The Physics of God

[CraigD]

Craig, the answers to your questions [(what sort of experiments might be able to determine if our universe is of the “tweaked” type, or the anthropic principle type)] may never be fothcoming. Man seems to now be capable and determined to end his short stay on the earth and perhaps take the earth with him as he exits.

To quote the Doors (”Roadhouse Blues” 1970): “the future’s uncertain and the end is always near”. We can only work toward and hope we won’t exterminate ourselves, so that answers to our many questions can be forthcoming.

I don't know of a need to ''tweak'' the universe.

This follows directly from the assumption that a universe with initial conditions conducive to the appearance of intelligent life – specifically us – is very unlikely, and that some intelligence is capable of altering – “tweaking” - them. As this thread’s preponderance of science fiction references, as opposed to science references, suggests, these are very speculative assumptions.

We probably have it as good as it gets

In the sense that none of us personally are likely to live in any universe but the present, we almost certainly have a universe as good as it gets. The subject of this thread, however, assumes a larger scale than an individual human lifetime. On a scale spanning the origins of many universes, whether our present universe is the best one possible is, I think, though a very speculative question, one for which an affirmative answer is far from one we can reasonably call “probable”.

 

The theme of several science fiction stories in this genre is one of an iterative process of changing the initial conditions of a succession of universes to promote the emergence of intelligent life.

 

If the artifacts have not been obvious to us now, they may never be. We pretty well understand or at least aware of the composition and machinery of the universe.

I disagree.

 

Although present day physics has attained an excellent ability to make successful theoretical predictions, the most fundamental theories contain many “tuning parameters”, corresponding to fundamental physical constants the values of which must be determined experimentally, not explained theoretically. A strong criticism of such theories is that they are as adept at describing physical realities other than our own, with no means of explaining why ours exists, and these do not.

 

I’m unaware of any well-developed present day scientific theory that suggests how one might, if present at any given critical point in the history of a universe, one might effect such constants – though means of altering less fundamental characteristics, such as the distribution of stars and galaxies, are easier to imagine. “The Physics of God”, as this thread is titled, remains IMHO more in the domain of science fiction than rigorous science.

To me, the important part we don't understand is

intelligence.

I agree that this is an important point. So far in this discussion, the assumption implied by many relevant works of science fiction has been largely unchallenged: that, given the right initial conditions, complex biological life and intelligence “just happens”.

 

This is far from the only, or even the most common position in “Physics of God” science fiction stories. Speculation of advanced intelligences directly interceding in the evolutionary process are very common – James Hogan’s ”Giants series” are among my favorite of this genre. The genre is so popular that significant instances of it are popularly classified as non-fiction – for example von Daniken’s 1968 “Chariots of the Gods?” – though none to my knowledge are considered accepted science. Some such stories even form the core of a moderately large religion – L. Ron Hubbard’s “Xenu” story, which are accepted scriptures of Scientologists. (how many Scientologists there are is the subject of controversy, with estimates varying from under 100,000 to 10,000,000)

… intelligence. The ability of inert matter to combine in such a way as to create thought and smell and live reproduction of cells guided by an unknown power.

This is not a conventional or scientific definition of intelligence. The idea that intelligence can only arise when “guided by an unknown power” is not a scientific one.

At what particulate level does thought or life exist? Is it subatomic, or above? Maybe 500-1000 years from now we will have all the answers and also the answer to how all this came to be.

This is a very interesting question, upon which much scientific attention has been focused, and recent advances in biochemical and bioimaging technology resulted in accelerated scientific progress. Although great challenges remain, I’m optimistic that a profound scientific understanding of human and other animal intelligences will emerge within decades, not centuries.

 

However, barring the hypothesis that intelligence and its underlying physical structures is a sort of “radio receiver for God”, I don’t think this question is immediately relevant to this thread.

[freeztar]

the authors present the theory, supported by extensive fictional evidence that the current universe was engineered by very one or more very advanced intelligences in order to maximize the appearance of intelligent life.

 

This is quite interesting. What do you mean by "maximize the appearance of intelligent life"?

(btw, I love the phrase "extensive fictional evidence") :)

 

Although advanced beyond the detailed comprehension of any intelligent being present in the novels, these engineers were finite in mass-energy, and far from omnipotent, capable of making subtle, “fine tuning” adjustment to the early universe (according to the novels, the universe is gravitationally closed, allowing information to be passed between big crunch/bounce/bang cycles), and either initiate or influence beings who initiate huge (The Rama spacecraft, one of many, masses about [math]10^{16}[/math] kg) engineering projects, but not simply “will” worlds and beings into existence, per usual religious creation stories.

 

Fascinating, I really need to start reading some good scifi me thinks. So how would an open universe be dealt with?

 

Engineers that design automobiles might abandon a design years later.

Perhaps this universe is just a tester.

 

"Does the idea that God might be f*%$ing with us bother anybody?" - Bill Hicks

Is not a not all-powerful, but merely sufficiently powerful, “God”, as depicted in these stories, compatible with scientific theory?

 

If so, then it would seem reasonable that we might be able to detect the "engineer", yes/no?

[Turtle]

Maybe there is some little bit of DNA/RNA that is akin to programmers putting in REM lines? It sneaked by the super-creator editors, and a society advances to a point where they discover it for the smoking gun it is. :thumbs_up

[wigglieverse]

I sincerely hope you know that a person's post on another internet forum is not a valid citation.

I don't give a monkey's *******

be told somthing

Per simia garrire? Non reor.

[InfiniteNow]

I don't give a monkey's *******.

 

Troll.

 

 

 

For the full context of my quote he snipped:

This is such a remedial request. You shouldn't have to be told somthing so simple, but now you have, so there's no excuse.

[jedaisoul]

Jed... You may think it is a logical fallacy, but we still don't know what happened or why. Arguing from what humans call ''logic'' does not answer all questions. The Big Bang does not strike me as a logical event. You seem to be arguing that the universe just ''happened''' for no reason and with no cause. That does not seem ''logical'' to me. I'm sure this argument has been hashed out many times over. The true answer is... we don't know what happened, how or why.

Just a brief note to say that I think there are two points in what questor has said that are so significant that they merit separate threads. So I have:

a) Started a tread in the Philosophy forum "Logic is Absolute".

:phones: Started a thread in this forum "The Universe Was Not Caused".

 

I hope that people will find these to be of value...

[C1ay]

It is a logical falacy to suggest that something can pre-exist the universe.

 

It is a logical fallacy to attempt to discern anything predating our universe from logical deduction...

[jedaisoul]

It is a logical fallacy to attempt to discern anything predating our universe from logical deduction...

I agree that it is may be a fallacy to attempt to discern anything predating our universe scientifically, because, as I understand it, the big bang theory only defines what takes place once the universe exists. However, I cannot see why logic does not apply. How have you come to the logical conclusion that it does not apply?

[Majik]

It is a logical fallacy to attempt to discern anything predating our universe from logical deduction...

Cause and effect are derived as examples of material implication. Matrial implication is the relationship of proof. You can have a true premise and a true conclusion, a false premise and false conclusion, a false premise and true conclusion. But never a true premise and false conclusion.

 

Logic does allow a false premise but true conclusion. Or in other words, there can be an effect without a cause. Which means that it is perfectly logical that the universe sprang from nothing - no cause. Since it is logical for the universe to come from nothing, does logic itself predate the universe? Or is logic itself created with the universe?

[C1ay]

I agree that it is may be a fallacy to attempt to discern anything predating our universe scientifically, because, as I understand it, the big bang theory only defines what takes place once the universe exists. However, I cannot see why logic does not apply. How have you come to the logical conclusion that it does not apply?

 

The Big Bang Theory is a theory and not a law or postulate because it cannot be proven that is fact by logic or any other means and it says nothing about time before the Big Bang. This suggests that you cannot analyze the Big Bang by logic and draw any conclusions about anything that predated the Big Bang itself.

[jedaisoul]

The Big Bang Theory is a theory and not a law or postulate because it cannot be proven that is fact by logic or any other means and it says nothing about time before the Big Bang. This suggests that you cannot analyze the Big Bang by logic and draw any conclusions about anything that predated the Big Bang itself.

I agree. I'm not analysing the big bang.

[Majik]

The Big Bang Theory is a theory and not a law or postulate because it cannot be proven that is fact by logic or any other means and it says nothing about time before the Big Bang. This suggests that you cannot analyze the Big Bang by logic and draw any conclusions about anything that predated the Big Bang itself.

 

Just a moment. All our understanding is based on logic; without it we have no basis to establish any theory of creation. And logic is based on true and false. Propositions that really do describe reality are considered true; and propositions that do not describe what is real are considered false. We consider true that which exists and false that which does not exist.

 

So now, if logic is at all relevant to reality, then true describes existence distinguished from false. And if existence is distinguished from non-existence because the universe is logical which distinguishes true from fasle, then the universe came from nothing and had a beginning.

[C1ay]

So now, if logic is at all relevant to reality, then true describes existence distinguished from false. And if existence is distinguished from non-existence because the universe is logical which distinguishes true from fasle, then the universe came from nothing and had a beginning.

 

How do you deduce logically that the universe could not have existed forever? How do you rule out that possibility?

 

Logic requires enough data to make such deductions. We do not have enough data to conclude anything about the origins of the universe(s).

[Mike C]

Majik and C1aty:

 

The Egyptians created the 1st god in the Middle East that was named RA. It was the SUN and promoted as the 'creator god'.

So the origin of religion here is the Sun that is a physical object and my interpretation of the Sun is that it is just a source of 'energy' and nothing else.

 

Of course the Jews expanded this religion to include the Moon also with their idea of 'light' and 'darkness'.

This is the only physics I see in the ME religions. Nothing but human ideas that created the universe and life.

 

The Conservation Laws in physics as I interpret them is that you cannot create or destroy matter but only transform it.

So their was no beginning and there will be no end to the physical universe.

Those CL's have more credibility to me that the ideas of ancient minds with limited knowledge.

 

This, of course, does not apply to the biological realm. Life can exist without light such as bacterias or mushrooms. But the greatest form of life like the plants, require light.

But the animal life requires the 'self reproducing' cells with the 'stem' cell that can reproduce into other forms. So here, we can credit the females as the 'creator Gods' because these cells resemble 'eggs'. They also reproduce without light as long as they have the proper nourishment.

 

Mike C

[Majik]

How do you deduce logically that the universe could not have existed forever? How do you rule out that possibility?

 

Logic requires enough data to make such deductions. We do not have enough data to conclude anything about the origins of the universe(s).

 

The logic of true and false is relevant to reality because existence is distinguished from non-existence. If the whole universe makes a distinction between existence from non-existence, then that distinction is not made without there also being a state of non-existence. There must have been a state of non-existence if the universe coming into being is the opposite of the non-existence. Otherwise, we could not say that the universe was logical. Logic would not be relevant to existence if the universe as a whole did not stand in opposition to non-existence. The two states of existence and non-existence must have been the case if logic is relevant to reality.

 

My argument here is all very philosophical. I have no data or observation to refer to. It is totally an argument based on principle. Have I made my point clear?

[TheBigDog]

Jumping in at the end...

 

I have always maintained that God does not need to be omnipotent to be the creator. Extreme knowledge can act as a substitute for extreme power. Consider the technology of man. Extrapolate the growth of knowledge from the past 500 years onto the next 500 years. Is it plausible that at the end of that point we would have the technology to terraform a planet? To genetically engineer life to a boundless diversity of applications? Is it plausible that we discover an abundance of planets, some of which act not as the home for men, but for pure experimentation and observation of engineered natural selection on a long time scale?

 

Imagine I could make a capsule, a very robust little capsule, that I could fly into the sun. In the gravity well of the sun I would be in a condition of very slow moving time. Through natural mechanics of the star I am ejected periodically where I can observe changes that have happened over the past ??? thousand years. I observe, tinker, and go back into the sun. within my lifetime I witness a million or more years of natural and engineered selection, yet I am not a supreme being, I simply have extreme technology and knowledge.

 

Now imagine that the living things on earth take notice of me for some reason. Would they not consider me more powerful than I actually am? Is it my fault that the observers make me out to be something I am not? Yet, I am still responsible for the miracles of creation that they credit to me.

 

Here is something I wrote a couple of years ago on the topic...

We are going to look together at the universe through the eyes of a objective observer. This is only an intellectual exercise. Please do not look at it as a statement of facts that cannot be proven. I am looking for plausibility only. Here we go...

 

A group of scientists are seeking to perform a series of experiments. They are trying to recreate in the laboratory the creation of life on earth. Their laboratory is a young, undeveloped, life-free solar system.

 

They find a suitable planet, but it needs modifications to apply the experiment. It is a rocky, molten, barren world. None of the most needed elements of life can exist there. The only correct thing is the distance from the central star.

 

They decide that the planet's orbit and spin are not entirely correct for the experiment. In the far reaches of the system they gently nudge a large body. It is not a great force, just very well calculated. As it falls into the grip of the central star's gravity it begins to accelerate inward toward its target. When it collides with the planet there is a mighty collision. The planet's axis is tilted, and its speed of rotation altered as a large mass is separated from it that becomes the moon. This will be needed to provide tides to the oceans - preventing them from becoming too static.

 

There is no water on the planet, so they go out to the outermost reaches of the system and find frozen water and minerals under the slightest influence of the sun. With careful calculation they gently nudge these pieces so they will collide with the planet far to the center, each providing a supply of water and other rare elements and minerals randomly across the surface of the world. Eventually enough water, nitrogen and oxygen is sent to the surface to create liquid oceans and atmosphere critical for the experiment.

 

There is great debate among the otherwise patient scientists about how long to wait to see if life begins "on its own" or if they should plant some of the required building blocks on the planet that now has a young and very energetic atmosphere. Eventually there is evidence of basic life. Observations continue to see how evolution progresses. And debate among the scientists rages over how long to let evolution happen "of its own accord"

 

When life eventually organizes into something that can understand the principles of the scientists, the beings on the planet develop the notion of a "God: Creator of the Universe". Their notion of a God that created the universe is wrong, but do they not have a creator "God" in the form of the scientists? They would not exist without them, yet the scientists are not supernatural.

 

Bill

My question is this; why must God be omnipotent? Could we not become creators if we chose to? It seems that the universe (life on earth) could have been created by miracles similar to those that built the coral castle, rather than of what we define as divinity. The all or nothing approach seems short sighted for both sides of the argument.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

The universe had a beginning. True or False?

 

Just because a state of non-existence, opposite existence, is a plausible state does not mean that the universe was ever in that state.