Whence came the order in the cosmos?

[QED]

Self-organization is a widely recognized and well understood principle. It can operate over a vast range of scales in any dynamic system that is far from thermal equilibrium. One example of this is our biosphere which is driven away from thermal equilibrium by the Suns radiant energy. Self-organization arises from various feedback mechanisms such as those operating within our biosphere serving as a good (and very large) example: the energy output from the Sun has fallen by some 30% while the average temperature within the biosphere has remained far more constant over the same period.

What may not be so widely recognized is that the principles of self-organization extend much further up in scale than our planet: Galaxies are ecology's in their own right within which stars are born and die. Carbon plays a central role in the self-regulation and evolution of galactic systems. So it turns out that we ourselves are riding on this carbon regulated merry-go-round of stellar evolution.

In principle there is no upper limit on the scope of self-organization. Astronomers have started to recognize structure in the distribution of galaxies hinting at higher levels of organization. So, it seems that a sound philosophical conclusion can be drawn here: self-organization is a natural principle within the cosmos as it can be seen operating over some 40 or so orders of magnitude. A few more orders would take this to the entire extent of our universe and, according to Professor Lee Smolin and others, there is good reason to believe that our universe is but one of a vast collection representing yet higher opportunities for self-organisation.

Now, what strikes me about all this is that we have potential answers to some very fundamental questions here. We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil. The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I would like this to stimulate a debate over the implications this has for the opposing worldviews of theists and atheists.

[QED]

I'm very glad that you've managed to find some time to join-in with this topic Harvey. You are one of the best example of someone who simultaneously embraces everything offered by science and Christianity that I know of.

Eschatology corresponds with a critical point, judgment corresponds to a second-order phase transition and symmetry breaking event, while salvation corresponds to entering a new phase and having new symmetry laws. Sure, eschatology, judgment, salvation reflect a specific event in human history, but I think this is because we are part of a collective system that is moving toward its critical point.

Your answer does not surprise me at all. But how convincing is it? I find salvation and redemption particularly difficult to integrate into the framework of self-organization. The whole business about Jesus dying for our sins is central to the Christian faith, so it ought to map very clearly onto one or more of the principles being discussed here. Simply mentioning concepts like phases and symmetries doesn't flick any switches in my mind. Where is the mapping?

I fully agree that creation and eschatology fit the universal dynamics that science is describing. But just because religion developed ahead of science doesn't mean it's claim for this elementary territory is any more justified. In order to earn the full title deeds, religion ought to be able to provide an acceptable fit to all the contours that we now know exist. To me it looks like religion has "over egged" the more obvious explanations drawing far too much on anthropocentric inspiration in the process.

The story of self-organization does not seem to me to mirror in any way the idea that man was perfect before his eternal falling from grace, nor does it mesh with the bodily destruction of the creator (his son, or whatever) to redeem this dreadful sin for us all. I'm afraid to say it's all far more Shakespeare than Superstring. Why does it diverge so far from the scientific plot if it's meant to present the meaning behind it all?

[harvey1]

I find salvation and redemption particularly difficult to integrate into the framework of self-organization. The whole business about Jesus dying for our sins is central to the Christian faith, so it ought to map very clearly onto one or more of the principles being discussed here. Simply mentioning concepts like phases and symmetries doesn't flick any switches in my mind. Where is the mapping?

Well, I'm not able to give you a mapping between science and the Christian religion. I can provide wild speculative analogies that help to see how in principle they could be united.

For example, renormalization groups are a key aspect of statistical mechanics and the work that relates self-organization and criticality/universality of various systems. If I understand the science correctly, second order phase transitions are identified as fixed point attractors. And, these fixed point attractors are important in determining the value of the coupling constants of physical theories. It's the fixed point attractors that determine the cut-offs in the coupling constants, and which prevent the coupling constants becoming divergent (i.e., infinite). In order to have a fixed value (i.e., coupling constant), a fixed point must be arrived at where the coupling constant doesn't continue to grow while the distance away from the source of the "bare charge" (e.g., a bare electron) becomes larger. This fixed value attractor allows a re-scaling of the system such that the relevant factors of the sub-system continue to make a contribution while the irrelevant factors can be ignored.

Well, this sounds a lot like Christ's sacrifice. Christ, as the fixed point of righteousness, provides a cut-off for sin such that the "bare charge" of sin remains finite (i.e., it's effect does not extend beyond this finite life). Our coupling is now with the fixed point, Jesus Christ, and therefore we become entangled with Jesus, the son of God.

As I said, it's a wild speculative account... However, I think it is important to reemphasize that I'm not suggesting that religion become science, and science become religion. I only maintain that science can be viewed as compatible with religion, and religion can be viewed as compatible with science. I cannot visualize a point where we'll be getting out our calculators when we kneel down to pray, or lighting some incense as we wait for the results of an experiment.

To me it looks like religion has "over egged" the more obvious explanations drawing far too much on anthropocentric inspiration in the process.

I think where you miss the boat QED is that you assume the very beliefs which lead you to your conclusion. I perhaps do the same, but the difference is that I'm aware of my assumptions and I'm not so sure that you are.

The story of self-organization does not seem to me to mirror in any way the idea that man was perfect before his eternal falling from grace, nor does it mesh with the bodily destruction of the creator (his son, or whatever) to redeem this dreadful sin for us all. I'm afraid to say it's all far more Shakespeare than Superstring. Why does it diverge so far from the scientific plot if it's meant to present the meaning behind it all?

Part of the reason for having phase transitions is so that we can have them when our knowledge reaches a certain point. Perhaps this is God's way of having a little fun. Or, probably more accurately, it might be God's way of teaching humility.

[QED]

OR we are just another ubiquitous, self-organized arrangement of carbon atoms that have accumulated in the fall-out of a first order phase transition or two. You wonder if I'm as aware of my assumptions as you are. Well I certainly think that whatever it is that everyone's labelling as God is highly likely to be misunderstood by those who would worship and pray to him. I don't want to engage in a dog-fight but when it comes to assumptions I can't imagine a greater number than those upon which the Christian faith is based.

Do you really think that there's anything "out there" that would care in the slightest if a nearby star goes supernova and blows the atmosphere clean off our planet on Friday afternoon? Or maybe you think that it would be prevented from happening? As assumptions go, yours would seem to branch you off into an astounding walk of faith.

I'm sorry I can't be anymore accommodating, but you claim to have thought all this through very carefully and I want to understand where your conviction that God is all-good and all-loving comes from. It seems to me to be a particular reading of what I am presenting in this thread but you somehow see the 'miracle' of self organization as a deliberate design product, something that needs a designer-God with a good nature to set it in motion. But isn't this merely adding unnecessary steps and assumptions? I'm bound to notice that their addition makes the world seem more friendly as this would be an understandable preference for human beings. But the logic of natural selection would seem to me to transcend even God. Maybe this is the stumbling block?

[harvey1]

Do you really think that there's anything "out there" that would care in the slightest if a nearby star goes supernova and blows the atmosphere clean off our planet on Friday afternoon? Or maybe you think that it would be prevented from happening?

I would rather it blow a good sized gold meteorite into my backyard (no one getting hurt, of course). But, I think all of that would depend on whether it is God's will.

I want to understand where your conviction that God is all-good and all-loving comes from.

I gave an argument to the Happy Humanist on that issue here

1. X is an infinite set of every possible member decision (i.e., moral decision) that can or has been made by God
2. Goodness for God is defined as a set X where every moral decision in that set must cohere
3. Truth must cohere to be truth
4. God is part of the truth relation (i.e., as an omniscient interpeter that determines something as true)
5. As a consequence of (3) and (4), every moral decision of God must cohere.
6. God must make moral decisions to be considered God
7. Ergo, God must be good [(2), (5), (6)]

It seems to me to be a particular reading of what I am presenting in this thread but you somehow see the 'miracle' of self organization as a deliberate design product, something that needs a designer-God with a good nature to set it in motion. But isn't this merely adding unnecessary steps and assumptions? I'm bound to notice that their addition makes the world seem more friendly as this would be an understandable preference for human beings. But the logic of natural selection would seem to me to transcend even God. Maybe this is the stumbling block?

I think my logic to the Happy Humanist is sound.

[Cephus]

Using such terms as order vs. chaos as if they happen to apply to the systems we are observing, in my opinion, does a disservice to the systems. These terms are relevant only to ourselves as observers. When we identify order, it's because we recognize what's going on based on some ideas of what we think should be going on. Order makes us feet better, becuase we like to recognize and generalize patterns. When we identify chaos, it's troubling because it doesn't look like any pattern we can identify. Since the universe is supposed to be in harmony, we might possibly associate chaos with not only disharmony, but also with an active force creating disharmony.

Humans, by nature, seek out patterns even where they do not exist. It makes the universe easier to understand if we can see an underlying order and therefore, we assume, wrongly in many cases, that there is a harmony or a purpose that we can find and examine, just so we feel better about ourselves and our place in the cosmos.

Unfortunately, theists often insist that these patterns are actually evidence of a supernatural creator when it's nothing of the sort. If you take a step back and examine a lot of these claims, you find them utterly empty and often laughably ridiculous.

[harvey1]

Humans, by nature, seek out patterns even where they do not exist. It makes the universe easier to understand if we can see an underlying order and therefore, we assume, wrongly in many cases, that there is a harmony or a purpose that we can find and examine, just so we feel better about ourselves and our place in the cosmos.

That's true. However, to what extreme should we take this view? Is science seeking out patterns that don't exist? If not, then why not? Couldn't there exist a large enough multiverse that a universe randomly follows "scientific laws" that just so happens to look like our universe up to a few seconds ago? Couldn't there exist an infinite number of universes that all of sudden begin acting randomly (e.g., galaxies flying apart stuff)? Maybe we'll say, oops, weren't we fooled by those made up patterns!

Unfortunately, theists often insist that these patterns are actually evidence of a supernatural creator when it's nothing of the sort. If you take a step back and examine a lot of these claims, you find them utterly empty and often laughably ridiculous.

Well, I'd love to explore these issues with you Cephus, but do you really want to discuss them?

[QED]

Do you really think that there's anything "out there" that would care in the slightest if a nearby star goes supernova and blows the atmosphere clean off our planet on Friday afternoon? Or maybe you think that it would be prevented from happening?

I would rather it blow a good sized gold meteorite into my backyard (no one getting hurt, of course). But, I think all of that would depend on whether it is God's will.

Methinks you're dodging this one. There is a real (but very tiny) possibility that the playing-out of cosmic events could destroy the Earth on Friday. It 's a certainty that this will happen in 4 or 5 billion years time, but by then it's possible that mankind has jumped ship anyway. So I want to know: do you think that we are all living under God's protection? To say that this depends on God's will is to admit that you're uncertain about God's goodness -- yet you go on to offer a logical proof:

I want to understand where your conviction that God is all-good and all-loving comes from.

I gave an argument to the Happy Humanist on that issue here

Well I've cast my doubts on this proof in that particular thread. I hope you can find the time to take a look at it.

[harvey1]

There is a real (but very tiny) possibility that the playing-out of cosmic events could destroy the Earth on Friday. It 's a certainty that this will happen in 4 or 5 billion years time, but by then it's possible that mankind has jumped ship anyway. So I want to know: do you think that we are all living under God's protection? To say that this depends on God's will is to admit that you're uncertain about God's goodness -- yet you go on to offer a logical proof...

I think goodness is related to consistency to moral beliefs and actions, and I don't see any moral problem in allowing a planet with life to be blown up by a supernova if the overall consistency of God's moral beliefs and actions bring about a paradise in a new heavens that emerges as a result of this one which has sin and death.

However, that's not to say that we are without God's protection. I just mean that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were right when they told King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon:

O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up. (Daniel 3:16-18 )

What we don't know is how special earth is in God's priorities. If the earth is extremely unique, then I expect that God would not allow a supernova (etc.) to wipe us out. However, if that is the case, then the Copernican Principle is way off (not just slightly mistaken). I don't know if the Copernican Principle is wrong or not, so I cannot answer your question with what kind of disasters God allows. All I can say is that I think earth holds a priority for God, and therefore God will protect the earth in so much as it does prevent God from achieving God's ultimate will for the world. If it means violating natural laws that were not especially set-up for earth in particular, then God may make a compromise in earth's safety if push came to shove (i.e., either abandon the physical laws or allow earth to be destroyed).

[Cephus]

That's true. However, to what extreme should we take this view? Is science seeking out patterns that don't exist? If not, then why not? Couldn't there exist a large enough multiverse that a universe randomly follows "scientific laws" that just so happens to look like our universe up to a few seconds ago? Couldn't there exist an infinite number of universes that all of sudden begin acting randomly (e.g., galaxies flying apart stuff)? Maybe we'll say, oops, weren't we fooled by those made up patterns!

You need to examine your preconceived notions. Are you finding patterns because you're already convinced they must exist, or are you finding patterns because there are actual patterns. Further, you need to look at what you're claiming these 'patterns' mean. If you start claiming that you found X, Y and Z and therefore, that means there's a god of some sort, I'd start to question your claim.

[harvey1]

You need to examine your preconceived notions. Are you finding patterns because you're already convinced they must exist, or are you finding patterns because there are actual patterns. Further, you need to look at what you're claiming these 'patterns' mean. If you start claiming that you found X, Y and Z and therefore, that means there's a god of some sort, I'd start to question your claim.

I think this gets to a more basic question: how do we know we have found legitimate patterns. Is it because we are free of preconceptions? I think that is obviously false. We always have preconceptions.

I would say that we know that we find legitimate patterns when we feel a need to look for a larger state space to explain the pattern. If we are comfortable in the existence of the larger state space, then we have reason to think that the patterns are not real patterns. So, for example, when I see the Face on Mars I instantly come to the recognition of this being a familiar pattern that requires explanation. However, I can quickly see that this is no real pattern of nature since there are many geo-physical processes operating on the planet, and the planet is big enough and the face details lacking to avoid making a case that this "face" is something that needs further explanation beyond referring to the larger state space existing on the planet.

In other situations, advocating a natural-evolving state space is not a suitable solution. For example, rock formations found in Isua Supergroup, Greenland showing chemical traces with radiometric dating around 3.8 billion years ago suggests that life was present. Sure, there's many rock formations and natural processes on earth that can potentially explain the chemical trace patterns, but the state space of potential rock formations is not large enough to reasonably suggest that these traces were not caused by life. Therefore, here's an example where the patterns should be good reason to believe that a non-geological (organic) process is responsible for the pattern.

Some situations are not so clear. For example, the marsian meteorite ALH 84001 has been argued by David McKay and his colleagues as evidence for traces of life. The state space is debatable in this case. There are inorganic processes to explain the trace patterns, and the traces are not as conclusive as the traces found in Isua Supergroup rocks (which I believe are hundreds of times larger). So, you have a disputed pattern based on the controversy of whether the pattern is substantial enough to be explained by natural (inorganic) processes, or requires the existence of ancient life on Mars.

As this issue relates to patterns suggesting the existence of God, the patterns in the physical constants are pretty conclusive to suggest that either there are many universes, or there is some intelligence at work. Therefore, we already have a good reason to believe there is a God. I say that in the same sense that McKay has a good reason to believe that ancient life existed on Mars. It may not be the case that these physical constants are real patterns, or that the trace patterns on ALH 84001 is evidence of ancient bacteria on Mars, but the evidence alone provides good reason to believe that something other than a physical state space is needed to explain the patterns observed.

This is what many atheists don't seem to understand. I've heard many atheists say that if a pattern is potentially explained by postulating a larger state space, then it is explained as such. That's incorrect thinking. The postulating of a larger state space is certainly a possibility, however one must weigh that possibility with the overhead costs of a larger state space (e.g., a multiverse universe). In the case of cosmology, this means getting around singularity theorems, it means explaining the laws of physics which presumably can vary somewhat from one universe to the next, and it means explaining why the universe is more complex nearer to the beginning than our own universe is today.

As I've pointed out to QED, one can always postulate larger state spaces to explain anything to the point of absurdity. We can point to a multiverse to explain all the events that happened up to the last 5 minutes by saying that there was a universe that exists with exactly those details that just "happened" to exist. Perhaps our universe's "laws" are like that, and will soon diverge toward randomness. This is absurdity.

Since advocating God is more simple than a multiverse, and in addition it explains much more (e.g., why the universe is mathematical, etc.), we are ought to be giving a much higher precedent to this belief than the infinite multiverse one.