Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

[vjk2]

I'm almost finished with his book finding darwin's god.

In short, I feel like he skirts dangerously close to ID with this notion.

Basically, Miller reconciles evolution with God by saying that, while this could be reductionist, it was God that created the conditions that led rise to evolution being possible. For instance, if the gravitational constant were different then life as we know it would not exist. Now, it is also possible that the fact that it happened is a reductionist stance to take, and a man by the name of Dennet has proposed an alterenative to this, namely that it is also possible that there were many possible universes with slightly different gravitational constants and they went out of existence. Miller, I feel, relies on the fact that so far no one has detected any of these possible universes as proof that there is...a deity evident in the gravitational constant among others.

He does the same with quantum mechanics. because you can't know exactly where an electron will be, that is where free will lies. For, if we could predict the minute workings of quantum mechanics, then you could possibly reduct everything much like how you can predict the trajectory of a thrown ball using traditional physics.

The strength I feel is that quantum mechanics probably is in-fact impossible to pin down. The weakness is that he is doing what he accuses the Intelligent Design advocate of doing: placing God in the unknown scientific frontier.

I like the work, but can anyone explain how all of this reconciles?

 

[firavia]

the Uncertainty in knowing the position and the velocity of an electron at a certain instant in time is not a chaotic reason but instead it is the impossibility of detection without interference , so our interference in detecting the position and the velocity at the same time is the only reason of uncertainty and not free will, I think even the quantum world is governed by causal laws and that dosent contradict with the existence of God.

 

[russ_watters]

Does god get involved in every flip of a coin?

 

[Jack21222]

Basically, Miller reconciles evolution with God by saying that, while this could be reductionist, it was God that created the conditions that led rise to evolution being possible. For instance, if the gravitational constant were different then life as we know it would not exist.

How does he figure that? It seems to me that if G were to be significantly, life as we know it could still exist.

 

[chronon]

The alternatives
1: The universe is tuned for life because a (hidden) creator tuned it
2: The universe is tuned for life because there are 10^500 (hidden) universes with different parameters.
Seem as bad as each other to me. However, The free will theorem says that if humans have free will then electrons have free will, indicating that mind might be more built into the universe than we think. If you accept this then it might suggest that alternative 1 is preferable to alternative 2.

("Intelligent Design" is such a vague term that it's not worth discussing.)

 

[vjk2]

The alternatives
1: The universe is tuned for life because a (hidden) creator tuned it
2: The universe is tuned for life because there are 10^500 (hidden) universes with different parameters.
Seem as bad as each other to me. However, The free will theorem says that if humans have free will then electrons have free will, indicating that mind might be more built into the universe than we think. If you accept this then it might suggest that alternative 1 is preferable to alternative 2.

("Intelligent Design" is such a vague term that it's not worth discussing.)

Yes, this is it in essence. My point though is that miller sends much of the book chastising the religious for pointing to god in the next unknowable scientific frontier. Ancient people thought that the sun was god and then we discover the elements out of which it is composed. ID people will point out some biological machine and say that it is too complex to have arisen on it's own, and then someone discovers evidence of how it
could have happened.

My point is that while quantum mechanics and the existence of parallel universes may very well be unprovable, Miller is doing the same thing as previous religionists: putting god in the next unknowable scientific frontier. If there were a breakthrough in quantum mechanics or the existence of parallel universes then his theory of god would suffer the same fate as all the others

 

[chronon]

My point is that while quantum mechanics and the existence of parallel universes may very well be unprovable, Miller is doing the same thing as previous religionists: putting god in the next unknowable scientific frontier. If there were a breakthrough in quantum mechanics or the existence of parallel universes then his theory of god would suffer the same fate as all the others

Well I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much Miller adopts a God of the gaps point of view. However, if science seemed to be saying that mind was a fundamental part of the universe, then that seems to give a reason for calling the Uncaused Cause 'God' rather than 'The Universe'. Of course, future science might show that mind isn't particularly fundamental, but then again it might show that mind is more fundamental than we thought.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The alternatives
1: The universe is tuned for life because a (hidden) creator tuned it
2: The universe is tuned for life because there are 10^500 (hidden) universes with different parameters.
Seem as bad as each other to me. However, The free will theorem says that if humans have free will then electrons have free will, indicating that mind might be more built into the universe than we think. If you accept this then it might suggest that alternative 1 is preferable to alternative 2.

("Intelligent Design" is such a vague term that it's not worth discussing.)

I'd like to propose another alternative;

1: the physical laws of the universe permit self-replicating structures. Over time some self-replicating structures have given rise to life finely tuned for the section of the universe they inhabit.

This is the strange thing about "fine tuning" arguments, they seem to propose we were created first then a universe was built around us. Rather life is possible, undergoes evolution and thus tunes itself to the universe.

 

[Dotini]

future science might show that mind isn't particularly fundamental, but then again it might show that mind is more fundamental than we thought.

I'd like to propose another alternative;

1: the physical laws of the universe permit self-replicating structures. Over time some self-replicating structures have given rise to life finely tuned for the section of the universe they inhabit.

I very much admire these two ideas. But since those sections of the universe which permit life as we know it are so relatively insignificant, I must consider organic life to be a trivial accident or epiphenomenon. If there is a universal "intelligence" - or mind - organizing all energy (and matter) under what we call the laws of physics, wouldn't its primary accomplishment seem to be the stars and galaxies?

Humbly submitted,
Steve

 

[AlephZero]

He does the same with quantum mechanics. because you can't know exactly where an electron will be, that is where free will lies.

Alternative hypothesis: free will exists only in the mnds of beings who think they have both minds and free will.

I don't see any testable consequences following from either alternative, so far. There won't be much real progress until that happens.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Alternative hypothesis: free will exists only in the mnds of beings who think they have both minds and free will.

I don't see any testable consequences following from either alternative, so far. There won't be much real progress until that happens.

Exactly. In a determinate system past conditions control what will happen in the future (no free will) in random systems either choice could happen with equal chance (no free will).

I think Miller is looking for a gap to put his God into

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'm almost finished with his book finding darwin's god.

In short, I feel like he skirts dangerously close to ID with this notion.

Basically, Miller reconciles evolution with God by saying that, while this could be reductionist, it was God that created the conditions that led rise to evolution being possible. For instance, if the gravitational constant were different then life as we know it would not exist. Now, it is also possible that the fact that it happened is a reductionist stance to take, and a man by the name of Dennet has proposed an alterenative to this, namely that it is also possible that there were many possible universes with slightly different gravitational constants and they went out of existence. Miller, I feel, relies on the fact that so far no one has detected any of these possible universes as proof that there is...a deity evident in the gravitational constant among others.

He does the same with quantum mechanics. because you can't know exactly where an electron will be, that is where free will lies. For, if we could predict the minute workings of quantum mechanics, then you could possibly reduct everything much like how you can predict the trajectory of a thrown ball using traditional physics.

The strength I feel is that quantum mechanics probably is in-fact impossible to pin down. The weakness is that he is doing what he accuses the Intelligent Design advocate of doing: placing God in the unknown scientific frontier.

I like the work, but can anyone explain how all of this reconciles?

One thing is for certain, Ken Miller and myself have been fighting those darn Intelligent Design advocates and other creationists for over 8 years!

I haven't read Ken Miller's book that you mention, but I do know that The Society for the Study of Evolution recently gave him the prestigious Stephen Jay Gould Prize :

The Stephen Jay Gould Prize is awarded annually by the Society for the Study of Evolution to recognize individuals whose sustained and exemplary efforts have advanced public understanding of evolutionary science and its importance in biology, education, and everyday life in the spirit of Stephen Jay Gould.

The winner of the 2011 Stephen Jay Gould Prize is Kenneth R. Miller, a Professor of Biology at Brown University. Through his writings, teaching and appearances in court, Dr. Miller has proved an eloquent and passionate defender of evolution and the scientific method. Dr. Miller received his PhD in Biology from the University of Colorado and taught from 1974 to 1980 at Harvard University. While at Harvard he frequently interacted with and was inspired by Stephen Jay Gould. He first became aware of antievolutionism as a beginning professor at Brown University. His passion and skill at rebutting the claims of creationists eventually led him to serve as a key witness in several important and high-profile evolution-creationist court cases, including the well-known Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2005, the decision for which effectively forestalled further attempts to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in high school science curricula. Dr. Miller is also well known for his widely used high-school biology textbook, Biology, co-authored with Joseph Levine. With its strong unifying theme of evolution, this book was at the heart of court cases in 2004 and 2005 and has been defended from creationist inroads through Miller’s several debates with school board members and other decision-makers, helping to educate them as to the importance of the inclusion of evolution in their standards and curricula. He has written insightfully about the relationships between science and religion in his 1999 book Finding Darwin’s God, and his most recent book Only a Theory - Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (2008) was named to Amazon's list of Best Science Books of 2008 and was a finalist for the National Academy of Sciences' Communication Award in 2009.

Dr. Miller is well-recognized as an engaging and effective communicator for both scientific and lay audiences, and has made frequent radio and television appearances. He is a master of the public presentation of science, and conveys scientific content in a style that effectively engages audiences with a broad range of backgrounds. As such, the broad reach of his public presentations and writings on evolution makes him an excellent choice for this year’s Stephen Jay Gould Award.

The Stephen Jay Gould Prize Committee:
Scott Edwards, Chair
Sam Scheiner
Maria Servidio
John Willis

Past Stephen J. Gould Prize winners:
2009 Dr. Eugenie C. Scott
2010 Dr. Sean B. Carroll
http://www.evolutionsociety.org/awards.asp

 

[Jack21222]

Biologists need to quit trying to do physics. No wonder he tries hiding his god in quantum mechanics.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Biologists need to quit trying to do physics. No wonder he tries hiding his god in quantum mechanics.

A bit harsh to the rest of us biologists

 

[Jack21222]

Physicists fail just as hard trying to do biology. I don't see it as harsh.

 

[SpectraCat]

Biologists need to quit trying to do physics. No wonder he tries hiding his god in quantum mechanics.

Yeah! Because nobody ever learned anything at the interface between two disciplines!

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'm almost finished with his book finding darwin's god.

In short, I feel like he skirts dangerously close to ID with this notion.

Basically, Miller reconciles evolution with God by saying that, while this could be reductionist, it was God that created the conditions that led rise to evolution being possible. For instance, if the gravitational constant were different then life as we know it would not exist. Now, it is also possible that the fact that it happened is a reductionist stance to take, and a man by the name of Dennet has proposed an alterenative to this, namely that it is also possible that there were many possible universes with slightly different gravitational constants and they went out of existence. Miller, I feel, relies on the fact that so far no one has detected any of these possible universes as proof that there is...a deity evident in the gravitational constant among others.

He does the same with quantum mechanics. because you can't know exactly where an electron will be, that is where free will lies. For, if we could predict the minute workings of quantum mechanics, then you could possibly reduct everything much like how you can predict the trajectory of a thrown ball using traditional physics.

The strength I feel is that quantum mechanics probably is in-fact impossible to pin down. The weakness is that he is doing what he accuses the Intelligent Design advocate of doing: placing God in the unknown scientific frontier.

I like the work, but can anyone explain how all of this reconciles?

ViewsofMars replied:

One thing is for certain, Ken Miller and myself have been fighting those darn Intelligent Design advocates and other creationists for over 8 years!

I haven't read Ken Miller's book that you mention, but I do know that The Society for the Study of Evolution recently gave him the prestigious Stephen Jay Gould Prize :

The Stephen Jay Gould Prize is awarded annually by the Society for the Study of Evolution to recognize individuals whose sustained and exemplary efforts have advanced public understanding of evolutionary science and its importance in biology, education, and everyday life in the spirit of Stephen Jay Gould.

The winner of the 2011 Stephen Jay Gould Prize is Kenneth R. Miller, a Professor of Biology at Brown University. Through his writings, teaching and appearances in court, Dr. Miller has proved an eloquent and passionate defender of evolution and the scientific method. Dr. Miller received his PhD in Biology from the University of Colorado and taught from 1974 to 1980 at Harvard University. While at Harvard he frequently interacted with and was inspired by Stephen Jay Gould. He first became aware of antievolutionism as a beginning professor at Brown University. His passion and skill at rebutting the claims of creationists eventually led him to serve as a key witness in several important and high-profile evolution-creationist court cases, including the well-known Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2005, the decision for which effectively forestalled further attempts to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in high school science curricula. Dr. Miller is also well known for his widely used high-school biology textbook, Biology, co-authored with Joseph Levine. With its strong unifying theme of evolution, this book was at the heart of court cases in 2004 and 2005 and has been defended from creationist inroads through Miller’s several debates with school board members and other decision-makers, helping to educate them as to the importance of the inclusion of evolution in their standards and curricula. He has written insightfully about the relationships between science and religion in his 1999 book Finding Darwin’s God, and his most recent book Only a Theory - Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (2008) was named to Amazon's list of Best Science Books of 2008 and was a finalist for the National Academy of Sciences' Communication Award in 2009.

Dr. Miller is well-recognized as an engaging and effective communicator for both scientific and lay audiences, and has made frequent radio and television appearances. He is a master of the public presentation of science, and conveys scientific content in a style that effectively engages audiences with a broad range of backgrounds. As such, the broad reach of his public presentations and writings on evolution makes him an excellent choice for this year’s Stephen Jay Gould Award.

The Stephen Jay Gould Prize Committee:
Scott Edwards, Chair
Sam Scheiner
Maria Servidio
John Willis

Past Stephen J. Gould Prize winners:
2009 Dr. Eugenie C. Scott
2010 Dr. Sean B. Carroll
http://www.evolutionsociety.org/awards.asp

Biologists need to quit trying to do physics. No wonder he tries hiding his god in quantum mechanics.

Jack, as I earlier mentioned, I haven't read Miller's book. I do know for a fact that Charles Darwin was an agnostic. As far as your comment, it implies that biology doesn't pertain to quantum mechanics. Let's explore that further, "The World Journal of Biological Chemistry Editorial Board consists of 523 members, representing a team of worldwide experts in biochemistry and molecular biology. They are from 40 countries, including Argentina (1), Australia (7), Austria (3), Belgium (6), Brazil (5), Bulgaria (1), Canada (20), Chile (1), China (36), Czech Republic (1), Denmark (1), Finland (3), France (14), Germany (17), Greece (3), India (9), Iran (2), Israel (6), Italy (26), Japan (42), Lithuania (1), Mauritius (1), Mexico (2), Netherlands (6), New Zealand (1), Norway (4), Portugal (4), Romania (1), Russia (2), Singapore (4), South Africa (1), South Korea (17), Spain (18), Sweden (4), Switzerland (3), Thailand (2), Turkey (1), Ukraine (1), United Kingdom (18), and United States (228)." http://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8454/index.htm

This is an abstract from that Journal:

World J Biol Chem. 2011 February 26; 2(2): 35–38.
Published online 2011 February 26. doi: 10.4331/wjbc.v2.i2.35. PMCID: PMC3083993

Copyright ©2011 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
Lee Pedersen’s work in theoretical and computational chemistry and biochemistry
Lee G Pedersen
Lee G Pedersen, Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3290, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States
Author contributions: Pedersen LG solely contributed to this manuscript.
Correspondence to: Lee G Pedersen, PhD, Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3290, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States. lee_pedersen@unc.eduTelephone: +1-919-9621578 Fax: +1-919-9622388
Received November 29, 2010; Revised January 18, 2011; Accepted January 25, 2011.

Abstract
Nature at the lab level in biology and chemistry can be described by the application of quantum mechanics. In many cases, a reasonable approximation to quantum mechanics is classical mechanics realized through Newton’s equations of motion. Dr. Pedersen began his career using quantum mechanics to describe the properties of small molecular complexes that could serve as models for biochemical systems. To describe large molecular systems required a drop-back to classical means and this led surprisingly to a major improvement in the classical treatment of electrostatics for all molecules, not just biological molecules. Recent work has involved the application of quantum mechanics for the putative active sites of enzymes to gain greater insight into the key steps in enzyme catalysis.

Keywords: Blood coagulation cascade, Classical mechanics, DNA repair enzymes, Particle mesh Ewald, Quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical, Quantum mechanics Other Sections▼
AbstractINTRODUCTION AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCEACADEMIC STRATEGY AND GOALSACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTSCONCLUSIONReferencesINTRODUCTION AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCEDr. Lee Pedersen (Figure ​(Figure1)1) is a Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He received his bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from the University of Tulsa (Tulsa, OK) in 1961. His graduate work was done in Physical Chemistry at the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AS) where he focused on quantum chemistry and the potential energy surfaces for dynamical calculations (1965). Upon receiving a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral award (1965), he continued his postgraduate training in Theoretical Chemistry with Martin Karplus at Columbia University (New York, NY) and with a National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral award (1966) at Harvard University (Cambridge, MA). Dr. Pedersen has been an invited speaker at international meetings, and is a peer reviewer for many publications and granting agencies. He has won a teaching award at UNC-CH and has been honored by the establishment (UNC-CH) of the Lee G. Pedersen distinguished Professor Chair. In addition to his roles at UNC-CH, he has also been associated for more than 20 years with the Laboratory of Structural Biology at NIEHS in the Research Triangle Park, NC.

Please read on . . .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083993/

 

[Nick666]

God exists in quantum physics as much as Xenu exists in classical physics .

 

[chronon]

Physicists fail just as hard trying to do biology. I don't see it as harsh.

Well Francis Crick didn't do too badly

 

[vjk2]

I do think it is an ingenious idea though, one that I hadn't really thought of before. In a way, it makes the universe more alive, like...The Force :)

I also think that it is more valid than the multiple universes theory. Simply because...with the multiple universes theory, it is in-fact impossible to find evidence of their existence. It is in-fact "only a theory." The fine-tuned argument is quite compelling. If the gravitational constant were a little weaker, by only a tiny decimal to the negative power, then matter would not have been able to form. If it were a little stronger it would have collapsed back onto itself. This universe you can in-fact touch and feel and verify its existence, so the fine-tuned argument wins I feel.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I do think it is an ingenious idea though, one that I hadn't really thought of before. In a way, it makes the universe more alive, like...The Force :)

I also think that it is more valid than the multiple universes theory. Simply because...with the multiple universes theory, it is in-fact impossible to find evidence of their existence. It is in-fact "only a theory." The fine-tuned argument is quite compelling. If the gravitational constant were a little weaker, by only a tiny decimal to the negative power, then matter would not have been able to form. If it were a little stronger it would have collapsed back onto itself. This universe you can in-fact touch and feel and verify its existence, so the fine-tuned argument wins I feel.

Except there is no evidence of universe tuning at all. The only thing that we see as being tuned is the life that had to evolve in that universe. If the fundamental rules of this universe were totally different as long as there was the chance that in some situation stable enough patterned structures able to self-replicate with error could could arise then life could evolve. It might be radically different but it would still be life and it could still be able to look at it's universe and say "isn't this fine tuned?"

And whilst we're at it mankind masses 3.35e8kg, the total biomass on Earth is 5.6e11kg. The estimated mass of the universe is 1e50 kg.

Do you really think a system is fine tuned for a component when that component makes up ~0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the mass?

 

[vjk2]

Quite literally, Te way the math works out, if the electromagnetic constant were a little weaker, like .000001 weaker, the elements would not have been able to form.

 

[JaredJames]

Quite literally, Te way the math works out, if the electromagnetic constant were a little weaker, like .000001 weaker, the elements would not have been able to form.

Really?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Quite literally, Te way the math works out, if the electromagnetic constant were a little weaker, like .000001 weaker, the elements would not have been able to form.

Did you even read my post? That doesn't matter at all. It's like me picking up a rock and finding it fits perfectly in my pocket before concluding that the rock was fine tuned for my pocket.

There is no evidence this universe is fine tuned, there is only evidence that life evolves to it's environment.

 

[vjk2]

Did you read mine?

This isn't about basic physics. you're acting like g on the Earth could vary from 2 to 200 ft/sec, like it basically would mean that you might be able to jump higher.

"If the rate of expansion one second after hte big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. Conversely, if g were smaller, the dust from the big band would just have continued to expand, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us"

from the book. Also,

"if the strong nuclear force were just a little weaker, no elements other than hydrogen would have been formed following the big bang. if it were a little stronger, all of the hydrogen in the universe would be gone by now, converted into helium and heavier elements without hydrogen, no sun, no stars, no water."

p. 227 and 228 if you're wondering.

so in other words, quite literally, without these "fine tunings" there would be no planets. It is an argument of "why is there something instead of nothing".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Did you read mine?

This isn't about basic physics. you're acting like g on the Earth could vary from 2 to 200 ft/sec, like it basically would mean that you might be able to jump higher.

"If the rate of expansion one second after hte big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. Conversely, if g were smaller, the dust from the big band would just have continued to expand, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us"

from the book. Also,

"if the strong nuclear force were just a little weaker, no elements other than hydrogen would have been formed following the big bang. if it were a little stronger, all of the hydrogen in the universe would be gone by now, converted into helium and heavier elements without hydrogen, no sun, no stars, no water."

p. 227 and 228 if you're wondering.

so in other words, quite literally, without these "fine tunings" there would be no planets. It is an argument of "why is there something instead of nothing".

The point is you have no evidence of fine tuning at all. Pointing to something and saying "if Y wasn't Y then X would never happen" is no evidence that anything has been "tuned". The implication of fine tuning is that some process set the laws of the universe so that X would occur. You have no evidence of this.

 

[Darken-Sol]

Did you even read my post? That doesn't matter at all. It's like me picking up a rock and finding it fits perfectly in my pocket before concluding that the rock was fine tuned for my pocket.

There is no evidence this universe is fine tuned, there is only evidence that life evolves to it's environment.

doesn't inflation imply tuning? or evolution? at the very least life is learning.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

doesn't inflation imply tuning? or evolution? at the very least life is learning.

Why would it? How is the fact that that X arose from Y evidence for Y being tuned for X?

Remember the fine tuning argument isn't just an observation that "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible". The fine tuning argument is "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible. Therefore Y was tuned for X"

 

[vjk2]

again, this is in the context of the book. Read it! it is a good read.

I think miller points to physics in contrast to evolution. In evolution which is his expertise he sees no evidence of divine tampering. his point is that the stage was set just so that life could evolve -- this is where he delves into physics.

yes, he is saying that the world is fine-tuned to the extent that at some point an intelligent being would evolve. He says that it could have gone in any such direction, but that doesn't matter so much than as God chose to reveal himself to the product of his evolution.

and he points to physics to show that while evolution is messy and has millions of permutations, physics does not have similar room for error as evolution. A tiny fraction of a difference in the constants would have resulted in nothing.

 

[JaredJames]

The worst thing I'm seeing here is the insistence that there are no other possibilities.

How do we know that there haven't been trillions of universes with trillions of permutations previously and this just happens to be the one that stuck?

Simple answer, we don't. There is nothing either way. But that would certainly rule out fine tuning and has as much supporting evidence (that's none by the way).

I'd like my closing statement to be the quote below from Dara O'Briain in my signature.

 

[Darken-Sol]

Why would it? How is the fact that that X arose from Y evidence for Y being tuned for X?

Remember the fine tuning argument isn't just an observation that "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible". The fine tuning argument is "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible. Therefore Y was tuned for X"

i am probably misunderstanding inflation. i thought it was something that happened early on then quit for no apparent reason, like me adjusting the volume on my i pod.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

again, this is in the context of the book. Read it! it is a good read.

I think miller points to physics in contrast to evolution. In evolution which is his expertise he sees no evidence of divine tampering. his point is that the stage was set just so that life could evolve -- this is where he delves into physics.

yes, he is saying that the world is fine-tuned to the extent that at some point an intelligent being would evolve. He says that it could have gone in any such direction, but that doesn't matter so much than as God chose to reveal himself to the product of his evolution.

and he points to physics to show that while evolution is messy and has millions of permutations, physics does not have similar room for error as evolution. A tiny fraction of a difference in the constants would have resulted in nothing.

If that's what Miller chooses to believe then fine by him. But there is no evidence for that. There is no evidence that the laws of physics were put in place by an intelligent being with the intent that 14 billion years later on some speck of dust a bunch of hominids would start living in buildings, drinking coffee and dying of thousands of lovely different diseases.

Again there is no evidence for the universe being tuned, pointing to Y giving rise to X is not an indication that Y was tuned for X. The fact that Y had to be within certain parameters doesn't matter.

If you are going to say "tiny differences would have resulted in nothing" you better have some pretty strong peer-reviewed evidence. As I posted before the laws can be literally anything but as long as they allow stable structures that can self-replicate with error there is potential for life.

Finally if we reversed the universe back to just after the big bang it is highly unlikely it would happen this way again, the universe is only determinate to a certain point. Quantum uncertainty means that it would not be possible to set up this universe with the intent that a certain time later something will happen when there are so many variables between the beginning and that time.

 

[vjk2]

we don't know if there weren't trillions of universes before, true. But at the same time, there is NOTHING remotely resembling proof of these universes AS THERE exists proof of evolution. There is, however, proof of this universe, which we have made extensive study of. the trillions of preceding universes theory is in-fact..."just a theory"

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i am probably misunderstanding inflation. i thought it was something that happened early on then quit for no apparent reason, like me adjusting the volume on my i pod.

Even if we don't know the reason (as JaredJames's great Dara O'Briain quote points out) that doesn't mean that there isn't one. It also doesn't mean that the claim "it was tuned by intelligence" has any value.

 

[JaredJames]

i am probably misunderstanding inflation. i thought it was something that happened early on then quit for no apparent reason, like me adjusting the volume on my i pod.

Nope, it's still happening.

We observer it now.