Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[harvey1]

And I'll endevdour to do so in future.

I appreciate it, thanks!

As it turns out, quantum cosmology is nowhere near as a fact. Penrose, for example, doesn't even think quantum mechanics is a fundamental description of the world.

Care to cite the source you got this from? As far as I'm aware Penrose has not - as you are trying to imply - questioned quantum mechanics because it generally fails to adequately describe quantum level events. Penrose has got his bowels knotted because quantum mechanics doesn't support his pet theory of quantum consciousness - which I'd like to point out has nothing to do with quantum cosmology being "nowhere near as a fact".

Sure:

30.1 Is today's quantum theory here to stay?

In this chapter, I shall put the case to the reader that there are powerful positive reasons, over and above the negative ones put forward in the preceding chapter, to believe that the laws of present-day quantum mechanics are in need of a fundamental (though presumably subtle) change. Those reasons come from within accepted physical principles and from observed facts about the universe. Yet, I find it remarkable how few of today's quantum physicists are prepared to entertain seriously the idea of an actual change in the ground rules of their subject... This, it seems to me, is the general kind of change in the structure of quantum mechanics that we must look towards, if we are to obtain the (in my view) needed non-linear theory to replace the present-day conventional quantum theory. Indeed, it is my own perspective that Einstein's general relativity will itself supply some necessary clues as to the modifications that are required... The usual perspective, with regard to the proposed marriage between [QM and GRT] theories, is that one of them, namely general relativity, must submit itself to the will of the other. There appears to be the common view that the rules of quantum field theory are immutable, and it is Einstein's theory that must bend itself appropriately to fit into the standard quantum mould. Few would suggest that the quantum rules must themselves admit to modification, in order to ensure an appropriately harmonious marriage. Indeed, the very name 'quantum gravity', that is normally assigned to the proposed union, carries the implicit connotation that it is a standard quantum (field) theory that is sought. Yet, I would claim that there is observational evidence that Nature's view of this union is very different from this! (...) But what about quantum physics? Does not the 'randomness' inherent in the quantum evolution processes allow for deviations from this exact symmetry to arise? The notion of 'quantum fluctuations' is frequently invoked at this stage, as a means to providing the needed slight deviations from exact symmetry. The idea is that such 'fluctuations' might start out as tiny, but they would act as seeds of irregularity in the mass distribution, which would be gradually increased through gravitational clumping, so that, eventually, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies would be able to develop--in accordance with observation. But what are quantum fluctuations? It is a feature of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations... To clarify this picture, we must recall carefully what Heisenberg's uncertainty relations actually state. They do not tell us that there is something inherently 'fuzzy' or 'incoherent' in the way that nature behaves at the tiniest scales. Instead, Heisenberg uncertainty restricts the precision whereby two non-commuting measurements can be carried out. (...) It is clear that we are far from a theory which can reliably address all these issues. But I hope, at least, that I have been able to persuade the reader of the fundamental importance of having a quantum mechanics with a viable ontology... The importance of having an ontologically coherent (improved) quantum mechanics cannot, in my view, be over-estimated. [Roger Penrose, "The Road to Reality," Alfred A. Knopf (a division of Random House), 2004, pp. 816-817; 861; 865]

I personally don't think there were any existing or even potential laws/behaviors before spacetime.

In that case, then how can you say that nothing is unstable? If there is nothing, then there is no spacetime. However, if there is no spacetime, then according to your view here there are no way that nothing can be unstable since there is no law or even potential law/behavior to make nothing unstable. Please reconcile this apparent contradiction for me.

Once again, is this an attempt to hightlight the deficiencies of science to provide a bit of leg room for your god?

This might seem to be the case from your perspective where you are very distrustful of those trying to put God in the gaps. However, I think I have very good reasons to believing in God, and part of the reasons deal with the problematic issue of a brute fact beginning. It's necessary to first show the failings of the naturalistic view before I can proceed with an argument to show why we should see that God is a very likely cause to the universe.

Imaginary time isn't a good example of a "law". It is not a "law", it is a scientific concept introduced to avoid singularities, so Hawking really has no need to agonize over whether it has physical "meaning" as long as it works for his theory.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to pawn off "imaginary time" as a law. Rather, I was trying to show how a scientific hypothesis or theory does not necessarily require a commitment to realism of its concepts.

I think that science could take a completely positivist stance toward quantum cosmology in general, and just state that the world is as if it emerged "out of nothing" without committing to it actually emerging "out of nothing."

And if science did that, it would no longer be science. Making a claim such as " it is as if it emerged out of nothing" and then shrugging your shoulders and not bothering to investigate and explain why you think that way and produce evidence for your conclusions is the antithesis of science.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that science would be satisfied with "as if," but there would be no way to empirically distinguish a world having an instanton beginning (i.e., "always something" beginning) and a world caused by a metaphysical quantum law origin (i.e., "out of nothing" beginning).

I'll repeat my assertion. Newtonian physics are not wrong, but some areas of it are not applicable in all circumstances. You seem stuck on the idea that because Newtons physics do not work at the quantum level in all cases it must be 'wrong'. However, as Newton's Gravitional Constant - a piece of classical physics - does work on the quantum level, does that mean he is 'right' and 'wrong'?

Neither. It means that there's something about Newtonian physics that infers some fundamental theory of nature (often called a TOE--theory of everything). Scientific realism requires that we believe that there exists a TOE theory which is right about Nature. The theoretical approximations (e.g., Newtonian physics) of this TOE are just wrong in terms of how Nature actually is. It's not entirely wrong in it's predictions, but it is not an accurate description of the structure of reality. So, it is wrong.

(Btw, I would reply to the other points, but then we would be talking off the subject, and I only have so many minutes to sacrifice when I should be mowing the lawn. )

[wuntext]

Quote:
30.1 Is today's quantum theory here to stay?

I must admit I am disappointed. When I asked for a citation I thought you where going to lead me to some equations/diagrams. What you have given me is the equivalent of ripping a page out of Genesis and using it a 'proof' of creation. However, I'll go with what we've got.
What is Penrose saying? He is claiming that quantum theory needs an overhaul, (although he concedes this overhaul may be subtle, which hardly jibes with your dramatic statement - "Penrose, for example, doesn't even think quantum mechanics is a fundamental description of the world." ), he laces the page with a qualifiers such as "it seems to me", "in my view", and bitches about his scientific peers not appreciating his insights - "I find it remarkable how few of today's quantum physicists are prepared to entertain seriously the idea of an actual change in the ground rules of their subject".
Maybe they are not prepared to entertain seriously Penrose's idea's for the same reason I'm not.
Any reputable scientist who has real evidence that a theory that has survived every test put to it for over one hundred years is so catastrophically wrong that - in your words - "quantum cosmology is nowhere near as a fact", does not present that evidence in a popsci book designed to fill the authors bank account.
I'll take Penrose's ideas a bit more seriously if and when they are published and peer reviewed in Scientific American or similar. And once they are published and peer reviewed, if the scientific community in the light of Penrose's objections begins to fundamentally question the validity of Quantum Mechanical Theory, I'll change my position.

In that case, then how can you say that nothing is unstable? If there is nothing, then there is no spacetime.
However, if there is no spacetime, then according to your view here there are no way that nothing can be unstable since there is no law or even potential law/behavior to make nothing unstable.

I have pointed out a single quantum tunnelling event would be enough to break the symmetry of the void. Quantum tunnelling events are random and uncaused, they are not a 'law'. 'Laws' are human inventions to describe the existing universe.
It may be that the event was the interaction of two or more branes, maybe the Hartle Hawking 'no boundary' proposal is correct and the wave function psi[hij, phi] really does provide a high probability for a universe to exist. Maybe the notion that empty void can still have postive curvature that can expand (Stenger again).
The bottom line is we will probably never know the exact cause. What we can say with certainty is that "Let there be light" is not a viable option.

This might seem to be the case from your perspective where you are very distrustful of those trying to put God in the gaps. However, I think I have very good reasons to believing in God, and part of the reasons deal with the problematic issue of a brute fact beginning. It's necessary to first show the failings of the naturalistic view before I can proceed with an argument to show why we should see that God is a very likely cause to the universe.

Let's cut the crap and get down to nitty gritty shall we? It's a tired old theist game you are playing. You ask question (a) I answer it, you ask question (b,c,d...x,y,) until, we reach question (z), a point where science currently doesn't have a reasonable answer - therefore (a...y) can be discounted, science is wrong and god exists.

Your turn.

Let's assume for the moment you have convinced me of "the failings of the naturalistic view". Now give me your "very good reasons". Give me the God equation. Point me to just one facet of our existence that cannot possibly be explained in naturalistic terms and therefore demands a supernatural explanation. Show me where the existence of god is an absolute necessity for the creation and continuation of our universe. We might even touch on the First Cause argument - I'm looking forward to the field equations that allow a (presumably self created) complex, self aware conciousness to exist prior to the creation of our universe.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

I'm not saying that science would be satisfied with "as if," but there would be no way to empirically distinguish a world having an instanton beginning (i.e., "always something" beginning) and a world caused by a metaphysical quantum law origin (i.e., "out of nothing" beginning).

As I have pointed out to you several times that neither you nor I can come to any conclusions about the"First Cause" of the Universe, so this:

It's necessary to first show the failings of the naturalistic view before I can proceed with an argument to show why we should see that God is a very likely cause to the universe.

is never going to happen, "...and then a miracle happens." will never be an acceptable scientific answer. Man created gods to explain what man could not explain. As man has understood more of at least the basics of the science involved, gods have had less and less to have been responsible for, and have smaller and smaller places to be, that we have found no evidence of them.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer in science. Newton was 99.44% correct, we did not discard Newtonian Physics we added an asterik that says"but under these conditions, Einstein..." and Neither man brought us any closer to knowing what gravity is or what causes it. Basically both are wrong. It's a quantum world after all, of this there can be little doubt!

Penrose is IMHO trying to add value to the simple fact that the universe seems to have appeared from nothing( or as above, from a condition indistinguishable from that), that seems to catch in his craw. Well the evidence leads where the evidence leads, the Big Bang appears more and more likely and given the properties we already know of the quantum realm, the quantum energy fluctuation seems a plausible explanation of the beginning of the universe, not everything from nothing, but everything from the very tiny ALMOST nothing.

It means that there's something about Newtonian physics that infers some fundamental theory of nature (often called a TOE--theory of everything). Scientific realism requires that we believe that there exists a TOE theory which is right about Nature. The theoretical approximations (e.g., Newtonian physics) of this TOE are just wrong in terms of how Nature actually is. It's not entirely wrong in it's predictions, but it is not an accurate description of the structure of reality. So, it is wrong.

From the above one gets the impresion that if Newtonian Physics are not correct in all respects, that it is useless and just "wrong". The real world doesn't work that way. We do not yet have a convincing theoretical TOE, does that mean we can do no cosmological science until we do get one??? No, but as we stretch further away from the known, our theories become less and less likely to be right. The explanitive power of our theories is one of the tests we use to judge their accuracy. The better it explains and predicts all of the observations the more confidence it engenders among scientists, but certainty is never reached. Even attempts to assign probabilities is doomed because those calculations are based on assumptions, assumptions are based on our current understanding(which, as Einstein, Shroedinger, Pauli, Heisenberg and others have shown us, can be wildly wrong), and only when you get out ahead of the known with your assumptions(and ignore scientific caveats) can you come to conclusions such as "A miracle occured!!!" Believe that if you like, but you can never prove it scientifically.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

I must admit I am disappointed. When I asked for a citation I thought you where going to lead me to some equations/diagrams.

Why? You asked me for a citation to show that Penrose had doubts about the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics, why would you be disappointed with a quote from him that showed this as the case? In any case, in chapter 33 (section 33.7) Penrose describes his twistor quantum theory. But, there's plenty that has been published from him on these issues. For a primer of twistor theory I suggest this paper. For a specific paper that mentions twistor fields:

TWISTOR THEORY: AN APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF FIELDS AND SPACE-TIME By Penrose, R. MacCallum, M. A. H.
Published in June 1972

Wavefunction collapse as a real gravitational effect. By Penrose, R. In: Mathematical Physics eds: by A. Fokas, A. Grigoryan, T. W. B. Kibble and B. Zegarlinski, 2000, Imperial College, London, 266282.

On Bell non-locality without probabilities: some curious geometry. By Penrose, R. In Quantum Reflections. (Eds. J.Ellis and D.Amati). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1-27.

although he concedes this overhaul may be subtle, which hardly jibes with your dramatic statement - "Penrose, for example, doesn't even think quantum mechanics is a fundamental description of the world."

I think my statement does jibe. He really thinks that present-day quantum mechanics is not a fundamental description of the world. Really, he does.

Any reputable scientist who has real evidence that a theory that has survived every test put to it for over one hundred years is so catastrophically wrong that - in your words - "quantum cosmology is nowhere near as a fact", does not present that evidence in a popsci book designed to fill the authors bank account.

Why are you going off on Penrose all of a sudden? I think it is a good thing that not everyone is thinking the same. Besides, why do you seem offended that quantum cosmology is not treated as fact? It's not. Even the most ardent advocates of quantum cosmologists would tell you that they don't have a fundamental description of quantum gravity and therefore this proposal cannot be anything more than a hypothesis at this stage.

I have pointed out a single quantum tunnelling event would be enough to break the symmetry of the void. Quantum tunnelling events are random and uncaused, they are not a 'law'. 'Laws' are human inventions to describe the existing universe.

You still have a behavior for nothing whether it is a random behavior or a behavior caused by the some non-random (non-physical) structure. And, you are relying on quantum tunneling (i.e., quantum mechanics) which is anything but a random theory. That is, you require quantum laws to exist in order to have quantum tunneling.

It may be that the event was the interaction of two or more branes, maybe the Hartle Hawking 'no boundary' proposal is correct and the wave function psi[hij, phi] really does provide a high probability for a universe to exist. Maybe the notion that empty void can still have postive curvature that can expand (Stenger again). The bottom line is we will probably never know the exact cause. What we can say with certainty is that "Let there be light" is not a viable option.

Notice, though, if there is "something" to bring about the universe, then my original "why" question was never answered since the view "nothing is unstable" is either not correct or must be rephrased to mean that there are metaphysical H-H wavefunctions that exist, or there are string theory laws that exist, etc., etc..

Let's assume for the moment you have convinced me of "the failings of the naturalistic view". Now give me your "very good reasons". Give me the God equation. Point me to just one facet of our existence that cannot possibly be explained in naturalistic terms and therefore demands a supernatural explanation. Show me where the existence of god is an absolute necessity for the creation and continuation of our universe. We might even touch on the First Cause argument - I'm looking forward to the field equations that allow a (presumably self created) complex, self aware conciousness to exist prior to the creation of our universe.

There are no field equations as far as I know. There are philosophical arguments which show that a naturalistic explanation is not a very good one, and therefore should be considered unlikely. I realize that you don't think philosophy has this power, so I suppose that unfortunately we cannot go any further in our discussion here.

[wuntext]

There are no field equations as far as I know. There are philosophical arguments which show that a naturalistic explanation is not a very good one, and therefore should be considered unlikely. I realize that you don't think philosophy has this power, so I suppose that unfortunately we cannot go any further in our discussion here.

So, the bottom line is - despite you incredulity, despite any objection you may have regarding the truth of classical physics, you have conceded that your god can only survive in the realms of philosophy, a world view that doesn't require the evidence you demand from science, because it exists, in your words, "without necessarily referencing scientific methods of discovery".
As you cannot produce any falsifiable evidence that proves the existence of a supernatural being is a rational, parsimonious alternative to a naturalistic explanation for the creation/existence of the universe, you are right, there's not much point carrying on.

[harvey1]

So, the bottom line is - despite you incredulity, despite any objection you may have regarding the truth of classical physics, you have conceded that your god can only survive in the realms of philosophy, a world view that doesn't require the evidence you demand from science, because it exists, in your words, "without necessarily referencing scientific methods of discovery".

That's right, God is not a scientific theory. Neither is atheism. Neither is agnosticism. Neither is metaphysical naturalism. And, as you put so eloquently, neither is scientific realism. These are all philosophical theories.

As you cannot produce any falsifiable evidence that proves the existence of a supernatural being is a rational, parsimonious alternative to a naturalistic explanation for the creation/existence of the universe, you are right, there's not much point carrying on.

It depends on what you mean by falsifiable evidence. For example, I think the statement, "there aren't other people besides myself" is a falsifiable statement even though it is not scientifically falsifiable.

In any case, since you assume metaphysical naturalism is a correct philosophy, there's not much for us to discuss if you hold metaphysical naturalism to be unfalsifiable.

[harvey1]

...You are making an appeal to desire. Many atheists do not like the concept of God because it is confusing and contrary to your beliefs irrational.

I wish I could believe that, but I've seen too many atheists argue for an "out of nothing" origin to the world until they realize that this commits them to platonism. I've seen it over and over where this last minute backpedaling happens. That tells me that there's something more primal about the God belief. Inside humans lurks what I don't know what else to call it but a dark side where the natural mind resists God vehemently. Some people find the natural mind so appealing that they are willing to fight God with everything they have. They will sometimes even agree with anyone no matter how illogically they arrived at their conclusion. What matters is not how they arrived at their atheist belief, all they seem to care is that they arrived at this rejection of God.

If you look at the Bible YHWH is hardly likeable. Salvation seems arbitrary and should repulse both the natural mind and the unnatural spiritual mind you claim to have.

I agree that this is so for the more primitive interpretations. However, there are other interpretations where the Yahweh view of God is a romance between Israel and her God, and in that sense it provides an insight of the kind of love that humans ought to have with their Creator. (Except for the rebellious in heart this would be the case.)

My feelings are if there is a God that judges and saves it should include everyone or it seems a failure and the designer made some poor designs or is building a building and made to many poorly constructed bricks. It may be nothing against God but instead a rejection of your God. You might want to try and discern the difference.

I believe in universalism too. The difference though is that I believe that humans go through a judgment of "nashing on their teeth" that comes from their resistance to see the divine spiritual world around them.

I think the objections usually follow a philosophy that often seems strained from the world and cosmology. I often object to your groundless abstractions that you take as reality even over and opposed at times to the phenomena we call reality.

I really don't see why. For example, Zeno's argument against material causation is based on very sound reasoning of dividing the moment into a shorter moment, etc.. I really see no way out of this kind of reasoning and conclusion against material causation unless one is just unwilling to believe what their reasoning is telling them.

you seem to have a need for a "truthmaker" that imposes your sense of truth upon the subject rather then clarify or explain.

The way the world actually is makes things true, Cathar. How can you circumvent that conclusion of the world being a truthmaker?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Inside humans lurks what I don't know what else to call it but a dark side where the natural mind resists God vehemently. Some people find the natural mind so appealing that they are willing to fight God with everything they have. They will sometimes even agree with anyone no matter how illogically they arrived at their conclusion. What matters is not how they arrived at their atheist belief, all they seem to care is that they arrived at this rejection of God.

Oh, what a load of blather. You simply don't know a d___ thing about how others arrived at their LACK of belief in this god fairytale(or any other superstitious nonsense). It is simply the result of a weak mind to come to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists to explain the smaller and smaller "gaps" in human knowledge.

I really don't see why. For example, Zeno's argument against material causation is based on very sound reasoning of dividing the moment into a shorter moment, etc.. I really see no way out of this kind of reasoning and conclusion against material causation unless one is just unwilling to believe what their reasoning is telling them.

You and Zeno, GIGO. Since there is NO valid scientific evidence of a spirit world you must use more and more layers of unfounded philosobabel to try and find room for your vision of your brand of superstitious non-sense. It hasn't worked, it won't work and it never had any chance of working(though weak minded individuals may occasionally be convinced, the less thought they put into it, the better chance you have.)

That's right, God is not a scientific theory. Neither is atheism

Yet Atheism is the only philosophy which is based on scientific principles. No evidence=no god, until proven otherwise.

In any case, since you assume metaphysical naturalism is a correct philosophy, there's not much for us to discuss if you hold metaphysical naturalism to be unfalsifiable

But of course it is falsifiable, it just has not to date been falsified. The only way you could do so is provide valid evidence(not philosobabel) for the existence of your(or anyone else's)superstitious non-sense. That'll do it!!

There are philosophical arguments which show that a naturalistic explanation is not a very good one, and therefore should be considered unlikely.

The question then becomes are these arguements supported by scientific evidence(reality, if you will), or are they pulled whole out of someones...backside, and therefore useless(except for entertainment value). Philosophy unsupported by reality is mental masterbation, fun, but without results.

wuntext wrote:
although he concedes this overhaul may be subtle, which hardly jibes with your dramatic statement - "Penrose, for example, doesn't even think quantum mechanics is a fundamental description of the world."

I think my statement does jibe. He really thinks that present-day quantum mechanics is not a fundamental description of the world. Really, he does.

Actually, having read the material, Penrose is raising the kind of objections that Gould did with gradualism in evolutionary theory(as opposed to punk eek) and to read that as rejecting all of Quantum theory is the same type falacy as when Creationists say Gould rejected evolution, and just as ignorant and just as wrong and for the same reasons(to try to inject superstitious belief).

Grumpy

[Cathar1950]

I really don't see why. For example, Zeno's argument against material causation is based on very sound reasoning of dividing the moment into a shorter moment, etc.. I really see no way out of this kind of reasoning and conclusion against material causation unless one is just unwilling to believe what their reasoning is telling them.

Despite Zeno's argument the arrow still hits the target. So much for your philosophical augment.

[harvey1]

Despite Zeno's argument the arrow still hits the target. So much for your philosophical augment.

Simple Dear Watson. Material causation is incorrect, but metaphysical causation is correct. Unfortunately most atheists won't accept metaphysical causation because deep, deep, deep down it is as if someone turned on the lights.