Intelligent Design is not creationism

Your logic is faulty.



I will show you why.

Since your trial does not rule out that generals make a difference.

I may prove that fact via some other trial. I am not stuck with your absurd test.

For instance if I had a population of Generals who have won four battles vs generals who have lost two battles or generals who have never been in battle.


I might find generals make a difference.

Your logic has been faulty from the start.

 

Responses below...

Quote from jem:

KJ do you you think you made a significant point here.

Response: Apparently so, as you are talking to me again -- something which you said you would no longer do. Does that mean you've changed your mind, or does it make you a liar?

----

As has been said by other commentators Susskinds Landscapes of possible solutions can be considered potential universes. It does not matter whether you want to consider it to be a varied pocket of physical laws within one universe or a seperate universe.

See the interview where he discusses multiverse virtually interchanably with Landscape.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800

Response: We're discussing Susskind, not "other commentators." and apparently it matters a great deal to Susskind, as he takes great pains to specifically differentiate between Landscape and Multiverse in his book.

So, you're wrong on this point.

Note: he also specifically rejects the term "multiverse" in favor of "megaverse."

----

The point is you need billions and billions of solution to combat the inference of design according to Susskind.

Response: Maybe "you" do, but Susskind doesn't. All Susskind needs is evidence of life different from our own, located anywhere in this universe where the vacuum energy of space is measurably different than the average, which is the cosmological constant.

Furthermore, the actual evidence shows that the average vacuum energy was considerably higher at the beginning of the universe than it is now, because as the matter in our universe coalesced, the residual is what we now measure as vacuum energy.

----

Susskind in New Scientist:

"The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments, tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point."

I accept that nothing in his work proves or disproves design but did you see the quote above. Susskind calulates that if we only had a million universes - the chance of one being suitable to life are still to small.

Response: Susskind is discussing his mental process leading to his becoming satisfied with String Theory as a real solution to the question of why the vacuum energy is what it is. He is not saying that one million solutions demonstrates that intelligent design is the only solution if String Theory is incorrect. See infra.
----

Any idea how one of the inventors of string theory could have made that caluation. (Now that you have the book.)

Response: Yes. The original string theories had fewer dimensions, than the present one. The calculation that you are quoting above, as being described by Susskind is not a calculation of known probabilities about our existing universe using the Standard Model. The calculations Susskind describes are part of a discussion of an earlier string theory model, which Susskind found unsatisfying as an explanation for Anthropic arguments. This says nothing about any other non-string theory explanation for the vacuum energy, nor does it say anything about the current 11-dimensional string theory.

----

It is your entire premise that you can not make those calculations. Yet this respected astrophysicist, inventor of string theory, makes a statement taking out the legs from your entire argument.

Response: Apparently you still do not understand my premise, or Susskind. My premise is that no probability calculation can be made as to the likelihood of any particular average vacuum energy level in a hypothetical universe, when there is only one known universe which has ever existed, and we have no means of recreating it.

Susskind isn't even talking about probabilities related to our existing universe. He's talking about probabilities relating to an earlier string theory model.

----

 

“Response: It doesn't matter what one's core beliefs are. What matters is whether or not you conduct an experiment to confirm those beliefs. If you do, then you're a scientist -- if you don't, you're a philosopher.”

I wanted to step back to this one thought for a minute. On a previous post, I did identify a distinct similarity between an experiment, and an experience…in fact, I believe wikipedia did that. We have experiences that confirm our belief, which is not unlike the testing that you speak of. The difference in our testing and proving is:

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: [if I say], I [am] perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

He proves us. It is the change in our nature...the stepping away from more selfish motivations, that proves his existence in our lives. I don’t know any other way to say this, but I think you will understand. You cannot take a lower variable and use it to test a higher one, because the lower has not attained enough substance to be even be parallel, let alone test the higher one. The test will always fail. But a higher one…can test and prove a lower one. So it doesn’t mean that we don’t confirm our beliefs…it just means we don’t use the same parameters you use to confirm it because those parameters are not complete, and you can’t use what is incomplete to confirm what is complete. We are confirmed in other ways, experientially.

“Your interpretation that science places limitations on things or people is backwards. Science is what truly liberates people's minds, by expanding the real knowledge that can be verified through experiment and observation, by converting more and more questions of philosophy into questions of science.”

This statement from james_bond relates somewhat to what we were talking about. However, back to what you explained to me earlier; you said in essence that the parameters utilized in the scientific method are limited. Therefore, it stands to reason that a “limited” science cannot truly “liberate” and “expand” knowledge, because it is based on self imposed limitations. Look at those three words...limited, liberate, expand. It’s like on Sesame Street...“One of these things just doesn’t belong...” lol. It’s like taking a free man, cuffing him and then saying, “Fly! Be free!” as if you given him a newfound freedom. ;-) Obviously, he is not truly free because he has been inhibited. There is real freedom in Christ/God because He is without limit.

The difference as I see it is like viewing through the eyes of a person with vision problems. In one eye, they are near sighted, and cannot see much outside of “self,” and in the other, far sighted, seeing further, outside of “self,” and looking more towards and considering others. Each has a refractive error (sin) and requires light adjustments to see clearly. Christ is that light adjustment, and both “eyes” need it. I don’t profess to be any better or any worse than anyone else because of what I believe, although I realize that some do hold to that piety and attitude of superiority. And I recognize for non-believers, that attitude can be quite infuriating. But did you know it infuriates and frustrates those of us that are more mature believers, because we see how offensive that attitude is, and how much it discourages those who are really seeking answers. You see, all I can tell you about the difference between me as a believer, and your proclaimed state of unknowing, is that I can rest assured that despite my flaws, shortcomings and imperfections (i.e. sin) I am forgiven. It doesn’t matter what was, or even what is at this moment, but what is to come.

continued...next post...

 

“I have an imagination, and it's not limited by the requirement of a scientific experiment. That is, I don't say to myself, that because my scientific mind recognizes no verifiable test for the existence of a magical land, located at the second star to the right and straight on till' morning, that this means I can't close my eyes and "see" Never Never Land with the eyes of a child.”

I’m glad that you are open to possibilities. But I had already recognized that in you, Mr. Kent, which is why I chose to do most of my communication in this thread with you. I don’t have time for the petty, small minded mockery of some, thus I don’t respond to it, as I’m sure you have observed. Nor am I a testosterone filled, ego driven combatant, like some, eager to fight and nitpick about everything and nothing. But I’m sure you had perceived this by now, because you are a pretty sharp cookie.

“But, if you want me to build you a bridge to drive your car across, then the only things that are going into that construction are those things which I can scientifically measure, because your car cannot dependably drive across a philosophical construct -- and my responsibility is to ensure that your journey will be as safe as reasonably possible.”

I love that you are so concerned for my safety. Thank you. You see...God does exist. You have helped me to prove to it, even if you are unaware of it. As I told you from the beginning, don’t expect me to utilize the limited parameters of your choosing. I didn’t even have to try here. God showed up on His own, but was unrecognized by most. All I did was have a mutually respectful conversation with a man who has more faith than even he recognizes, and is closer to God now, than he even knows. You showed me God more than anyone here. How? By exhibiting His character. In this moment in time with me, you demonstrated more mercy, grace and love than many who call themselves Christian...all of which are qualities of God.

You showed me mercy in OVERLOOKING and FORGIVING my lack of knowledge on the subjects of science and math. You showed me grace in taking the TIME to explain the differences in the theories of thought to me, something you did not have to do. You showed me love in being so CONSIDERATE and in CARING enough to really help me to understand and gain clarity, not only on the scientific method, but on how your mind works. You personalized this conversation with me, and have clearly demonstrated the existence of God, because God is love and you clearly walked in it and demonstrated it to me. For that, I thank you. You have truly been a blessing to me, and I hope I have managed to be an equal blessing to you. I have to say goodbye for now, because I never intended, for one thing, to be here forever discussing a circular subject. Secondly, I’m a single parent, with a child who needs me, which is why my time was so limited in responding in this thread to begin with. So for now, I bid you adieu. I may return and visit at some later point in time, but for now I leave you with my sincere prayer that you find what your heart truly seeks, and that God blesses you and gives you peace in the midst of that journey. Take care. Peace.

 

jem: "For instance if I had a population of Generals who have won four battles vs generals who have lost two battles or generals who have never been in battle. I might find generals make a difference."

That's the key isn't it? Only if you had these generals, only if you could pit them against each other, then you might find that they can make a difference. But in reality, you can't, and you won't. So at the end, you don't know the answer.

The logic is not faulty at all. You know that in your heart, otherwise you won't use "might." You just refuse to understand the logic, in the same way you refuse to see the most obvious in this entire discussion.

 

the quote is:

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small.


When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10exponetial 500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point."

----------------
Kj

the revised calculations may have occured because of new strings or revised theory, fine.

But he says a million (vacuums) is not enough. The number is too small. The chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small.

KJ how did he make that calculation.


As far multi vs mega - for our purposes which is what I was suggesting the difference does not matter. The billions of vacuums combats the inference of design. Whether are part of one universe or many matters not. Besides they may be fictional anyway.

 

The billions of vacuums do not combat the inference of design, because anthropic principle does not stand for a choice between design and chance.

Your entire argument is based on an incorrect assumption.

Susskind/Weinberg/Polchinski, et. al., define Anthropic Principle as nothing more than the idea that the laws of physics must be consistent with the existence of life, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe the laws of physics.

This is not some conspiracy of atheist physicists to avoid the existence of a creator. It's substantially identical to the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics.

If you know how the famous/infamous Schrödinger's Box experiment works, you know that, like it or not, observations in our universe are in part determined by the very existence of the observer. In the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, the cat inside the Box is dead in one universe and alive in another. In the exact same fashion it is consistent to say that our universe exists with the vacuum energy hospitable to human existence, precisely because we are here to observe it in that state.

This is not magic. It's quantum physics. In some alternate reality where humans do not exist, the vacuum energy is different, and inhospitable to human life. This is also quantum physics and it is also consistent.

Susskind believes that his String Theory Landscapes are the very same alternate possibilities, created under the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. He is simply reaching this conclusion from a different set of equations.

Weinberg created the idea of the anthropic principle to allow him to explain why certain features of our universe are as they are, without resort to the classical method of seeking out elegant and simplistic mathematical models. He did so, because the classic physicists couldn't find any elegant models to explain the vacuum energy in the universe.

Susskind used Weinberg's ideas to create an incredibly complex model of creation which none of the classic physicists want, and which they are just as resistant to as was Einstein to Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty theory.

The idea of finding an elegant solution to the question of "how" it all works is practically worshiped by classical physicists, who long for E = mc^2. Susskind's theory has taken this hope away.

That is the battle of the anthropic principle among physicists: a battle between the classical elegance of simple math which can be stated in a short equation and which explains all, vs. the convoluted Rube Goldberg formulation of String Theory.

There is no battle between design and chance -- at least not among physicists.

 

And the same to you.

 

You do not think the professors of military history at west point have this information? Besides the analysis was only a single example of the myraid tests that could have proved your logic incorrect.

However, I we really no longer need to belabor this point. I am willing to let this record stand as it is.

 

I will give you credit for writing well and outlining the postion of some to the scientists who support anthropic reasoning in the weak or even weaker form.

At times you can read this form of the Weak Anthropic Principle in both Susskinds Weinberg writings. But at other times you find much stronger statements.

I have given you some to the statements.

How do you reconcile your last statement with the statement by Susskind in the intro to his book in which he cites multiple physicists who believe the universe looks designed.

I am talking about Davies and Greensteet.