Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Kenneth Miller's views on the relationship between God, evolution, and quantum mechanics as presented in his book "Finding Darwin's God." Participants explore the implications of Miller's arguments regarding the existence of a deity in the context of scientific concepts like fine-tuning and free will, as well as the philosophical ramifications of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that Miller's arguments may resemble "God of the gaps" reasoning, suggesting that he places God in areas of scientific uncertainty.
  • One participant questions the validity of Miller's claim that the gravitational constant's specific value is necessary for life, proposing that life could still exist under different conditions.
  • Another participant presents two alternatives regarding the universe's fine-tuning: either a creator designed it or there are many universes with varying parameters, suggesting both options are equally problematic.
  • Some argue that the free will theorem implies a connection between human free will and the behavior of electrons, which could indicate a deeper relationship between mind and the universe.
  • One participant proposes that physical laws allow for self-replicating structures, leading to life that adapts to the universe rather than being created first.
  • Another alternative hypothesis suggests that free will may only exist in the minds of beings who believe they possess it, raising questions about the nature of free will itself.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of testable consequences for the proposed ideas, indicating a need for empirical validation in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the relationship between God, quantum mechanics, and the nature of free will. The discussion remains unresolved, with differing interpretations of Miller's arguments and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the philosophical implications of free will, which remain contentious and unresolved within the discussion.

  • #31
ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
vjk2 said:
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.
 
  • #33
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"
 
  • #34
Darken-Sol said:
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.
 
  • #35
Darken-Sol said:
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.
 
  • #36
vjk2 said:
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"

I'm still waiting for the evidence of fine tuning. Because right now it's no different to my "trillions of universes" idea.

As ryan has said, what we have now is not evidence of fine tuning.

I toss 10 heads in a row, it doesn't mean it was fine tuned for that outcome. It's purely the odds allowing it to happen.
 
  • #37
"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."

the laws cannot literally be anything. If the strong nuclear force were different, elements would not have been able to form. That is his conclusion by his reading of Stephen Hawking. as I said earlier...it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.
 
  • #38
vjk2 said:
"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."

the laws cannot literally be anything. If the strong nuclear force were different, elements would not have been able to form. That is his conclusion by his reading of Stephen Hawking. as I said earlier...it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

You are misunderstanding me, I meant the laws could have been literally anything. I am not suggesting that the laws can change within this universe, I'm saying it's entirely conceivable that the universe could have had different laws than the ones it has.

Again: do you have any evidence for tuning?
 
  • #39
JaredJames said:
Nope, it's still happening.

We observer it now.

oh my bad i thought that was expansion. I've confused the two before.
 
  • #40
Darken-Sol said:
oh my bad i thought that was expansion. I've confused the two before.

Oh, don't know then. Could be different. I thought they were the same thing.
 
  • #41
I"m not saying that you're saying that they can change within the universe :)

I'm saying that they could not have been anything. basic constants like the strong nuclear force constant, if different, would have made it impossible for water to form, let alone stable compounds. If it were different there literally would be no hydrogen, or there would be all hydrogen and nothing else. That's the point that miller makes.
 
  • #43
vjk2 said:
I"m not saying that you're saying that they can change within the universe :)

I'm saying that they could not have been anything. basic constants like the strong nuclear force constant, if different, would have made it impossible for water to form, let alone stable compounds. If it were different there literally would be no hydrogen, or there would be all hydrogen and nothing else. That's the point that miller makes.

I'm sorry if that's the impression you got but that was not what I was saying. I was referring to your assertion that if they had have been different then things would be different now.

My responses have been that if they had have been different life could have occurred if stable self-replicating structures were allowed.

Again for the Nth time

The fact that Y conditions gave rise to X formations is no evidence that Y was tuned for X.
 
  • #45
vjk2 said:
I"m not saying that you're saying that they can change within the universe :)

I'm saying that they could not have been anything. basic constants like the strong nuclear force constant, if different, would have made it impossible for water to form, let alone stable compounds. If it were different there literally would be no hydrogen, or there would be all hydrogen and nothing else. That's the point that miller makes.

you are just arguing that there "are" laws. which he is saying too. under these laws by chance we could have happened. there is not proof either way. the designer idea makes me more comfortable so i choose that. i don't need evidence i go with what works for me
 
  • #46
JaredJames said:
Thanks. Didn't know that.

i need to read up on how they differ, they sound similar. especially when thinking of that damn balloon.
 
  • #47
which is why I say it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

under these laws, yes, life is possible. but there are an infinite number of values that these laws could have taken. The strong nuclear force could have been anything from negative infinity to infinity. That they exist within that tiny little frame so that a periodic table of elements can form and from there evolution of species is miraculous, and evidence of divine intent.

these are the only values of the strong nuclear force and gravitational constant, it appears that allow for stable compounds to form.
 
  • #48
vjk2 said:
which is why I say it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

under these laws, yes, life is possible. but there are an infinite number of values that these laws could have taken. The strong nuclear force could have been anything from negative infinity to infinity. That they exist within that tiny little frame so that a periodic table of elements can form and from there evolution of species is miraculous, and evidence of divine intent.

these are the only values of the strong nuclear force and gravitational constant, it appears that allow for stable compounds to form.

Why do you insist that the 4 forces we observe are the only forces a universe can have?

And the notion that an improbability must require divine intervention to occur is not scientific at all. Without evidence all you have their is a statement of faith and those do not belong on this forum, from the PF rules (available here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380 )

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated
 
  • #49
vjk2 said:
which is why I say it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

under these laws, yes, life is possible. but there are an infinite number of values that these laws could have taken. The strong nuclear force could have been anything from negative infinity to infinity. That they exist within that tiny little frame so that a periodic table of elements can form and from there evolution of species is miraculous, and evidence of divine intent.

these are the only values of the strong nuclear force and gravitational constant, it appears that allow for stable compounds to form.

call it spontaneous symmetry breaking or descending from wu ji or gods plan, your taking a step without looking. even saying there was nothing goes too far for science. believe what you want everyone else does.
 
  • #50
JaredJames said:
I'm still waiting for the evidence of fine tuning. Because right now it's no different to my "trillions of universes" idea.

As ryan has said, what we have now is not evidence of fine tuning.

I toss 10 heads in a row, it doesn't mean it was fine tuned for that outcome. It's purely the odds allowing it to happen.
Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
 
  • #51
chronon said:
Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Actually I'm arguing;

-Physical laws that allow self-replicating (with error) structures could result in life

-The term "fine tuning" in the context of this thread suggests that the conditions in this universe were set by an intelligence

-There is no evidence that the conditions of the universe are what they are specifically so that the structures we see now can occur

-Whilst there may be evidence that altering the constants in the universe would disrupt it there is no evidence that the reason the constants are what they are is so that what we see can exist.
 
  • #52
chronon said:
Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

I'm not arguing we have things well set out for life, but that doesn't mean something fine tuned it to be that way. The argument being given here is "things appear finely tuned therefore something did that".

To quote from your wiki page:
Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."

I was going to mention this point. Just because we don't have a way of existing with things being different, doesn't mean something else couldn't have.

As per my coin toss example, just because something unlikely occurs, it doesn't mean someone caused that to happen (fine tuned it to occur). Sure, perhaps the particular circumstances were perfectly tuned for it to happen, but again that doesn't mean someone made it that way.

RE Bolded: I wasn't being serious, just throwing out something equally plausible as there being a god that fine tuned things.
Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

How lovely, perhaps you could point out where they invoke a god?
 
  • #53
chronon said:
Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.
 
  • #54
vjk2 said:
why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.

The difference is you are arguing that the conditions of this universe are what they are because some intelligent process deliberately caused it to be so specifically so that what we have could come to be.
 
  • #55
vjk2 said:
why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.

No, you're arguing a god(s) forced things this way for us. That is the context I've been reading throughout this.
 
  • #56
JaredJames said:
No, you're arguing a god(s) forced things this way for us. That is the context I've been reading throughout this.

Proponents of fine-tuning include physicist Paul Davies who has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
 
  • #57
And the line directly before that:
The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community.

And directly after it:
Other physicists such as Victor Stenger dispute fine-tuning, saying that even though "life as we know it would not exist if anyone of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.

Also note that the line you quote simply means people agree we have things pretty well set out for life. Not that they agree it was produced by something(one) such as a god. It also doesn't rule out it being freak occurrence and neither does it rule out other possibilities of life etc.
 
  • #58
JaredJames said:
And the line directly before that:


And directly after it:

Yes, some people disagree with the notion of a fine-tuned universe.
 
  • #59
vjk2 said:
Yes, some people disagree with the notion of a fine-tuned universe.

The line you quoted doesn't change what I wrote (the bit you quoted of me).

You are arguing for a god(s) or creator. That line, doesn't support your view. In fact, that almost strikes me as trying to pass off misinformation.
 
  • #60
JaredJames said:
The line you quoted doesn't change what I wrote (the bit you quoted of me).

You are arguing for a god(s) or creator. That line, doesn't support your view.

Who said that it had to? That's the notion. draw what conclusions you may from it.

and...read the book!
 

Similar threads

Graduate Do we need quantum mechanics to explain biological stuff?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality
  • · Replies 345 ·
12
Replies
345
Views
19K
Graduate Using quantum-secured communication for data transfering
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Big bang according to Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
Graduate Quantum Interest Conjecture and negative energy-density
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad What is the explanation for quantum correlations?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Undergrad A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
Graduate What is the true meaning of weak measurements in quantum mechanics?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Quantum effects from an imperfect absorber
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Graduate Could MWI create universes with fundamentally different physical laws?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K