Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

[Darken-Sol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/tabid/602/articleid/10745/cbmoduleid/881/default.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]

"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/tabid/602/articleid/10745/cbmoduleid/881/default.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]

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]

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/papers/HowBioFriendlyistheUniverse%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]

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]

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]

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]

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&A..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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dotini]

Consciousness may have to do with quantum entanglement. IMHO, we need to correctly explain gravity, quantum entanglement and consciousness before we can grapple with the origin of the universe.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[JaredJames]

Getting further away from the OP with every post.

No evidence has been provided for the issue of a god(s) being responsible for apparent fine tuning. This thread is going in circles and should be locked.

 

[thorium1010]

Consciousness may have to do with quantum entanglement. IMHO, we need to correctly explain gravity, quantum entanglement and consciousness before we can grapple with the origin of the universe.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

If you want to discuss philosophy, there is a philosophy forum under general discussion sub forum. What is the connection between gravity, quantum entanglement and consciousness ?

Why don't you just simply address the OP, instead of getting new topics within this thread.

 

[Dotini]

If you want to discuss philosophy there is a philosophy forum under general discussion sub forum. What is the connection between gravity, quantum entanglement and conciseness ?

Why don't you just simply address the OP, instead of getting new topics within this thread.

I want to discuss science, not philosophy. "Soul" and "God" are philosophy. Gravity, consciousness and quantum effects are science. Here, for reference, is the OP, which vjk2 recanted to some degree by later bringing in soul:

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?

In short, I feel that while the OP is somewhat incoherent, I've been sticking with the question closer than you.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[thorium1010]

Which claims?

claims such as this

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

Nature is neither deterministic nor seeking a direction for something. And what is a chemical decision tree ? It seems the whole article he is trying to give nature a purpose, which in my opinion is wrong.

The oldest bacterial fossils are about 3.5 billion years and it took another billion years for eukaryotes to form. IF you look at the timescales and the fossil records, what exactly about these speaks about decision making tree or purpose.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html"

 

[thorium1010]

Gravity, consciousness and quantum effects are science.

Yes, indeed they are science. But I still don't see the connection between consciousness and other two.

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

yes he does and very often.

as proof that there is...a deity evident in the gravitational constant among others.

which was the whole discussion int the thread , where is the evidence.

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.

which is what he is exactly doing placing god, when he can't explain why the gravitational constant ( or any other constants ) are just the way they are.

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

thats what is happening in the whole thread, there is nothing to reconcile unless there is evidence forthcoming.

In short, I feel that while the OP is somewhat incoherent, I've been sticking with the question closer than you.

well you brought in consciousness, which was neither mentioned in the OP nor in the discussion about miller's book

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This thread isn't going anywhere. Presenting claims and opinions (from yourself, a scientist or any random person) is not evidence. Hard data gained through experimentation would be nice.

I'm also getting pretty sick and tired of reading threads where people start linking consciousness and quantum physics in some vague mystic manner. If it's not in there there should definitely be something in the rules about learning a subject before invoking it, especially as 'evidence' for the paranormal.

Over a hundred posts later, 8 pages and nearly 2000 views we end up with claims, opinions, the supernatural and no evidence. This should be locked

 

[pftest]

claims such as this

The very next sentence to that quote is a reference to a source:

For example, Farhi & Gutmann (1998) have demonstrated an exponential improvement in search times for certain quantum decision trees.

Nature is neither deterministic nor seeking a direction for something. And what is a chemical decision tree ? It seems the whole article he is trying to give nature a purpose, which in my opinion is wrong.

Id say that question is unanswered, so we cannot say it is wrong. Talking about nature in general, it is true there is purpose in it. Making a cup of tea because it tastes good is an example.

The oldest bacterial fossils are about 3.5 billion years and it took another billion years for eukaryotes to form. IF you look at the timescales and the fossil records, what exactly about these speaks about decision making tree or purpose.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html"

In the quote he talks about the "RNA world" and the paper is about the origin of life, not the subsequent evolution of it.

 

[Evo]

Thread is going in circles. Closed.