December 22, 2002
HIGH FIDELITY:
Digits and Fidgets: Is the universe fine-tuned for life? (Michael Shermer, December 16, 2002, Scientific American)In an attempt to prove that the universe was intelligently designed, religion has lately been fidgeting with the fine-tuning digits of the cosmos. The John Templeton Foundation even grants cash prizes for such "progress in religion." Last year mathematical physicist and Anglican priest John C. Polkinghorne, recognized because he "has invigorated the search for interface between science and religion," was given $1 million for his "treatment of theology as a natural science." In 2000 physicist Freeman Dyson took home a $945,000 prize for such works as his 1979 book, Disturbing the Universe, in which he writes: "As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."Mathematical physicist Paul Davies also won a Templeton prize. In his 1999 book, The Fifth Miracle, he makes these observations about the fine-tuned nature of the cosmos: "If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: 'Make life!' And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct."
Indeed, it would be wonderful. But not any more wonderful than if it were not correct. Even atheist Stephen W. Hawking sounded like a supporter of intelligent design when he wrote: "And why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?... If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been less by one part in 1010, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 1010, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is."
Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, is especially interesting--as much of it as I understood anyway--because it is almost an argument with himself about whether God lies behind the perceived universe. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 22, 2002 6:49 AM
Ignore that man behind the curtain?
Posted by: Uncle Bill at December 22, 2002 7:27 AMSimple life is, as Harold Morowitz says,
apparently inevitable given a setup somewhat
like Earth -- of which there should be many
billions of like examples. That simple life
necessarily or even by tendency generates
those other factors, like consciousness, is
very doubtful.
The only example we have is here, and simple
life got along just fine for something like 3
billion years without generating any more
intelligence or consciousness than a microbe.
That leads me to suppose that intelligence
and all like that is entirely stochastic. It could
have happened after 100 million years or
after 100 billion years, or given that range,
never.
This is the thing about darwinism that non-
and anti-darwinians find hardest to grasp.
Nothing about natural selection is inevitable.
Nothing.
The physicists notoriously -- probably because
everyting else they deal with is inevitable -- cannot
grasp this.
Gould, who otherwise I have little use for,
was exactly on point to emphasize that
darwinianism is a historical process. History
also deals in entirely unique, unpredictable
and non-inevitable changes.
With all due respect to Jacques Monod (aka Harry), some physicists grasp it well enough, but find it incredible - as in 'not credible' rather than fantastic.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at December 22, 2002 3:54 PMHarry:
We might note that, as you say, there should be billions of example but there is in fact only one. Odd, eh?
You're wrong, Harry. Anyone who doesn't realize that about darwinism doesn't know what darwinism is (as opposed to 'not grasping' this or that).
Posted by: Jim at December 22, 2002 8:15 PMExactly my point, Jim. Everybody thinks he
can understand darwinism without studying it,
because it can be summarized in a simple
sentence or two.
Well, so can the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
but very few people claim to understand all
the implications of that one without some
hard slogging.
And, Orrin, there may in fact be billions of
examples. We have not done a test to find
them yet.
I think the anthropic principle -- and the whole
argument around it -- just plain silly. I observe
that it took a very long time to get multicellular
life. I find this a provoking thought, but pending
further data, I am not prepared to say what
it means.
Consider this: Plants have been around longest
of all, but even yet intelligence and consciousness
have not appeared in plants.
Darwinism is not teleological.
Mr. Judd;
That's the Fermi paradox - why haven't we seen other examples? Of course, if as Harry says intelligent life is very rare, then the universe could be filled with life but we could not have detected it as of yet.
Harry, I think that the Anthropic Principle is a good deal more useful than you claim here. In one sense it is a cautionary tale, saying that many things we observe may in fact be exceptionally rare or even unique, but we will always observe them because otherwise we wouldn't exist (e.g., the evolution of consciousness).
I understand that. But until we have some data from elsewhere, the AP tells us nothing.
Whether every star has a planet with intelligent life in it or no star has, our position as of right now would be as it is. The New World existed even though Columbus had no evidence of it and was convinced he had a free channel to Asia.