"I probably should state that last point differently. To me the
'specialness' of the universe is based on the fact that it was created by
God to be my temporary home."
You are of course entitled to your beliefs, but it is still just your
belief, and not one that can be tested scientifically, so it has little
relevence to the ID debate. Besides, if God makes universes like cats make
kittens, our universe may not be so special after all. And it may be
considered arrogant by some to claim that YOU are the reason the universe is
special! ;-)
"I was reacting to the statement 'the fine-tuned nature of the constants is
not unexplainable'. It doesn't seem to me that we can make that definite
assertion at this point in time."
I was reacting to your apparent belief that "the fine-tuned nature of the
constants" was inherently unexplainable simply because it had not yet been
explained. I was trying to point out that just because something has yet to
be explained doesn't mean it is unexplainable. My dogmatic phrasing does
not invalidate that fact.
"I'm sure the theistic beliefs of the IDers lead them to infer design more
quickly than other scientists (even other theistic scientists) might. But
it seems to me that since science has not yet explained the fine-tuned
nature of the universe's physical constants the field is open for
non-naturalistic explanations. If at some point in the future this
explanation is found then the ID argument should be withdrawn. But until
that happens it seems to me that excluding the ID explanation as at least a
possibility is arbitrary."
Maybe it is. But as I have already pointed out, the only difference between
ID theory and the evolution model is that the former claims "a supernatural
entity did it" while the latter claims "natural mechanistic forces did it."
Otherwise, both give the same experimental results. The ID claim is not
scientifically testable or verifiable; the evolution claim is. Therefore
science must reject the ID claim on methodological grounds alone. Besides,
as I said before, ID is predicated on the assumption that the ultimate
origin of the universe can never be solved mechanistically simply because no
one has yet done so. This is a logical fallacy, and science also rejects
logical fallacies, this time on philosophical grounds. For ID theory to be
a valid scientific mdel, at least criteria have to be met. First, some
evidence -- that cannot be explained by any other scientific model -- has to
be put forward to show that such a supernatural entity can and/or does
exist. The second is that ID has to propose a test that can distinguish
between supernatural design and natural design.
"I know that science can explain the orbits of the planets because of
gravity but can science explain why gravity attracts objects to each other
instead of repelling them?"
I did not say that there were no scientific mysteries left, only that the
history of science has shown that virtually no phenomenon has ever been
found not to have a natural explanation. And there have been plenty of
candidates. The mysteries we have now may be more profound, but I am
confident that given enough time natural explanations will be found for them
as well.
"And this theory is of the 'mathematical what-if' type you described
earlier?"
The concept of the Planck Era is not a theory, it is a fact. It has been
established by other models whose validity have been well proven. Tied into
this is the concept that the four fundamental forces were combined into one
force. In essence this is also a fact. If this is true, then the physical
constants were not fixed and could have been changing constantly, even
wildly. The theory you refer to would be The Theory of Everything, which
would combine relativity with quantum mechanics. That has not yet been
accomplished, but when it is it will tell us what happened during the Planck
Era, including the nature of the physical laws and constants.
"And this would also be a 'mathematical what-if' type of theory?"
No, because it is also based on the concept of the Planck Era, a concept we
know is true.
"And I assume that there's some good reason to believe that the energy and
mass in the system are actually changing and the experimenter isn't simply
observing the inability of his equipment to function with the needed
precision. (These are probably very elementary questions I'm asking. Can
you recommend a good introductory text to quantum theory?)
This is a good question. For one thing, the instruments that make these
kinds of measurements are extremely precise, so we know that the energy and
mass are fluctuating. For another, the uncertainty principle is fundamental
to quantum theory, is well established mathematically, and makes secondary
predictions that have been successfully tested. No, there is no error. As
for books, try _Cosmic Questions_ by Richard Morris. It explains these
concepts well.
>
"Maybe a 'quantum glossary' would be good to go with that introductory text.
What would be the difference?"
Between "nothing" and "nothingness"? Why, "nothing", of course. Seriously,
there is no scientific difference between those terms, but if you like
"nothing" can refer to the classical Newtonian vacuum, whereas "nothingness"
can refer to the quantum vacuum. The Newtonian vacuum is obvious; the
quantum vacuum would be basically as I have described it.
"I guess this answers my question above. So how small are these particles?
And how much noise do they create?"
They can be as small as electrons/positrons; in fact, they usually are. As
for "noise", that is a scientific term for the random information an
instrument picks up in addition to the "signal" data. The particles
themselves don'y make any noise.
"I don't understand how you would measure the energy of 'nothingness' but
that probably goes back to the difference between 'nothingness' and
'nothing'."
We wouldn't actually "measure" the energy of that nothingness, because it
would lie beyond the current limit of our universe. Instead, the models
should tell us whether it was energetic enough.
"So then, a new universe could appear in our universe? (destroying ours as
it expanded I suppose)"
Almost certainly not. The nothingness of our universe probably isn't
energetic enough. Even if it was, however, that other universe would
probably "pop" through multidimensional space into a place separate from our
own universe. Just as two electrons cannot inhabit the same physical
space....
Kevin L. O'Brien