps again because there is no reason to repeat the process. Not once have you refuted or even challenged the argument. I have, by the way, been in many of these kinds of discussions in the past, so I recognize the perennial problem for what it is. Hyperskepticism is a real cultural problem; it is contagious, and, it is irrational—as I have made clear. Atheism may constitute many things, but intellectual sophistication is not one of them.StephenB
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Hi Hazel: Meaning no disrespect, but, as a response to your lecture on the nature of logic, I must gently inform you that I already know what logic is, what it does, and what it cannot do. So, when you suggest that logic must contain a “proposition” as a starting point, I hasten to remind you, once again, that the proposition on the table has always been that “something exists,.” From that proposition, we can implement the reasoning process. It was to this same substantive proposition to which we applied the principle of “infinite regress” in order to arrive at the conclusion of a “causeless cause,” a conclusion, by the way, with which you agreed with wholeheartedly. It was only at the last stage of the reasoning process that prompted you decided to reject the argument. It was the final step which led to the conclusion of a self-existent being that created all the difficulties for you. So, it is a bit silly at this point to suggest that we had no raw materials (proposition) to work with in the first place. Obviously, your problem is with the conclusion that we arrived at, not with the lack of a working proposition. -----“Given that we do not have any direct experience with the meta-cause of the universe, we have no way to establish the truth of any beginning propositions about it. We can start with assumptions and reason from them, which is what the philosophy of metaphysics is all about, and consider what different schools of metaphysics entail. But we can’t determine which metaphysics is correct because pure logic without evidence can’t do that, and we have no evidence. We have evidence for what the world we live in is like, but we have no evidence of what is “outside” of this universe.” Again, with respect, I remind you that we are starting with the assumption that “something exists.” Your strawman strikes again. -----“I think the reason that people think pure logic can produce knowledge is because of the nature of words. When words are written down they look like well-defined things. But in our minds, words are merely centers of webs of denotation and connotation - they are hooked in nebulous ways to all sorts of other concepts. Articulating these webs of related meanings, and subjecting them to logical analysis, can feel like knowledge about the world when actually what we are getting is knowledge about our own belief system as embedded in the words we use to articulate that belief system. No one here is saying that pure logic can produce knowledge. That is the failure of the traditional ontological argument, which I am not using. Once again, your exposition on logic is unnecessary. You are subjecting this poor strawman to cruel and unusual punishment. -----“So Stephen, you do an admirable job of clearly and logically describing your metaphysical belief system, and no doubt it is important to structuring your understanding of who you are and how you fit into the world. On the other hand, others likewise can and do an admirable job of describing different metaphysical beliefs, which play a similar role in their lives.” Let’s take it once again from the top. The proposition on the table is this: IF something exists, then a self-existent creator follows. What is it about IF that you do not understand. -----“But these metaphysical beliefs are not “true” in the sense of accurately describing metaphysical reality, because we can’t really know what metaphysical reality is like. Your sense that logic validates and certifies your beliefs only, and not others, is both an mistake and an illusion.” Perhaps if I place the conclusion ahead of the premise it will help. The proposition that a self-existent creator exists is true IF, something exists. I will not go through all of the steps again because there is no reason to repeat the process. Not once have you refuted or even challenged the argument. I have, by the way, been in many of these kinds of discussions in the past, so I recognize the perennial problem for what it is. Hyperskepticism is a real cultural problem; it is contagious, and, it is irrational---as I have made clear. Atheism may constitute many things, but intellectual sophistication is not one of them.StephenB
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen. I'd like to say that I have never met anyone as absolutely certain as you are that his beliefs were logically and self-evidently true. Fortunately I am not trying to convince you of anything, which would be fruitless, but you are clear and articulate and I appreciate being able to understand the position that hold. You think that a personal, willful mindful being must have been responsible for the universe. You reject, with all sorts of assertions based on this starting premise, that any kind of impersonal, law-like meta-reality could not have done so. Given your sense of certainty, I think going on is probably not worthwhile. The main difference between you and me is not theism vs. atheism, but rather certainty about one's beliefs (you) vs. lack of certainty about things that are unknowable (me). I find it odd that you can write earlier about the need for science to have humility about dissenters in respect to what we can know about this world, and yet you display what appears to be a complete lack of humility about your ability to know the correct philosophical foundation for metaphysics. The heart of this difference between us seems to lie in our understanding of logic. (I might remind you that I have taught logic, and am fairly knowledgeable about the philosophy of the foundations of logic and mathematics.) Pure logic is an abstract tool for manipulating propositions. However, in order for logic to be applied to actual knowledge about the world, it must be populated with content - there must be actual propositions about the world to which logic can be applied. Those propositions may or may not be true, and the truth of those propositions cannot be supplied by logic itself. All logic can do is help us reason about propositions that we have decided by empirical means are true, and the truth of our logical deductions are no more certain than the truth of the starting propositions. Given that we do not have any direct experience with the meta-cause of the universe, we have no way to establish the truth of any beginning propositions about it. We can start with assumptions and reason from them, which is what the philosophy of metaphysics is all about, and consider what different schools of metaphysics entail. But we can't determine which metaphysics is correct because pure logic without evidence can't do that, and we have no evidence. We have evidence for what the world we live in is like, but we have no evidence of what is "outside" of this universe. I think the reason that people think pure logic can produce knowledge is because of the nature of words. When words are written down they look like well-defined things. But in our minds, words are merely centers of webs of denotation and connotation - they are hooked in nebulous ways to all sorts of other concepts. Articulating these webs of related meanings, and subjecting them to logical analysis, can feel like knowledge about the world when actually what we are getting is knowledge about our own belief system as embedded in the words we use to articulate that belief system. So Stephen, you do an admirable job of clearly and logically describing your metaphysical belief system, and no doubt it is important to structuring your understanding of who you are and how you fit into the world. On the other hand, others likewise can and do an admirable job of describing different metaphysical beliefs, which play a similar role in their lives. But these metaphysical beliefs are not "true" in the sense of accurately describing metaphysical reality, because we can't really know what metaphysical reality is like. Your sense that logic validates and certifies your beliefs only, and not others, is both an mistake and an illusion.hazel
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Hazel, While I certainly embrace ID science and argue for it often, my arguments of late have recently been solely philosophical. The trichotomy of law, chance, and design, while philosophical in origin (Plato’s laws), is solely scientific in its application. Dembski’s explanatory filter, for example, shows that an intelligent agent is the most probable explanation for functionally complex specified information. The one thing he does not do is argue on the basis of logical certainty. Even he acknowledges that he could be wrong. That is why he is credible and his adversaries are not. Conversely, Darwinists never consider the possibility that they could be wrong, even though the evidence indicates that they almost certainly are. That is all part of their pathology. Science can never be sure of itself. That is why it needs both the humility not to disfranchise dissenters and the wisdom provided by a sound metaphysical foundation. (Providing, of course, that the metaphysics itself has not been corrupted through the misapplication of reason [Our current situation, by the way] My arguments, on the other hand, are based on logical certainly. That a self-existent creator follows from the fact of existence is evident to reason. To resist that fact is tantamount to resisting the fact that 2+2=4. I have no idea whether the ID scientists or ID community in general takes this matter seriously. I only know that they should. -----“I’m arguing that these two possibilities (personal or impersonal) are equally valid, and that your insistence that a Being is the logically necessary conclusion is wrong.” You seem to be confusing the argument from design to designer with the argument from contingency to necessity. While they can be mutually reinforcing, they are not at all the same. -----"Laws are a part of and generate chains of being all the time - our whole universe verifies this fact. Lawful regularities of cause and effect are exactly what do generate chains of being in our world - one moment leads to the next following laws. By analogy, there is no reason to not accept the possibility that a set of meta-laws created our universe.” Laws are not responsible for their existence, let alone existence itself. They are simply part of existence. Again, by definition, laws don’t have the power to create. When atheists attribute creative power to laws they do the very same thing they accuse theists of doing, they attribute a human (or divine) quality to a non-human (non-Divine) phenomenon. Similarly, it is important to understand that matter comes from mind, not the other way around. Even if one believes in the fantasy that mind can come from matter, the existence of matter must still be explained by a creative act. The reason is that, again, something cannot come from nothing. While you may not realize it, you assume the reverse each time you grant to “law” the power of creation and each time you assume the presence of matter as a given. The existence of these things must be explained. You simply take them for granted. The answer to the riddle is that, once again, those things that HAVE being can only come from that which IS being. That is not a probability statement. I wrote: “(b) Impersonal eternal causes cannot choose to generate temporal events.” -----You responded: “If we think of those impersonal eternal causes as laws, and we understand that “choose” is therefore an inappropriate word, this sentence becomes, -----“(b) Impersonal eternal laws cannot generate temporal events.” -----“Why not? Laws in our world generate temporal events all the time - for instance, a rainstorm that develops, plays out, and dissipates. Why couldn’t the interplay of laws in the meta-world create universes in an analogous way?” You are not exactly zeroing in on the argument. If a law is eternal, then it obviously did not begin in time. An eternal law cannot wait around in a period of non-existence until it decides to exist. It either always existed or it came to exist in time. If it came to exist in time, then its existence obviously depends on something other than itself. In other words, someone had to “choose” to create it. Creativity is inseparable from “choice,” which is why I used the personal word choice and avoided the impersonal word “generate.” The power to create cannot be separated from the power to not create, otherwise it is not a creative act; it is a law. A law does not have the power to create, to suspend itself, to be, or (this is important) not to be.. The law of gravity cannot, for example, chose to spare someone who slips and falls. Neither can any law of ecology change or adjust its basic nature. It cannot start, stop, and restart itself. So, yes, a law (and chance) can generate a temporary rainstorm, but the laws of ecology don’t really stop. The water simply finds a new home, and the process continues. The broader point is that to attribute the creation of the universe to a “law” or “principle” is always to beg the question.StephenB
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Hazel --My primary point is that I don’t think we can know what that source is, and my second point is that I don’t think the conclusion that that source is a being - God - is any more justified than the conclusion that that source is an impersonal set of laws BUT, is it any less justified? Remember, no existing set of laws can explain our existence. but I do object to the idea that my beliefs and the consequences of having my beliefs are inferior to the theist. I'm not one for citing Pascal's Wager. I think God is going to be more pleased by the skeptic who honestly says "I don't believe in you" and tries to follow Him anyway, than the phony Christian who praises him and then seduces the church secretary. Good and evil exist, and there is a point to our existence, and what we do has consequences. The biggest fools are the ones who say "God may exist, so what?"tribune7
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Stephen, here's some thoughts on two things you think that I have not addressed. You wrote above, "[2] The causeless cause must be a personal being because (a) “Principles” cannot be a part of or generate a chain of being, and (b) Impersonal eternal causes cannot choose to generate temporal events." It's standard among ID advocates to think about a trichotomy of kinds of causes: law, chance, and design. By "principles" (which you capitalized and put in quotes) I mean laws. As I said in another post, when we think about the source of the universe, we can either think of a Being who designed the universe, based on analogy with our experience with what human beings sometimes do, or we can think about a set of laws which created the universe, based on analogy with the regularities of cause and effect that we know pervade the world, including a great deal of what humans are also. I'm arguing that these two possibilities are equally valid, and that your insistence that a Being is the logically necessary conclusion is wrong. So let's look at what you wrote above, using the word laws instead of "Principles". "a) The causeless cause must be a personal being because laws cannot be a part of or generate a chain of being." Obviously false. Laws are a part of and generate chains of being all the time - our whole universe verifies this fact. Lawful regularities of cause and effect are exactly what do generate chains of being in our world - one moment leads to the next following laws. By analogy, there is no reason to not accept the possibility that a set of meta-laws created our universe. You also wrote, "(b) Impersonal eternal causes cannot choose to generate temporal events." If we think of those impersonal eternal causes as laws, and we understand that "choose" is therefore an inappropriate word, this sentence becomes, (b) Impersonal eternal laws cannot generate temporal events." Why not? Laws in our world generate temporal events all the time - for instance, a rainstorm that develops, plays out, and dissipates. Why couldn't the interplay of laws in the meta-world create universes in an analogous way?hazel
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
,“..if the universe and our being alive in it are accidental, then our lives can have no lasting meaning. But if our life in the universe results from design, there must be a satisfying meaning to it.” I agree that if the human race became extinct and all memory of it was erased then our existence would lose any meaning, save for the possibility that there is, how could you put it, a ‘naturalistic’ afterlife. Our lives can certainly have lasting meaning, it’s just a question of how long the meaning lasts. On the second part of barb’s statement her point most certainly does not stand. There are many possible ways to ‘create’, or for things to be a result of design, but not all of them are meaningful or satisfying. Consider the garden shed, mine is full of things I created that serve no real purpose, off cuts of wood left over from various DIY projects and the like. For sure some of these things might acquire a purpose as some point in the future but they are, at the moment, purposeless by products of a purposeful creation process. If we are, in some metaphysical sense, the same as these pieces of wood then is your life purposeful and satisfying? Even if you were created for a purpose, is that a reason to be satisfied or comforted? If it transpired that the purpose of creating life on earth was to serve as a tasty snack for Gods pet space monster then will you thank the lord as you and your family are slowly digested? You may have been created for a purpose but God may perceive us as little more than senseless microbes. “Either we were made for something, or else we are accidents without meaning. There is no third option.” I’m not suggesting a third option; by definition if we were not made for something, by something, then we lack theological purpose. If we were not made for something that does not mean that the universe was not created. If we have a naturalistic origin then we are not entirely accidents because we are not the result of a mistake or error – accidents are typically an unintended consequence and as such require an intentional agent. We could easily have been accidentally created by God. Ultimately what it comes down to for me is that I am satisfied with my life, and that life has meaning and purpose for me and for others, to my daughter, my wife, friends and family. I know I personally was created on purpose because my parents intended to have children and I am the result of their intentions. These meanings and intents are enough to satisfy me fully, I do not require a supernatural purpose to make my life whole, therefore your assertion that MY life can’t be meaningful or have purpose without a supernatural cause is simply false – although I’m not saying that it is not true for you.MaxEntropy
November 21, 2008
November
11
Nov
21
21
2008
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
Hi Tribune. Thanks for your sincere and candid response. You write, "I have faith in God — the belief in something unseen. Would you really want to say you have faith in an unknown law?" Well no, I wouldn't say that. First of all, I am not saying that I have any certain belief about the source of the universe. My primary point is that I don't think we can know what that source is, and my second point is that I don't think the conclusion that that source is a being - God - is any more justified than the conclusion that that source is an impersonal set of laws. My insistence of offering this second explanation about laws is primarily to counter the argument that the ultimate cause has to be, necessarily, a being. So I wouldn't say I have faith in unknown laws, although I would say - have said - that that explanation is more appealing to me, and more likely to be true if I had to bet, than a divine being. In general, I would rather live with uncertainty than believe something that is not true. Also you write, "And my faith is not without evidence. Granted, it’s the personal, “I saw the light” kind, but God has convinced me of His existence and reason has shown me that my view has a consistency and logical integrity. And this is a religious answer I’m giving you that has nothing to do with the science of ID or the study of the traits of design." I agree that what we have been talking about has not been science - I hope no one thought that I was proposing that any of these issues could be settled by science. And I understand the sense of "personal evidence" that you mention feeling about your beliefs. I think these types of experiences are very important parts of human nature, although I don't think they point to any literally true reality. I have had important religious experiences of the world as fundamentally both personal and impersonal - they had much to do with getting me interested in philosophy and religion. Ultimately, based on reason, logic and personal experience, I came to conclusion that I don't believe in any kind of a God. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I understand the impetus to belief in the personally divine, but I do object to the idea that my beliefs and the consequences of having my beliefs are inferior to the theist.hazel
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Neither is there any known designer that explains the existence of the universe. We have parallel situations here. Are you sure you want to describe it as parallel? :-) I have faith in God -- the belief in something unseen. Would you really want to say you have faith in an unknown law? And my faith is not without evidence. Granted, it's the personal, "I saw the light" kind, but God has convinced me of His existence and reason has shown me that my view has a consistency and logical integrity. And this is a religious answer I'm giving you that has nothing to do with the science of ID or the study of the traits of design.tribune7
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
----"Some problems I have with that statement are that my life, and the lives of others, can have meaning within human society, and possibly outside it. The life of a doctor who saves the lives of patients surely has meaning to those patents?" Barbs point would still seem to hold. As she puts it, ,“..if the universe and our being alive in it are accidental, then our lives can have no lasting meaning. But if our life in the universe results from design, there must be a satisfying meaning to it.” Meaning is not something that we can summon at will. We either have a purpose or we don't. If we (and the universe) do have a purpose, the first priority is to find out what that purpose is. If we don't have a purpose, then all of our creative efforts to fabricate one out of whole cloth will not help. We may take temporary solace in our life's mission, but what is the point if it all ends up being futile. If there is no purpose, then the doctor and the patient are all in for the same fate---eternal extinction. Personal purpose, such as career choice, family committment, or value identification all come from the inside, but they are meaningful only in the context of an ultimate purpose. Ultimate purpose must always come from the outside. Only the creator can establish the purpose for the creature, just as only a designer of an aircraft can establish its purpose, which is to fly. If there is no creator (designer), then there is no purpose. Either we were made for something, or else we are accidents without meaning. There is no third option.StephenB
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Neither is there any known designer that explains the existence of the universe. We have parallel situations here. We hypothesize a designer vastly different in important ways than human beings based on analogy with human beings. Why is it less reasonable to hypothesize vastly different laws based on analogy with the laws we recognize here in this world?hazel
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
I don’t see entertaining law as a possible source of the universe as any more a matter of “blind faith” . . But Hazel, you're not entertaining law as a possible source of the universe. You are entertaining an unknown law. There is no known law that explains the existence of the universe.tribune7
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
----hazel: "Our speculations about the cause of the universe are necessarily based on analogy with experience we have here in the world, I think, although I don’t think we have any way to know whether those analogies actually carry over to whatever that cause of the universe is." As has already been clearly indicated on other threads, once existence is assumed, reason leads us to a self-existent personal being. To review: [1] regress leads us to the causeless cause, and [2] The causeless cause must be a personal being because (a) "Principles" cannot be a part of or generate a chain of being, and (b) Impersonal eternal causes cannot choose to generate temporal events. You have acknowledged [1] but you have provided no answer [2] (a)(b), presumbaly because you prefer not to accept them. That is your privilege, of course, but the problem doesn't go away.StephenB
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Interesting comment, Tribune. Our speculations about the cause of the universe are necessarily based on analogy with experience we have here in the world, I think, although I don't think we have any way to know whether those analogies actually carry over to whatever that cause of the universe is. Design as a source of the universe is based on analogy with certain aspects of the activity of human beings. Law as a source of the universe is based on analogy with the regularities we observe in nature, including significant portions of human beings. Chance as a source of the universe would be based on various ways in which law and design do not seem applicable: randomness, probability, contingency, etc. Chance works in conjunction with law - pure chance never appears, I don't think, as the cause of anything. So, no, I don't think pure chance could be a cause of the universe. However, you write, "That leaves design vs. an unknown law (i.e. blind faith). I don't see entertaining law as a possible source of the universe as any more a matter of "blind faith" than entertaining design: both are based on analogy with different aspects of our experience in this world, as I explaining above. Why not write, "That leaves law vs. an unknown designer (i.e. blind faith)? I see plenty example of ways in which the operation of laws creates things, so it is not unreasonable to think the meta-laws of some sort created our universe. (And P.S., and agree heartily with Max's last paragraph.)hazel
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
barb “..if the universe and our being alive in it are accidental, then our lives can have no lasting meaning. But if our life in the universe results from design, there must be a satisfying meaning to it.” Some problems I have with that statement are that my life, and the lives of others, can have meaning within human society, and possibly outside it. The life of a doctor who saves the lives of patients surely has meaning to those patents? Postulating an intelligent origin of the universe, whilst perfectly reasonable, doesn’t necessarily give meaning to our lives unless we actually know the purpose or intent behind the creation. It could be, as one of many possible scenarios, that we are an unintended or unexpected consequence of a created universe. Equally we might be the playthings of a malevolent creator, in which case our lives have ‘meaning’ but I personally don’t like what that actually means ... if you get my drift?MaxEntropy
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Law is a third choice. . . Design vs. accident is a false dichotomy. Actually, Hazel you appear to be agreeing that accident (chance) should be ruled out. That leaves design vs. an unknown law (i.e. blind faith) Now, have you ruled out design?tribune7
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Ouch. I have this terrible habit of leaving out the word NOT. I meant to write "But, again, accident and design are NOT the only two mutually exclusive choices." That was probably clear from the rest of my post, but I apologize anyway.hazel
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
But, again, accident and design are the only two mutually exclusive choices. Law is a third choice. Lawful properties analogous to the laws we find in our universe may very well be the reason we have the universe we do. Even Dembski's filter acknowledges this trichotomy. Design vs. accident is a false dichotomy. Irrespective of other issues, do you agree that law is a third alternative to design and chance?hazel
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Hazel, I agree that we are at an impasse. My point is that if the universe and our being alive in it are accidental, then our lives can have no lasting meaning. But if our life in the universe results from design, there must be a satisfying meaning to it.Barb
November 20, 2008
November
11
Nov
20
20
2008
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Hi Barb. I think we are at an impasse. You think I am making an argument from ignorance and your are making an argument from logic and evidence. I, as I have been explaining, believe that you logic has flaws. Furthermore my point is not that I am right and you are wrong, but rather that neither of us can know - positing a personal God as the ground and source of the universe is no more or less valid a speculation than positing an impersonal set of laws, or for that matter just accepting that the source and ground of the universe is just as likely to be something that is neither like beings nor laws as we know them. You end by saying, "Stating that an impersonal set of principles which are undetectable empirically and which may or may not exist is a complete lack of an explanation." Saying that there is a God who created the universe is equally a lack of explanation. It really explains nothing. Metaphysical beliefs are not explanations. They are speculations that we adopt for the metaphorical power they have in helping structure our understanding of things that really cannot be understood literally. Trying to prove that one's metaphorical understandings are "true" is where the mistake is made.hazel
November 19, 2008
November
11
Nov
19
19
2008
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply