Suppose you have some marbles rolling around randomly at the bottom of a box. Now take the box and tilt it so that the marbles roll to one corner. Jiggle a bit so that they come to rest in a reasonably stable pattern and, more than likely, some of the marbles will collect into a "snowflake" configuration such as this:
So how do the marbles show order out of greater order? The orderliness of the snowflake pattern can be measured by counting its symmetries -- that is, how many ways can you rotate it and still have the identical pattern. For example, if rotated five degrees it won't be exactly the same, but if rotated 60 degrees it will be. Rotating the pattern in sixty degree increments (60º, 120º, 180º, etc.) produces identical patterns, thus it has six symmetries. But since you can flip it and then repeat the rotations the actual total comes to 12 symmetries.
The underlying reason for these 12 symmetries is the spherical shape of the marbles. If you started with other shapes, say seven forks or mini Jack Daniels bottles or whatever, they would not have fallen into the snowflake pattern to begin with and thus the symmetries (if any) would be different. So these 12 symmetries arise because of the particular properties of spheres being acted upon by gravity. So how many symmetries do spheres have? Since you can rotate a sphere by any amount and it will still be the same, it has an infinite number of symmetries. Thus, the order seen at the "higher" snowflake level (12 symmetries) is only a miniscule fraction of the unseen order at the "deeper," spherical level (infinite symmetry).
The marble example has a more natural analogue in crystal formation. When the pressure and temperature are right, crystals form in substances such as diamond, calcite or mica. The crystals arrange themselves into a lattice pattern. A diamond lattice, for example, is called a "hex-octahedral group," and it contains 48 symmetries. However, the order of the diamond lattice is but a small fraction of the order found in the carbon atoms composing the lattice. As with the marbles, there is a "spherical" sameness about the carbon atoms that lead to a nearly infinite number of symmetries at the atomic level. Thus, once again, the order that we observe at the higher crystal level is but a minute fraction of what exists at the deeper atomic level.
This idea that the deeper we go in the physical universe the more order we find is repeated over and over again, according to Barr, in such things as naturally occurring geometric patterns (e.g. a nautilus shell), planetary motions and the properties of elementary particles (protons, neutrons, etc.). In every case the observable order is only a tiny surface manifestation of an even greater order at a deeper, more obscure level. Order does not arise from chaos, nor does it arise from nothing. It arises from an even richer order "below."
So from where does the deepest order originate? From a naturalistic standpoint, we don't know because we have yet to uncover nature's deepest laws. However, even if we reveal these laws, the question of why they give rise to such profound order will still remain a puzzle. The pervasive order of our universe appears to go beyond necessity into the gratuitous. "Life could have evolved just as it did even if there had been occasional lapses in the orderliness of nature," claims Barr (p. 108). Life has already managed to survive numerous cosmic, climatic and ecological challenges; occasional small-scale violations of the law of conservation or angular momentum would unlikely have proved prohibitive.
To avoid an immaterial Creator as the ultimate explanation for the universe's deep order, the materialist, argues Barr, must either accept the laws of physics as "brute facts" (i.e. they just are and we don't ask why they are) or he (she) must appeal to chance (usually in the form of multiple universes with variable laws of physics). If ours is but one of an infinity of universes (or possibly "domains" within a multiverse) then simply by chance a universe will arise with physical laws such as ours. While this is certainly possible, a critical point Barr emphasizes is that proposing an infinity of unobservable entities is no more scientifically defensible than proposing a single unobservable one (God). Indeed, sustaining a purely materialistic view of the universe, Barr asserts, requires repeatedly pleading for a multiplicity of envisioned infinities -- of universes, planets, durations, realities, observers, etc. -- a habit that severely undercuts the materialist position.
"...the materialist, in order to avoid drawing unpalatable conclusions from scientific discoveries, has to postulate unobservable infinities of things. How ironic that, having renounced belief in God because God is not material or observable ... the atheist may be driven to postulate not one but an infinitude of unobservables in the material world itself!" (p. 75).
Ultimate questions, such as the ones Barr poses, stand outside of scientific certainty and even if they undermine materialism, they do not immediately or necessarily validate the Christian God or any God for that matter. But I don't take Barr's arguments as religious evangelism. Rather, I take them as scientific evangelism. The spirit of inquiry animates science. That spirit is equally violated whether we stop asking questions out of fear that God might be the answer or we stop out of fear that God might not be the answer. Just keep asking questions and follow honestly where the argument leads.
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exactly what does it mean to ‘see’ those marbles - given that the notion of the 'order' of those marbles is dependent on the 'seeing'.
Robert Lanza, in his book “Biocentrism”, raises some points that have relevance in this discussion, and I doubt that we can ever again discuss points like this without consideration of those points.
All our languages speak in terms of infinity, etc. with terminology which denotes "time". It is impossible for us to think in terms where "time" has no relevance. Time goes hand in hand with the creation of or existence of mass. Until, scientist can think in terms of unmeasureable observations then God will always be elusive.
The problem is not another dimension...it is not a dimension at all. We can't think of nothingness much less an existence of a non-dimension. What we think, believe, or feel is hampered by the hard-wiring in our brains.
The non-believers pride themselves on their intellectual use of their brains...yet, they demand physical evidence. Believers pride themselves on their faith and require no physical evidence. Doesn't this seem to be an irony of sorts.
Yes there are many things that are hard for us to imagine. This is why we attempt to model them, using intellectual tools such as math and the scientific method. It is not ironic to require physical evidence in such an endeavor, it is common sense. If we do not check our models we will never know how accurate they are.
Now, does each of these black hole/Universes have a God? I like to think that, when I die, I will be given dominion over one of the Universes and that I will become It's God. That would be the epitome of Heaven. Although, for some of weaker morals, it could be Hell.
Israel’s theosophy, also assumes infinite universes. The “basic metaphor” uses value archetypes “sefirot“, as the building blocks of creation. The “sefirot” combine and interpenetrate in an infinite number of ways eventually instantiating in our material world (incorporating physics).
“The value archetypes are based in phenomenological experience. Representing an entity’s position in time; the tree dimensions of space; its aesthetic, moral, and spiritual value; its existential status (i.e. does it exist or is it imaginary), the ideas it instantiates or represents and the “will” or purpose it serves.
(I)t can be argued that the world’s entities and events can be better described and understood through the ten-dimensional ‘sefirotic’ scheme than they can be ‘scientifically’. Science, by failing to include ideas, volition, and values as elements of its world, is thus handicapped in its account of such things as human personalities, historical events, aesthetic objects, etc; whereas the sefirotic scheme, because it is phenomenologicaly more complete, provides an ontology of much broader scope and application.” (Sanford Drob)
You had me at entities, but lost me at events. Perhaps if I thought you were only implying sporting type events, and not the type that lead to the structure of the universe.
I understand these points, and to some degree agree, but the phraseology conveys a level of certainty that causes me to pause...
Couple months ago I read "Biocentrism - R. Lanza", and while I have not mass-migrated my thinking, it certainly made me re-evaluate the established scientific (and other) 'facts'.
I would be curious to read your thoughts on "archetypes are based in phenomenological experience" relative to the arguments presented in Biocentrism.
... If you haven't read it, I can wait... it is a worthy read.
???
Someone make "the Professor" take a science class.
So, let's look at this paragraph below and then discuss infinite universes:
"If ours is but one of an infinity of universes (or possibly "domains" within a multiverse) then simply by chance a universe will arise with physical laws such as ours. While this is certainly possible, a critical point Barr emphasizes is that proposing an infinity of unobservable entities is no more scientifically defensible than proposing a single unobservable one (God). Indeed, sustaining a purely materialistic view of the universe, Barr asserts, requires repeatedly pleading for a multiplicity of envisioned infinities -- of universes, planets, durations, realities, observers, etc. -- a habit that severely undercuts the materialist position."
The irony here is that the concept of infinite universes is unscientific as it's fundamentally logically invalid. There can be no such thing as two infinite “anythings” otherwise how would you differentiate one infinite object from the next? Any rationale you devise would merely be a quantitative description thus proving that the infinite object was quantifiable and ergo not infinite.
Thus any infinite object must always be singular from a scientific standpoint.
Interesting that Christians and Jews are monotheists - the Lord their God is One! At least that doesn't violate the laws of logic and rules of scientific validity, but don’t tell that to the materialists unless you want to see them explode in
You and I exist at two different points. Drawing a line between us there is a halfway point. From that halfway point to me there is another, and then another, and then, to make a long story short, an infinite number more. From our halfway point to you there is another infinite number of halfway points.
Between us we have two identical lines both with a quantifiable number of points, that quantity being infinity. Combining those two lines we have a new infinity which is twice the size of either of the previous.
I can differentiate them by calling them lines a, b and c where a + b = c.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I can describe an infinite number of lines of various sizes between you and I and they can all be contained within that single space defined by line “c.”
The only thing I can figure is that you think infinite means all-encompassing, which it does not.
As to violating:
“logic and rules of scientific validity,”
The trinity god is considered to be both one and three, so the “logic” that must follow is 1+1 =2 and 4 and 6, which is neither logical, nor scientifically valid.
Anything that is quantifiable is not infinite. I realize that the concept of infinity is nearly impossible to comprehend but your examples are all the sort that describe quantifiable distances under a fictional infinite time period. But we know that space-time is finite so that point really is moot, is it not?
The Trinity is not that God is both one and three but that God is one being represented through three persons. Ergo the logic is 1=1 and 1 has 3 (just as you -1 being- have 2 eyes).
The Trinity may be an almost impossible concept to comprehend, like infinity, but does not violate the laws of logic or the principles of contradiction, also like infinity.
The space between you and the your interlocutor is not actually infinite, it is potentially infinite in that it can be divided an infinite number of times. The various line segments can only be compare with respect to the extent which must be finite.
"Between us we have two identical lines both with a quantifiable number of points, that quantity being infinity."
If something is infinite it is by definition not quantifiable.
As to the other matter you raise: "The trinity god is considered to be both one and three, so the “logic” that must follow is 1+1 =2 and 4 and 6, which is neither logical, nor scientifically valid."
The claim that the one God is triune is a not a philosophical claim but a claim from revelation that cannot be proven philosophically and is therefore not subject to demonstration. The philosophical case for God shows only that this is a god who precedes creation outside of time and is himself unchanging. The identification of this creator with the God of Abraham is a matter of faith and revelation.
That's not what the multiverse hypothesis proposes. It posits the existence of an infinite *number* of *finite* universes. No logical contradiction there, nor is it a descent into the realm of metaphysics, since all universes would be equally physical. The notion of a deity, on the other hand, is metaphysical one by most definitions.
However, if this multiverse is infinite then it is not quantifiable, which means that it could not be physical and thus is in the realm of metaphysics. At that point, Occam's razor would argue that such a hypothesis is more complex, makes too many new assumptions, none of which are empirical, and thus should be rejected for the simpler metaphysical explanation.
But we should also make clear, that any scientific enquiry into the cause of nature is never purely empirical and must always rely upon forensical data to determine validity, which is why cosmology is an inherently metaphysical or philosophical investigation.
God doesn't look--he lacks eyes which are material--he simply 'knows'.
He can have a hand in all things because he is outside and prior to their material causes not a temporal way, but in an external way.
Science requires some verification and is neutral on both God and, say, superstring theory. But Superstring theory is shown, mathematically, to have potential as a model for our universe.
The need for brevity may have diminished the effectiveness of the argument, but I see some considerable suppositions in it.
-In this case, detecting symmetry feels a bit like numerology. Symmetry does not have an innate magical power any more than numbers do. Geometry describes shapes, not God. If order is the nature of the universe, then nature, following it’s natural course does not imply God.
-Having looked at trees and Mandelbrot sets, I also feel that there is much symmetry in our universe, but claiming that what I’ve seen so far defines everything is like believing that visible light makes up the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The idea of an atom as a circle with a circular shell is lovely, but try to make a precise measurement of it and you find it is less a shape and more a potential position. Its components, and their components may be even more unruly.
-I think my favorite, though, is that since life has “survived” nature, (rather than been a part of it) occasional breaks in the laws of physics would not matter much either.
How did something come from nothing? There must be a God.
How did God come from nothing? There must have been a something.
Repeat.
Why do you privilege "nothing"? I suspect it is because the form of explanation that gains your highest regard is a causal explanation. Sure, that 'works.' If you adopt the pragmatic theory of truth, then you can satisfy it. But there are at least 3 other competing theories of truth, including one that traces its ancestry back to Heraclitus, truth as the meaning of being, understood as dynamic.
If we have multiple theories of truth that are differently useful and differently rooted, we can only choose which of them we intend when we assert. Our Hebrew/Christian/Islamic tradition relies on a claim of revelation that can be protected by a theory of truth as coherence. Whatever choice of a theory of truth, such a choice also rests on an epistemology of revelation. Aristotle told us, in effect, you have to begin somewhere because we are always already in the middle of things. Different "somewheres" have different "justifications." You pays your money and takes your choice.
When I look at Christianity, I see something that is "made up." As in, it's an explanation created out of whole cloth by people, and only true if by accident. Yet many are convinced, on faith, that it is absolutely correct.
When I look at science, I see a whole lot of "we don't know yet," and "we're not sure." Does it get you the "truth"? No. Does it lie about it? No.
I'll stick with science.
My “question” about something from nothing was just a flippant way to say that I thought the reasoning behind this article, and maybe the book, was equal to that tired old argument that keeps cropping up in different forms.
I don’t think that what we came from is nothing, or something. I think what we came from is unknowable. Looking back to the big bang we find our laws breaking down as time approaches t=0. So anything before that time is, and possibly will always be, beyond human understanding.
As for “Truth,” …well, you’re on your own there brother.
I don’t mind picking at bad logic, (or having mine picked at) but mostly I’m just concerned with what works. I’m all about truth with a very small t, the kind of truth that might just change with the next calculation.
Of course, that may be because I’m an enthusiast, not a professional, and my highest regard is not as much for the causal explanations as it is the casual ones.
How did God come from nothing? There must have been a something.
Repeat." Until you get a headache, are tired of the endless string, or your brain shuts down.
Yeah, like when the media twist Sara Palin's words by quoting her verbatim.
Why does Gawd hide?
This will never be a problem for me because I simply have no fear that that's the answer.