Whether randomness is truly random, as explained by the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle, or whether it is ultimately deterministic and therefore only pseudo-random or chaotic, is irrelevant. A deterministic universe does not prove that it was intelligently designed. It merely makes the future theoretically predictable to a certainty. There is nothing about determinism that leads inescapably to a designer. Thus, the dichotomy of randomness vs. determinism is false. The Uncertainty principle, whether or not an accurate scientific description of true randomness, does not open the door to the existence of a creator. If there is a creator, then he is beyond scientific investigation. ID is an attempt to scientifically discern the existence of that which cannot be scientifically discerned, because any verifiable/falsifiable proof a limitless creator will by definition, limit that creator to the proof of his existence. In essence, proof of Intelligent Design will destroy God as almighty. This makes the entire proposition of describing ID as a scientific discipline subject to naturalistic proof, absurd. So, while you are entitled to your belief in a divine creator, and while you may ultimately be correct in that belief, the fact that you personally seek to prove your belief via resort to an absurdity, should cause you some concern. The proof you seek risks the destruction of your own belief system.
Why would finding proof of the existence of God by definition make him fall short of omnipotence? How can you rule out anything when defining onmipotence. While I realize this is a word game - I am still intrigued that someone with your analytical skills thinks they have outdefined thousands of years of philosophers.
Pardon me, but you are drawing a conclusion that no one else is making. The cosmological constant forces no conclusion on anyone. The fact the the constant is measured as what it is means nothing more nor less that that it is measured as what it is. If you seek some inference from the constant, you are doing so based on your belief system, not on any scientific premise. You may want to believe that the constant fine tunes the universe to accommodate human existence. But, there's no scientific experiment that anyone can conduct to determine this for a certainty. Maybe human existence fine tunes the universe to define a cosmological constant. After all, without human existence, the constant might be different, because humans wouldn't be in the universe. It could all be just a happy accident, or it could be the result of a divine creator. But there is no scientific experiment that can determine one or the other for a certainty. When science measure the properties of the universe, i.e., cosmological constant, the result is reported. The speculation about the result is not science -- it's philosophy. And, if that philosophy is directed towards a divine conclusion, then it's theism.
Your statement sounds scientific. but when stanford has symposiums on the subject of design vs multiverse... When learned physicists that tell you that if science proves his conjecture about multiverses wrong than science would be faith based (when attempting to refute the conclusion of design) I think you need to study up on the recent science. Again this is not me saying this it is the chair of the physcis dept at Stanford who founded String Theory. --- "I:Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that the conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know how to define life? S: The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments? If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black hole. ------ OK if the Anthropic Principle is not so compelling KJ why does Chair of the physics dept offer up the above argument but say he does not find the argument that compelling?
I submit that this is an irrelevant word game. God may be limitless, but so what? Science is limited to verifying local action from the time-space frame of the observer. Any experiment which reports a completely uncertain result is a total failure, because there is nothing to report except uncertainty. Even tests of the Uncertainty principle report back results that fall within "certain" probability limits. If such tests produced nothing but white noise they would be inconclusive scientific failures. ID advocates propose that the "white noise" that occurs between one DNA generation and a mutated successor is an act of God. That is not science, unless you know in advance that God = white noise. Where science sees nothing, it reports nothing. ID reports that nothing "must be God." In order to support this proposition, an experiment must be conducted to prove it to a certainty, or at least within some certain probabilities. But, God, as unlimited cannot be subjected to an experiment that can report even a probabalistic result. The point is that while God is unlimited, science is limited. It cannot see God, because God does not fall within the limits of the scientific method, which requires certainty or at least probalistic limits. ID proponents have advocated the expansion of the scientific method to include uncertain results. That means that pure magic is a valid scientific conclusion, even though it is completely unmeasurable. So, where we are at with this is simple: if you want ID to be valid, scientifically, then the search for a designer of human existence must be limited to a natural alien intelligence that can be detected within some certain limits. SETI could in fact discover our creator -- only it won't be God, because even if God were to open the heavens this instant and scream, "Here I is." that wouldn't scientifically prove it was God screaming, because there would be no means of scientifically verifying the event.
You are hanging your entire argument on a popular science interview with Prof. Susskind. There is nothing in that article where the Professor states that any scientific experiment proves the existence of God. Nor is there any peer reviewed science supporting that result. You are implying that this must be the result, because that's the result you want to believe. If you want to read a serious paper on the subject, I recommend the following: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html
No I am not hanging my entire argument on the words of prof Susskind. Merely pointing out that the extreme authority in the field makes observations that are consistent with what I have been saying about the anthropic principle. He is not the only one. The research is available via internet search. By the way your paper was interesting but hardly scientific. It set up a straw man and then basicially supports the premise that if something is rare it does not mean it is designed. No kidding but that is is not the argument behind the anthropic principle. And I even dispute the statical conclusion. It is one thing to say hey look I have royal flush - the deck must have been stacked. it is quite another to say hey look I got a couple billion royal flushes in a row and each deck has a billion different cards in it Eventually you have to say wow the deck was stacked or I have played an infinite amount of hands.
I think Intelligent Design is a real stretch. Cruel-Joke Design could be more easily defended/established. The whole predator/prey nature of the system clearly reveals a sadistic nature to the creator but does it neccessarily signify "intelligence"? The ability to create is not neccessarily a reflection of intelligence. An idiot savant is a prime example. He may be able to generate a wonderfull piece of art yet not be able to pick his nose without virtually hemmoraging. IMHO people should quit trying to mold the creator into "all that is good" reflecting the best of qualities ( such as kindness and intelligence) and simply accept that he is what he is. To the Lion he is a gracious god who provides them with an abundance of lame gazelles to ruthlessly rip to shreds. To the Gazelle he is mercilous and cruel, providing them with just enough speed to escape the constant terror that occupies their world. His will be done.
"Whether randomness is truly random, as explained by the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle, or whether it is ultimately deterministic and therefore only pseudo-random or chaotic, is irrelevant." It may be irrelevant to you, but not to others. Say that the majority of the world was atheistic, rather than theistic, pinning all their beliefs on atheism, supported by principles of Darwinism and non design. Then say the very foundation of their belief system was shaken by a discovery of an intelligent pattern in the so called "random" mutations. The central issue is not determinism versus randomness, it is random ignorant change versus intelligent design. Ultimate causation is not the same as determinism. The consequences for mankind of knowing whether the biological process are by design or random ignorant chance would hardly be "irrelevant." While the revelation of the truth of by random or by design would not have any impact on the process of change itself, the impact on the human race would be enormous, which is why the issue has such political implications, which is why both sides of the issue are implementing political agendas to advance their belief systems. It becomes the politics of religion and the politics of atheism, and what is a more conflicted situation than mixing politics with belief systems based on personal beliefs. See, the differences between an examination of gravity and theories that revolve around it mostly stay within their own limited sphere, but talk of origin of man, has a much broader, more important scope. I would be delighted if the biologists spoke only of the processes that they actually know...but the introduction of some mysterious, unpredictable, impossible to calculate, impossible to prove the causation, impossible to disprove, concept as "random mutations" really goes beyond science, into the realm of pure myth. Those who embrace this belief, with no method to test the belief to be true or false, really are no different than theists who embrace their own beliefs with equal fervor. The scientist have taken a lack of evidence as the foundation for fact, which is of course, absurd. It is upside down. Starting with ignorance of fact to construct a such a broad based theory is akin to the sand castles by the sea... Scientists have duped the general public and sheeple into accepting something as fact, which actually is a guess founded on ignorance... Oh and your "proof" of God would destroy will destroy God the Almighty is so extremely silly. Proof of nuclear weapons did nothing to diminish their all mightiness here on earth...
Your choice of aligning yourself with the Luddite on this board does your own search for truth a serious disservice. As you find Leonard Susskind the "extreme authority" from which you seek to derive a scientific proof for your believe in a divine creator, I will provide you with an audio interview with Susskind, from February 17, 2006, wherein he expressly rejects your interpretation of his position on the subject of the anthropic principle. To quote the good Professor, the "...anthropic principle" states that "...the laws of nature are what they are just so that we can exist. Now that's crazy -- it's silly." Don't believe me? Listen for yourself. Susskind Interview