Does evidence imply the cosmos was intentionally programmed for conscious beings?

Does evidence imply the cosmos was intentionally programmed for conscious beings?

  • Total voters
    18
quantum_wave said:
Why not provide a link? I have seen it mentioned twice now.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's a physics forum, I just assumed that most people would know about it.

quantum_wave said:
Somehow I don't see how what we are discussing is the same thing as Leplace's Demon.
Click to expand...

The poster I was responding to mentioned the universe we live in possibly be a computer like simulation. That is exactly what Laplace's Demon is, an all-knowing entity that is aware of every particle and position of the universe. What entity other than one such as Laplace's Demon could write the code for a simulation that embodies all we experience as reality?
 
Declan Lunny said:
That is exactly what Laplace's Demon is, an all-knowing entity that is aware of every particle and position of the universe.
Click to expand...

The ''entity'' I speak of cannot know every particles location and position in the universe, not simultaneously anyway. That would cause a tremendous instability within it's own program, figuratively-speaking, the program is quantum mechanics and it cannot be violated.
 
Nightshift said:
The ''entity'' I speak of cannot know every particles location and position in the universe, not simultaneously anyway. That would cause a tremendous instability within it's own program, figuratively-speaking, the program is quantum mechanics and it cannot be violated.
Click to expand...
The programmer could have encoded everything in advance on a substrate existing in another world which is not governed by physical laws. If that's the case they can know about everything at all times. Remember they don't need to be limited in time so they easily observe any time slice of the cosmos they want. Theoretically it is possible and even likely because of the holographic principal.
 
Pious said:
The programmer could have encoded everything in advance on a substrate existing in another world which is not governed by physical laws.
Click to expand...
For that reason this thread does not belong in Science & Math.

If that's the case they can know about everything at all times. Remember they don't need to be limited in time so they easily observe any time slice of the cosmos they want. Theoretically it is possible and even likely because of the holographic principal.
Click to expand...
Fantasy? Religion? Pseudoscience? Several places are suitable, but not here.
 
Aqueous Id said:
For that reason this thread does not belong in Science & Math.


Fantasy? Religion? Pseudoscience? Several places are suitable, but not here.
Click to expand...

We are discussing scientific evidence for possible origins of the cosmos. E.g. the "consciousness causes collapse of the wave function theory" means the cosmos turns non-real and only a product of meaningless wave functions if conscious beings it is designed for are removed from it. Also, the holographic principle says another flat version of the cosmos simply in an encoded form on a 2-D surface is theoretically possible. Like it or not, but fine-tuning to hundreds of decimal places for some physical constants also suggests the same, that we could have been observing only projections from a program that could have been designed for conscious life. We could not be observing the real world hidden from us. So don't be a close-minded arrogant person or pretend science proves only your own narrow worldview whatever it is. Feel free to share your own scientific evidence if you are not comfortable with the possibility we suggest from the scientific evidence we present.
 
quantum_wave said:
You seem exasperated with people who separate science and religion. It isn't a lack of knowledge about the several "fine tuned" arguments. If there were no indications of order in the chaos, then we wouldn't be around to agree or complain, so some order is a given. The Supernatural intention of any finely tuned natural laws though is excluded from science, so it follows that such discussion would be more appropriate in the Religion forum.
Click to expand...

Hi quantum wave!

Not so much exasperated, though I have seen the same arguments from online posters before. It's not that religion and science should be separated, but really the question of the universe being a program isn't based on faith, like religion. A religious faith is a belief-system in it's own right but it may not need be empirical. Science is a belief-system as well though the difference is we have scientific reason to back the belief-system. If you started quoting the Bible to me, then sure, stick it in the religious section by all means. If we are talking about a set of scientific circumstances in which universes are finely tuned for life, then yes, there appears to be reason to think this without resorting to any ''religion.''

People in this forum use the word ''religion'' as a way of attack because they know most scientific minded people detest religious concepts.
 
Nightshift said:
I think the arrogance has come from your part due to a lack of understanding of why we consider these values especially important. They play fundamental roles in how our fields interact, the evolution of the universe when it was just young to a balance of symmetries in nature which no mathematician can ignore.

One such example, when the universe came into existence, it must have had it's own probability field $$\psi$$. There could be an infinite amount of different types of universes, physicists began to ask the question, who was around at the BB to observe it and collapse it's wave function? Of course, no biological entity was around and so the question of probability began to be asked, how probable was it that this universe came into existence? In a multiverse you may answer this question by saying the creation of universes are not that important. But what if parallel universes don't exist? Why then these specific set's of principles and laws? We find out that some of these laws are pivotal to having ''stable universes.'' If we are a fluke of nature, then the probability field question asks, ''if the wave function means the universe could have arose in any other state, why did it settle in this one out of an infinite other possibilities?'' Rest assured, some universes could have collapsed before they even reached an inflation stage. Some might reach the inflation stage but the inflation stage never ends. The fine structure constant might have also been slightly different, the result would have been an instability in the fields of the early universe.

These are some of the things you need to keep in mind, before you say it is arrogant.
Click to expand...

My point is that I think it is a specious argument to say that the specific set of values that the fundamental constants have is of vanishingly low probability and HENCE it cannot have arisen by chance. The second proposition does not follow from the first.

Every chain of events leading to a certain outcome depends on a myriad points at which alternative paths could have been taken, but were not. Hence if one multiplies the probabilities at all these points, one could conclude that all long chains of events have a vanishingly low level of probability. But, in the end, there must be ONE and only one, outcome. So the low probability of a particular outcome is not an argument that it CANNOT have happened naturally. To argue thus is to make a false use of probability.

What I, personally, find arrogant is any presumption that humanity - out of all the probable wonders of the universe that we petty men can never see - is the centre and purpose of the universe. Surely you can see why I might think that, even if you do not share the view?
 
Last edited:
Nightshift said:
Hi quantum wave!

Not so much exasperated, though I have seen the same arguments from online posters before. It's not that religion and science should be separated, but really the question of the universe being a program isn't based on faith, like religion. A religious faith is a belief-system in it's own right but it may not need be empirical. Science is a belief-system as well though the difference is we have scientific reason to back the belief-system. If you started quoting the Bible to me, then sure, stick it in the religious section by all means. If we are talking about a set of scientific circumstances in which universes are finely tuned for life, then yes, there appears to be reason to think this without resorting to any ''religion.''

People in this forum use the word ''religion'' as a way of attack because they know most scientific minded people detest religious concepts.
Click to expand...
Hi. True about about scientific circumstances vs. religion. Thanks for the response.
 
Nightshift said:
Hi quantum wave!

Not so much exasperated, though I have seen the same arguments from online posters before. It's not that religion and science should be separated, but really the question of the universe being a program isn't based on faith, like religion. A religious faith is a belief-system in it's own right but it may not need be empirical. Science is a belief-system as well though the difference is we have scientific reason to back the belief-system. If you started quoting the Bible to me, then sure, stick it in the religious section by all means. If we are talking about a set of scientific circumstances in which universes are finely tuned for life, then yes, there appears to be reason to think this without resorting to any ''religion.''

People in this forum use the word ''religion'' as a way of attack because they know most scientific minded people detest religious concepts.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I have a lot of sympathy for people of a religious persuasion. But personally I do not buy the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God, as I explain in my other post. And I think the term "fine-tuned", whether for life or anything else is inherently tendentious, because it implies a "tuner" to do the "tuning". In other words it presupposes purpose - God in other words.

There may be purpose to the cosmos, I do not deny it, but I think the fine-tuning argument does not hold water.
 
Pious said:
We are discussing scientific evidence for possible origins of the cosmos. E.g. the "consciousness causes collapse of the wave function theory" means the cosmos turns non-real and only a product of meaningless wave functions if conscious beings it is designed for are removed from it.
Click to expand...
That's actually nonsense, and a misunderstanding of quantum physics. A non-sentient photon detector can also make observations, and such a detector cannot be in a state of superposition. It's a mistake to think the detector determines the outcome, it's just that the outcome is indeterminate until it is measured.

Pious said:
Also, the holographic principle says another flat version of the cosmos simply in an encoded form on a 2-D surface is theoretically possible. Like it or not, but fine-tuning to hundreds of decimal places for some physical constants also suggests the same, that we could have been observing only projections from a program that could have been designed for conscious life. We could not be observing the real world hidden from us. So don't be a close-minded arrogant person or pretend science proves only your own narrow worldview whatever it is. Feel free to share your own scientific evidence if you are not comfortable with the possibility we suggest from the scientific evidence we present.
Click to expand...

You seem to be discounting that, given other constants, other forms of life could have come about.

Additionally, is the universe really fine-tuned? Physicist Victor Stenger thinks not.

I have made a modest attempt to obtain some feeling for what a universe with different constants would be like. Press and Lightman (1983) have shown that the physical properties of matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the lengths of the day and year, can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants (this analysis is slightly different from Carr and Rees [1979]). Two of these constants are the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions. The other two are the masses of the electron and proton. Although the neutron mass does not enter into these calculations, it would still have a limited range for there to be neutrons in stars, as discussed earlier. I find that long-lived stars that could make life more likely will occur over a wide range of these parameters. For example, if we take the electron and proton masses to be equal to their values in our universe, an electromagnetic force strength having any value greater than its value in
our universe will give a stellar lifetime of more than 680 million years. The strong interaction
strength does not enter into this calculation. If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the
proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower to achieve the same minimum stellar lifetime.

This is hardly fine-tuning.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
 
exchemist said:
My point is that I think it is a specious argument to say that the specific set of values that the fundamental constants have is of vanishingly low probability and HENCE it cannot have arisen by chance. The second proposition does not follow from the first.

Every chain of events leading to a certain outcome depends on a myriad points at which alternative paths could have been taken, but were not. Hence if one multiplies the probabilities at all these points, one could conclude that all long chains of events have a vanishingly low level of probability. But, in the end, there must be ONE and only one, outcome. So the low probability of a particular outcome is not an argument that it CANNOT have happened naturally. To argue thus is to make a false use of probability.

What I, personally, find arrogant is any presumption that humanity - out of all the probable wonders of the universe that we petty men can never see - is the centre and purpose of the universe. Surely you can see why I might think that, even if you do not share the view?
Click to expand...

No one is saying the universe is designed for humans alone, it is designed for life.
 
Pious said:
We are discussing scientific evidence for possible origins of the cosmos. E.g. the "consciousness causes collapse of the wave function theory" means the cosmos turns non-real and only a product of meaningless wave functions if conscious beings it is designed for are removed from it.
Click to expand...
"consciousness causes collapse"...

There it is! Red flag! Warning! Post contains bullshit!
 
exchemist said:
Just for the record, I have a lot of sympathy for people of a religious persuasion. But personally I do not buy the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God, as I explain in my other post. And I think the term "fine-tuned", whether for life or anything else is inherently tendentious, because it implies a "tuner" to do the "tuning". In other words it presupposes purpose - God in other words.

There may be purpose to the cosmos, I do not deny it, but I think the fine-tuning argument does not hold water.
Click to expand...



I haven't mentioned a God.

Whatever did the fine tuning doesn't even need to be sentient in theory.
 
gmilam said:
"consciousness causes collapse"...

There it is! Red flag! Warning! Post contains bullshit!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but this is the only part of his posts I myself object to. The rest of his assertions are fine, but consciousness causing a collapse isn't special, and I'll quickly explain why.

The universe is there when no one looks, the process is called Decoherence, it is a collapse of the wave function independent of conscious observers. Though the observer and observed are inexplicably linked it is not a fundamental proposition.
 
Nightshift said:
No one is saying the universe is designed for humans alone, it is designed for life.
Click to expand...

Well that's progress, certainly, towards appropriate humility. But, as explained above, I still find fine-tuning a specious and tendentious (hence very unpersuasive) argument, for what can only be God.
 
exchemist said:
Well that's progress, certainly, towards appropriate humility. But, as explained above, I still find fine-tuning a specious and tendentious (hence very unpersuasive) argument, for what can only be God.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be God either. Remove the noun God, it's often looked at or misinterpreted in the wrong light. Just think... of an intelligence. You don't need to specify it with religious names.
 
Nightshift said:
It's a puzzle for sure because we think things with purpose have to have intent.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should give you an example instead of being cryptic.

Hoyle believed for instance, the creation of the universe was cause by signals being sent back through time shaping up the universe, this was based on the experimental confirmation in the wheeler delayed choice experiment. Somehow the future can effect the past. Hoyle said, he believed there was a supercomputer located in our future horizon that was sending messages back telling the universe how to form.

This would be an example of a non-sentient, though... purposeful design.
 
Nightshift said:
Perhaps I should give you an example instead of being cryptic.

Hoyle believed for instance, the creation of the universe was cause by signals being sent back through time shaping up the universe, this was based on the experimental confirmation in the wheeler delayed choice experiment. Somehow the future can effect the past. Hoyle said, he believed there was a supercomputer located in our future horizon that was sending messages back telling the universe how to form.

This would be an example of a non-sentient, though... purposeful design.
Click to expand...

Didn't a sentient being have to build the computer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top