If the universe is *not* a mere "tale told by an idiot with sound and
flury signifying nothing" (Shakespear's Macbeth), then the universe
must reflect some features of purpose. If there is purpose or
meaning, then we have at least some idea where to _begin_ our search
for the source of that purpose, which seems ultimately to confess a
concept of God (whatever that ultimate sense of God might actually
turn out to be).
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> 1) There is a fundamental relationship in quantum fluctions between
> size and likelyhood. The larger the fluctuation, the smaller the
> probability. The decrease in probability is substantial even at the
> size of an atom much less a baseball. Quantum fluctions are just
> that, fluctions at the level where quantum effects are significant.
I hope I am not belaboring things.... Doing a little unpacking of
this, I think what you are saying here is that my "microgram blob of
stuff popping into existence ex nihilo" is not very likely to be
observed because such events are extremely rare. Indeed, so rare,
that a calculation would convince me that we should not expect to
observe such events --- even if they can (in principle) occur.
It would be unwise to simply dismiss the "quantum fluctuation" (QF)
idea simply because we have no evidence of the event, that much I
agree on. If I do that, then (short of the judgement day) I would be
held to producing a "measurement" of God, which don't have in my hand,
and I don't expect one to be forthcoming in the near future. <grin>
At the same time, no matter how many (legitimate) excuses we have for
why we don't have the measurement, it seems like it is still an act of
faith to assume this (many worlds) as "Truth" (or at least --- a
better "Truth") without the evidence. Moreover, QFs may also be part
of a universe "with purpose". We cannot assert that because there
are "quantum fluctuations", therefore there is no God. Or
premise: many world ==> no God
claim: many worlds
conclusion: no God
Although the structure if flawless, it does not logically follow that
there is any connect between the existence of God, and the existence
of QF any more than we can assert that "all suffering is caused by
sin".
Hence, the atheist who asserts a *"better"* theory of reality, must
show his/her evidence of "many worlds", and not a hand waving argument
about the impossibility of the measurement. Those of us who assert
purpose in the (many worlds of the) universe are held to this
"evidence" standard are we not? One who asserts "purpose" would
likely assert that he/she doesn't understand what God *is*
sufficiently to even begin to "measure" this God. In fact, a God, who
really is some genuine God, probably is far beyond our simple minded
intuitive grasp with material based experimental probes. Hence, we
are currently at a loss of a means to "measure" that God.
Untestablity is the criticism waged on faith, but what of "many
worlds"?
Another problem as I see it: it is fine that one claims that quantum
fluctations rule our universe, and that our universe even appeared as
a result of such fluctuations. However, creation/annihilation
operators must act on "something". There must exist a "field" (of
some kind) for the operators to act on (AFAIK: as a layman in quantum
field theory). Moreover, the one piece of reliable evidence we have
is that everything decays (even protons). Yet the whole camp of folk
would claim the no-God "Truth" assert in its place that all this has
"simply been here". Isn't this an act of "faith"? If there was
evidence of permanence, then it would be possible to assert an
infinity, but we have none whatever to assert. Without a "field"
there is nothing, where then did that field come from? Causation
without a cause flys in the face of everything we *do* currently
understand about physical laws, AFAIK.
> 2) Infinite universes popping into and out of existence is first
> beyond detection. Second, it is not based on any extrapolation from
> know physics. It is speculation period and generally sourced from a
> desire to have an infinity since the infamous bouncing universe of
> Sagan is not firmly rulled out.
It also defies Occam's Razor to assert unobserved and unobserable
"entities" (whether they be "gods", "angels" or "many worlds") when
evidence is not forthcoming. (I saw a proof of this in the PCF
probably in the March or July issue.) Since all must be held to the
same standard, what can this say for the athiest who purports that
his/her "Truth" is somehow "*better*" than a faith in a God who
created heaven and earth (and all things visible and invisible).
--------------------
I also have been thinking a bit about the matter of religion from a
different point of view recently --- inspired partly from Glen
Morton's posts and writings. Suppose we treat homo habilis as human
and assert that part of that human-ness is/was expressed in religious
faith and a "perception" of the existence of God (as well as physical
characteristics). If we accept this (which I recognize some are quite
reluctant to do), then we are forced to reckon with the fact that
human beings have "survived" with this religious "faith" for more than
2 million years of time. Now, "culture" (written languages and
thought) have been around for say 5000 yrs, which is about 10% of the
time western science has been practiced in some form. We could
*perhaps* dismiss this 5000 yrs as mere "ignorance" which we can now
supplant with our "Western science" (hrumph). However, 2 million yrs
is not so easy to dismiss, since by the very notions of evolution,
this time period is sufficiently long to "fine tune" the survival
mechanisms of an organism through "natural selection".
The conclusion is that religious faith is *somehow necessary* for the
survival of our species. Whereas we cannot assert that this as
"evidence" per se of a universe with purpose, or that God exists, we
can say that it is extremely *questionable* to adhere to the narrow
minded views of certain AI folk or proponents of a dogmatically
materialistic minded evolutionary view who would purport that
"religion is a meme and should be blotted from the brain". Such
thinking seems very dangerous outside of the halls of speculative
intellectual parlance in light of our ignorance.
Wayne Dawson
dawson@ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 17 2000 - 00:05:38 EST