anthropic principle vs. m theory

relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
anthropic principle vs. m theory

I am always amazed at how many incredibly smart scientist can be so bold in their non-belief in a creator. From what I can understand in the last decade or so it seems that we are confirming more and more that (it appears)we are the product of a system that is fine tuned for life to come to being, essentially the anthropic principle.
Definitions of Anthropic principle on the Web:

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that the observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Any of several similar explanations for the nature of the universe, and for the values of its fundamental constants, that states either that the universe is as it is because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it, or that the very presence of intelligent life constrains the universe to be ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropic_principle

The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the purpose of containing intelligent beings; namely, humans. Much debate surrounds this issue. ...
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Theolo ... _Again.htm


Now as a layman on these things it just seems obvious to me that many a smart person is getting nervous with this idea and the work around is M-theory aka string theory. 
Definitions of m theory on the Web:

(particle physics) a theory that involves an eleven-dimensional universe in which the weak and strong forces and gravity are unified and to which all the string theories belong
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In non-technical terms, M-theory presents an idea about the basic substance of the universe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified
)

Now if I'm correct in my understanding, all of the anthropic principles are verifiable through experimentation. M-theory has no experimental test,..yet. It is essentially a theory with lots of complicated math that seems concerned with creating a work around to avoid the leading thought that belief in a creator is a very reasonable position to hold. 

What am I missing here???

My best guess is that hate of religion corrupts the very idea of a creator. When IMO they are mutually exclusive.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysical ideas are

Metaphysical ideas are simply obsolete and fruitless and simplistic ways to think about the ultimate nature of reality, rendered hopelessly irrelevant by what we now have uncovered about it by scientific, ie systematic and open, investigations, having long exhausted the capacities of the human mind by itself, ie when not inspired by the deeply counter-intuitive ideas thrown up by our ever-deeper digging into the indefinitely complex and subtle reality of matter and energy...

Quantum and Relativity theories were just the start - 

God-creators are simply primitive holdovers from our ancient past, where our propensity to see purposeful agency everywhere populated our imagination with gods and demons and endless variations on the theme.

It is time to grow up.

Throw out your Bibles and Korans and Upanishads and so on, and 'get real'.

OK, hang on to them for their story-telling value - we also have  a deep need for telling ourselves stories, exercising our imagination unconstrained by strict reality.

Most of us cannot be deeply involved at the cutting edge of science, but it can inspire even more fresh narratives to entertain and inspire us, and hopefully distract us from our petty squabbles over diminishing resources, and possibly provide hope for keeping our 'civilization' going a little longer.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Inferences

 

relrick wrote:

I am certainly open to what ever gets fleshed out. Facts are facts. Perhaps the LHC will let us know soon enough. I do think it is a false idea that if there are inferences to anything metaphysical they should be tossed. Let the cards fall where they may. 

 

The only inferences our eyes and instruments show indicate atoms and a void.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A few commenta specifically

A few commenta specifically on points in the OP:

I have been frequently amazed at how many apparently smart scientists do still cling to some form of God belief. Nowhere near a majority of course, but there are a number around like Francis Collins.

I am not so surprised these days, having a better grasp at the way people think.

The Universe exhibits complex interacting elements, some things which some people associate with stuff we create, not seen outside our culture/society. To call these 'elements of design' is begging the question.

We see everyday complex systems arise from far simpler components - trees grow from tiny seeds, so growing complexity, emergence, is an everyday occurrence.

The anthropic principle has not been "verified". We do not know enough about all the possible ranges of values those 'constants' could actually take meaningfully, with what probability distribution, to even guess at an actual likelihood of something like our universe emerging from some random shuffle, let alone get much idea about what other combinations of values could support a viable universe with some persistent complex form of organism.

I don't think it is even possible to test the anthropic principle. How do you go about setting up a set of experimental mini-universes with different physical constants and watch what happens over a billion years or so?

Creationists accuse us of not being able to 'experimentally test evolution' , and then someone wants to claim some speculation like this which they see as supporting the nonsense that is God is experimentally testable in some sense?? WTF??

Religious beliefs corrupt reason.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Metaphysical ideas are simply obsolete and fruitless and simplistic ways to think about the ultimate nature of reality,

I don't think I can agree with you that the simple act of rational investigation into being and knowing is obsolete, Bob. Metaphysical ideas are still important, especially when the science throws up counter-intuitions against those ideas of being and knowing which we otherwise take for granted, as it does in high level theoretical physics fairly frequently.

Relrick wants to know if scientists are trying to bury "God" under the weight of extra-complex physical speculation, of course we both agree this must, predominantly, not be the case, via the soundness of scientific reasoning, however, it is true that there are metaphysical and/or philosophical questions attached to ideas like string theory. What do the, apparently, finely tuned values of physical constants imply about the potential of being and knowing? for example, is a question you've given an answer to on the previous page.

As you know, I believe we labour, often, under a faulty concept of being in our attempt to understand the universe and our condition in it. And it is here that metaphysics, ie the rational investigation into questions of being and knowing, would become a useful tool again, to generate possibilities of defining being with the potential to further understanding.

More on topic, another example, strings are metaphysical ideas, they were first considered useful for the way they can avoid mathematical obstructions, to modelling observed physical reality with point particles, such as singularities (holes). But case in point, of course, is that; had Susskind, Neilsen or Nambu not indulged a little metaphysical speculation about particles we wouldn't have string theory at all. So I don't think it's exactly futile to consider new metaphysical ideas, and it's definitely not entirely fruitless. Yeah?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BobSpence1

Eloise wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Metaphysical ideas are simply obsolete and fruitless and simplistic ways to think about the ultimate nature of reality,

I don't think I can agree with you that the simple act of rational investigation into being and knowing is obsolete, Bob. Metaphysical ideas are still important, especially when the science throws up counter-intuitions against those ideas of being and knowing which we otherwise take for granted, as it does in high level theoretical physics fairly frequently.

Relrick wants to know if scientists are trying to bury "God" under the weight of extra-complex physical speculation, of course we both agree this must, predominantly, not be the case, via the soundness of scientific reasoning, however, it is true that there are metaphysical and/or philosophical questions attached to ideas like string theory. What do the, apparently, finely tuned values of physical constants imply about the potential of being and knowing? for example, is a question you've given an answer to on the previous page.

As you know, I believe we labour, often, under a faulty concept of being in our attempt to understand the universe and our condition in it. And it is here that metaphysics, ie the rational investigation into questions of being and knowing, would become a useful tool again, to generate possibilities of defining being with the potential to further understanding.

More on topic, another example, strings are metaphysical ideas, they were first considered useful for the way they can avoid mathematical obstructions, to modelling observed physical reality with point particles, such as singularities (holes). But case in point, of course, is that; had Susskind, Neilsen or Nambu not indulged a little metaphysical speculation about particles we wouldn't have string theory at all. So I don't think it's exactly futile to consider new metaphysical ideas, and it's definitely not entirely fruitless. Yeah?

I guess I see that those basic ideas, especially about the nature of strings, etc, are more appropriately and productively considered under the framework of mathematics, and at that edge of science where it can be considered to be touching on more speculative areas which are typically seen as more part of philosophy than science. The 'Philosophy of Science' should incorporate/encompass much that would traditionally been addressed by metaphysics.

I follow many discussions on a collection of podcasts which I have come to value, which between them cover this whole area, as I see it. I see no value in any separate 'discipline' or study area of 'metaphysics', rather all the stuff at the fringe of 'solid' science, shading off into the more purely speculative, conceptual realms should be kept together as far as possible.

I honestly see no value or need for 'metaphysics' itself, at least as it comes across from older contexts. In my repeated experience, with occasional exceptions, philosophers, in the more traditional sense,  show less grasp of the broader implications of modern science than many of the more 'philosophically' inclined, for want of a better term, scientists. Partly because they seem to be more inclined to hang onto old concepts which, to me, are definitely past their 'use by' date, and are simply inadequately informed on the actual theories.

Of course I almost certainly think of what metaphysics refers to and what it considers differently from your understanding of it.

This is vital to allow an active exchange of ideas both ways, so the 'metaphysics' doesn't drift too far away into the fantasyland of Plato and Co, and can be informed by the real insights of science only accessible from empirical investigation, and in turn can keep suggesting different ways to conceptualize the more abstract aspects of our developing models of reality. 

I have recently been following a podcast which Massimo Pigliucci is a regular host, and I do like him, but even there I detected a leaning toward Philosophy which I felt he showed just a little too much deference to the discipline for my liking.

One of my main objections to metaphysics and much of Philosophy - they carry too much 'baggage' from really outmoded ways of thinking, they pay far too much respect to the ideas of prominent historical figures in the field.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Agreed, I guess the

 

Agreed, I guess the difference between our views comes down to whether to call it metaphysics, doesn't it. I concur that it only really becomes useful after examination under scientific priniples, whatever you call it, if it ever becomes useful at all.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

One of my main objections to metaphysics and much of Philosophy - they carry too much 'baggage' from really outmoded ways of thinking, they pay far too much respect to the ideas of prominent historical figures in the field.

I tend to the same myself. Nothing to argue here.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK but metaphysics has the

 

OK but metaphysics has the same concept behind it as supernatural. Philosophers may disagree but they are mostly full of bunk in this area.

 

There are things which are the study of the natural world. Pretty much what we can see or reason from evidence. Protons come to mind here. Nobody can or will ever see a proton but we have sufficient evidence that they are real.

 

We call that stuff physics.

 

Then there is stuff that has no actual evidence to establish that it is real. It is in the realm of thought. We call that metaphysics or supernatural.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OK but metaphysics has the same concept behind it as supernatural. Philosophers may disagree but they are mostly full of bunk in this area.

 

There are things which are the study of the natural world. Pretty much what we can see or reason from evidence. Protons come to mind here. Nobody can or will ever see a proton but we have sufficient evidence that they are real.

 

We call that stuff physics.

 

Then there is stuff that has no actual evidence to establish that it is real. It is in the realm of thought. We call that metaphysics or supernatural.

No actual evidence? Evidence is not either real or unreal. There are many kinds of evidence and many degrees of its effectivity to prove something. Scientists need to take into account the evidence that most suits their needs, it must prove their point and be easy to popularize. But for example police detectives could tell you, how various the evidence can be.
I see this attitude of "nothing exists beyond immediate evidence" as dangerous and closed-minded. Not only it rejects many clues for next research, it presumes that the undiscovered part of world (if any) is similar to what little we have already proven.
More correct approach would be to consider all sorts of evidence according to its degree of credibility.

Similarly, there are various kinds and degrees of the "supernatural", comparable to solid, liquid, gaseous or almost immaterial substances and surrounding universe composed of them. They are of course proportionally diffcult to prove, the more distant they are to range of sensitivity of our devices. Currently, one of my hopes to prove something is the Experimental Life Energy Field Meter.

As I understand it, anyone can go to the Orgone biophysical research lab in Oregon, USA and see experimental evidence of the solidest phases of what is currently considered supernatural. Similarly, by ordering some materials from there you can replicate some of these experiments at home. But you can not expect the orgone lab building to come to you, you can't expect it to have expensive devices from decent funding, neither you can expect it to have a broad advertisement of it in media and scientific journals. You need certain popularity for that. And popularity... well, even mainstream idiocy can be immensely popular, rather obscure truth. Just see what attention is given to some Stephen Hawking's nonsenses.

So, as I say, there are many degrees of evidence, of knowledge, materiality, truth and favorite trends in physics. Nothing is simple. If physics would be all that is real, we would simply call it reality. I would gladly see some skeptic near Oregon to get his ass over there, arrange an appointment and look at the evidence. Call it a skeptical vacation, if you want. Reading scientific journals is fine, but reading nothing but them is not objective.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK Luminon, you actually

 

OK Luminon, you actually hit on something there. There is a bit of a dirty (but open) secret of science.

 

Let me tell it this way:

 

Every generation has young scientists who come up with stuff that old scientists refuse to accept. Given that old scientists have built their lives on what they do, that much is not unexpected.

 

Eventually, the old scientists die and the younger ones grow up. Then, the stuff that the younger guys came up with is no longer being blocked. Given that they had a couple of decades to think about stuff, whatever really did turn out to be wrong will be dropped but the stuff that did happen to be right becomes new additions to science.

 

The problem really is that by this time, they are old scientists and they really don't want to have truck with the crap that the new crop of young scientists have going on. Which is actually fine because lots of the stuff on the cutting edge will eventually turn out to be wrong.

 

Got that much?

 

There is a humorous observation that is relevant here:

 

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK Luminon, you actually hit on something there. There is a bit of a dirty (but open) secret of science.

 

Let me tell it this way:

 

Every generation has young scientists who come up with stuff that old scientists refuse to accept. Given that old scientists have built their lives on what they do, that much is not unexpected.

 

Eventually, the old scientists die and the younger ones grow up. Then, the stuff that the younger guys came up with is no longer being blocked. Given that they had a couple of decades to think about stuff, whatever really did turn out to be wrong will be dropped but the stuff that did happen to be right becomes new additions to science.

 

The problem really is that by this time, they are old scientists and they really don't want to have truck with the crap that the new crop of young scientists have going on. Which is actually fine because lots of the stuff on the cutting edge will eventually turn out to be wrong.

 

Got that much?

Yeah, I got that, and probably this is why geniuses are sometimes honored decades after their death. It's similar to Catholicism, only their saints are canonized centuries after death. You know, when I see something, I think how it could work better, more effectively. That applies to everything, politics, economy and so on, science is no exception. I am, therefore I must understand and innovate.

I don't say that old scientists should be given lead or stroncium in their food, so they die a few decades sooner, but you get the idea. Why there should be any respect for the old, in age of young kids who routinely break through cybernetic security? Technology got better, science got faster, but people live still longer and exchange slower in their well defended chairs. This means that the amount of "young" scientists increases like a vapor under pressure. This system is old, outdated and ripe for revolution. It was good in old times, when education was scarce and scientific advancement was slow. Once a medieval professor had such an education as today 14 year olds on grammar school. Times change.

I am somewhat in touch with the unseen side of life and the "dissident science". What you forgot to mention is, that the science of old has its own agenda and not all "young scientists" ever get included in there. Therefore, the dissident science gains a life of its own. It is very limited and disorganized by the lack of funding and support in media. That is the only reasons why the status quo still holds. Nothing good comes out of that, there are feelings of persecution, martyrdom, conspiracy and being special.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
There is a humorous observation that is relevant here:

 

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Yeah... I wonder how many people that makes think. How much of contemporary magic is future science? The magic begs to be understood and to be materialized as science. It longs for the structure of scientific method, for the force of funding, for the prestige of mainstream media and for the machine time of manufacturing lines.

The mediums and spiritual healers are the way of least resistance, so the magic plentifully manifests throug them. But they are also people of least understanding and least material importance. Scientists are people of greatest resistance, for they have a narrow notion of what is material. But they also have the greatest understanding, so they're necessary for materialization of what is today considered magic.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well Luminon, the bleeding

 

Well Luminon, the bleeding edge of scientific inquiry has lots of ideas. Often there will be several ideas that contradict each other so they obviously can't all be right. Twenty years from now, if we are lucky, we will find out which one was the real deal (or possibly it will happen that none of them were but another idea that has yet to come forward will turn out to be it).

 

For example, right now, there are multiple confirmed observations that say that the universe is expanding faster than the current models allow for. There are at least eight explanations out there. The best that we can say is something called “dark energy” which is really a bullshit place holder for “we don't know what is going on”.

 

As far as contemporary magic goes, that would depend on what you accept as magic.

 

The example I cite here is that a couple of years ago, there was an enormously popular TV show where the host claimed to talk to the dead. In order to get in, you had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as thick as a phone book and you had about three seconds to decide.

 

Basically, if you wanted to hear that your dead grandfather wishes you the best of luck, you had to agree that if you ever told anyone about the scam they were pulling, you agreed to a summary judgment so large that your grand kids would be left still paying them off.

 

If you watched the show, it seemed that they guy was cold reading the audience. However, the truth did come out despite the gigantic legal document. He was not even cold reading. He was getting enough people to tape five episodes in the studio for a single day. He would have them gather in a cafeteria to wait to be let in the actual studio.

 

How much would you be willing to bet that people being left to cool out would talk to each other and say “I really hope that he can talk to my uncle George”? That woulf have been caught on hidden microphones and handed to the host.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Well Luminon, the bleeding edge of scientific inquiry has lots of ideas. Often there will be several ideas that contradict each other so they obviously can't all be right. Twenty years from now, if we are lucky, we will find out which one was the real deal (or possibly it will happen that none of them were but another idea that has yet to come forward will turn out to be it).

 

For example, right now, there are multiple confirmed observations that say that the universe is expanding faster than the current models allow for. There are at least eight explanations out there. The best that we can say is something called “dark energy” which is really a bullshit place holder for “we don't know what is going on”.

Neither do I, I also have no information on what is the "dark energy". Maybe I just haven't read the right book yet, or my cosmologic sources avoid what is on galactic scale and greater.
But I do have a good idea what is dark matter. We have had a fellow here who says that his computations can explain the dark matter. I posted a video of bullet cluster galaxy and dark matter viewed through gravitational lensing. So this is supposed to be a time dilatation effect. But more recently I heard about the succesful experiment of recording the sound that the dark matter particles make. So far so good! This theory might survive and thrive for more decades to come.
 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
As far as contemporary magic goes, that would depend on what you accept as magic.

The example I cite here is that a couple of years ago, there was an enormously popular TV show where the host claimed to talk to the dead. In order to get in, you had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as thick as a phone book and you had about three seconds to decide.

Basically, if you wanted to hear that your dead grandfather wishes you the best of luck, you had to agree that if you ever told anyone about the scam they were pulling, you agreed to a summary judgment so large that your grand kids would be left still paying them off.

If you watched the show, it seemed that they guy was cold reading the audience. However, the truth did come out despite the gigantic legal document. He was not even cold reading. He was getting enough people to tape five episodes in the studio for a single day. He would have them gather in a cafeteria to wait to be let in the actual studio.

How much would you be willing to bet that people being left to cool out would talk to each other and say “I really hope that he can talk to my uncle George”? That woulf have been caught on hidden microphones and handed to the host.

"Talking to the dead" business is the most in need of skepticism. Here it is either a scam, or astral phenomenon, which is not much better. Even if you get a real ghost talking to you, there are no guarantees it isn't a liar, which he often is and even more often he won't tell anything new, useful or real. The true esotericists despise mediumship, that is contacting ghosts and most of astral activities.
If someone invents a method to record the astral voice, picture or video, then all right, we will know who are we talking to. But without technology and critical thinking backing us up, people will be scammed by conmen of all kinds, people, ghosts, and other astral vermin. Anyway, proving the existence of ghosts is not that important right now, it has only secondary benefit in removing the fear of death in people who have it.

According to esoteric teaching, astral world is a whole new dimension, adjacent to ours and very very problematic place. But for us it is more urgent and beneficial to discover the other half of our 100% material dimension. This other half consists of dark matter, orgone, or etheric matter. It is much more similar to our matter than astral matter, and therefore easier to discover. Either scientists will discover it by themselves in a few decades at most, or they will be told about it.
Many etheric phenomena are considered as "magic" by scientists, but they are strictly material and should be regarded as such. It is material, even though it can pass through wall.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.