http://home.entouch.net/dmd/casino.htm
Free Hit Counter
Visitors to these pages since
12-29-97
Related Pages,
Days of Proclamation
Why I beleive Genesis is Historically Accurate
Plain Reading of Genesis 1
The Bible's Way of Telling Us the Earth is Old
Theory for Creationists
Evidence for One World Language
How God used Evolution
Early Church Fathers were not YECs--John Tobin's Essay
Genesis 1:11, Why the Bible teaches evolution
But, that does not mean it is a mistake to look for design in the laws governing the universe. That is the approach I am going to take. I am looking for two things out of this exercise: a clear statement to my fellow Christians that I do believe in design, and discussion from those opposed to design in order to sharpen my views and eliminate any places of error. (Note to David Tyler: this is how it should be done)
Two definitions are in order. Science is that which is based upon things observable; metaphysics involves things unobservable. My Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (Prentice-Hall, 1979) defines metaphysical as “beyond the physical or material; incorporeal, supernatural, or transcendental.” (p. 1132) The word transcendent has the definition: “In philosophy, beyond the limits of possible experience and, hence (in Kantianism) beyond human knowledge.” (p. 1937) In this essay, I will use the term metaphysical to mean those things beyond human knowledge.
The Metaphysical Casino
This essay will examine the anthropic principle and its implications to the issue of design. Let’s start with a discussion by Penrose on the specialness of the universe which obeys the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He says:
“How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim
for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of
thermodynamics and with what we now observe?” Roger Penrose The Emperor's
New Mind (New York: Penguin books 1991), p 344
After some discussion, he says:
"This now tells us how precise the creator's aim must have been: namely
to an accuracy of
one part in 1010^123
This is an extraordinary figure. One could not
possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation; it
would be '1' followed by 10123 successive '0's!” Roger Penrose
The Emperor's New Mind (New York: Penguin books 1991), p 344
Copyright respective of citation source.
“What we appear to find is that there is a constraint
WEYL = 0
(or something very like this) at initial
space-time singularities—but not at final singularities—and this seems to be
what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
Roger Penrose The Emperor's New Mind (New York: Penguin books 1991), p
344-345
Clearly this is a very special universe with these kinds of odds against it. Does this prove design? No, but it clearly marks this universe as a very, very special subset of all possible universes. For those who don’t know what WEYL is it is the part of gravity that causes tides and distortion. For WEYL to equal zero requires that there be no distortion at the time of the Big Bang. But Penrose further notes:
If the constraint WEYL=0 is removed, then we have a high entropy big bang
also with WEYL= [infinity] there. Such a universe would be riddled with white
holes, and there would be no second law of thermodynamics, in gross
contradiction with experience." Roger Penrose The Emperor's New Mind
(New York: Penguin books 1991), p 341
Smolin agrees. He notes that the odds of having the universe’s parameters
chosen by chance and having stars which last for billions of years is quite
small (note this calculation is only for producing stars, not producing what
Penrose was discussing).
“Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a
universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given
what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those
readers who are interested, in the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in
round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10229.” Lee Smolin,
Life of the Cosmos, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p.44-45
The entire issue here is that without these precise physical properties in the universe, life as we know it could not exist. Small changes rule us out of the game.
The normal materialist answer to this problem is to postulate that our universe is merely one of an infinitude of universes, all with properties which are randomly selected (or alternatively, our region of the universe – all we can see—is a special area out of an infinity of other regions which have properties selected at random). This is the Weak Anthropic Principle(WAP). Martin Rees said:
“‘We seem to have three choices’ in accounting for this fine-tuning,
says Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal of England, in Our Cosmic Habitat. ‘We
can dismiss it as happenstance, we can acclaim it as the workings of providence,
or (my preference) we can conjecture that our universe is a specially favoured
domain in a still vaster multiverse.’ If this multiverse contained every
possible set of laws and conditions, then the existence of our own world with
its particular characteristics would be inevitable.” Keith Ward, “Meeting
of Minds, New Scientist, (Nov. 27, 2004), p. 19
“According to WAP, it is possible to contemplate the existence of many
possible universes, each possessing different defining parameters and
properties. Observers like ourselves obviously can exist only in that subset
containing universes consistent with the evolution of carbon-based life.” John
D. Barrow and Frank. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 19
But what WAP does, is replace one unobservable entity, God, with an infinity of unobservable entities—other universes or other regions in this universe. From a logical point of view, the materialist is no better off, indeed may be less better off, than the theist who has to posit only one unobserved entity (does Ockham’s Razor apply here?). The problem with WAP is that there is not one shred of observational evidence for their existence, and there never will be (even if David Deutsch’s efforts in quantum computing prove correct). The multiverse is as metaphysical an assumption as God, yet the materialist fails to see what they are doing. They are going to the metaphysical casino to overcome the odds against the existence of a universe amicable to life. Rolling the dice rather than postulating simplicity.
Another critique of the anthropic coincidences often made says that there may not have been a choice in the selection of the parameters of the universe, in other words, the laws of nature require what we see. This can’t be so because even physicists can think up alternative scenarios.
“If any theoretical physicist were paid a dollar for every possible
universe he could think up, he could get rich very quickly. Would these
universes be mathematically beautiful? For the most part maybe not. Would they
be such that if they existed life would be able to evolve in them? Probably not,
in the overwhelming majority of cases. But who says that those things should
matter? The simple and absolutely undeniable fact is that the universe did not
have to have the particular laws it does have by any sort of logical or
mathematical necessity. In other words, God had a choice-in fact, an infinite
number of choices.” Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith,
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), p. 148
Indeed, one can even come up with a universe without light:
“I have already discussed why the strength of the electromagnetic force is
crucial to the evolution of life. But an even more basic fact about the world is
that there is such a thing as electromagnetism at all. This did not have to be
the case. It is quite simple to write down laws of physics that would describe a
universe without electromagnetism. In fact, all one has to do is take the
equations of our present Standard Model of particle physics and leave out a few
"terms" (i.e., pieces of the equations)." Stephen M. Barr,
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
2003), p. 137
This second critique begs an important question, where did such a law which
results in such special circumstances come from? Why does it result in a
universe which actually exists? What gives it the power? As Hawking says, what
breathes fire into the equations? One can say that it just happened, but why?
Symmetry
But these probabilities aren’t the only indications of specialness for the universe. Smolin only used the strength of the forces for his calculation, not the form of the laws, which are also important. All our laws are related to a universe with 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions. What if there had been 4 or 10 macroscopic spatial dimensions? If there were anything other than what we have, we could not have stable orbits or fidelitous communication. The laws of physics which govern the wave equation only allow for successful communication in a universe with 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions. Without successful communication, our brains could not tell our arms to bring the spoon with the food up to our mouths. One can conceive (in deed we have the math for) universes with any dimensionality.
The laws of nature appear to be based upon symmetries. On this list we have discussed symmetries before with Socratism. Symmetries in translation, rotation, and time result in conservation laws:
”For example, conservation of linear momentum
comes from the invariance of the system to spatial translation and that
invariance is a result of the homogeneity of space. That is, if one part of
space is like another, then it does not matter where in space the system is
located. If that is true, momentum will be conserved since there are no external
forces. Similarly, angular momentum conservation occurs when there is invariance
to rotation of the system, which will be the case if space is isotropic. Energy
is conserved if there is invariance to translation in time which will occur if
time is homogeneous.” Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick Quantum Physics
(New York: John Wiley & Sons 1985), p. 654
Why does nature’s laws take on a form which have such symmetries? One
certainly can think of lots of universes without such symmetries, indeed the
possible universes lacking such symmetries vastly out number those having it.
Even Relativity is based upon symmetries. Stephen Barr, professor of physics at
the University of Delaware says:
“In popular expositions of relativity theory, and even in some textbook
treatments, the idea of symmetry is not emphasized or even mentioned. However,
in actuality, the entire content of relativity is contained in the statement
that the laws of physics are Lorentz symmetric. The Lorentz symmetry group is a
group of rotational symmetries.” Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and
Ancient Faith, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), p. 100
Barr further notes:
“As remarkable as the flavor SU(3) and Lorentz symmetries are, they are only a small part of the story. Principles of symmetry are really at the heart of all of modern physics. For example, every one of the four basic forces of nature gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force-is based in a profound way on principles of symmetry. The modern theory of gravity is Einstein's Theory of General relativity, proposed in 1916 and repeatedly confirmed since by experiment. General Relativity is based on symmetries called "general coordinate invariance" and "local Lorentz symmetry." Electromagnetism is based on something called "gauge symmetry." (This name was coined by Hermann Weyl in 1919. He was also the first to appreciate the fundamental importance of this symmetry.) In the 1960s and 1970s, physicists began to realize that the other two forces of nature-the strong and weak forces-are also based upon fundamental symmetries, and that these symmetries are mathematically similar to the "gauge symmetry" of electromagnetism.”
“When we say that all these forces are "based on" symmetries, we mean several things. Most profoundly, the very fact that there are such forces in nature is a consequence of these symmetries. If nature did not have these symmetries, it would also not have these forces. In addition, the characteristics of these forces are controlled by their symmetries. The structures of the mathematical laws governing these forces are to a large extent determined by their underlying symmetries. So much is this the case that modern fundamental physics is not so much driven by the search for new kinds of matter or new forces, but for the new and more powerful principles of symmetry that are suspected to lie beneath the surface of what is presently understood.”
“A good illustration of this came in the 1960s
and 1970s. The discovery in that period that the three non-gravitational forces
are all based on symmetries of the "gauge" type led to the realization
that a mathematical unification of the theories of these forces could be
achieved. The work of Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg,
culminating in Weinberg's classic 1967 paper, showed how two of the
forces-electromagnetism and the weak force-were unified. This
"electroweak" theory has been dramatically confirmed in numerous
experimental tests.” Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith,
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), p.102
At each deeper level of physics we seem to find more and more symmetry. Indeed,
when Einstein presented his four dimensional theory of gravitation, Kaluza and
Klein showed that that symmetric theory could be subsumed into a 5 dimensional
symmetric matrix and then explain electromagnetism and gravity in one 5D matrix!
And that is what the electroweak theory did. It subsumed two forces of nature
into a higher symmetry. Brian Greene writes:
“In fact, the reduction in symmetry arising from the formation of the Higgs
ocean is more extensive still. Above 1015 degrees, when the Higgs field had yet
to condense, not only were all species of fundamental matter particles massless,
but also, without the resistive drag from a Higgs ocean, all species of force
particles were massless as well. (Today, the W and Z messenger particles of the
weak nuclear force have masses that are about 86 and 97 times the mass of the
proton.) And, as originally discovered in the 1960s by Sheldon Glashow, Steven
Weinberg, and Abdus Salam, the masslessness of all the force particles was
accompanied by another, fantastically beautiful symmetry.” Brian Greene, The
Fabric of the Cosmos, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 264
And the symmetries seem to continue Consider this diagram from Kaku. Gravity is
controlled by a 4x4 matrix, of 16 elements. It occupies the region in the
diagram below marked Einstein (the dots are there only to make this diagram
appear correctly on this board so don’t count the dots as entries in the
matrix). Electromagnetism adds a 5th dimension to the matrix and is marked by
Maxwell. The Standard Model of Particle Physics expands the matrix again by
incorporating the components of the Yang-Mills field, and if supergravity is the
correct approach to the world, the quarks and leptons will occupy the areas
marked. This would give a highly symmetric matrix which controls all the world’s
interactions. Where did this symmetry come from? Why is it there?
After Michio Kaku, Hyperspace, (New York: Anchor Books, 1994), p. 146
The nth dimensional Riemannian matrix
Einstein |
M| |
| A|Yang-
|Quarks
| X| Mills
|&
|
W| |Leptons
|
E| |
|
L| |
|
L| |
-----------------------|
Maxwell | | |
-----------------------|
| |
Yang-Mills | |
----------------------------------
Quarks
|
&
Leptons
|
So the question comes down to this: Why are the laws of the universe so symmetric? This symmetry is quite necessary for our existence. These laws produce relationships between the masses of the particles which if altered even slightly would render our existence impossible. An example, the mass of the proton and neutron are quite close, but the neutron is slightly more massive than the proton. If it were the other way round, then the protons would all decay into neutrons and there would be no chemistry. The margin for error is quite tiny, yet the symmetric laws of nature produce quarks of just the right mass to make the proton be slightly less massive than the neutron!
Everytime physics moves to a bigger explanatory framework, it seems to find even more symmetry. Like a giant mathematical crystal, this tensor continues to enlarge each time we successfully explain a deeper level of physics. Where did this symmetry come from? Did it just happen?
Back to the start of this question. Do we see design? Well we can’t prove it, but such symmetry, and such probabilities, imply something is going on. If one must postulate an infinity of unobservable metaphysical entities in order to avoid postulating one unobservable metaphysical entity, who is squirming more on this difficult issue?
Biology
I think ID is making a big mistake trying to find design in biology because evolution occurred and is capable of bringing forth such animals as we see, but that doesn’t mean that there is no design. Indeed, I would propose that the design of biology lies in the ultimate structure of the DNA sequence space. I need to define what a phase or sequence space is.
Say you have a 2 base pair DNA. There are 16
different
combinations. This can be laid out in a 2-dimensional space.
A . . . .
T . . . .
C . . . .
G . . . .
A T C G
Each dot represents the entire genome. For a 3 base pair DNA, one can use a 3D volume in which each point represents the entire DNA. For a 3.5 billion human genome, one must use a 3.5 billion dimensional space. The various points in this space have various functionality. Some points allow creatures to live, other sequences are certain death. Species form a cloud in sequence space, each has its unique DNA and thus occupy a unique point in sequence space, bu they are not far from their compatriots. Evolution consists of a population moving through sequence space. When a species finds two caverns of viability coming off the one cavern they occupy, the species will split if there is selection pressure taking the population in two different directions through this cave system.
What I postulate is that there was design in the phase space or sequence space of DNA. the 4 million base pairs of E. coli make a 4 million dimensional sequence space. Each organism occupies a single point in that multidimenstional mathematical world. When a mutation occurs, the organism moves from one point to another. Some points bring about death. Other points in this space allow the organism to live.
Now when one organism evolves to another, there must be a path of viability in this space (or a cavern of viability) To put things in a 2 dimensional perspective (see diagram) if one wants to evolve an animal from point A in the sequence space to point B, there must be a clear path where all the points allow for viability. There can be gaps in the path, which require 2 mutations to jump over, but such blockages, lower the probability that one will get from A to B.
Here is the diagram. The occasional period is in there for spacing purposes only.
6 A d d d d d
5 l l d d d d
4 d l d d d d
3 l l d B d d
2 l d d l d d
1 l l l l d d
1 2 3 4 5 6
where l is a dna sequence space point leading to life and d is a DNA sequence leading to death. The place I posit design is in the design or layout of these caverns of viability. God could have pre-programmed life’s evolution via this approach turning what is considered a product of pure chance into a quasi-deterministic event. The reason this approach is possible is that we do not have any idea why should one sequence of DNA leads to life and other leads to death? We simply can’t calculate from first principles the rules that govern viability.
While I certainly can’t prove design with this
proposal, it is clear that not all DNA sequences are equally likely to result in
a living being. So stalemate with the materialist view. But logically both
positions are on equal footing—faith.
When animals, with their intricate functionality are examined, they look like
Paley’s watches but Paley’s analogy does fall to Dawkins’ critique of the
blind watchmaker(unless the sequence space constraints are correct). Evolution
can make this type of watch. But the issue of design is much higher than Dawkins
realizes. Dawkins needs to explain the factory which produced those watches,
which may include subtle pre-programming of the DNA space. Barr writes:
“Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs
watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point. But that is
absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than
the watches themselves? Paley, if still alive, would be entitled to ask Dawkins
how his Blind Watchmaker came to be there. Perhaps Dawkins would answer that it
was produced by a Blind "Blind Watchmaker" Maker.” Stephen M.
Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 2003), p.111