Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from jem:

kj here is some of physics behind the constant and AP from MIT and Stanford professors (including susskind)

Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant.

8. Dyson, L., M. Kleban, and L. Susskind. 2002. Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Reprint from arXiv.

that was supposed to by a hyperlink.

you can get the link at the bottom of this page.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html

it is footnote 8.
More...

Thanks for your research. I've read this article before. The article is premised on assumptions, expressly called out in the last paragraph -- one of which is: "there is a fundamental cosmological constant."

The above statement is unprovable, because we don't have any other universe in which to measure some other cosmological constant. As I have repeatedly stated, in the absence of the opportunity for multiple trials of the recreation of the universe, we cannot possibly "know" that our cosmological constant is the only one possible.

Susskind proceeds upon the assumption that the cosmological constant is the only one possible, because it permits him to postulate string theory as a means of explaining how this can be so. But, if we proceed upon the opposite assumption: that the cosmological constant is not the only one possible, then Susskind's string theory is irrelevant, because the cosmological constant could have been any number, and it's only because we are here to observe the result, that we are contemplating why the constant is as it appears to be.

In summary, you cannot prove God from the cosmological constant, because (1) you cannot repeat the experiment of recreating the universe, and (2) you don't know the total set of possible cosmological constants.

Susskind's article is completely consistent with my stated position.
 
Quote from jem:

here is the most recently work by weinberg which I have found.

from 2005.


the last few pages are apropo.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0511/0511037.pdf
More...

I've read this article before, too. Weinberg is presenting the controversy between cosmologists who would prefer the Standard Model of the universe -- which implies that a grand unified theory which is entirely testable via the scientific method is possible, vis-a-vis some sort of string theory, which implies that there is no grand unified theory because every one of the many universes predicted has it's own unique (and unpredictable) solution.

He presents the anthropic principle in the same manner as Susskind, i.e., that the reason why the cosmological constant is as it is, is because we are here to observe it -- and that were it some other constant, we would not be here to observe it.

When Weinberg closes with his bit about objections to anthropic principle in the scientific community as being a potential appeal to God as the answer, Weinberg dismisses this objection, because he sees no reason to imply God from the constant.

And the reason is simple: either we are here because the constant is as it is, or the constant is as it is because we are here -- but in neither case, does this require God to have set the constant up in advance.

So, once again, there's no argument in the community of science (although there may be an argument in the theological community), because there's no proof that the cosmological constant was either designed in or the result of chance. It's simply a number that happens to be what it is, and we can all draw whatever inference from this that we wish, because there's no proof of causality to weight the evidence in favor of any ultimate conclusion.
 
Weinberg rejects the thoughts of those who say these AP may lead scientists and others to think about a designer because he makes a leap of faith into the multiple universe believer group.

I guess you also choose to show similar faith.

I respect your right to have faith in mulitiple universes and someday we may find proof to support your belief.

And if turns out these universe do not have a high concentration of similar constants, your specualtion about the Cosmological Constant being an artifact of our existance might be verified.

I respect your right to battle in the market place of ideas. I only wish the next time you say there is no case for design you express that idea with the caveat that you are making such a statement based on a multiuniverse belief system.
 
Quote from jem:

Weinberg rejects the thoughts of those who say these AP may lead scientists and others to think about a designer because he makes a leap of faith into the multiple universe believer group.

I guess you also choose to show similar faith.

I respect your right to have faith in mulitiple universes and someday we may find proof to support your belief.

And if turns out these universe do not have a high concentration of similar constants, your specualtion about the Cosmological Constant being an artifact of our existance might be verified.

I respect your right to battle in the market place of ideas. I only wish the next time you say there is no case for design you express that idea with the caveat that you are making such a statement based on a multiuniverse belief system.
More...

You guess wrong.

Weinberg views those who are attempting to make a faith based argument as outliers to the actual parties in interest: those who propose a grand unified theory of creation vs. those who propose an nearly infinite number of of unascertainable theories.

The facts are: (1) there is a measureable cosmological constant, and (2) we are here to measure that constant.

There is no scientific case for design, because design requires a leap of faith that the cosmological constant has a supernatural cause: God.

The scientist has no need to discover the cause of the cosmological constant. It is sufficient that it is measurable. However, if a scientist wants to assume that there is a cause for the constant's existence, as Susskind is doing, then he is certainly free to do so.

Regardless of who may make the assumption, at the point where the assumptions become unmeasurable, they are no longer science.

My case against design is that it can't be measured. Your case is that the cosmological constant is caused by God. I don't need God to create the universe for the cosmological constant to be what it is. My cosmological constant can be what it is, until science can definitively discover or rule out a cause.

Until then, I make no leap of faith.

Therefore, my argument is not faith based -- and thus I require no caveat.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

You guess wrong.

Weinberg views those who are attempting to make a faith based argument as outliers to the actual parties in interest: those who propose a grand unified theory of creation vs. those who propose an nearly infinite number of of unascertainable theories.

The facts are: (1) there is a measureable cosmological constant, and (2) we are here to measure that constant.

There is no scientific case for design, because design requires a leap of faith that the cosmological constant has a supernatural cause: God.

The scientist has no need to discover the cause of the cosmological constant. It is sufficient that it is measurable. However, if a scientist wants to assume that there is a cause for the constant's existence, as Susskind is doing, then he is certainly free to do so.

Regardless of who may make the assumption, at the point where the assumptions become unmeasurable, they are no longer science.

My case against design is that it can't be measured. Your case is that the cosmological constant is caused by God. I don't need God to create the universe for the cosmological constant to be what it is. My cosmological constant can be what it is, until science can definitively discover or rule out a cause.

Until then, I make no leap of faith.

Therefore, my argument is not faith based -- and thus I require no caveat.
More...

I am not arguing you must conclude there is a God.

I will stick with what hawking stated:

“Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been less by one part on 1010, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 1010, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.” The Nature of Space and Time, Stephen Hawking and R. Penrose, pg 89-90

By the way when you state that the odds can't be measured you seem to be making an argument that makes no sense. As I stated before that is what quantum mechanis allows physicists to do. And scientists in other fields make the calculations as well.
 
OK, assuming you're right, and physicists can predict the cause of the universe via quantum mechanics, then what are the odds and what's the cause?

As for Hawking's quote, I don't see how anything he says disagrees with anything I've said. Which makes me think that you may be defining "anthropic principle" differently than me.

So, please define it as you understand it.
 
Dictionary result for
anthropic principle
Definition:
in cosmology, a principle saying that conditions that are observed in the universe confirm that the observer exists and is compatible with the observed conditions; also called [weak anthropic principle]
[from the Greek anthropikos, from anthropos, human being.]
and
in cosmology, a principle saying that the observability of the universe relies on and is constrained by the existence of intelligent life; also called [strong anthropic principle]


Intelligent Design result for
anthropic principle

Goddidit
 
Quote from kjkent1:

OK, assuming you're right, and physicists can predict the cause of the universe via quantum mechanics, then what are the odds and what's the cause?

As for Hawking's quote, I don't see how anything he says disagrees with anything I've said. Which makes me think that you may be defining "anthropic principle" differently than me.

So, please define it as you understand it.
More...



I have never said you can use physics to predict the cause of the universe. That is so offbase I am wondering why you made that statement. Is it some sort of trick or trap. Math and physics can be used to calculate the odds of the universe forming the way it has. The scientists are doing now and consequently you arguments about probability seem to be outdated.

------------

There are a few ways to define AP as Stu has shown us.

In the context of Hawking explaining the constant and then invoking AP. You can see is saying the odds of the universe being conducive to life are so small it appears we have the following choices:

One, life itself caused the universe to support life. (dismissed by Susskind and me as unlikely but argued by some high powered physicists. This seems to be a way of avoiding "designer" conclusion while admitting design.)

Two, the universe looks designed so perhaps it is designed.

Three, you must come forth with some other reason that would explain the appearace of design. One of the arguments that has been crafted since he made that statement is the 100 billion other universes concept derived from string theory.

Therefore you can say that although we live in a universe that looks designed we just happen to be in the one that supports life but we could have just as easily have been in one of the billions of others. So while there is a chance that the universes were designed AP would give no evidence of design.

The fact that we can measure constants would be an artifact of our existing in one the one out of 1000000000 billion universes. (or whatever the small odds are.)

By the way if other parallel universes also support life then we can start looking at design again.
 
I just reread. Obvously some typos. I also think it should say dismissed by Susskind and myself.

However, that statement was not meant to act like I was an authority. I was writing quickly and it just came out that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top