Inflation, String Theory, Evolution, Anthropic Principle

[NumberTenOx]

These are four established scientific theories in various stages of development. When combined they provide a powerful – to me – almost complete explanation of creation. I am not an expert so I may have some of the details wrong.

Inflation: Start with a tiny patch of exotic material, and in a fraction of a second the entire mass of the universe is created in an exponential process. Gravitational potential energy is negative, mass/energy is positive, and the two added together to equal zero – something from (almost) nothing. When the process stops what’s left is the rapidly expanding nucleus of our universe – the big bang.

In one version of this theory, eternal inflation, this process is endless and countless universes are created.

String Theory: Space consists of the three large dimensions, plus 8 tiny curled-up ones that are connected in a unique topology. The way the small dimensions are connected is arbitrary and determines the characteristics of all matter and forces, such as the number and type of elementary particles and the strength and type of the forces between them.

Imagine that each universe created by inflation has a different topology of space, meaning different particles and forces.

Evolution: Life happens, let’s not rehash that here.

Anthropic Principle: An intelligent being looks around and thinks the universe has been tailor made for him, when in fact it has just won the inflation/string theory/evolution lottery. He doesn’t see the almost infinite number of other universes that were not capable of, or just plain didn’t happen to, produce intelligent life, because he is here, not there.

The only thing left to explain in this scenario (other than the unbelievable number of details I’ve left out), is where the initial patch of exotic material came from. You could say it was a quantum fluctuation, but that has always been unsatisfying to me because it predisposes an initial location where quantum rules apply, and where did that come from? You could say God created it, but that seems a bit unnecessary given all we need is a gram or so of weird stuff to set everything – the earth, the stars, mankind and our inquisitive sense of wonder – in motion. It’s possible that someone knows that answer and I haven’t seen it, or that no one knows yet, or that it is actually unknowable.

A final note. I’ve always felt that God is personal, something that you just Know is true (or in my case, don’t), something that is beyond testing. Not a God of the gaps, but a God of faith. It continually baffles me that religious people try to use science to convince others that God exists. My picture is of a being outside of reality, reachable only by your heart and your faith, or in my case unreachable.

Can’t we just agree the science is the science? That we can make progress on understanding the low-level workings of the universe, and leave our religious beliefs out of it?

 

[RC1970]

ex nihilo nihil fit

 

[NumberTenOx]

ex nihilo nihil fit

Ah yes, the deadly "argument from latin"; defeated I will retreat now into my evil lair and lick my wounds.

Inflation does require a something at the beginning. Yes, matter, energy, and gravitational potential are sort of ripped from each other, ex nihilo, sic oro, but this requires a peculiar set of initial conditions. How, perhaps, did you think God did it?

 

[Willtor]

God-of-the-gaps is definitely poor reasoning. Gaps will always exist, provably, but saying "God did it" because of ignorance is unhelpful and it stops inquiry. And, of course, where science has a well-tested explanation for the data, it would be absurd to argue against it. So, to the overall point that using science to prove God is nonsense, I certainly agree.

I disagree on one point: that God is something/someone you just know or don't. To some extent, sure, there is a sense of us as finite creatures apprehending the indivisible infinite God, which would have to be unprovable and therefore require a leap that one makes or one doesn't. But that isn't the whole story. Certainly, insofar as God explicitly reveals Himself within the world, there is a potential connection.

For example, you don't think there's sufficient reason to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. But suppose there were and you did? The leap of faith is to say that this was the work of God. The nature of the leap of faith is connected to an observable reality from which you were persuaded to make that leap.

 

[NumberTenOx]

God-of-the-gaps is definitely poor reasoning. Gaps will always exist, provably, but saying "God did it" because of ignorance is unhelpful and it stops inquiry. And, of course, where science has a well-tested explanation for the data, it would be absurd to argue against it. So, to the overall point that using science to prove God is nonsense, I certainly agree.

I disagree on one point: that God is something/someone you just know or don't. To some extent, sure, there is a sense of us as finite creatures apprehending the indivisible infinite God, which would have to be unprovable and therefore require a leap that one makes or one doesn't. But that isn't the whole story. Certainly, insofar as God explicitly reveals Himself within the world, there is a potential connection.

For example, you don't think there's sufficient reason to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. But suppose there were and you did? The leap of faith is to say that this was the work of God. The nature of the leap of faith is connected to an observable reality from which you were persuaded to make that leap.

First, Willtor, thank you for your thoughtful response, I really appreciate it.

I feel that there are several ways God can reveal Himself in the world:

- Creation: I've hoped to give a scientific account of creation, which I'm guessing isn't compelling to you, so we'll leave that aside for the moment.

- Ancient Miracles: History is full of tales of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. These are not enough for me to make a leap of faith for two reasons. First, God seemed a lot more involved in the world back then; He seems much more removed from today's world, and I find that suspect. Second, I've lied, I know how easy that is, I find it very difficult to accept someone else's account without some type of verification.

- Modern Miracles: If I had enough evidence in a modern miracle, such as a resurrection, I would be compelled to believe in the being that made that happen. The bar would be set very high, however. Were they really dead (or just "mostly" dead)? Could the evidence have been faked? So far I have not seen any evidence of a modern miracle that comes close to passing the bar.

- Saying Hello: Near the end of his book Contact Carl Sagen has an excellent example of how God could reveal himself in the world. Hidden in the decimals of PI is a picture of a circle, and similar pictures in other irrational numbers. This would be irrefutable evidence of a creator, a signature so to speak. I am sure that there are many other ways that God could say hello, that would compel my leap of faith.

The fact that He hasn't done that last reveal is what makes me feel that you either Know or you don't. Every other reveal I'm aware of has proven easily explainable at best, outright manipulative at worst.

It seems to me that God has chosen the personal reveal, rather than to autograph the basic workings of reality.

 

[Willtor]

First, Willtor, thank you for your thoughtful response, I really appreciate it.

I feel that there are several ways God can reveal Himself in the world:

- Creation: I've hoped to give a scientific account of creation, which I'm guessing isn't compelling to you, so we'll leave that aside for the moment.

- Ancient Miracles: History is full of tales of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. These are not enough for me to make a leap of faith for two reasons. First, God seemed a lot more involved in the world back then; He seems much more removed from today's world, and I find that suspect. Second, I've lied, I know how easy that is, I find it very difficult to accept someone else's account without some type of verification.

- Modern Miracles: If I had enough evidence in a modern miracle, such as a resurrection, I would be compelled to believe in the being that made that happen. The bar would be set very high, however. Were they really dead (or just "mostly" dead)? Could the evidence have been faked? So far I have not seen any evidence of a modern miracle that comes close to passing the bar.

- Saying Hello: Near the end of his book Contact Carl Sagen has an excellent example of how God could reveal himself in the world. Hidden in the decimals of PI is a picture of a circle, and similar pictures in other irrational numbers. This would be irrefutable evidence of a creator, a signature so to speak. I am sure that there are many other ways that God could say hello, that would compel my leap of faith.

The fact that He hasn't done that last reveal is what makes me feel that you either Know or you don't. Every other reveal I'm aware of has proven easily explainable at best, outright manipulative at worst.

It seems to me that God has chosen the personal reveal, rather than to autograph the basic workings of reality.

Sorry, I didn't mean to miscommunicate: I'm not arguing against science in any way. I'm a scientist. I think it's the strongest and most reliable tool we have for discovering the structure and history of the universe.

---

Regarding miracles, the leap of faith is not that someone rose from the dead. Again, we're assuming you thought there was enough evidence to warrant believing that it happened. In that case, it would not require faith to believe that someone or something with the power to make it happen existed -- believing that the someone or something is God takes faith because it is simpler to propose something smaller. My guess is that if you thought there were enough evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, though, you would have faith anyway. Is that right?

 

[NumberTenOx]

Sorry, I didn't mean to miscommunicate: I'm not arguing against science in any way. I'm a scientist. I think it's the strongest and most reliable tool we have for discovering the structure and history of the universe.

My apologies, I didn't think you were anti-science but I'm a bit touchy about that given a lot of the material in this forum.

Regarding miracles, the leap of faith is not that someone rose from the dead. Again, we're assuming you thought there was enough evidence to warrant believing that it happened. In that case, it would not require faith to believe that someone or something with the power to make it happen existed -- believing that the someone or something is God takes faith because it is simpler to propose something smaller. My guess is that if you thought there were enough evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, though, you would have faith anyway. Is that right?

If I understand your question (and I'm not sure I do), it is a very difficult one to answer. If I was convinced by the evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was truly a miracle, i.e. provably performed by a supernatural being, I would not need faith to believe in the existence of that supernatural being. Given that Jesus was the subject of this miracle, however, I'd probably give it up and have faith in the Christian God. Is that what you were asking?

 

[Willtor]

My apologies, I didn't think you were anti-science but I'm a bit touchy about that given a lot of the material in this forum.

No worries.

If I understand your question (and I'm not sure I do), it is a very difficult one to answer. If I was convinced by the evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was truly a miracle, i.e. provably performed by a supernatural being, I would not need faith to believe in the existence of that supernatural being. Given that Jesus was the subject of this miracle, however, I'd probably give it up and have faith in the Christian God. Is that what you were asking?

This is not quite the question. "Miracle" and "supernatural" are jumping the gun. Suppose you felt that you had good reason to think Jesus was raised from the dead; saying that God did it is not the simplest explanation.

Forget the resurrection, for a moment.

Suppose someone, claiming to be God, shows up in your living room and, as "proof," shows you the Sun going nova and then returning it to normal. Is it God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

These are four established scientific theories in various stages of development. When combined they provide a powerful – to me – almost complete explanation of creation. I am not an expert so I may have some of the details wrong.

Inflation: Start with a tiny patch of exotic material, and in a fraction of a second the entire mass of the universe is created in an exponential process. Gravitational potential energy is negative, mass/energy is positive, and the two added together to equal zero – something from (almost) nothing. When the process stops what’s left is the rapidly expanding nucleus of our universe – the big bang.

In one version of this theory, eternal inflation, this process is endless and countless universes are created.

This tiny patch of "exotic material" is totally unknown and doesn't provide us with what came prior to that pinpoint of "exotic material". Where did the "exotic material" come from and how did it expand in the manner it did. There are many components that make this a very complicated and complex event.

String Theory

: Space consists of the three large dimensions, plus 8 tiny curled-up ones that are connected in a unique topology. The way the small dimensions are connected is arbitrary and determines the characteristics of all matter and forces, such as the number and type of elementary particles and the strength and type of the forces between them.

Imagine that each universe created by inflation has a different topology of space, meaning different particles and forces.

Several problems here. First of which is that the String theory has many scientific problems and many claim that it can't even be scientifically tested. We only know of this universe and to assert others is just speculation and not scientifically testable.

Evolution: Life happens, let’s not rehash that here.

Ok. Although there are some issues depending upon your definition of evolution and what you are claiming based on it.

Anthropic Principle: An intelligent being looks around and thinks the universe has been tailor made for him, when in fact it has just won the inflation/string theory/evolution lottery. He doesn’t see the almost infinite number of other universes that were not capable of, or just plain didn’t happen to, produce intelligent life, because he is here, not there.

Nice straw man, have you built many?

The only thing left to explain in this scenario (other than the unbelievable number of details I’ve left out), is where the initial patch of exotic material came from. You could say it was a quantum fluctuation, but that has always been unsatisfying to me because it predisposes an initial location where quantum rules apply, and where did that come from? You could say God created it, but that seems a bit unnecessary given all we need is a gram or so of weird stuff to set everything – the earth, the stars, mankind and our inquisitive sense of wonder – in motion. It’s possible that someone knows that answer and I haven’t seen it, or that no one knows yet, or that it is actually unknowable.

I agree that we don't know but I think that we will of course someday have that knowledge. I agree that quantum fluctuation is false as we don't have the laws of physics come into effect only after the universe exists. A gram or so of weird stuff? What is that about?

A final note. I’ve always felt that God is personal, something that you just Know is true (or in my case, don’t), something that is beyond testing. Not a God of the gaps, but a God of faith. It continually baffles me that religious people try to use science to convince others that God exists. My picture is of a being outside of reality, reachable only by your heart and your faith, or in my case unreachable.

In Christian theology, we are told that God created the universe so that we could see His hand in it. The fine tuned parameters, the design in all of nature I believe discovered by man are illuminating His hand in it all. Science is mankind's endeavor to understand and learn about the Creation. Science is not at odds with Christianity and some of the best scientists in history were Christians and developed the modern model working on the idea that God did create the universe for us to comprehend and understand. His consistency and laws were there so that we could gain knowledge of the universe and our planet.

Can’t we just agree the science is the science? That we can make progress on understanding the low-level workings of the universe, and leave our religious beliefs out of it?

Science is Science and it belongs to everyone and that includes "religious people".

 

[Willtor]

This tiny patch of "exotic material" is totally unknown and doesn't provide us with what came prior to that pinpoint of "exotic material". Where did the "exotic material" come from and how did it expand in the manner it did. There are many components that make this a very complicated and complex event.

...

This is what is generally meant by "God-of-the-gaps." If you find yourself with the impression, "We don't understand x at this time. X is probably the hand of God," then what you have done is to identify a hole and plug God into it. In this case, it's the exotic material and where it came from.

I presume if somebody discovers something about it tomorrow (and where it came from) and pushes the boundary of knowledge, your faith won't be shaken. Right? So, why plant your flag there? Why take a stand at the "exotic material"? Why take a stand on the thing of the day that just happens to be at the edge of knowledge, today? It may not be on the edge, tomorrow.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is what is generally meant by "God-of-the-gaps." If you find yourself with the impression, "We don't understand x at this time. X is probably the hand of God," then what you have done is to identify a hole and plug God into it. In this case, it's the exotic material and where it came from.

I presume if somebody discovers something about it tomorrow (and where it came from) and pushes the boundary of knowledge, your faith won't be shaken. Right? So, why plant your flag there? Why take a stand at the "exotic material"? Why take a stand on the thing of the day that just happens to be at the edge of knowledge, today? It may not be on the edge, tomorrow.

Understanding something, for instance the way life adapts to the environment, does not eliminate God from the picture and in fact illuminates Him. The same would hold true if we understood just how the universe came into being in naturalistic explanations. It is what we are learning that more and more confirms God's hand being apparent in His creation.

 

[Willtor]

Understanding something, for instance the way life adapts to the environment, does not eliminate God from the picture and in fact illuminates Him. The same would hold true if we understood just how the universe came into being in naturalistic explanations. It is what we are learning that more and more confirms God's hand being apparent in His creation.

As you say, it doesn't eliminate God. But it neither confirms nor refutes His hand in creation. You mentioned finely-tuned constants against the notion of a multiverse. But what if someone figures out how to test a multiverse and then shows that there are many universes? I suspect you will push God back to, "Where did the multiverse come from?"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Understanding something, for instance the way life adapts to the environment, does not eliminate God from the picture and in fact illuminates Him. The same would hold true if we understood just how the universe came into being in naturalistic explanations. It is what we are learning that more and more confirms God's hand being apparent in His creation.

Translation: "I'm right, even when I'm wrong...."

 

[DogmaHunter]

In Christian theology, we are told that God created the universe so that we could see His hand in it. The fine tuned parameters, the design in all of nature I believe discovered by man are illuminating His hand in it all. Science is mankind's endeavor to understand and learn about the Creation.

That's what we call starting from a conclusion and then working back...
You start with the assumption that a god exists and did everything and with each new discovery, you simply say "that's how god did it".

But in reality, you have the exact same support for that claim as you had when you provided that answer before asking the questions: none at all.

In fact, your ilk has been consistently wrong throughout the ages about how "god did things". This is why I said in my previous post that you seem to be saying "I'm right, even when I'm wrong".

God created the world in a few days - until science proved otherwise. Then suddenly a "day" has some kind of meaning that isn't really a "day".

God created humans from clay - until science proved otherwise. Then suddenly "from clay" is metaphorical and evolution is how god-dun-it.


Tell me, can you mention even a single hypothetical that would falsify the idea of your god doing anything at all?

Science is not at odds with Christianity and some of the best scientists in history were Christians

And others were pantheists, polytheists, muslims, atheists,....
So what?

and developed the modern model working on the idea that God did create the universe for us to comprehend and understand

By this, you off course mean: starting from the assumption that this is true and sticking to that assumption, no matter what. And even defining this assumption in such a way that it is literally unfalsifiable. Providing the answers before asking the questions. Again.

His consistency and laws

What consistency and laws? When has there ever been a single observation that is directly linked to this cultural deity that you happen to believe in?

were there so that we could gain knowledge of the universe and our planet.

In other words: "reality exists, therefor god"?

Science is Science and it belongs to everyone and that includes "religious people".

Yes. You know why? Because the religious beliefs are irrelevant. Which is why you can be a scientist and an atheist, muslim, jew, christian, hindu, etc etc etc.

Because those beliefs don't matter one bit when it comes to actual reality.
Ask yourself why.

 

[The Cadet]

- Saying Hello: Near the end of his book Contact Carl Sagen has an excellent example of how God could reveal himself in the world. Hidden in the decimals of PI is a picture of a circle, and similar pictures in other irrational numbers. This would be irrefutable evidence of a creator, a signature so to speak. I am sure that there are many other ways that God could say hello, that would compel my leap of faith.

The fact that He hasn't done that last reveal is what makes me feel that you either Know or you don't. Every other reveal I'm aware of has proven easily explainable at best, outright manipulative at worst.

Bad example. Pi is irrational and infinite; it's like taking an infinite string of random characters. Sooner or later, you'll run into shakespeare, just by mathematical necessity. We'll find god's signature in Pi, because there's literally no way we wouldn't find god's signature in Pi, because every single possible string of numbers is represented somewhere within Pi.

Now as to actually do that... Well, let me put it this way. I have had one type of conversation in my life where I wasn't sure if the other party actually existed. Just coming down and talking in some physical form, demonstrating supernatural abilities along the lines of those shown in Bruce Almighty would be a huge step towards actually making contact. As my old signature used to say, the Vogons were able to make their presence known to every single human on earth within 5 minutes. If God wanted to communicate with me, he would know how to do it.

 

[NumberTenOx]

Bad example. Pi is irrational and infinite; it's like taking an infinite string of random characters. Sooner or later, you'll run into shakespeare, just by mathematical necessity. We'll find god's signature in Pi, because there's literally no way we wouldn't find god's signature in Pi, because every single possible string of numbers is represented somewhere within Pi.

Quoting Mr. Sagan from Contact:

"I don't understand. If you look at enough random numbers, won't you get any answer you want, simply by chance?"

"Sure. But you can calculate how likely that is. If you get a very complex message very early on, you know it can't be by chance"

Let's say you went a hundred digits down into Pi, and then found a hundred digit picture in 1's and 0's of a circle. Yes, there is a possibility that's completely by chance, but it's infinitesimal. This fictional fantasy uses that same math, just further buried in the numbers.

More from Sagan:

"You're looking for Revelation in arithmetic. I know a better way."

"Palmer, this is the only way. This is the only thing that would convince a skeptic. Imagine we find something. It doesn't have to be tremendously complicated. Just something more orderly than could accumulate by chance that many digits into pi. That's all we need. Then mathematicians all over the world can find exactly the same pattern or message or whatever it proves to be. Then there are no sectarian divisions. Everybody begins reading the same Scripture. No one could then argue that the key miracle in the religion was some conjurer's trick, or that later historians had falsified the record, or that it's just hysteria or delusion or a substitute parent for when we grow up. Everyone can be a believer."

 

[NumberTenOx]

This tiny patch of "exotic material" is totally unknown and doesn't provide us with what came prior to that pinpoint of "exotic material". Where did the "exotic material" come from and how did it expand in the manner it did. There are many components that make this a very complicated and complex event.

First, what Willtor said about moving the flag is excellent.

But this was not a complicated and complex event. It's called a "false vacuum". Yes, no one knows how it came into existence, but it's properties are very simple and you only need a tiny piece of it to get things started. So it's complex in the sense that it's difficult to understand, but it's not complex in the way that a human or a computer or an airplane is complex.

Several problems here. First of which is that the String theory has many scientific problems and many claim that it can't even be scientifically tested. We only know of this universe and to assert others is just speculation and not scientifically testable.

Totally. String Theory is controversial and is not at all verifiable today. However it is a beautiful theory and fits with the current data, and hopefully in the future it will make predictions that can be tested. In the meantime, you are quite right to be skeptical.

For me, it doesn't have to be correct to be useful to my world view. It's plausible, and may someday be testable. If it is falsified, I'm confident that something equally appropriate to my line of argument will take it's place. If not, then I'm wrong and will have to change my world view.

Nice straw man, have you built many?

I honestly don't understand how the Anthropic Principle is a straw man. Can you explain your reasoning to me a little more so I can understand".

A gram or so of weird stuff? What is that about?

I read once that you only need about a gram of "false vacuum" to begin the process of inflation. The amount of false vacuum you have doubles every 10 to the minus 35 seconds, so in an incredibly small amount of time the initial gram turns into the entire mass of the known universe.

In Christian theology, we are told that God created the universe so that we could see His hand in it. The fine tuned parameters, the design in all of nature I believe discovered by man are illuminating His hand in it all. Science is mankind's endeavor to understand and learn about the Creation. Science is not at odds with Christianity and some of the best scientists in history were Christians and developed the modern model working on the idea that God did create the universe for us to comprehend and understand. His consistency and laws were there so that we could gain knowledge of the universe and our planet.

Science is Science and it belongs to everyone and that includes "religious people".

I'm arguing here that the fine tuning of parameters is not necessary to understand the universe, that it could possibly have arisen by chance. On the other hand, you are quite correct that some of the best scientists have been Christians (and Muslims and Jews and atheists), and that science belongs to everyone.

I'm sorry if I offended you with the "religious people" comment; I certainly did not mean all religious people.

 

[Loudmouth]

Quoting Mr. Sagan from Contact:



Let's say you went a hundred digits down into Pi, and then found a hundred digit picture in 1's and 0's of a circle. Yes, there is a possibility that's completely by chance, but it's infinitesimal. This fictional fantasy uses that same math, just further buried in the numbers.

More from Sagan:

Contrary to Hollywood, the first thing that SETI is looking for is a narrow band transmission that would look like this on a radiowave spectrum:

As far as we know, natural processes produce broad band transmissions. Human communications use narrow band transmissions. All we are looking for at this point is a strong signal in a narrow range of frequencies.

 

[NumberTenOx]

Contrary to Hollywood, the first thing that SETI is looking for is a narrow band transmission that would look like this on a radiowave spectrum:

As far as we know, natural processes produce broad band transmissions. Human communications use narrow band transmissions. All we are looking for at this point is a strong signal in a narrow range of frequencies.

Umm, OK, that's great, but I'm not sure how that's germane to the discussion, and I was quoting the book, not the movie (although it's absolutely one of my favorite movies, top 5, and I'm not sure they got that detail wrong in the movie).

 

[Loudmouth]

Umm, OK, that's great, but I'm not sure how that's germane to the discussion, and I was quoting the book, not the movie (although it's absolutely one of my favorite movies, top 5, and I'm not sure they got that detail wrong in the movie).

I am just telling you what SETI is really looking for.

Also, you do have to be aware of what is called Texas Sharpshooting and the Bridge Hand fallacies. This is where you paint the bull's eye around the bullet hole. There are extremely unlikely results happening all of the time, such as when you deal out Bridge hands. The danger comes when and you try to tie meaning to the result with the result already in hand.