General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 1182 times

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2020, 02:20:20 am »
The cosmological constant is something that physicists applied since Einstein (mistakenly) introduced it with relativity and more recently, now that it has been verified to be a small positive number. It is a problem of adjusting our best explanatory models to observations, as explained here.
*Read together with this Wikipedia explanation about "naturalness".
« Last Edit: August 01, 2020, 04:22:31 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

1

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2020, 02:33:05 am »
Well, you agreed with me. You were saying something along the lines of that is how God would have set everything in motion, that the inevitability was your teleology. I am happy with that, just that I don't think it implies a divine teleology, definately not a theistic one.
Could you provide a link to that discussion? Maybe you dreamt it?
Here is my post at the end of that conversation we had where I summarized our differences and agreements. You did not challenge me on said summary, which was a discussion that unfolded during the preceding pages.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

2

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24251 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2020, 06:20:54 am »
Harvey, I thought we agreed just the other day that everything that happened, happened because it was possible and because it was inevitable to happen at some stage.

Thanks for that link. Now I understand where you are coming from. This is similar to Emuse's reasoning against fine-tuning. If there is some preceding "reasons from God" then the cosmological constant value (along with the other constants values) were not fine-tuned by chance and thus the argument is false that the constant values have no explanation using the ground state argument. But, we're talking about fine-tuning as an argument against naturalism and not theism. Sure, if God's original intent was to teleologically bring about a universe with life, then He's going to include in that design a "just so" ground state that reaches His intended goals. However, the teleology is important in this case because the ground state properties are determined in large part by what it is able to accomplish in terms of bringing about a "just so" universe. Naturalism lacks the teleological attributes to account for such a ground state. It requires a very unlikely brute fact. In case of theism, the coherence qua coherence of reality determines that God is a necessary condition for any reality, and God is sufficient to bring about a "just so" ground state that gives us very unlikely values for the cosmological constant, etc.

Quote from: Mammal
cosmological constant is something that physicists applied since Einstein (mistakenly) introduced it with relativity and more recently, now that it has been verified to be a small positive number. It is a problem of adjusting our best explanatory models to observations

But, you're missing the point. If it were zero then it means that it either doesn't actually exist (i.e., there is nothing in the universe that corresponds with what that constant value represents), or there is some kind of cancelling out phenomena that requires the constant value to be zero. The fact that it is not zero suggests that for all indications that this value could have been closer to zero or, as the predictions suggest, it ought to be 120 orders of magnitude greater than the value we see. But, had that value been even a few orders larger than it's,actual measurement, then there would be no galaxies at all. Hence, it's an amazing coincidence that the value is as small as it is without being zero. The only explanation is a multiverse where the cosmological constant value varies across the multiverse (where those "universes" lack large structures and have short timelines), or "something" determines the value. If the latter then the only reasonable explanation is teleology since only a teleological account tells us why largescale structures exist when in just about every other possible universe with different constant value (if not zero) there are no galaxies and no life.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2020, 06:57:17 am by Harvey »

3

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2020, 08:48:06 am »
Sure, if God's original intent was to teleologically bring about a universe with life, then He's going to include in that design a "just so" ground state that reaches His intended goals. However, the teleology is important in this case because the ground state properties are determined in large part by what it is able to accomplish in terms of bringing about a "just so" universe. Naturalism lacks the teleological attributes to account for such a ground state. It requires a very unlikely brute fact. In case of theism, the coherence qua coherence of reality determines that God is a necessary condition for any reality, and God is sufficient to bring about a "just so" ground state that gives us very unlikely values for the cosmological constant, etc.
No, God is just as, if not more unlikely and only complicates our explanation. Parsimony dictates that if we have the same starting foundation (on theism and on naturalism) that we assume to have manifested in SOA's that might have yielded our universe (as an inevitability) then, even though we don't know how such a quantum ground state existed in the first place, we should run with the available natural scenario's if they suffice for the purpose of a theoretical explanation.
Quote from: Harvey
The only explanation is a multiverse where the cosmological constant value varies across the multiverse (where those "universes" lack large structures and have short timelines), or "something" determines the value. If the latter then the only reasonable explanation is teleology since only a teleological account tells us why largescale structures exist when in just about every other possible universe with different constant value (if not zero) there are no galaxies and no life.
There are various possible explanations, some of which were highlighted in the paper that I linked. Suffice to say that physicists are exploring various explanations for it, even new physics such as the Ads/CFT correspondence. If we are dealing with a scenario where we might have entangled states of affairs and/or informational feedback mechanisms such as least action path integral formulations and/or the inevitability of whatever possible probabilities, then we should expect things that appear to have been fine-tuned.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

4

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24251 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2020, 09:52:50 am »
No, God is just as, if not more unlikely and only complicates our explanation.

I don't feel obligated to accept a brute fact of stuff, I just don't see that as a very rational option. A far more rational option is a cohesiveness to reality which requires God.

Quote from: Mammal
There are various possible explanations, some of which were highlighted in the paper that I linked. Suffice to say that physicists are exploring various explanations for it, even new physics such as the Ads/CFT correspondence. If we are dealing with a scenario where we might have entangled states of affairs and/or informational feedback mechanisms such as least action path integral formulations and/or the inevitability of whatever possible probabilities, then we should expect things that appear to have been fine-tuned.

You're missing the point. A constant value that is not zero has no reason being that value (that we know of) compared to millions of other apparently possible values. Yes, there could be some ultimate naturalistic reason it is exactly such a small value and couldn't have been a few orders higher, but that seems very unlikely. We would only be holding to such a position to avoid a multiverse or teleology, but other than that there would be no reason to hold to that view. Thus, you're not in a good position to deny teleology which is highly correlated with theism. Thus, you ought to increase your doubts on atheism.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2020, 09:55:14 am by Harvey »

5

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2020, 10:00:43 am »
^ On your first point, you presuppose God but you should not just add to the bag of explanatory tricks..as I said.

On your second point, you are basically pushing a God of the gaps argument.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

6

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24251 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2020, 11:25:54 am »
^ On your first point, you presuppose God but you should not just add to the bag of explanatory tricks..as I said.

No, I suppose coherence qua coherence.

Quote from: Mammal
On your second point, you are basically pushing a God of the gaps argument.

No, I'm saying that there's no reason to not doubt naturalism based on the evidence. You show no doubts so that suggests you have a non-epistemic attachment to it.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2020, 02:40:30 pm by Harvey »

7

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2020, 01:00:35 pm »
^ Lol, I thought you wrote:
Quote from: Harvey
Yes, there could be some ultimate naturalistic reason it is exactly such a small value and couldn't have been a few orders higher, but that seems very unlikely. We would only be holding to such a position to avoid a multiverse or teleology, but other than that there would be no reason to hold to that view. Thus, you're not in a good position to deny teleology which is highly correlated with theism. Thus, you ought to increase your doubts on atheism.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

8

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24251 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2020, 04:20:35 pm »
^ Lol, I thought you wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There is no naturalistic reason to suppose that the cosmological constant could be so close to zero and yet not a few orders higher. Your only reason to believe there must be such a reason is to avoid doubting naturalism. Why? Just go ahead and doubt naturalism.

9

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2020, 02:11:42 am »
^ No, you are wrong. The paper that I cited earlier stated as much, e.g. the low positive number was predicted (by Weinberg) based on the anthropic principle.

We don't need to doubt naturalism or atheism based on the cosmological constant. It is something that is subject to the investigation of physics. Suggesting that we ought to consider a theistic explanation amounts to a god of the gaps argument.

*PS. In support of the above and of my various comments in the thread, another overview found in Wikipedia:
Quote
..more recent estimates by Weinberg and others, based on other considerations, find the bound to be closer to the actual observed level of dark energy.[9][10] Anthropic arguments gradually gained credibility among many physicists after the discovery of dark energy and the development of the theoretical string theory landscape, but are still derided by a substantial skeptical portion of the scientific community as being problematic to verify. Proponents of anthropic solutions are themselves divided on multiple technical questions surrounding how to calculate the proportion of regions of the universe with various dark energy constants.[9][11]

Other proposals involve modifying gravity to diverge from general relativity. These proposals face the hurdle that the results of observations and experiments so far have tended to be extremely consistent with general relativity and the ΛCDM model, and inconsistent with thus-far proposed modifications. In addition, some of the proposals are arguably incomplete, because they solve the "new" cosmological constant problem by proposing that the actual cosmological constant is exactly zero rather than a tiny number, but fail to solve the "old" cosmological constant problem of why quantum fluctuations seem to fail to produce substantial vacuum energy in the first place. Nevertheless, many physicists argue that, due in part to a lack of better alternatives, proposals to modify gravity should be considered "one of the most promising routes to tackling" the cosmological constant problem.[11]

Bill Unruh and collaborators have argued that when the energy density of the quantum vacuum is modeled more accurately as a fluctuating quantum field, the cosmological constant problem does not arise.[12] Going in a different direction, George F. R. Ellis and others have suggested that in unimodular gravity, the troublesome contributions simply do not gravitate.[13][14]

Another argument, due to Stanley Brodsky and Robert Shrock, is that in light front quantization, the quantum field theory vacuum becomes essentially trivial. In the absence of vacuum expectation values, there is no contribution from QED, Weak interactions and QCD to the cosmological constant. It is thus predicted to be zero in a flat space-time.[15][16]

In 2018, a mechanism for cancelling Λ out has been proposed through the use of a symmetry breaking potential in a Lagrangian formalism in which matter shows a non-vanishing pressure. The model assumes that standard matter provides a pressure which counterbalances the action due to the cosmological constant. Luongo and Muccino have shown that this mechanism permits to take vacuum energy as quantum field theory predicts, but removing the huge magnitude through a counterbalance term due to baryons and cold dark matter only.[17]
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 04:19:41 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

10

hatsoff

  • ****
  • 6273 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2020, 03:59:32 am »
A constant value that is not zero has no reason being that value (that we know of) compared to millions of other apparently possible values. Yes, there could be some ultimate naturalistic reason it is exactly such a small value and couldn't have been a few orders higher, but that seems very unlikely.

Your argument seems to hinge crucially on this move right here.  But I would suggest the move is illicit.  Let me explain why.

We need to know before we can proceed, what sense of 'likelihood' do you have in mind here?  But this is not clear from your comment.  Indeed, this is a notorious problem with fine-tuning arguments, and one which is underappreciated in the literature (in my experience).  Collins, for instance, handwaves the issue, calling it 'epistological' probability, without ever clearly explaining what that means.  Craig is even worse, never acknowledging the issue at all.  And Barnes, while he claims he addresses the problem, never actually does that I have seen, which leads me to think he doesn't really understand it in the first place.

11

kurros

  • *****
  • 11777 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2020, 06:57:43 am »
A constant value that is not zero has no reason being that value (that we know of) compared to millions of other apparently possible values. Yes, there could be some ultimate naturalistic reason it is exactly such a small value and couldn't have been a few orders higher, but that seems very unlikely.

Your argument seems to hinge crucially on this move right here.  But I would suggest the move is illicit.  Let me explain why.

We need to know before we can proceed, what sense of 'likelihood' do you have in mind here?  But this is not clear from your comment.  Indeed, this is a notorious problem with fine-tuning arguments, and one which is underappreciated in the literature (in my experience).  Collins, for instance, handwaves the issue, calling it 'epistological' probability, without ever clearly explaining what that means.  Craig is even worse, never acknowledging the issue at all.  And Barnes, while he claims he addresses the problem, never actually does that I have seen, which leads me to think he doesn't really understand it in the first place.

Yeah agreed. Too many people weigh in on the fine tuning argument with minimal or zero understanding of any philosophy of probability.

12

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24251 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2020, 01:37:51 pm »
^ No, you are wrong. The paper that I cited earlier stated as much, e.g. the low positive number was predicted (by Weinberg) based on the anthropic principle.

You still have it wrong. The value of the constant is off by as much as 120 orders of magnitude (between the prediction of 10^93 grams per cubic centimeter and the measured value of the mass density at 10^-28 grams per cubic centimeter). According to Weinberg et al. a small increase over two orders of magnitude (i.e., 200 times) would interfere with the formation of galaxies [cf. S. Weinberg: Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987).] That means that it cannot just be a low cosmological constant it must be extremely low as it is otherwise no galaxies form. Your above argument just goes back to suggesting a multiverse which ouggt to increase your doubt about naturalism/atheism being true. Does it? Of course not. You have your mind already fixed on what you want to believe.

13

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4629 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2020, 01:59:09 pm »
According to Weinberg et al. a small increase over two orders of magnitude (i.e., 200 times) would interfere with the formation of galaxies [cf. S. Weinberg: Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987).] That means that it cannot just be a low cosmological constant it must be extremely low as it is otherwise no galaxies form.
From Weinberg 1987 to 1998. Focus Harvey and read the rest.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

14

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24251 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Teleology in the World
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2020, 02:05:27 pm »
Your argument seems to hinge crucially on this move right here.  But I would suggest the move is illicit.  Let me explain why.

We need to know before we can proceed, what sense of 'likelihood' do you have in mind here?  But this is not clear from your comment.  Indeed, this is a notorious problem with fine-tuning arguments, and one which is underappreciated in the literature (in my experience).  Collins, for instance, handwaves the issue, calling it 'epistological' probability, without ever clearly explaining what that means.  Craig is even worse, never acknowledging the issue at all.  And Barnes, while he claims he addresses the problem, never actually does that I have seen, which leads me to think he doesn't really understand it in the first place.

It's generally recognized by many of the most esteemed cosmologists that without the anthropic principle the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant along with other fine-tuned constants have a very poor chance being accounted for. Here is Martel, Shapiro, and Weinberg:

Quote
As far as we know, the only way to understand a value of Pv comparable to Po is based on a weak form of the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle using a multiverse is an attempt to preserve naturalism. But, why not increase one's doubts of naturalism at this point?