God & Cosmology: Perceptions & Opinions

[DaveC426913]

Oh, please. Science has a ton of limits. The biggest one being us.

It consists in asking a definite question which excludes as far as possible anything disturbing and irrelevant. It makes conditions, imposes them on Nature, and in this way forces her to give an answer to a question devised by man. She is prevented from answering out of the fullness of her possibilities since these possibilities are restricted as far as practible. For this purpose there is created in the laboratory a situation which is artificially restricted to the question which compels Nature to give an unequivocal answer. The workings of Nature in her unrestricted wholeness are completely excluded. If we want to know what these workings are, we need a method of inquiry which imposes the fewest possible conditions, or if possible no conditions at all, and then leave Nature to answer out of her fullness.

A load of hooey disguised as profundity.

 

[Chalnoth]

But how do you know it's not possible for things to be any other way? Many prominent atheist Cosmologists, like Weinberg and Susskind, are running to the multiverse and AP for cover because they do think the universe looks a little too perfect. As Weinberg says:

For cover? Clearly you have no clue what the arguments here are even about. The weak anthropic principle is simply a statement of fact: we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist. This is a tautology, and therefore undeniably true.

All that these physicists are saying when they bring up the anthropic principle is that when you start to consider theories about why certain cosmological parameters are the way they are, it is absolutely necessary to take into account this selection effect.

To call this "running to the AP for cover" is patently ludicrous. As far as the multiverse is concerned, it is seeming more and more likely to be a necessary consequence of high-energy physics.

But we do live in a Big Bang where life is just barely possible. So, what you're saying is that we could only live in a universe where life was barely possible. Why couldn't we live in a universe that was much more suited for life? A more "mediocre" universe as Weinberg and Vilenkin call it.

We do? Finding that we live in a universe that is near the boundary of the region of parameter space conducive to life would be quite exciting (as it would be evidence of a particular bias in the cosmological parameters, one which we expect must be predicted by a proper theory of how such parameters come about). But as far as I know this has not yet occurred.

 

[Chalnoth]

A load of hooey disguised as profundity.

Indeed. Science doesn't "impose conditions" on reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Indeed. Science doesn't "impose conditions" on reality.

I started to dissect the quote but soon realized the post would be yards long. The unspoken implications, attempts at manipulation, and errors are legion.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Indeed. Science doesn't "impose conditions" on reality.

No? What is an experiment? Your tests are imposed conditions. Your methods are imposed conditions. Who made the rules?

 

[Freeman Dyson]

For cover? Clearly you have no clue what the arguments here are even about. The weak anthropic principle is simply a statement of fact: we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist. This is a tautology, and therefore undeniably true.

All that these physicists are saying when they bring up the anthropic principle is that when you start to consider theories about why certain cosmological parameters are the way they are, it is absolutely necessary to take into account this selection effect.

To call this "running to the AP for cover" is patently ludicrous. As far as the multiverse is concerned, it is seeming more and more likely to be a necessary consequence of high-energy physics.


We do? Finding that we live in a universe that is near the boundary of the region of parameter space conducive to life would be quite exciting (as it would be evidence of a particular bias in the cosmological parameters, one which we expect must be predicted by a proper theory of how such parameters come about). But as far as I know this has not yet occurred.

But the selection effect is too selected. Which is what Weinberg and Susskind are talking about. They think there is a particular bias in the cosmic parameters. Susskind says the entire universe is on a knife's edge, and the only way this can explained short of a tuner is if we are in just one of an infinite amount of universes.

From Wiki:

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum.

This conclusion follows from dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10-120. This discrepancy has been termed "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!"[7]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.

Are you saying high energy physics has shown indications of a multiverse?

 

[Chalnoth]

No? What is an experiment? Your tests are imposed conditions. Your methods are imposed conditions. Who made the rules?

The purpose of an experiment is to isolate one particular facet of reality in order to examine that without other facets interfering (as much as possible). What, pray tell, does this have to do with "imposing conditions" in any way, shape, or form?

 

[Chalnoth]

But the selection effect is too selected. Which is what Weinberg and Susskind are talking about. They think there is a particular bias in the cosmic parameters. Susskind says the entire universe is on a knife's edge, and the only way this can explained short of a tuner is if we are in just one of an infinite amount of universes.

Well, this is a different issue. Basically there are two schools of thought in theoretical physics. The first school of thought argues that the parameters that make up our universe could be uniquely predicted if we were to have a theory of everything before us. The second school of thought states that the universe takes on many different values for these parameters, and our region stems from one particular realization of them.

Susskind and others (including myself) argue that the fact that the physical parameters that define the properties of physics at low energies have the appearance of fine tuning is strong evidence for the second situation.

A "tuner" doesn't enter into it at all, because that proposal is a non-starter, for two main reasons.

The practical reason why proposing a "tuner" is a non-starter is just that if it were true, then there would be no further investigation to be done. So we might as well just go with those hypotheses that can be investigated and understood. This is basically the reason why science relies upon methodological naturalism: it has to, or else it'd stop.

The logical reason why it's a non-starter is that the proposal of a "tuner" is necessarily more complex than that which it is purported to explain, and thus isn't actually an explanation.

Are you saying high energy physics has shown indications of a multiverse?

Yes. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a mechanism that is inherent within the standard model of particle physics, and is likely to be even more significant for physics beyond the standard model. Spontaneous symmetry breaking ensures that different regions of the universe will have different parameters for what we see as physical constants. The symmetry breaking within the current standard model is pretty minimal, just relating to the properties of the weak nuclear force, but it is expected that many other parameters are a result of such events as well.

So, universe is large + spontaneous symmetry breaking = multiverse.

 

[madness]

For cover? Clearly you have no clue what the arguments here are even about. The weak anthropic principle is simply a statement of fact: we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist. This is a tautology, and therefore undeniably true.

All that these physicists are saying when they bring up the anthropic principle is that when you start to consider theories about why certain cosmological parameters are the way they are, it is absolutely necessary to take into account this selection effect.

This seems like a massive copout to me. If we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist, do you then suppose that there are other universes where the conditions are not sufficient for our existence? If not then you still have the problem of why the conditions allow us to exist, if so then you are making an assumption equally as unjustified as design.

 

[zomgwtf]

This seems like a massive copout to me. If we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist, do you then suppose that there are other universes where the conditions are not sufficient for our existence? If not then you still have the problem of why the conditions allow us to exist, if so then you are making an assumption equally as unjustified as design.

I don't see how this follows logically.

 

[GeorgCantor]

My position is pretty well summed up in the following article by Paul Davies:

"TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as "given" — imprinted on the universe like a maker's mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.
Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from "that's not a scientific question" to "nobody knows." The favorite reply is, "There is no reason they are what they are — they just are." The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.
Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality."

Full article:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davies07/davies07_index.html

 

[GeorgCantor]

This seems like a massive copout to me.

It is. In the abscence of knowledge, assumptions are needed to support an expressed position.

 

[Chalnoth]

This seems like a massive copout to me. If we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist, do you then suppose that there are other universes where the conditions are not sufficient for our existence?

It is possible. Though I wouldn't say other universes per se. Just other regions beyond our horizon (there is only one universe). We already have evidence that this is likely the case from the standard model of particle physics, and I strongly suspect that as we learn more about both early universe cosmology and high-energy physics that the evidence for other regions not conducive to life will start to become really compelling.

If not then you still have the problem of why the conditions allow us to exist, if so then you are making an assumption equally as unjustified as design.

What assumption?

But no, that isn't a problem. The only question that needs to be answered is whether or not the laws of physics have a non-zero probability for a region conducive to life to form. And if the probability is non-zero, and the theory is sufficiently prolific, then it is guaranteed to happen.

 

[DaveC426913]

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from "that's not a scientific question" to "nobody knows." The favorite reply is, "There is no reason they are what they are — they just are." The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.

If you read up on the Big Bang, vacuum energy and spontaneous symmetry-breaking, you may get some answers you are looking for.

As the universe settled out from the BB, symmetries had to break. Where they broke may be somewhat arbitrary. Think of trying to balance a marble on a beachball. This is symmetrical but unstable. Ultimately, the marble will roll off, and in doing so will pick a direction to do so. The direction is arbitrary and there an infinite number of possible ones it could have chosen. Indeed, place the marble back on the beach ball and it will surely choose a different one.

This universe has properties that were fixed in that moment. One such property is the vacuum energy, which is not zero, though it could have been.

The point is, we are observing this universe because its properties are such that atoms were able to form, leading to us. There are infinitely many possible outcomes to the BB and a large majority of them result in unvierses where no life could possibly exist.

So, what do you mean by laws existing "reasonlessly"? Is the above irrational?

 

[GeorgCantor]

If you read up on the Big Bang, vacuum energy and spontaneous symmetry-breaking, you may get some answers you are looking for.

As the universe settled out from the BB, symmetries had to break. Where they broke may be somewhat arbitrary. Think of trying to balance a marble on a beachball. This is symmetrical but unstable. Ultimately, the marble will roll off, and in doing so will pick a direction to do so. The direction is arbitrary and there an infinite number of possible ones it could have chosen. Indeed, place the marble back on the beach ball and it will surely choose a different one.

This universe has properties that were fixed in that moment. One such property is the vacuum energy, which is not zero, though it could have been.

Those were questions asked by prof.Paul Davies of Arizona State University. I may send him an email with your answers. I am sure he has read on the Big Bang theory and the spontaneous symmetry breaking.

The point is, we are observing this universe because its properties are such that atoms were able to form, leading to us. There are infinitely many possible outcomes to the BB and a large majority of them result in unvierses where no life could possibly exist.

How do you know there were infinitely many outcomes to the BB(most scientists I've seen hold to determinism)? And what other universes do you have evidence of?

So, what do you mean by laws existing "reasonlessly"? Is the above irrational?

No, but what is the evoidence for the above assertions?

 

[madness]

It is possible. Though I wouldn't say other universes per se. Just other regions beyond our horizon (there is only one universe). We already have evidence that this is likely the case from the standard model of particle physics, and I strongly suspect that as we learn more about both early universe cosmology and high-energy physics that the evidence for other regions not conducive to life will start to become really compelling.


What assumption?

But no, that isn't a problem. The only question that needs to be answered is whether or not the laws of physics have a non-zero probability for a region conducive to life to form. And if the probability is non-zero, and the theory is sufficiently prolific, then it is guaranteed to happen.

The assumption is that there are other universes (ie places with different laws of physics) that don't support life. In my opinion, this assumption is no better (no more justified) than assuming a designer. Of course the laws of physics have non-zero probability for life to form, or we wouldn't be here. The question is why? And I don't find the anthropic principle a satisfying answer to that question. Of course you could always argue that this is just the way things are and that there is no need for an explanation - Bertrand Russel said the universe is just a "brute fact".

 

[twofish-quant]

With a god, on the other hand, not only is the very idea of a god just completely incompatible with everything that we do know about our world, but there also isn't any verifiable evidence that is even suggestive of a god's existence.

But what constitutes "evidence".

The thing about science is that there are a set of philosophical assumptions and processes which over time produces consensus. It we argue about what the mass of the electron is or what the nature of dark matter is, then we have rules and processes which will produce scientific consensus over time.

The trouble with arguing about God is that we are going to argue for the next hundred years, and we *still* are not going to come to a consensus because we do not agree on what the ground rules are.

To flesh this out a bit more, here is a good analogy:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

[/QUOTE]

And as a scientist, this is precisely this type of muddle headed article that makes me go ballistic.

First of all physicists do not *prove* anything. Mathematicians *prove* things. If you are using the word "proof" to mean anything other than a series of logical mathematical steps, you are using language in a an unforgivably sloppy way. A lot of physics involves making very, very precise statements using very precise terminology, because if you start becoming imprecisely, then your thinking becomes sloppy.

Once you've proved something mathematically, there is no way you can argue against the result other than to find a flaw in the prove. Now that Fermat's last theorem have been proved, then the conclusion cannot be challenged. Physics doesn't work that way. Last year I thought the big bang happened. May be next year I'll change my mind. If the existence or non-existence of God were really subject to scientific evidence, it would be tentative and uncertainty. Yesterday, I thought God existed, maybe tomorrow I'll see something that will make me change my mind.

But I don't know of anyone that thinks of the existence of God in the same way that people think of the fine structure constant, which suggests to me that people *aren't* using scientific means to come to their conclusions, which is perfectly fine as long as people admit it.

Also, there has been a *lot* of philosophy that has contributed to the understanding of God, and even if you don't believe that God exists, it's useful to understand belief in God as a social phenonomenon. One thing that convinces me that God cannot be proved through rational means is a brilliant theologian named William of Ockham. You may have heard of him.

 

[twofish-quant]

Let me step back a bit to explain why people are interested in the anthropic principle. One of the results of string theory is that the fundamental constants are basically random. They just are the result of the expectation values of vacuum field strengths. One thing that quantum mechanics has are lots of examples of "uncaused events". Why does this uranium atom decay at this time, and the next one doesn't decay for the next billion years. No reason, it just happens.

So one of the results that has come out is that the fundamental constants of the universe could just be random and statistical in just the same way that when a atom decays is random and statistical. So to make sense of this one idea is that you have lots of different universes, and only ones in which life is possible will be observed, and the other thing that people have argued is that it's only an extremely narrow range of parameters that will allow this.

 

[twofish-quant]

The assumption is that there are other universes (ie places with different laws of physics) that don't support life. In my opinion, this assumption is no better (no more justified) than assuming a designer.

It's one of the results that comes from string theory. If you want to argue that this proves string theory is bogus and useless, I might not agree, but I'll not object to strongly.

And I don't find the anthropic principle a satisfying answer to that question.

I don't either but, "why ask why?"

One thing that I think is happening is that people that do have science do science with very, very different philosophical ideas that just happen to be compatible with each other enough so that we don't argue over everything. If there is a lot of evidence, and if we agree on how to process the evidence, then there is nothing to argue about.

However, when we *don't* have a lot of evidence or we disagree about what it means, then sparks fly. One thing I *very* strongly object to are surveys that seem to imply "most scientists are atheists, scientists are smart, therefore atheism must be true" since that implies that scientists that believe in God like myself are stupid."

I see God right in front of me. If you don't then fine. I'm not going to even try to convince you because I know I can't and it's a waste of my time to try.

But I someone annoyed when someone calls me delusional, and I get professionally offended when someone argues that I'm less of a physicist or that I'm dumber for believe that God exists, and that seems to be the gist of a lot of articles. Also if you make a scientific argument for anything, it's my professional duty to shoot it full of holes. That's how science works.

If atheists believe that there is no God, that's fine. If atheists believe that *I* (i.e. competent scientists that do believe in God) don't exist, then we have a problem.

 

[twofish-quant]

Those were questions asked by prof.Paul Davies of Arizona State University. I may send him an email with your answers. I am sure he has read on the Big Bang theory and the spontaneous symmetry breaking.

I'm sure he has, and he knows about the problem.

How do you know there were infinitely many outcomes to the BB(most scientists I've seen hold to determinism)? And what other universes do you have evidence of?

In general, physicists after around 1930's, are not determinists. Determinism is incompatible with quantum mechanics unless you start assuming either weirder stuff.

What is happening is that theory X gives result Y. If you assume a few basic things about string theory X, you end up with result Y. Now, you may conclude that result Y is so nutty, that theory X must be wrong. Cool! We are making progress. Albert Einstein could never accept the standard form of quantum mechanics because he thought it gave nutty results.

No, but what is the evidence for the above assertions?

It's theory. If you assume X is true, then Y logically follows. If you don't like Y, then you can reject X. I should point out that the fact that a lot of high energy physicists and cosmologists are uncomfortable with the results that they are getting, that they are looking for alternatives to theory X. Heck maybe the big bang is wrong in some fundamental way.

 

[madness]

It's one of the results that comes from string theory. If you want to argue that this proves string theory is bogus and useless, I might not agree, but I'll not object to strongly.



I don't either but, "why ask why?"

One thing that I think is happening is that people that do have science do science with very, very different philosophical ideas that just happen to be compatible with each other enough so that we don't argue over everything. If there is a lot of evidence, and if we agree on how to process the evidence, then there is nothing to argue about.

However, when we *don't* have a lot of evidence or we disagree about what it means, then sparks fly. One thing I *very* strongly object to are surveys that seem to imply "most scientists are atheists, scientists are smart, therefore atheism must be true" since that implies that scientists that believe in God like myself are stupid."

I see God right in front of me. If you don't then fine. I'm not going to even try to convince you because I know I can't and it's a waste of my time to try.

But I someone annoyed when someone calls me delusional, and I get professionally offended when someone argues that I'm less of a physicist or that I'm dumber for believe that God exists, and that seems to be the gist of a lot of articles. Also if you make a scientific argument for anything, it's my professional duty to shoot it full of holes. That's how science works.

If atheists believe that there is no God, that's fine. If atheists believe that *I* (i.e. competent scientists that do believe in God) don't exist, then we have a problem.

Until alternative universes with different laws of physics is a testable hypothesis, I see them as completely unscientific. And I can't imagine that they ever will be testable - how could test a universe with laws of physics that don't support life? I don't know a lot about string theory but I gather that it not considered scientific by most people.
I made a similar point to yours about asking "why" in my last post where I quoted Bertrand Russell - note that this point is generally to detract from the need for a God.

Personally I'm pretty agnostic about God, but what I share with the theists is a strong belief that science cannot give a final and definitive answer fundamental questions such as the origin of the universe and the reason for its existence.

 

[twofish-quant]

Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Curiously my concept of science rejects this notion. I don't have any problems with physical laws and patterns that change over time. If the second law of thermodynamics just stops working, then oh well.

I think this may have something to do with the fact that I work in finance where the basic rules *do* change radically over time. Interest rate swap models that worked in June 2008, just will not work now, and a lot of the "fundamental laws of finance" just stopped working for a while.

I think that some people would find this disturbing, but I find it fun. What's the point in trying to figure out the rules if they don't change on you?

 

[twofish-quant]

Until alternative universes with different laws of physics is a testable hypothesis, I see them as completely unscientific.

As long as people are trying to create testable hypothesis, it's still science.

And I can't imagine that they ever will be testable - how could test a universe with laws of physics that don't support life?

Try harder. Theory is very tough, because the job of a theorist is to take a model and then try to create predictions from it. The fact that you can't think of a way in five minutes, doesn't mean very much. If you take a dozen people and try for twenty years and get nowhere, then maybe it can't be done.

Alternatively, you can try to *mathematically prove* that it can't be done. Saying something can't be done because of lack of imagination doesn't mean much. If you can create a series of rigorous steps and prove that a model will lead to no predictions, that would be a big deal, but it's really, really hard.

I don't know a lot about string theory but I gather that it not considered scientific by most people.

As long as you are still trying, you are playing the game. One thing that is important is that thirty years ago, it wasn't obvious to people that SSB would lead to these sorts of problems, and it's only by spending a lot of time trying and failing that get anywhere.

Personally I'm pretty agnostic about God, but what I share with the theists is a strong belief that science cannot give a final and definitive answer fundamental questions such as the origin of the universe and the reason for its existence.

Ummmm... "Why the universe exists, isn't a scientific question" but right now I don't see any reason to think that we can't completely understand the origin of the universe. Maybe it can't, but you don't know what you see until you try. One problem I do have is with the "God of the gaps" theology. I also have problems with a "supernatural God."

If God only exists in the unknown, then we are going to have a bigger and bigger problem as we know more about the universe. It's quite possible that someday, we'll know exactly how the universe formed. (What will be really scary is if we know enough about how the universe form to create new universes in the laboratory, which is probably another science fiction story.)

What's why it's theologically important for God to be in front of you. If you force God to be in places that we don't understand, there will be no room for God.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Well, this is a different issue. Basically there are two schools of thought in theoretical physics. The first school of thought argues that the parameters that make up our universe could be uniquely predicted if we were to have a theory of everything before us. The second school of thought states that the universe takes on many different values for these parameters, and our region stems from one particular realization of them.

Susskind and others (including myself) argue that the fact that the physical parameters that define the properties of physics at low energies have the appearance of fine tuning is strong evidence for the second situation.

A "tuner" doesn't enter into it at all, because that proposal is a non-starter, for two main reasons.

The practical reason why proposing a "tuner" is a non-starter is just that if it were true, then there would be no further investigation to be done. So we might as well just go with those hypotheses that can be investigated and understood. This is basically the reason why science relies upon methodological naturalism: it has to, or else it'd stop.

The logical reason why it's a non-starter is that the proposal of a "tuner" is necessarily more complex than that which it is purported to explain, and thus isn't actually an explanation.


Yes. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a mechanism that is inherent within the standard model of particle physics, and is likely to be even more significant for physics beyond the standard model. Spontaneous symmetry breaking ensures that different regions of the universe will have different parameters for what we see as physical constants. The symmetry breaking within the current standard model is pretty minimal, just relating to the properties of the weak nuclear force, but it is expected that many other parameters are a result of such events as well.

So, universe is large + spontaneous symmetry breaking = multiverse.

Well, what if there comes a time when there is no further investigation to come? Just invent something? If it's the end of the investigation, it's the end of the investigation. You don't have any say when investigation ends. It is indifferent to your wishes. Take it as it comes.

And would you stop throwing speculation upon speculation to back up the METAPHYSICAL concept of the multiverse?

Your argument basically boils down to: The universe is too tuned so I have to invent an infinite amount of other universes to make ours not seem so special. You think fine tuning=multiverse.

"the fact that the physical parameters that define the properties of physics at low energies have the appearance of fine tuning is strong evidence for the second situation."

the second situation being the multiverse. fine tuning=strong evidence for multiverse.

no, it isn't any evidence at all. much less strong evidence.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I don't "hate" people. I said that I have serious, serious problems with Dawkins. If Dawkins were speaking as a preacher or a philosopher, I wouldn't have any problems with what he says. The problem that I have is that Dawkins appears to be speaking as a ***scientist*** and claims to be using ***science*** to justify his religious beliefs. I have serious problems with that.

I totally agree with this. What would make a physicist or a scientist in general more qualified to answer fundamental questions like "Why is there something than nothing?" than say a truck driver or a bar tender? Nothing. Unscientific questions don't differentiate between professions - your untestable speculations are as good as mine. Period.

 

[madness]

As long as people are trying to create testable hypothesis, it's still science.



Try harder. Theory is very tough, because the job of a theorist is to take a model and then try to create predictions from it. The fact that you can't think of a way in five minutes, doesn't mean very much. If you take a dozen people and try for twenty years and get nowhere, then maybe it can't be done.

Alternatively, you can try to *mathematically prove* that it can't be done. Saying something can't be done because of lack of imagination doesn't mean much. If you can create a series of rigorous steps and prove that a model will lead to no predictions, that would be a big deal, but it's really, really hard.



As long as you are still trying, you are playing the game. One thing that is important is that thirty years ago, it wasn't obvious to people that SSB would lead to these sorts of problems, and it's only by spending a lot of time trying and failing that get anywhere.



Ummmm... "Why the universe exists, isn't a scientific question" but right now I don't see any reason to think that we can't completely understand the origin of the universe. Maybe it can't, but you don't know what you see until you try. One problem I do have is with the "God of the gaps" theology. I also have problems with a "supernatural God."

If God only exists in the unknown, then we are going to have a bigger and bigger problem as we know more about the universe. It's quite possible that someday, we'll know exactly how the universe formed. (What will be really scary is if we know enough about how the universe form to create new universes in the laboratory, which is probably another science fiction story.)

What's why it's theologically important for God to be in front of you. If you force God to be in places that we don't understand, there will be no room for God.

So if I say that science can't test for God do I have to try harder? By your logic we might just have not figured out how yet.
Of course "why does the universe exist" isn't a scientific question, that was my point. That doesn't mean it's an invalid one. And I completely disagree that the origin of the universe is available to scientific scrutiny. Read Kant - he said that anything which caused the universe would necessarily be outside of cause and effect, space and time. To extend the science we developed from observing our universe beyond these confines is not reasonable.

 

[GeorgCantor]

In general, physicists after around 1930's, are not determinists. Determinism is incompatible with quantum mechanics unless you start assuming either weirder stuff.

If they are not determinists, they cannot do science. Humans don't understand truly uncaused events, or do you claim to have such powers? How do you or Dave know that microscopic seemingly uncaused randomness can creep up at the macro level?? What experiment supports this? Where is the evidence that there could have been other universes besides the one we observe?

 

[Freeman Dyson]

I totally agree with this. What would make a physicist or a scientist in general more qualified to answer fundamental questions like "Why is there something than nothing?" than say a truck driver or a bar tender? Nothing. Unscientific questions don't differentiate between professions - your untestable speculations are as good as mine. Period.

I think Martin Rees, quoting Polkinghorne, said it best, "The average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than the average auto mechanic."

 

[Phyisab****]

I think if you wonder about the effect of cosmology on faith, you are missing the idea of faith entirely. Something like twofish said. Either you know there must be something more, or you don't. There can always be god "outside" of physics.

 

[Chalnoth]

The assumption is that there are other universes (ie places with different laws of physics) that don't support life.

That's not an assumption. It's something that is necessarily true if the universe is large and there are spontaneous symmetry breaking events, both of which are strongly supported by the available evidence.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

It's one of the results that comes from string theory. If you want to argue that this proves string theory is bogus and useless, I might not agree, but I'll not object to strongly.



I don't either but, "why ask why?"

One thing that I think is happening is that people that do have science do science with very, very different philosophical ideas that just happen to be compatible with each other enough so that we don't argue over everything. If there is a lot of evidence, and if we agree on how to process the evidence, then there is nothing to argue about.

However, when we *don't* have a lot of evidence or we disagree about what it means, then sparks fly. One thing I *very* strongly object to are surveys that seem to imply "most scientists are atheists, scientists are smart, therefore atheism must be true" since that implies that scientists that believe in God like myself are stupid."

I see God right in front of me. If you don't then fine. I'm not going to even try to convince you because I know I can't and it's a waste of my time to try.

But I someone annoyed when someone calls me delusional, and I get professionally offended when someone argues that I'm less of a physicist or that I'm dumber for believe that God exists, and that seems to be the gist of a lot of articles. Also if you make a scientific argument for anything, it's my professional duty to shoot it full of holes. That's how science works.

If atheists believe that there is no God, that's fine. If atheists believe that *I* (i.e. competent scientists that do believe in God) don't exist, then we have a problem.

Well Dawkins says that religion and science are incompatible so maybe you should find a new career. Most of the best scientists in history should have too.

 

[Chalnoth]

But what constitutes "evidence".

For a classification of evidence to lead to the truth, that classification must lead to reliable results. That is to say, any sufficiently-specific statement about reality that you might make must be either true or false (another way of stating this is that it is possible to add conditions to any ambiguous statement so that it is definitively either true or false, even if we don't know which). This is basically a tautology.

Given this tautology, we can then conclude that if we are to accept a classification of evidence as being reliable, then it must consistently produce the same answers to the same questions. If it does not, then it is a bad form of evidence.

This fact is, fundamentally, why science relies so heavily upon verification of results. And it's also why there isn't any evidence for any god: the types of evidence that people attempt to use to support their beliefs are the same (revelation, personal experience, tradition), but they come to wildly different conclusions about the specifics.

First of all physicists do not *prove* anything. Mathematicians *prove* things. If you are using the word "proof" to mean anything other than a series of logical mathematical steps, you are using language in a an unforgivably sloppy way.

He's using it in the way the word is used by the general populace, however. Now, I don't do this personally, but arguing over semantics doesn't get into the meat of the article. He is quite specific about the definition that he is using in the blog post.

Last year I thought the big bang happened. May be next year I'll change my mind. If the existence or non-existence of God were really subject to scientific evidence, it would be tentative and uncertainty. Yesterday, I thought God existed, maybe tomorrow I'll see something that will make me change my mind.

I think it's typically only people that believe in a god that think that somehow the question, "Does a god exist?" is categorically different from other questions about the nature of reality. I don't. And that's what the thrust of that article was: it isn't categorically different, and so we should apply the exact same thought processes that have proven reliable time and again with other questions to the one about whether or not there is a god (or gods, for that matter).

See, I once believed in the Christian God. Then, as I learned about science and how to do science, I started applying those same thought processes to my religion (in particular after I noticed that my religion was making some claims that were distinctly opposed to reality). When I did so, I found that it was all bunk, and I really had no valid reason to believe any of it.

But I don't know of anyone that thinks of the existence of God in the same way that people think of the fine structure constant, which suggests to me that people *aren't* using scientific means to come to their conclusions, which is perfectly fine as long as people admit it.

It's only perfectly fine if you're okay with being wrong. The only limitation placed upon scientific thinking is whether or not it is fallacious. Therefore there are only two types of reasoning: scientific reasoning (i.e. non-fallacious reasoning) and fallacious reasoning.

Also, there has been a *lot* of philosophy that has contributed to the understanding of God, and even if you don't believe that God exists, it's useful to understand belief in God as a social phenonomenon. One thing that convinces me that God cannot be proved through rational means is a brilliant theologian named William of Ockham. You may have heard of him.

I find this human obsession with gods to be rather interesting. But seriously, if you're not going to demonstrate the existence of a god through rational means, then that's extremely good reason not to believe in a god.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think if you wonder about the effect of cosmology on faith, you are missing the idea of faith entirely. Something like twofish said. Either you know there must be something more, or you don't. There can always be god "outside" of physics.

That's a misuse of the word "know". If you can't demonstrate it, you don't know. You may believe very strongly, but all the belief in the world doesn't make something true.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well Dawkins says that religion and science are incompatible so maybe you should find a new career. Most of the best scientists in history should have too.

People often have little problem holding two incompatible ideas within their own heads.

 

[madness]

That's not an assumption. It's something that is necessarily true if the universe is large and there are spontaneous symmetry breaking events, both of which are strongly supported by the available evidence.

I'm not an expert on spontaneous symmetry breaking, but for the purposes of the (strong) anthropic principle you would really need enough trials (different sets of laws) that a life supporting universe becomes inevitable, or at least probable. Are you saying that this is supported by scientific evidence?
The weak anthropic principle, on the other hand, basically states that the universe supports life "because it does". I can't argue with this point of view. If you assume there's nothing special about life then there's nothing to be explained.