I’ve argued for some time that design is impossible unless the designer is omniscient (because the emergent properties of organic molecules cannot be anticipated).
I have no proof of this, of course, but it seems reasonable to ask design advocates to demonstrate proof of concept. Tell us how design is done without cut and try.
This led me to think a bit about what omniscience means.
ID rage when the multiverse is mentioned — the notion that many universes having differing physical constants might exist simultaneously, making the fine tuning argument moot.
So I thought I might ask if anyone can point out a conceptual difference between an existence in which all possible universes exist, and the mind of an omniscient god, in which all possible universes exist.
I don’t know if this is a serious question, but I thought it might be fun.
“design is impossible unless the designer is omniscient”
No, it’s not serious. It’s rather silly. Human beings ‘design’ things daily and are not ‘omniscient’.
Perhaps you mean Uppercase ‘Design’ and Uppercase ‘Designer’ but haven’t yet adopted the necessary language?
Indeed, your purposeful (?) decapitalisation of “an omniscient [lowercase] god” tells enough of its own story.
Your “This led me to think a bit about what omniscience means” is rather limited if/as long as you continue to be an atheist.
“How can you know what it is if you’ve never had one?” – U2
Think about it, petrushka, and maybe use your heart too.
” a conceptual difference between an existence in which all possible universes exist, and the mind of an omniscient god, in which all possible universes exist.”
Do you mean a conceptual difference between an existence in which all possible universes exist without God and an omniscient God,god, in which all possible universes exist?
So you will have no trouble providing an example of designing a protein from first principles rather than with cut and try. And no trouble demonstrating that you can anticipate the effects of a coding sequence change.
The question is, what’s the difference?
Understood, the point is if the question exclude God in the first scenario.
The question is what does the word god add to the scenario? What is the difference between stuff existing and stuff being the thoughts of an omniscient god?
What difference would it make?
There’s one huge difference, which is that we know that at least one universe does exist, while we do not know of one god that exists. More of what exists is not a huge leap to make, while supposing that a mental construct that “answers everything” must exist is an unacceptable jump.
However, the multiverse could be the answer to some matters, like “fine-tuning,” while it would be a perfectly horrible “answer” to explain life’s first existence. Even though it is conceivable that abiogenesis is so unlikely that only the multiverse makes it more than a bizarre fluke, how could we confidently reach that conclusion even then? Abiogenesis dependent upon the multiverse would be a lot like invoking omniscience, although it still has the advantage of our knowing that at least one universe exists.
Science depends upon processes being finite, rather than practically or absolutely infinite. No one can presently rule out practically infinite resources as necessary for abiogenesis, yet we have to proceed as if resources were finite if we hope ever to discover likely mechanisms for life’s first appearance.
Glen Davidson
I’m not proposing this as a scientific question. I’m just curious why theists are so opposed to something that seems to be at face value, undecidable.
Omniscience seems to me like a static state. If you know everything, then nothing can change, because all possibilities exist simultaneously.
I think most theists want to believe in a nanny god, one that experiences time, but also want god to be omniscient. I’m not sure how that works.
It should also be pointed out that “many universes” does not necessarily mean that there are actually other universes out there besides the one in which we exist.
It means that the “Big Bang” could have fallen out any number of ways. It can mean that what we see is what we got, or it can mean that there could be other universes with different “fundamental” constants.
In either case, it is the ensemble of fundamental constants that is important; not that a small difference in one of them precludes our universe or life as we know it.
There are many possible combinations of “fundamental constants” that can produce universes. The time scales of what happens in those other universes may be entirely different from ours; there would even be a different “periodic table” of “elements” which condense into “planets” and “living organisms.”
If all this is “activity” in the mind of some deity, there doesn’t seem to be any way to prove it one way or the other. And in the complete absence of any objective demonstration of such a hypothesis, we have no other choice than to proceed to just study the universe in which we find ourselves. And that process is called science.
Scenario without God: You have to still explain why there is something instead of nothing.
You have to figure how to search other universes.(any evidence of othr universe will make that universe part of this universe).
Scenario with God you know why there is somthing instead of nothing.
The question about other universes is usless.
Blas,
Why is that a problem for you?
Scientists are actually thinking about how the presence of other universes might affect ours. Do you have a problem with that?
Why is there a god? Which of the thousands of deities that humans have believed existed is it?
Why? For whom is it “useless?”
Scenario with God: You still have to explain why there is God instead of no God.
Either way, you still have the question of “why X rather than not-X?”.
Really? Given that it’s “why X rather than not-X?” either way, I don’t see why replacing “X” with “God” is any better, any more informative, any more explicative, than replacing “X” with “the Universe” or “something”. Seems to me that you’re just assuming your desired conclusion.
With respect to the fine tuning argument, whether there’s a multiverse or not, the mere observation of “fine tuned” constants of nature does not entail that a fine tuner is more likely. On the contrary:
Either we’re here :
1. Because a god made it so through fine tuning of the laws and constants.
or
2. Because the properties of the universe just happened to be such that we came to exist and can live here.
How would we observationally distinguish between the two? Well, it’s obvious that can’t be done because they’d appear exactly the same.
How do we determine which is more probably correct then? By comparing the odds of what we observe (the evidence) on the two different hypotheses(fine-tuning due to chance vs fine-tuning due to design):
(As in we ask ourselves: On what hypothesis is the observed evidence(fine tuning) more likely?)
The probability life should come to find itself living in a fine-tuned universe, even if there is no god, is 100%. Think about it, where else could we live? That is, the universe we observe is 100% what we expect if there was no fine-tuner. Only a universe that had laws exactly such that life could originate and evolve to self-awareness, could produce life. So fine tuning is 100% expected on the non-god hypothesis.
But, the probability that life should come to find itself living in a universe fine-tuned for life WITH a god is NOT 100%, because a god could just as easily have chosen a scrambled mess of constants but decided to keep life in existence through a continous divine intervention, regardless of the laws of that universe.
Thus on the god-hypothesis there’d be a nonzero chance we’d discover a completely different set of rules governing life and living organisms, instead of what we have now: The same physical rules and constants governing both living and inanimate matter.
Therefore, a priori, on the observation of fine-tuning alone – an actual fine-tuner is less likely, because what we observe is what we’d expect even without a fine-tuner, because that’s the only place we could exist without one! On the other hand, with a god the universe didn’t have to be fine-tuned, so what we observe is less likely than 100% on the god hypothesis. Isn’t that brilliant? 😆
That means no amount of “happens to be such that we can exist” is going to make it any more plausible that there’s a finetuner than not, because ANY kind of universe where life can exist and evolve to self-awareness without divine intervention, will by necessity appear to be fine-tuned.
Postulating a god as answers to these questions simply gives you another set of unanswered questions.
Why does god have the capacity to create universes instead of not having that capacity?
Why did god decide to make a universe instead of not making one?
Why did god decide to make a universe like this one instead of a different one?
Etc. etc.
To some of us, just making stuff up to plug holes is remarkably unconvincing. I’d rather live in honesty and simply affirm “I don’t know” with respect to the first question “why something instead of nothing?”. The question might be unanswerable without begging the question with certain fundamental assumptions (such as the idea that omnipotent beings can exist), in which case too bad, I can’t get all my questions answered. I’ll just have to live with that however unsatisfying it is.
That’s pretty much what the multiple universe idea is all about. Whatever the ensemble of “fundamental” constants is that results in a universe in which sentient life evolves, those creatures are going to think their universe is “fine tuned.” That means implicitly, “fined tuned to produce them.”
And if some of them think a deity did it, they will have the same issues in the “philosophy” of their universe as we have in ours.
If we discover other life forms that evolved by way of a different chemistry in our universe – and as far as we know that isn’t ruled out – that doesn’t change the periodic table in our universe. It simply means that the same periodic table can produce life with a different chemistry than that found on planet Earth at the moment.
What has not been explored sufficiently is whether other chemistry in entirely different temperature ranges can produce living organisms. The basic requirements are soft-matter systems and liquids that can allow sufficient complexity and the evolution of complex molecules to arise. Soft matter and liquids imply a temperature range in which such systems coexist.
The same issues would appear in any universe in which matter can condense into hierarchical levels of complexity in a manner analogous to what has happened in our universe. Those universes would also have to have a “second law of thermodynamics” in order for matter to condense.
Who says nothing is some kind of “default”?
After all, why a god rather than nothing? A god may be a psychologically satisfying answer to your question, but that’s all.
Personally, I’m dubious about the multiverse anyway, and don’t like to see it invoked as some kind of ‘answer’ to fine tuning. If we find some evidence for it, great, but I’m not sure to what extent the physical constants are variable, even if Big Bang turns out to be a plural phenomenon. The plurality of planets is a different matter. We can infer their presence, and their properties, which makes life on this one a somewhat less surprising phenomenon than it might if we were the only one. If Life can exist and does, but is not obviously that common, it will be surprised about it. It would be less surprised if it didn’t exist!
More improbable still is my own existence. Change anything in the 13.9 billion year chain of causality leading to my conception, and I would not be here. So clearly, the universe is not just fine-tuned, but has been arranged in its entirety just for little ole me. 😉 How nice.
One thing that strikes me about this universe is how ‘non-optional’ the periodic table is. Some very simple rules govern the valence electrons and their relative affinities between atoms. You couldn’t give chlorine or sulfur different properties without impacting the entire set.
Because it is important to understand why am I here? Is there a goal for me?
If other universes affect ours universe, by definition of universe are part of ours universe.
The definition of God exclude that question.
That is the one of the different questions that led one scenario or the other.
If you are in the God scenario if there are only this or more universes makes no differents. The question to answer in that scenario do not change anything beeing the other universes not physically detectables.
Probably you have to read something about definition of God.
No, I didn´t say that one scenario ie true and the other is false, I only answered the question wich are the differences. And about assuming that both are euqualy explicative one make as an “self replicator” without any goal and the other let the chance that we are something else.
True, you have many unanswered questions. But both scenarios are differents and the questions are differents. You can live saying we do not know , we will never know is your choice after all.
Who is saying that nothing is some kind of default? Are just the two possibilities, us, things, the universe exists but could not exists.
Now philosophically God is a rationale possible answer.
That ‘s a good answer. It’s important for you.
I hope you recognize that while your wishes are important to you, they are not an argument for the existence of that which fulfills your wish.
Multiple replies in one comment to avoid spamming the comments.
Petrushka,
aren’t you conflating the difference between infinity and simply very large? Without doubt designing a protein is something that is so hard that the entire brain and computing power of the planet would be taxed if not simply insufficient but that is not the same as saying it is infinitely hard which is what an omniscient intelligence would be needed for.
===
I remember something that might help but I have to find it.
===
Blas,
You may not know it but you are cheating here. You are cheating by using a complex question, which is a fallacy(look it up).
Your complex question is presuming another question has already been asked and answered before you ask the second follow up question of “why is there something instead of nothing”. The first, unstated, question was, “What is the natural state of the universe?”, and you are implicitly answering that question as, “The natural state of the universe is nothing.”, thereby giving license to then assume that the universe only exists because something(Someone) has intervened to alter the ‘nothing’.
The problem is, of course, in the assumed answer to the first question. Can you justify that the natural state of the universe is a condition of nothingness? Science doesn’t take a position on this. It merely tries to understand what IS. Science does make the one assumption that what is present(as in present tense) is an adequate guide to what is past.
That looks like another cheat. If you are going to define your way out of a problem then there is no point in doing science.
===
You are Blas. Remember what I said about the complex question. You are implicitly assuming that a state of nothingness is the default ‘natural’ state of the universe when you ask the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”. You are sneaking it in. It is up to you to justify why you are assuming this.
As far as only two possibilities, we don’t know how many possibilities there. It is the theistic position that there are only two, not the scientific position.
I am so glad you recognize it is only a philosophical answer because it certainly isn’t a scientific answer.
Why yu change my question in wishes? A stated questions, not arguments.
Good question. I’m basically placing a bet that there is no “syntax” to protein attributes, no way to read a completely novel protein sequence for meaning.
It does seem possible — though very hard — to simulate protein folding, and there might be some gross attributes that can be predicted from the shape of the fold, but if you want to know how it behaves in a living organism you have to make one and test it.
The problem is not unique to biology. It occurs with products in economies also. You can design a functional product, but the marketplace determines its fate. Sometimes you can sell rocks. Other times you fail with perfectly functional products.
I’m betting — and it’s just my opinion — that such multidimensional problems cannot be simulated with the resources of the universe.
I do not see why are calling that cheating, I asked Petrushka if God were in one scenario and not in the other, I take his answer as a yes, so that are the scenarios.
Well science tells that things that now are in the future will not be. So is natural to assume that things has not been for ever in the past. Also if you assume that matter and energy were eternal the universe is changing and at some point something start the change.
Oh my God! I was trying to make this point here at TSZ for a long time saying that ToE it is not science.
Off course, petrushka question it is not about science, as you said before science talk about what is, not about was. We are doing phylosophy here.
Well I will be glad to learn what state science knows other than beeing or not beeing.
As I said before petrushka question isn´t a scientific question, maybe you can reformulate it in a scientific manner.
Winston just invaded my brain.
How can someone get so much, so wrong, so fast?(referring to Blas)
petrushka,
Could you please share your secret with the rest of us?
How did you manage to control all those organic molecules and publish your obviously designed OP?
Given that the emergent properties of organic molecules cannot be anticipated, that is.
Talk about self-refuting nonsense.
How can you write so many words in response to other people without understanding anything at all?
Really, this is just notice that you are being ignored. Count it is a win if you like. I couldn’t care less what you think.
But I’m not choosing that, I’m saying it remains a possibility I can’t ignore. That may be highly unsatisfying, but nevertheless it might be the case. The main point was that I’d rather withold judgement and admit that I don’t know, than to frantically plug holes with something I make up to satisfy the need for answers I feel.
Mung, to petrushka:
Mung,
Seriously? You think that in order to publish something online, one must understand the emergent properties of the organic molecules involved?
If that were true, you wouldn’t be able to type a single character.
Let’s make the example explicit.
I may wish for a highly improbable result next time (first time!) that I decide to play the fruit machines at a casino. But it would be a mistake for me to imagine that, in the event of my receiving a cascade of coins, a benevolent deity has bent the rules of probability in my favour.
If I do commit this fallacy, it would entail that the deity is simultaneously denying good luck to all the other players in this zero-sum game (minus the house’s piece of the action, of course). But then, blind chance, like the blind indifference of physics, is always available to specious anthropomorphism.
petrushka:
And you’re omniscient.
Mung, you are welcome to demonstrate I am wrong by showing how to design without cut and try.
You generated your post only through the mechanism of “cut and try.”
Really? How many attempts did you make? How did you decide which attempts to keep and which attempts to discard? How did you decide the “winning” post?
Mung, the discussion is about biology. Please read what I wrote before responding.
Mung,
What we can say is that the interventionist designers appear to take their time, building intertwined global ecosystems through a process that relies on massive extinctions, great changes to the environment, and three and a half billion years of tinkering.
Possibility 1: the designers had perfect knowledge and limited power, rebuilding after periodic catastrophes that destroyed the majority of effective designs.
Possibility 2: the designers had imperfect knowledge and unlimited power, using catastrophes to clear away an accumulation of ineffective designs for a minority of effective designs.
Possibility 3: the designers had imperfect knowledge and limited power rebuilding after periodic catastrophes, learning from previous, less effective designs.
Possibility 4: the designers had perfect knowledge and unlimited power, but designing a timely, efficient development path to human beings was not necessary to their goal, and perhaps incidental.
If we assume intelligence was responsible for some portion of life’s development, then we would say, based on our experience with design (including computer programming), that possibility 3 is the best explanation. The more complex the design, the greater the need for repeated development cycles and rounds of testing. Also, the greater need to employ multiple designers.*
And this is exactly why Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have turned against the ID movement.
[*TEs like the Catholic church sidestep these issues by allowing “nature” to produce humanity without the need for “intervention, failing to satisfy the ID movement, atheists, and YECs alike — trifecta!]
petrushka:
And you’re a-biological? Please think about what you write before you post it.
rhampton,
You have an empirical methodology to distinguish interventionist designers from non-interventionist designers? Do tell.
Mung,
No, do you?
Blind post:
The two options are drastically different.
All possible universes existing are not bound by the nature of God.
All possible universes existing within the mind of an omniscient God are necessarily delimited by the nature of God. The logical conclusion being that there can be only one, the universe we know and experience, because it is the one God created. Nothing else was ever, or now is, possible.
You call that a “logical conclusion.” But, too me, it looks like an assertion with no logic provided.
I did not provide the logic. I simply stated the conclusion.There is quite a bit of work between the premise and the conclusion. If you wish to work it out, we can.
Leibniz gives a version of this kind of argument; his conclusion is that we necessarily live in the best of all possible worlds.
I’ll wait for the logic.
petrushka,
Will you accept that I presuppose the triune God of the Christian Bible?
Otherwise the argument to reach the conclusion will take far too much time. It will take more time to reach the God I presuppose than to demonstrate my initial premise.
You can always ‘prove’ the truth of a proposition if you assume its truth up front. And if that’s what floats your boat, then hey, have a ball. Just don’t expect your ‘proof’ to convince anybody who didn’t already cleave unto whatever proposition you assumed up front, mmkay?
Where did you get the impression that I’m trying to prove anything to you?
If you wish to understand the conclusion, accept my conditions or don’t. I was under the impression that the point of this thread was discussion based on the two possibilities initially posed, not a clever attempt at trolling.
Assuming a god having the properties necessary to support your conclusion is assuming your conclusion.
But what I asked is how omniscience would be different from omni-existence.
Not so, any deity will do to support my conclusion. But it has to be a specific deity we can discuss, not some nebulous concept of “omniscience.” I am most familiar with the God of the Christian Bible, and so can most easily demonstrate my conclusion using Him. If you have another, specific, omniscient deity you prefer, please provide it. If you do not wish to engage in serious discussion over the implications of the question you ask, why ask the question?
At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that your question presupposes an omniscient deity.