Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics


by vjk2
Tags: exists, kenneth, mechanics, miller, quantum, thinks
Darken-Sol
Darken-Sol is offline
#91
May13-11, 08:20 PM
Darken-Sol's Avatar
P: 154
your connection with your god is your own. i know mine is. you can look for reasons to share this connection but there are none. if you doubt your gods existence or need to prove it try another one. god is simply an advanced template with which to compare our selves. science is a god, well, the entire collection of sciences. a means to apply permanence where there is none. a creator as opposed to creation running rampant, which it appears to do. structure amidst chaos. cause and effect and purpose.
thorium1010
thorium1010 is offline
#92
May13-11, 10:10 PM
P: 198
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.
Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.
Belief has nothing to do with the way physics of universe work. Sometimes faith or belief can cloud science. Having a belief (in god ) and then going out to look for certain things in universe that validates your belief, says more about your belief rather than workings of universe.

whatever scientists observe and predict within that observation has to have evidence or be experimentally verified. Belief (in god) so far has not produced any evidence. when you say there is a compelling reason, as said before Non of the sciences can validate this argument.
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#93
May14-11, 03:14 AM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.

Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.
You've taken A, linked it to B through nothing more than blind assumption and your own willing to do so and then declared it compelling.

There is nothing logical about it and certainly nothing to support it.

The whole premise is non-sense. Of course, you could provide some evidence as has been requested for the last 3 pages...
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#94
May14-11, 10:28 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,341
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.

Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.
Any evidence or logical arguments to back up that claim? If not it's just another faith-based claim
Dotini
Dotini is offline
#95
May14-11, 10:45 AM
PF Gold
P: 487
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that many prominent scientists such as Hawking adopt the uncomfortable and unobservable multiverse theory precisely because of the need for this universe to be random, i.e., free of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#96
May14-11, 11:02 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,341
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that many prominent scientists such as Hawking adopt the uncomfortable and unobservable multiverse theory precisely because of the need for this universe to be random, i.e., free of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve
What gave you that idea?
Dotini
Dotini is offline
#97
May14-11, 11:26 AM
PF Gold
P: 487
Quote Quote by ryan_m_b View Post
What gave you that idea?
"Hawking, like every other physicist, is confronted with powerful evidence of design, as he explains in his book:

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way…. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.(12)"


http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/t...efault.aspx#12

Thus, if you are a "modern scientist", you are forced by Hawking into choosing between a designer and a multiverse. Doesn't he imply you can't have it both ways - or even neither? This bothers me.
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#98
May14-11, 11:44 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,341
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
"Hawking, like every other physicist, is confronted with powerful evidence of design, as he explains in his book:

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way…. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.(12)"


http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/t...efault.aspx#12

Thus, if you are a "modern scientist", you are forced by Hawking into choosing between a designer and a multiverse. Doesn't he imply you can't have it both ways - or even neither? This bothers me.
I'm very skeptical about this source. For a start the author is claiming that Hawking is trying to come up with excuses not to believe in god, in actual fact Hawking is explaining in a pop science book the various ideas currently rattling around in the physics community. Neither Hawkins, nor any prominent scientist would bow to fine tuning as a valid argument.

Hawking is not forcing any scientists to follow anything, scientists do not defer to some high authority! Science is expressed through evidence, nothing else. Even if Hawking is suggesting that our options are designer or multiverse that doesn't make him right; just like any scientist he is bound by evidence.

None of this is getting us closer to any evidence for fine tuning as myself, Jared, FlexGunship and Thorium1010 have all asked for.
Dotini
Dotini is offline
#99
May14-11, 12:01 PM
PF Gold
P: 487
I apologize for that source. It was merely on a google search. Here's a better source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."[18]
Unlike Carter they restrict the principle to carbon-based life, rather than just "observers." A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant —, topics that fall under Carter's SAP.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[19]
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[20]

* "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
* "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
* "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.

[21]


I personally am not arguing for a designer or fine-tuning. I'm more concerned about multiverses, and I can see that the apparent trend in most levels of physics is to accept the multiverse in order that the universe not be non-random. Fine-tuning is evidently a strong argument for some highly regarded scientists. I sincerely want you to win this argument, but be aware that you're up against Stephen Hawking and a well-accepted fine tuning science literature.
pftest
pftest is offline
#100
May14-11, 12:11 PM
P: 271
Quote from Paul Davies:
Abstract:The oft-repeated claim that life is ‘written into’ the laws of nature is examined and criticised. Arguments are given in favour of life spreading between near-neighbour planets in rocky impact ejecta (transpermia), but against panspermia, leading to the conclusion that if life is indeed found to be widespread in the universe, some form of life principle or biological determinism must be at work in the process of biogenesis. Criteria for what would constitute a credible life principle are elucidated. I argue that the key property of life is its information content, and speculate that the emergence of the requisite information-processing machinery might require quantum information theory for a satisfactory explanation. Some clues about how decoherence might be evaded are discussed. The implications of some of these ideas for ‘fine-tuning’ are discussed.

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/p...verse%2079.pdf
Published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, which is in the PF list of accepted journals.

This is the wikipedia article that mentioned the paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
thorium1010
thorium1010 is offline
#101
May14-11, 12:29 PM
P: 198
First of all paul davies is a physicist not a biologist. He makes assertions that neither supported by evidence nor verified. Its like writing a popular article about making claims of one's pre conceived idea's. Again he is discussing philosophy and making claims which are not supported.


One could re-cast the concept of biogenesis in terms of a search problem: nature searches the chemical decision tree for a ‘target’ state – in this case the RNA world. But searching decision trees is one way that quantum mechanics can greatly improve efficiency
would welcome comments on this
pftest
pftest is offline
#102
May14-11, 01:31 PM
P: 271
Quote Quote by thorium1010 View Post
First of all paul davies is a physicist not a biologist. He makes assertions that neither supported by evidence nor verified. Its like writing a popular article about making claims of one's pre conceived idea's. Again he is discussing philosophy
Apparently his paper is good enough for a peer reviewed scientific journal.

and making claims which are not supported.
Which claims?
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#103
May14-11, 01:32 PM
P: 3,390
Please all be aware there is a difference between being fine tuned - which could happen by chance or be part of a multiverse etc etc - than there is being fine tuned by a god.

The claim here is that fine tuning is done by a god(s) to allow our form of life. That is what is being debated (or should be).
pftest
pftest is offline
#104
May14-11, 01:51 PM
P: 271
Quote from Fred Hoyle:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982ARA%26A..20....1H (page 17)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Published in "ANNUAL REVIEW OF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS", which is in the PF list of accepted journals.
Dotini
Dotini is offline
#105
May14-11, 01:51 PM
PF Gold
P: 487
Here are some (but maybe not all) choices to mull over:

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:

1. The absurd universe

Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

2. The unique universe

There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

3. The multiverse

Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.

4. Creationism

A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.

5. The life principle

There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.

6. The self-explaining universe

A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).

7. The fake universe

We live inside a virtual reality simulation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
SpectraCat
SpectraCat is offline
#106
May14-11, 02:25 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,395
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
I personally am not arguing for a designer or fine-tuning. I'm more concerned about multiverses, and I can see that the apparent trend in most levels of physics is to accept the multiverse in order that the universe not be non-random. Fine-tuning is evidently a strong argument for some highly regarded scientists. I sincerely want you to win this argument, but be aware that you're up against Stephen Hawking and a well-accepted fine tuning science literature.
My recollection is that Hawking supports the WAP, rather than the SAP, and does not support fine-tuning in the sense of being due to some sort of conscious entity. I believe his view can be summarized (as is consistent with the WAP) as: "We observe the universe to be as it is, because if it were different, we would likely not be here to observe it" .. i.e. the "privileged observer" hypothesis. It's been a while since I read "The Universe in a Nutshell", but I believe that in it he says he finds it *more plausible* that our universe represents just one of many "trials", rather than a singular trial that "just happened" to hit the right values.

Finally .. since this is about experimentally unverifiable interpretations of the universe, it is a level playing field, and everyone is equally entitled to their opinions. Provided that they are consistent with experimentally verifiable phenomena, it is largely irrelevant whether those opinions come from scientists, philosophers, or just some random dude you met on the street.
vjk2
vjk2 is offline
#107
May14-11, 09:44 PM
P: 74
Quote Quote by SpectraCat View Post
My recollection is that Hawking supports the WAP, rather than the SAP, and does not support fine-tuning in the sense of being due to some sort of conscious entity. I believe his view can be summarized (as is consistent with the WAP) as: "We observe the universe to be as it is, because if it were different, we would likely not be here to observe it" .. i.e. the "privileged observer" hypothesis. It's been a while since I read "The Universe in a Nutshell", but I believe that in it he says he finds it *more plausible* that our universe represents just one of many "trials", rather than a singular trial that "just happened" to hit the right values.

Finally .. since this is about experimentally unverifiable interpretations of the universe, it is a level playing field, and everyone is equally entitled to their opinions. Provided that they are consistent with experimentally verifiable phenomena, it is largely irrelevant whether those opinions come from scientists, philosophers, or just some random dude you met on the street.
This post I agree most on.

The reason I haven't posted "peer-reviewed" articles is b/c such discussions quickly...devolve into "if you read the 30 pg article I linked you would understand".

So I kept my argument to simple logic that can be reasoned within this thread.

The whole fine-tuning thing is a tangent anyways. I was really curious about quantum mechanics and the "soul"
thorium1010
thorium1010 is offline
#108
May14-11, 10:53 PM
P: 198
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
This post I agree most on.

The whole fine-tuning thing is a tangent anyways. I was really curious about quantum mechanics and the "soul"
What ? Why are you getting two unrelated things in your post. What has the soul got to do with quantum mechanics? (and there is a separate sub forum for quantum mechanics.)

Or you want to discuss "soul", which is not a scientific topic.There is nothing to discuss about the topic since it is not scientifically verifiable.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do I need Classical mechanics and waves in order to understand Quantum mechanics???? Academic Guidance 22
Do we know for sure if gravity exists in quantum states? Quantum Physics 32
What's the (Electron) Frequency, Kenneth? Quantum Physics 33
Kenneth Arnold UFO case falacies General Discussion 0