 |
| There's an analogy between data compression and the laws of physics: In the physical sciences observation collects "original data".(blue topped cylinder). Because the cosmos is highly organized this allows human theorizers (the "compressor") to describe its patterns of behavior in the form of succinct (or "compressed") mathematical laws (green cylinder). We can then think of a physical system as a way of "decompressing" those laws and presenting us with our conscious experience of the world (orange topped cylinder).. |
The laws of physics are mathematical devices which are effective because we live in a highly organized universe. This organization makes it possible to describe the patterns of the universe in the succinct forms we call the laws of physics. The opposite of this cosmic high organization is disorder or randomness which by definition eludes simple mathematical description. The purely descriptive role of mathematical science has been a big theme of this blog. See here for example.
***
The following post, written by Eric Hedin on the NAID website "Science & Culture", looks to be an important conceptual step (forward?) for the North American Intelligent Design community...
Can Equations Serve as a Designer Substitute? | Science and Culture Today
Am I interested in this post because it picks up on that same theme of the purely descriptive nature of physical science although it appears to make no connection between the high organization of our experience of our world and the succinct mathematical formulations with which we find we can describe it. However, quoting from this post (with my emphases).....
This limitation (i,e, the descriptive nature of science) also applies to all the laws of physics that scientists have visualized, discovered, or derived. These “laws” merely describe how things work in this universe, based on our observations and experiments on what already exists. "Physics is a mathematical exploration of the universe. We look for patterns, structures, symmetries, and relationships. We use math to capture and describe those patterns, structures, symmetries, and relationships." .....For example, Newton’s universal law of gravitation doesn’t cause an apple to fall from a tree, it simply describes the force between it and the Earth and the apple’s subsequent rate of acceleration towards the ground. No statement of the “law of gravity” has any power to produce the actors or the action in this simple drama.....These expostulations regarding the limitations of the utility of the laws of physics may seem obvious,
Yes, I agree, this lesson does seem obvious. The descriptive nature of science became obvious to me as soon as I was introduced to mathematical science...oh, about 55 years ago. But it is surprising how many people seem unable to see this and believe the laws of physics have some much deeper "causative" role; for some these laws are the metaphysical "why?" rather than the mere descriptive "how?". But descriptive mathematical science can never "self-explain"; the best it can do is compress its descriptive algorithms in increasingly succinct forms. But ultimately physics is destined to leave us with a incompressible kernel of seemingly contingent information.
If as Hedin appears to understand this hard core of contingency is irreducible this then opens up the question of the ultimate source or the "why?" behind the cosmos, if indeed "why?" is an intelligible question; mathematical physics is not self-referencing in way which means it contains its own explanation. In fact as atheist philosophers Bertrand Russell and Galen Strawson said the universe "just is" (*1); human science can only rightly be expected to supply the "how" but not the deeper "why?"; for motivated atheists the latter question which hints at design & purpose which for them is probably not only a meaningless question but also anathema.
But does the enigma of the impassible doorway which descriptive science leaves us at imply that a "designer" is to be found on the other side of that door, as Hedin suggests? Design arguments based on observations made in archeological contexts might suggest that via analogy design arguments are our next port of call in our thinking about cosmic origins. But I don't readily agree with the NAIDs who try to make out that the science of intelligent design, which does apply to archeological artifacts (and perhaps even alien technology) can automatically be extrapolated to the total cosmic context with its high organization. The concept of a totalizing God, who is the outer context in which a whole universe lives, moves and has its being (Acts 17:27-28), is an entirely different genus of entity to humans and aliens: The latter beings that are intelligences which move & work within the contingent giveness of creation, as did the Greek gods of old.
People like myself who propose a creator God are doing so on the basis of a design metaphor, rather via than the logic of ID science, a science which has been worked out for intelligent agencies who work within the cosmic context. For me what urges the use of this metaphor is an overwhelming sense that there must be anthropic meaning and purpose to be found behind the enigmatic cliff hanger of the apparently contingent descriptions which science leaves us with. Unless we are going to go along with the "just is" atheism of Russel and Strawson purpose and meaning can only be found if we use Hebrews 11:6 as an axiomatic epistemic and life principle.....
And without faith it is
impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he
exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
So, I largely agree with what Hedin says here..
To achieve “something rather than nothing” requires more than an equation, more than mathematics — it takes an intelligent mind to imagine what could be and, it would seem, the power of God to bring it to pass.
....and can say "Yes" to that because my experience with sophisticated and highly organized configurations in this world does get me thinking along designer lines. But because the concept of "God" is of a totalizing entity in which the observable cosmos is immersed, the ID argument is at best an argument from analogy with a motivation based on largely theological urges & presuppositions and above all the search for purpose and meaning.
As I discussed in this series of posts there is a feeling even among atheists like R. Carrier that there must be something out there, perhaps something which we may find difficult to understand, which is a logical necessity and which is the source of our universe (*1); that source is not going to be descriptive algorithmic physics which inevitably leaves us at a logical hiatus. The status of algorithmic physics is as far as we know contingent; conceivably physics could be something other than what we know (*2). Hence the only way we can arrive at the physics of the universe and nail down the precise nature of its contingency is not through pure logic but through observation. I think this is what Hedin is trying to say here...
Even if an internally consistent theory of “quantum gravity” were developed, its correctness would remain in doubt. The reason is that the universe is contingent — it doesn’t have to play by our suppositions, and the only way to know for certain if any theory or model of nature is valid is to see if nature behaves according to its predictions.
Yes, I agree. But the "just is" atheism of Russel and Strawson, may regard it as futile, if not meaningless to pursue further explanatory goals that seek to answer "why?". It is ironic, however, that for the Christian Hebrews 11:6 suggests a similar "just is" attitude toward the reality of God himself, although Christian theology does help address the human yearning for ultimate justice and meaning and also helps fill that "God shaped hole" in our psyche.
Footnotes
*1: At least Russel and Strawson are being coherent here. Compare that with Richard Carrier's absurd argument employing a bogus concept of probability as a kind logical truism capable of creating a universe.
*2 Anthropic ideas, however, suggest that only a limited range of cosmic conditions favour life advanced enough to make observations on the cosmos.
No comments:
Post a Comment