The Latest Desperate "Theory" Of The Evolutionists: Time Travellers From Far Future Created The Universe

http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...here-even.html




Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.


Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning. I
made the unusual argument, because it bears repeating, that the
appearance of cosmological fine tuning is real. And that it is not an
argument that applies only to life "as we know it" but any life at
all. But your garden-variety non-scientist layman will almost always
argue as if only theists see fine-tuning-when, in fact, atheistic
scientists see it just as clearly as we do. The explanation is in
dispute, not the phenomenon.

Then, inevitably, the argument shifts to some variant of "well maybe
there will be a theory that derives the constants." As always, I
dutifully point out that if we ever do discover a fundamental theory
that explains the constants, then given what we know and agree, that
habitability is sensitive to their values, we have just then arrived
at the most compelling cosmological design argument possible, short of
God's personal appearance. Namely: habitability is built into the
fabric of spacetime.

So far, no big deal. I can make this argument without even looking.
I've made it so many times, I even bore myself when I feel obligated
to make it again.

But this particular thread took a somewhat unusual turn.

Here is what happened. There was general acknowledgement that the
alternative to design is multiple universes. Furthermore, there was
agreement that other universes cannot be detected-i.e., multiverse
theories, like ID, are not testable. As usual I argued that we can
then conclude that multiverse theories are no more scientific than ID.

So with that in mind, we pick of the conversation. Someone by the name
of Owlmirror writes, to me:

but they [multiple universes] are logically more consistent and
coherent than your even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable external
creator/desginer.

And (emphasis added)

So, even assuming that the physical constants can vary and there were/
are no other universes, an explanation that would make better sense
than an external creator is that the universe itself will eventually
give rise to an evolved species that will gain the intelligence and
power to affect space and time, and send power and information back in
time to cause the universe to come into existence such that their own
causality is preserved.

And, as to why the cosmological ID argument is inferior to the theory
that the universe was created, in negative time, by its most advanced
inhabitants (emphasis added)

[Comological ID] is not causally complete. The origin of the creator
is open: Where did it come from? How did it come into existence? How
did it get the power to create universes? How did it gain the
knowledge to fine-tune universes such that life would arise? Why does
it not interact with the universe in a detectable manner? What is its
purpose in creating the universe?

For [Back to the future], all the questions are answerable: The
creator(s) came from the universe itself. It/They evolved, as all life
did, from lifeless matter over billions of years, eventually gaining
intelligence equal to ours, and eventually surpassing our current
understanding at the cosmological level. It/They got the power and
knowledge to create universes and manipulate space-time from studying
this universe (and possibly others), and since it knows that this
universe's cosmological constants are what is required for itself/
themselves to evolve, that's what would be used in creating the
universe. The creator(s) would not interact with the universe (other
than creating it) because it/they would not want to disrupt the causal
chain that lead/will lead to its/their eventual existence. And
finally, it/they simply want to bring about its/their own existence.

Well, alllll-righty then!

And the ubiquitous Science Avenger added, in response to my question:
why are multiverse theories more scientific? (emphasis added)

So, even assuming that the physical constants can vary and there were/
are no other universes, an explanation that would make better sense
than an external creator is that the universe itself will eventually
give rise to an evolved species that will gain the intelligence and
power to affect space and time, and send power and information back in
time to cause the universe to come into existence such that their own
causality is preserved.

And so on, and so on, with inevitable references to abstracts that
speculate (but offer no test) that the universe might be its own
mother. Future creatures will eventually create the universe we're in-
or the universe created itself-anything but God.

As I have argued, repeatedly, atheism is not religion. But that
doesn't mean atheists cannot make overtly religious arguments.
Appealing to untestable explanations for the creation of the universe
is not distinguishable "in kind" from attributing creation to God.
Both Owlmirror and Science Avenger, I assume, are atheistic. But their
arguments, in this case are as religious as mine. Try as they might,
they cannot make a compelling case that, rationally speaking,
appealing to untestable (but scientific sounding) theories is any
better than appealing to design.

A self-consistent atheist, it seems to me, would argue: don't talk to
me about design or about multiverses or about creatures creating their
own universe-if you can't test it, it's all the same, it's all equally
bad.

As to why anyone would rather believe that advanced creatures creating
their own universe billions of years in the past is preferable to
attributing it to God-well this Calvinist is not surprised. No one
seeks God, no not one.

I wonder if even more advanced creatures will decide they can do even
better, and re-recreate the universe (back in time) even if it means
earlier species (who had already recreated the universe) will not
actually come into existence-or if there will be some sort of
universal law against that sort of thing. Thou shall not re-kickstart
the universe just to rid thyself of minor inconveniences like Oprah,
especially if means entire galaxies along with their inhabitants will
not come into existence.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:01:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Sound of Trumpet
in
.com wrote:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...here-even.html




Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.


Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning. I
made the unusual argument, because it bears repeating, that the
appearance of cosmological fine tuning is real.

Kind of too bad then, because to the extent that it shows anything,
fine tuning *refutes* the existence of God. After all, a sufficiently
powerful being should be able to make a Universe inhospitable to life
and still make it so we survive.

And that it is not an
argument that applies only to life "as we know it" but any life at
all. But your garden-variety non-scientist layman will almost always
argue as if only theists see fine-tuning-when, in fact, atheistic
scientists see it just as clearly as we do. The explanation is in
dispute, not the phenomenon.

Not really. 99.99999999999% of the Universe is inhospitable to life.
Where is the fine tuning?

Then, inevitably, the argument shifts to some variant of "well maybe
there will be a theory that derives the constants."

Nope.

As always, I
dutifully point out that if we ever do discover a fundamental theory
that explains the constants, then given what we know and agree, that
habitability is sensitive to their values, we have just then arrived
at the most compelling cosmological design argument possible, short of
God's personal appearance. Namely: habitability is built into the
fabric of spacetime.

Wow, that straw really goes fast. Read Kauffman. He argues rather
convincingly that life is pretty much inevitable in a wide range of
Universes.

So far, no big deal. I can make this argument without even looking.
I've made it so many times, I even bore myself when I feel obligated
to make it again.

But this particular thread took a somewhat unusual turn.

Here is what happened. There was general acknowledgement that the
alternative to design is multiple universes.

Why? That seems silly. And what is this "design"? If you are
discussing cosmology then you are not discussing biology. So the
"design" has nothing to do with evolution.

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

In rec.arts.sf.written Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:01:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Sound of Trumpet
in
.com wrote:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...here-even.html




Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.


Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning. I
made the unusual argument, because it bears repeating, that the
appearance of cosmological fine tuning is real.

Kind of too bad then, because to the extent that it shows anything,
fine tuning *refutes* the existence of God. After all, a sufficiently
powerful being should be able to make a Universe inhospitable to life
and still make it so we survive.

And that it is not an
argument that applies only to life "as we know it" but any life at
all. But your garden-variety non-scientist layman will almost always
argue as if only theists see fine-tuning-when, in fact, atheistic
scientists see it just as clearly as we do. The explanation is in
dispute, not the phenomenon.

Not really. 99.99999999999% of the Universe is inhospitable to life.
Where is the fine tuning?

The fine-tuning exists in fundamental parameters that are the same
throughout _all_ of the observable universe--e.g., the mass and charge
of the electron, the strength of gravity, etc. It appears that for
many values of those parameters, life would be absolutely impossible.
You are correct that the vast majority of the universe is already
inhospitable for life, but there is a difference between that and life
being impossible.
For example, if the cosmic acceleration were much larger, there
would be no chance for matter to coalesce into such large objects as
stars and planets. In a very short time after the Big Bang we would
have a universe consisting of largely isolated atoms. It is very hard
to see how life could exist in such a universe.
See, for example, "Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other
dark matters" (Tegmark, Aguirre et.al., Physical Review D 73, 023505,
2006). Tegmark et. al. acknowledge the existence of fine-tuning, but
you can't call them cosmological design advocates---they are expressly
negative about the design option.
I do think that some of the fine-tuning boosters have somewhat
exaggerated its extent. In particular, it's hard to completely rule
out forms of life very different from what we know. But I think the
existence of some degree of fine-tuning is by now pretty well accepted
among scientists who have looked into the matter.


As always, I
dutifully point out that if we ever do discover a fundamental theory
that explains the constants, then given what we know and agree, that
habitability is sensitive to their values, we have just then arrived
at the most compelling cosmological design argument possible, short of
God's personal appearance. Namely: habitability is built into the
fabric of spacetime.

Wow, that straw really goes fast. Read Kauffman. He argues rather
convincingly that life is pretty much inevitable in a wide range of
Universes.

Would you mind giving a more specific reference for Kauffman?
Feinberg and Shapiro (_Life Beyond Earth_) made a similar argument that
I, and most others, found at best only partially convincing.
The problem with the argument in the original post is that there
is no reason to think that a universe following such a fundamental
theory (one from which life-permitting parameters followed inevitably,
rather than being adjustable) could _only_ be the result of design,
or is even especially probable to be the result of design.



Kevin

On Jul 10, 10:01 pm, Sound of Trumpet
wrote:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...important-here...

Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.
No you haven't. Part of the reason is that you are mixing up a
probability analysis with a temporal analysis.


Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning. I
made the unusual argument, because it bears repeating, that the
appearance of cosmological fine tuning is real. And that it is not an
argument that applies only to life "as we know it" but any life at
all. But your garden-variety non-scientist layman will almost always
argue as if only theists see fine-tuning-when, in fact, atheistic
scientists see it just as clearly as we do. The explanation is in
dispute, not the phenomenon.
The atheist does not see fine-tuning per se. It is not the same
phenomena. Atheists who use the word fine-tuning are probably the
phrase either wrong or with a shade of difference in meaning other
than the way most laymen would use the word. Although I don't
interpret the word this way, I can see how people can misinterprete
the phrase "fine tuning." I wish other scientists wouldn't use the
phrase "fine tuning."

Then, inevitably, the argument shifts to some variant of "well maybe
there will be a theory that derives the constants."
I myself would prefer to call it, "conditional observation."
If the constants vary in the universe (or multiverse) all over the
place, the condition that somewhere the constants will be compatible
with intelligent life is 100%. If the constants are truly constant
over a large enough region, the probability of intelligent life
developing is 100%. If the condition of intelligent life exists
anywhere in the universe, then the probability of intelligent life
observing the intelligent life is 100%. If the intelligent life
measures the constants in its region of the universe, the probability
of it finding the constants consistent with its own existence is 100%.
Therefore, if the constants vary in the universe all over the place,
the probability that an intelligent life form will observe the
suitable constants is 100%.
This may seem trivial to the point of being dumb, but it cuts
across most of the "fine-tuning" arguments. The weak point, if there
is one, is at the beginning. Do the constants vary in the universe all
over the place? Any other question on the matter is word-play or
lying.

As always, I
dutifully point out that if we ever do discover a fundamental theory
that explains the constants, then given what we know and agree, that
habitability is sensitive to their values, we have just then arrived
at the most compelling cosmological design argument possible, short of
God's personal appearance. Namely: habitability is built into the
fabric of spacetime.
No its not. If the constants (actually, parameters not constants)
vary all over the place, or even the conditions vary all over the
place, then nonhabitability is unavoidable in most of spacetime. We
see conditions vary all over the place, and so we see nonhabitability
unavoidable in most of spacetime. As we look backward in time to the
beginning of the universe, we are starting to see even some of the
Hubble constant change so that much of the early universe is
uninhabitable. So at least as far as the Hubble constant goes, we see
a large region of spacetime to be uninhabitable. The universe 10
billion years ago was not as inhabitable as the universe today.

So far, no big deal. I can make this argument without even looking.
I've made it so many times, I even bore myself when I feel obligated
to make it again.
However, the argument is wrong.

Here is what happened. There was general acknowledgement that the
alternative to design is multiple universes. Furthermore, there was
agreement that other universes cannot be detected-i.e., multiverse
theories, like ID, are not testable. As usual I argued that we can
then conclude that multiverse theories are no more scientific than ID.
Well, ID is testable. If the supreme designer tries to
communicate with us directly, then none of us atheists would have much
to argue about really. This hasn't happened.
As it turns out, the multiple universe theory is somewhat
testable. If a physical constant like the Hubble constant really does
vary even over the distances that we find observable, then obviously
physical constants can vary. This has happened. If we have a theory
that can fit this variation over a large region, we can extrapolate.
So far, the fit of inflation theory to the observational results are
iffy.

So with that in mind, we pick of the conversation. Someone by the name
of Owlmirror writes, to me:

but they [multiple universes] are logically more consistent and
coherent than your even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable external
creator/desginer.

And (emphasis added)

So, even assuming that the physical constants can vary and there were/
are no other universes, an explanation that would make better sense
than an external creator is that the universe itself will eventually
give rise to an evolved species that will gain the intelligence and
power to affect space and time, and send power and information back in
time to cause the universe to come into existence such that their own
causality is preserved.
I suspect that you are quote mining, but I can't be sure. If you
have quoted him in entirety, then he is an idiot untypical of
cosmological scientists. You referring to him as a spokesman for
scientists would be like me claiming Kent Hovind as my Rabbi.
I still have a strong feeling that the scientist that you are
quoting makes better sense. These statements of yours may be out of
context.

And, as to why the cosmological ID argument is inferior to the theory
that the universe was created, in negative time, by its most advanced
inhabitants (emphasis added)
An argument involving probability by its nature has to exclude the
direction of time at some point in the argument. A probability is
always averaged over some finite region of time and space. The
cosmological principle that I have just articulated states that the
probability of observing a certain set of constants, assuming that
these constants (actually, parameters not constants)

[Comological ID] is not causally complete. The origin of the creator
is open: Where did it come from? How did it come into existence? How
did it get the power to create universes? How did it gain the
knowledge to fine-tune universes such that life would arise? Why does
it not interact with the universe in a detectable manner? What is its
purpose in creating the universe?
You got that right. But notice that regardless of the details,
multiuniverse theory is causally complete. The local parameters are
that way because they vary all over the parameter map. There was no
special power necessary to get the parameters we needed at our
location. They had to be right somewhere, and given that they were
right somewhere we had to be there to observe it.

And the ubiquitous Science Avenger added, in response to my question:
why are multiverse theories more scientific? (emphasis added)
Because if parameters vary a large amount over large distances
and times, they can be observed varying a small amount over smaller
distances and times. If an all-powerful designer wants to hide or
otherwise obscure his handiwork, there is nothing a scientist can do
counter that.

So, even assuming that the physical constants can vary and there were/
are no other universes, an explanation that would make better sense
than an external creator is that the universe itself will eventually
give rise to an evolved species that will gain the intelligence and
power to affect space and time, and send power and information back in
time to cause the universe to come into existence such that their own
causality is preserved.
The old grandfather paradox rears its ugly head. Given that
these highly evolved creatures already exist, they have no motivation
of traveling in time to ensure that they come into existence. Why
should they preserve their own causality? It doesn't need preservation
once they exist. Again, this really looks like a strawman argument.
The guy who said this was not think like a scientist, and only a
really rabid antiscience person would use this arguement in the form
you stated here. I believe that there is probably a more logical
argument that this perversion was derived from. But in this form, it
is garbage.


A self-consistent atheist, it seems to me, would argue: don't talk to
me about design or about multiverses or about creatures creating their
own universe-if you can't test it, it's all the same, it's all equally
bad.
He might start talking about slowly varying parameters, don't you
think? Or maybe in a more speculative vain, he could talk about one
species of intelligent animals designing another species of
intelligent animals. Maybe just for arrogance and vanity. Preserving
ones own causality makes no sense at all. Arrogance and vanity are
emotional states that our own species can well understand.

As to why anyone would rather believe that advanced creatures creating
their own universe billions of years in the past is preferable to
attributing it to God-well this Calvinist is not surprised. No one
seeks God, no not one.
If I had been raised a Calvinist, given the brutal nature of the
Calvinist God, I wouldn't seek him either.

I wonder if even more advanced creatures will decide they can do even
better, and re-recreate the universe (back in time) even if it means
earlier species (who had already recreated the universe) will not
actually come into existence-or if there will be some sort of
universal law against that sort of thing. Thou shall not re-kickstart
the universe just to rid thyself of minor inconveniences like Oprah,
especially if means entire galaxies along with their inhabitants will
not come into existence.
As many a science fiction and fantasy fan will attest to, the
enforcement of that law will be extremely challenging. However, that
is probably the case for any technology large or small. Once the genie
is out of the bottle, you can't put him back in.

"Sound of Trumpet" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...here-even.html




Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.


Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning.

Then go back there and talk about it some more.

On 11 Jul., 04:01, Sound of Trumpet
wrote:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...important-here...

Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.

HO! *whack*

Two arguments against creation:

* Time is part of the fabric of the universe, not the other way round.
Hence it exists as it is, as a block universe, eternally and
changelessly.

* If one universe can exist, why not more? What is so /difficult/
about existence? If the other universes complement it, and together
flesh-out a less-defined, simpler system, then it would be
mathematically 'easier' for them to exist than not.

Sound of Trumpet wrote:
[blah]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:42:33 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , Kevin
in
wrote:

In rec.arts.sf.written Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:01:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Sound of Trumpet
in
.com wrote:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/07/...here-even.html




Thursday, July 05, 2007

There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.


Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning. I
made the unusual argument, because it bears repeating, that the
appearance of cosmological fine tuning is real.

Kind of too bad then, because to the extent that it shows anything,
fine tuning *refutes* the existence of God. After all, a sufficiently
powerful being should be able to make a Universe inhospitable to life
and still make it so we survive.

And that it is not an
argument that applies only to life "as we know it" but any life at
all. But your garden-variety non-scientist layman will almost always
argue as if only theists see fine-tuning-when, in fact, atheistic
scientists see it just as clearly as we do. The explanation is in
dispute, not the phenomenon.

Not really. 99.99999999999% of the Universe is inhospitable to life.
Where is the fine tuning?

The fine-tuning exists in fundamental parameters that are the same
throughout _all_ of the observable universe--e.g., the mass and charge
of the electron, the strength of gravity, etc. It appears that for
many values of those parameters, life would be absolutely impossible.

That is, life as we know it. Kauffman argues that for a universe with
sufficiently rich interactions (and he does explore what "sufficiently
rich" means) life is inevitable. But more to the point we really do
not know enough about the fundamentals of how life arises to say these
things about potential chemistry and biology given other physics.

You are correct that the vast majority of the universe is already
inhospitable for life, but there is a difference between that and life
being impossible.

But it makes it kind of amusing to think that all that empty space was
created so that I could exist.

For example, if the cosmic acceleration were much larger, there
would be no chance for matter to coalesce into such large objects as
stars and planets. In a very short time after the Big Bang we would
have a universe consisting of largely isolated atoms. It is very hard
to see how life could exist in such a universe.
See, for example, "Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other
dark matters" (Tegmark, Aguirre et.al., Physical Review D 73, 023505,
2006). Tegmark et. al. acknowledge the existence of fine-tuning, but
you can't call them cosmological design advocates---they are expressly
negative about the design option.
I do think that some of the fine-tuning boosters have somewhat
exaggerated its extent. In particular, it's hard to completely rule
out forms of life very different from what we know. But I think the
existence of some degree of fine-tuning is by now pretty well accepted
among scientists who have looked into the matter.

What is not at all clear is if those constants could, in fact, have
had any other values. Sure, we would like to have some formulae that
generates everything and we would like it to have a minimum number of
variables, but we don't know that they are actually variable.
Unfortunately all we have is one universe and in that universe they
only hold one value each.

As always, I
dutifully point out that if we ever do discover a fundamental theory
that explains the constants, then given what we know and agree, that
habitability is sensitive to their values, we have just then arrived
at the most compelling cosmological design argument possible, short of
God's personal appearance. Namely: habitability is built into the
fabric of spacetime.

Wow, that straw really goes fast. Read Kauffman. He argues rather
convincingly that life is pretty much inevitable in a wide range of
Universes.

Would you mind giving a more specific reference for Kauffman?

For an easy book look at _At Home in the Universe_, for a dense read
go for _Origins of Order_. But I do mean dense. I think he has a very
good chance of being right, but it is a long way from decided.

Feinberg and Shapiro (_Life Beyond Earth_) made a similar argument that
I, and most others, found at best only partially convincing.
The problem with the argument in the original post is that there
is no reason to think that a universe following such a fundamental
theory (one from which life-permitting parameters followed inevitably,
rather than being adjustable) could _only_ be the result of design,
or is even especially probable to be the result of design.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but you missed my point. If we
posit some all-powerful being, the goal of the Design advocates, then
fine-tuning is *their* problem. A god could let me survive in a
universe inhospitable to life, it takes a naturalistic universe to
require that things work just right for life. If fine tuning means
anything it argues against, not for, design.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Rosy At Random wrote in
oups.com:

If the other universes complement it, and together
flesh-out a less-defined, simpler system, then it would be
mathematically 'easier' for them to exist than not.


Ah. I'd like to see this mathematical ease of existence thing spelled out.
Quantifing the ease of existence could be useful for many things.

"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
. 102...
: Rosy At Random wrote in
: oups.com:
:
: If the other universes complement it, and together
: flesh-out a less-defined, simpler system, then it would be
: mathematically 'easier' for them to exist than not.
:
:
: Ah. I'd like to see this mathematical ease of existence thing spelled out.
: Quantifing the ease of existence could be useful for many things.

I fully concur.
Actually I can even spell it out, using the words of that great
mathematician, Rene Descartes.
"Cogito, ergo sum" (though he probably said it in French first.)
thereby establishing the existence of Rene Descartes.

The real ease of mathematical existence (not the mathematical ease
of existence) is exemplified in the fatal words of that failed
mathematician,
Albert Einstein, who said:
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A."

What can be easier than "it is because I say so", even if it isn't?