TPF : Cosmology and Evolution

[Gnomon]

This sounds defensive. — Tom Storm

My mashup of 180 and T.Storm comments was indeed defensive. He aggressively and dismissively attacks my posts with implications that my personal ideas are merely parroted religious doctrines. Since I no longer dialog with him, I sometimes get in a Parthian shot in a post to someone else. I apologize if the arrow came too close for comfort.

PARTHIAN SHOT
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyi0jkAobjTWOcmzwwSQ5uSAqfcQI-VWEl0qI8Xx-vk0X09kK2DNDYmCogL9ASYwZ-MPM&usqp=CAU

[Gnomon]

Frankly, I can't help what I beleive. I have read enough to know something of what's out there and I was for many years connected to the Theosophical Society in Melbourne, so it's not like I sit with Dawkins.

For me, philosophy is not so much a search for truth or reality but a search for models and ideas that I can justify. Sure it's fraught. But so are most other approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure you can. Adjusting your own beliefs is a primary goal of philosophy. The alternative is Blind Faith in an adopted model devised by others. My goal is to construct a belief model of my own. It's similar to some others, but also different.

In college I looked into Theosophy. Like Masonic philosophy, I can see the appeal of the general worldview. But I don't have any experience of Mysticism, so I can't relate to the ecstatic communion with God.

Dawkins has been described as an "angry atheist", but I found him open-minded enough to admit that Deism was not contrary to Science.

[Gnomon]

It's a pretty carefully put-together OP, but on an unpopular topic. — Wayfarer

The OP was intended to be a book review blog post, for an almost non-existent audience. But at the last minute, I thought, hey why not stir-up some controversy on the Philosophy Forum? At least I get more feedback that way. Unfortunately, most of the feedback is of the Ad Hominem and Straw Man type, as I expected. Consequently, I haven't learned much so far.

PS___Although I don't agree with Meyer's religion, I find his scientific summaries to be very well done.

[Gnomon]

I think there is another, quite independent, way of undermining the argument from fine-tuning. — Clearbury

We only have evidence for one Big Bang and a single Singularity. So, are you placing your Faith in an imaginary chance-driven infinite series of bangs (Multiverse) to try-out all those alternative settings? Sounds like a new twist on a medieval Scholastic theory for the same old eternal creator deity, except presumed to be blind, deaf & dumb (e.g. Tychism) instead of cosmically intelligent.

Another enthusiastically postulated alternative explanation to avoid the implications of deliberate (non-chance) tuning of Big Bang settings was the 26 dimensional String Theory, which blossomed into dozens of weird variations, none with any supporting physical evidence. Would you believe that String Theory was motivated, not by scientific inquiry, but by the discomfort of scientists with the design implications of Big Bang fine-tuning? ST was supposed to fix the "flatness problem". Yet, as Meyer said in the book : "both the homogeneity and the flatness problems are only considered problems by those who regarded the existence of fine tuning a problem".

Today, String Theory has been abandoned by most physicists because it was leading them down the rabbit hole. Beside, some of its essential predictions (supersymmetry) have failed to materialize over 20 years. So, the fine-tuning evidence remains a problem for those who prefer an accidental universe. Has your alternative produced any plausible evidence, besides elaborate estimates of cosmic odds?

The Greek goddess Tyche is the goddess of chance, fortune, and fate. ___Google AI overview

The "flatness problem" in the Big Bang theory refers to the observation that our universe appears to be very close to perfectly flat, which would require incredibly precise initial conditions in the early universe, making it seem like a strange coincidence that the density of matter was just right to achieve this flatness; essentially, if the density had been slightly higher or lower, the universe would be significantly curved instead of flat today. ___Google AI overview

String theory is a complex theory that has been the subject of much debate and skepticism. While it has passed many mathematical and theoretical tests, it has not yet been proven to be the fundamental theory of nature. Some say that string theory has been superseded by other theories, while others say that the theory has been extended but not progressed much in understanding the physical world. ___Google AI overview

[Gnomon]

You're inviting scorn quoting Discovery Institute entries on this site, most people won't even look at them. I'm wary of them also, even though I agree with ID proponents about the philosophical shortcomings of naturalism and I do look at that site from time to time. I've read the reviews of Signature in the Cell and I don't think it's all bullshit. It's more that I find their reading of the Bible more problematic than the science. — Wayfarer

Oh, yes, scathing scorn is the default philosophical argument for faithful Naturalist/Materialists. And they don't seem to be aware of the deficiencies of their own alternative explanations. You seem to be unafraid to go against the grain of this forum. Why do you even bother? As long as their slings & arrows are made of information & ideas instead of mass & matter, I will survive.

I knew going in that I would get knee-jerk responses to Intelligent Design arguments. But the Discovery Institute is careful to present arguments that could make sense, not just to true-believers, but also to those with some extensive knowledge of modern science. And Meyer's book is exemplary in its appeal to reason instead of faith. There is no "reading of the Bible" in the book. And there is no "come to Jesus" chapter. It's just a thorough presentation of atheist arguments in favor of a random Chance world, along with counter-arguments to refute them.

Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind --- A Chorus of Big Bangs ---is quoted saying "without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the the ID (intelligent design) critics." So, Stephen Meyer has provided a comprehensive summary of the questions to be answered. He also gives several scientists an opportunity to respond, so you can see both sides of the design controversy, presented rationally and without rancor.

I have never bothered to read the various Intelligent Design books, in part because I was raised to believe in the designer they are defending. Now I'm looking for evidence of a different kind of designer : one who designs with intelligent Information instead of thus-saith-the-lord. Causal Information (e.g. physical energy) is the kind of creative Intelligence that my non-religious science-based worldview is grounded upon. So, on that point, I am in agreement with Susskind*1.



*1. Leonard Susskind said Information is indestructible. What kind of information does he mean?
Information is key in the universe. The universe needs to constantly "compute what the present must be like".
https://www.quora.com/Leonard-Susskind- ... es-he-mean

[Gnomon]

Thus, no explanatory advantage comes from positing a designer. The odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out that way is the same as the odds that chance would produce it. — Clearbury

Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.

"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction.

Which is why cosmologists have imagined a variety of non-God alternative Cosmic Causes (e.g. Multiverse ; Many Worlds) for which there is no physical evidence, but only metaphysical inferences. Long story short : I don't think the Cause of the Big Bang "wanted the universe to turn out that way". Instead, the initial conditions of the universe --- like the computer settings of Evolutionary Algorithms*1 --- were intended to be loosely bound and open to a variety of outcomes.

In other words : Free Will (maybe Schopenhauer's Will). So, the intention of the Programmer was to allow the universe to find its own state path through a limited set of possibilities. Hence, homo sapiens was just one instance of a googleplex of possibilities, not the apple of god's eye.

*1. An evolutionary algorithm is an evolutionary AI-based computer application that solves problems by employing processes that mimic the behaviors of living things. As such, it uses mechanisms that are typically associated with biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation and recombination.
https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/glossar ... -algorithm

Well, now the odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out the way it actually did, is 1 in 10 trillion. And that is the same probability that it would just turn out that way by chance. (And again, it does not matter what the odds are, the odds are the same either way). — Clearbury

You seem to interpret the probabilities to be in favor of random chance. But Roger Penrose --- Nobel laureate and certified mathematical genius --- reached a different conclusion. His Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis*2 used the notion of a negative "Censor" (a suppressor of something) instead of a positive "Designer" (creator of something) to characterize the "unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". He showed that there were 10^10^101 possible configurations of mass-energy, but only one actual arrangement (the singularity/seed) that cosmologists have inferred to be the origin of space-time and everything we now experience.

So, "the number that Penrose calculated -- 1 in 10^10^123 -- provided a quantitative measure of the unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". Does that sound like a dumb accident to you, or an intelligent intentional censorship of zillions of possibilities to allow the design of a cosmic system with only a single pattern of 26 cosmic & physical constants?


*2. According to Roger Penrose's theories, the possible entropy values for the universe at its initial state are considered to be extremely low, bordering on a state of near-perfect order, which is a key component of his "Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis" and the idea of a "low-entropy initial condition" for the universe. ___Google AI overview

[Gnomon]

Interesting point of view. Personally, I see no signs of intentionality or teleology. My impression is that those who believe they see it, are basing it on a retrospective analysis of the chain of events that resulted in our existence. Such an analysis shows that our existence is grossly improbable.
Why should that matter? Improbable things are bound to occur in a vast, old universe.

What do you mean by "the contingency of ontology"? It seems to me that the fundamental ground of existence is metaphysically necessary (whatever it is), and the only contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy. — Relativist

Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of Existence. If that question does not interest you, then you do you, and I'll do me. Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity.

When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?.

Then he, perhaps jokingly, referred to the Cause of that "grossly improbable" existence as the work of a Cosmic Censor. That reminds me of Darwin's hypothetical Selector who censored (to weed out) the unfit random possibilities put forth by the Evolutionary mechanism, allowing only the fittest to go on to the next stage. You can choose your own analogy for an ontological censor. Most people call it "God". I call it Primordial Cause.

Yes, improbable things do happen in our ancient world. Yesterday, my alma mater's pitiful football team beat the odds to defeat a team supposedly bound for the national playoffs. Yet Penrose's odds do not apply to our space-time world, but to a hypothetical time before time. If such fortuitous events don't matter to you, that's OK with me. Just don't tell me that I shouldn't speculate or conjecture about the original ontological event on a Philosophy Forum.

PS___ I may address the Intentionality question in another post.

Cosmic censorship hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ce ... hypothesis

↪Clearbury

↪Tom Storm

[Gnomon]

"Extremely" contingent? Doesn't that just mean extremely improbable? How is that different from what I said? There are many different ways the universe could have evolved, and each of them is improbable. When all possibilities are equally improbable, it's a certainty that the outcome will be improbable, so it's not anomolous (and not "miraculous"). — Relativist

No. Actually, "contingent" means dependent on some outside force*1. The contingent state, absent some causal input, is indeed "improbable", in the sense that nothing changes. A static state has indeterminate possibilities, and no probabilities. This unchanging state is "anomalous" in the sense that it has no properties, no probabilities, and nothing to relate to.

Imagine a hypothetical pre-big-bang state, whose only property is an arbitrary definition (like Zero or Infinity), and in which all alternative states (patterns of properties) are equally possible --- and "equally improbable" --- because none are actual. Then input some outside force to upset the balance of non-existent internal forces. The effect of that input is to cause a new state, a pattern change. And the new state is contingent upon the causal force*2. Therefore, the new state --- in this case a new world --- is contingent upon some Aristotelian First Cause*3.

The Contingent Cause is "miraculous" in that it comes from outside the natural system that we have evidence for. It's "anomalous" in that it's unpredictable or unexpected : a bolt from the blue. It's "improbable" in that nothing changes without some input of Energy, Force, Causation.

Prior to the Big Bang theory, scientists could confidently assume that the universe itself was self-existent. But the undeniable evidence from Cosmology*4 is that our temporary world is contingent upon some external causation. Which philosophers for millennia have labeled as First Cause, Logos, or God. What would you call the Contingent Cause that precipitated the Big Bang and the emergence of space-time*4 from a background of who-knows-what?*5 The only alternative to space-time is Infinity-Eternity.


*1. The meaning of CONTINGENT is dependent on or conditioned by something else.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent

*2. A contingent cause is a cause that explains the existence of a contingent being, which is a being that could not have existed. The cosmological argument is a line of reasoning that uses the idea of contingent beings to argue for the existence of a necessary being. ___Google AI overview

*3. First Cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause

*4. According to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, spacetime began approximately 13.8 billion years ago when the universe rapidly expanded from a tiny, dense point known as a singularity, marking the start of both space and time as we understand them. ___Google AI overview

*5. The cause of the Big Bang is still a mystery, but scientists have many ideas:
Quantum physics shows that some events happen randomly and without a cause. This means that the Big Bang might not have had a cause, or that we might not be aware of it. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Those random events occur only within the context of space-time-matter-energy. Hence the mystery (miracle?) of an unexplained beginning to space-time. Your guess is as good as mine, and that's why Ontology is a perennial topic of debate for philosophers.

[Gnomon]

Quantum indeterminacy fits this, but it seems applicable to any conceivable form of contingency.

I'm inclined to believe there is a "first cause" (F) - something that exists uncaused (i.e. its existence is brute fact). F is not contingent, because there is no prior cause to account for (F or ~F). Therefore F exists necessarily. This (assumed) fact of a first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality. As I said in my above post to RougeAI: It seems less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned). — Relativist


I agree that Quantum Indeterminacy (randomness) is a factor in physical contingency : this before that. But the Ontological contingency of the whole world --- something from nothing --- would be a priori instead of a posteriori. Hence, the fundamental randomness of the physical world must be either an improbable accident*1, or something like an intentional act of a cosmic Designer, in order to allow free choice in both physics and in psychology. In other words, the existential path into the future is not pre-determined, but is post-determined by acts and choices within the world system.

Your probability estimate*2 would be plausible if the universe was eternal and exists (just happens to be) without any reason or cause. But the Big Bang beginning of space-time raises the question of what came before (e.g. timelessness, changelessness). And the odds of accidental creation of a dynamic universe*3, and questioning sentient creatures, would seem to be astronomically unlikely.


*1. Improbable Accidental Existence : with no criteria for judging (posterior probability), such a conclusion would not qualify for probability or credibility.

*2. Bayesian probability criteria include:
Posterior probability: The updated probability after considering evidence
Prior probability: The probability before considering evidence
Likelihood: The probability of the evidence given the belief is true
___ Google AI overview

*3. The Accidental Universe :
by physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Unive ... 0521286921

[Gnomon]

You might be interested to know that this book got a savage review in the New York Times from David Albert, who is a professor of physics and expert in interpretations of quantum physics: — Wayfarer

Yes. Meyer's book discusses such alternative Something From Nothing theories in his chapter : The Cosmological Information Problem. He says Krauss' book "attempted to describe how material particles emerged from preexisting energy-rich fields in a preexisting space" : the hypothetical Quantum Foam*1. Meyer also notes that physicist Alexander Vilenkin "showed a keen sense of the paradoxical or even contrary aspects of invoking a mathematical equation developed in a human mind as the cause of an actual universe". Talk about violations of Parsimony! Which is simpler : a preternatural creative quantum Field (theoretical framework in a human mind) or an eternal creative Intellect (analogous to a human mind)?

PS___ Meyer goes on to ask "how can a mathematical equation create an actual physical universe?" Then, he quotes Stephen Hawking, who asked "what is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"


*1. "Nothing" turns out to be "Quantum Foam" with the laws of Quantum Mechanics already built in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comm ... _universe/