Big Bang Notes I

Microwave background: Looking back in time to the Big Bang

Recently somebody asked me for my assessment of Big Bang Theory. I'm no ball of knowledge on Big Bang, but I do have a few notions on the subject that I relate here. That the cosmos has its origins in a hot dense continuum seems a very likely scenario given the state of astronomical observation, but this very general idea can be the front for a huge amount of detail: it seems that those details are far less settled.  Anyway, below are my comments on Big Bang that I returned to the inquirer:

***

Inflation was an idea that was generated by the need to explain why opposite ends of the universe show the same temperature and density given that without inflation they wouldn't have been in thermal contact at the beginning. Inflation also explained the observation that the universe looks to be flat to a very good approximation. 

But Inflation theory is far from confirmed: The source of the energy needed to generate inflation is unknown, although there is some speculative talk about it being "dark energy". There is also the problem of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics which inflationary theory doesn't pretend to solve....as the inflation is wound back one reaches the so called "quantum gravity" limit where space-time curvature is so great that one must take into account the uncertainty principle - what happens here given that gravity hasn't yet been successfully quantized is anybody's guess.

What we are fairly sure about is that to all intents and purposes we can only wind the clock back 13 odd billion years to the very hot & dense big bang before we hit the "unknown physics barrier".

We can of course imagine the graticules of time measurement extending before that, but since time is actually measured using the physical ticks provided by material standards (such as vibrations) then given that as we go back in time gravity modifies these ticks by slowing them to near zero it follows that time just about stops at t=0 simply because there is no physical standard which remains ticking to measure it.

We are very far from understanding the big bang in terms of absolute origins. Hence the actual details on the other side of the big bang are up for the philosophical grabs. Atheists who don't like the idea that the big bang was an absolute beginning can speculate about previous universes or a multiverse of continuous inflationary bubbles or play philosophical word games with the meaning of nothing. Alternatively theists can speculate about it being an absolute beginning; that is the mathematical edge of a grand logical hiatus....this is the point at which our ability to carry out algorithmic compression via the annunciation of general physical equations stops. See the epilogue of my book on randomness where I discuss this:(see footnote)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLwnl6qE_yeQXVKb2lHUmdtRzg/view?resourcekey=0-qGG_yo-LP-9gZ0lW9K__nw

My money is on this argument running and running because of epistemic distance: There seem to be insurmountable epistemic barriers in the two areas where we can attempt to make observations to test origins theories: Viz: 1) The microwave background yields limited data and only extends back so far. 2) Particle accelerators are unlikely to reach the colossal energies needed to recapitulate the very early universe. Of course there may always be observational & theoretical wild cards out there somewhere, but I'm not banging banking on it!

People still hanker and yearn after the idea that there was something

 before the big bang. But what was it? Was it God or just more  

algorithmically compressible bytes and bits?

Endnotes

Contingency and the Grand Logical Hiatus

Endnote 1: (Added 03/10/2021) It ought to be fairly self evident that an ultimate Logical Hiatus in our so-called  "explanations" is forever going to be an irreducible feature of our attempts to account for the cosmos. For those explanations find their expression in succinct mathematical laws as algorithmic ways of encoding descriptive information about the ordered dynamic that pervades our world. A hard core of contingency, then, can never be eliminated as the algorithmic nature of these laws means that as a matter of logical inevitability they must start from a set of given mathematically stated conditions. The laws of physics, then, amount to a form of algorithmic compression and as such lead back to an irreducible kernel of enigmatic simplicity. So, if we are looking for an ultimate "explanation" in some deeper sense than mere description, it's not going to be found in the simplicity of physics; more likely in complexity; perhaps the complexity of a Godhead. (See here where I first mooted this idea)

So leaving aside the silly word games with the meaning of "nothing", those who dislike the mystery of an irreducibly particular contingency find that their best shot is to postulate some version of multiverse theory, a theory which in its most extreme form posits the existence of just about every logically possible contingency. This tactic works by attempting to neutralize the mystery of a kernel of particular contingency by eliminating selective contingency (which is in fact what our cosmos, on the face of it, presents us with) by spreading the existential butter over a huge range of possibility. Needless to say, our instincts suggest that behind selective contingency is an intentionality. That there is such a concerted effort to eliminate selective contingency with multiverse notions is a sign that these instincts, even among disbelievers, are alive and well. 

Endnote 2: (added 19/10/2021) One of the bugbears with the common concept of "mechanism" is that it is conceived as entirely a matter of local interactions between the parts of the mechanism. Those parts, such as atoms or fundamental particles, have a few relatively simple rules governing their near-neighbor interactions and it is thought that these "mindless" rules are then the source from which all else incidentally and purely fortuitously emerges. It is assumed then that these rules are the fundamental & primary reality of the cosmos and all else is secondary and ephemeral.  No further questions are then asked about whether this system of rules, if it supports the development and maintenance of life, must therefore be algorithmically pre-biased.  Moreover, it is further assumed that these rules do not include global teleological constraints, constraints which (amounting to action at a distance) would really blow away any semblance of local interaction completeness & primacy.  The oft overriding and superficial response to this picture of local mechanical interactions is that it is entirely mindless in that clearly in and of themselves these interactions have no sentient apprehension of what they are doing and therefore any complex development built on them (such as life) is purely accidental and incidental. It is ironic that this superficial response is endemic among the de-facto Intelligent Design community of North America. But then there is this.

OK, the mechanical picture of cosmic development with its purely bottom-up as opposed to top-down vision is at first sight a challenge to an anthropocentric view of the cosmos.  But if one starts to push a little harder the wall of that challenge starts to crumble. 

Science & Faith in Norfolk Lecture Notes 21 September

Norwich Cathedral west end where a skeleton of a diplodocus is currently on display.

The wife and I attended the lecture at Norwich Cathedral by Nick Spencer of Theos. The lecture came under the auspices of Science and Faith in Norfolk and was titled "Dinosaurs, Evolution and Religion".  Although I was familiar with much of the story Spencer related, below I log some notes on salient points. (I've also embedded some comments of my own in square brackets): 

***

Science & Faith in Norfolk Lecture 21 September. Nick Spencer

The "Warfare Thesis" of science vs religion is invalid. For example Galileo was not arguing against Christianity but the failure of Aristotelian "science". [I believe he also was perceived to have shown disrespect for the authority of the religious leaders of the day - the problem was less with his science than his lack of deference to authority and lack of diplomacy when dealing with it] 

The idea of man evolving from other primates appeared to blur the distinction between man and the animal kingdom and this upset many. [Evolution was less the issue than was the perceived demeaning of human life and an apparent concomitant loss of its sacredness] But Darwin's Origins was a storm in a teacup compared to the reaction to "Essays and Reviews". 

Huxley was one of the first professional scientists: The word "scientist" was coined in 1834. His problem was with the authority of amateurs like Bishop Wilberforce who were making unfounded dogmatic  pronouncements on evolution. Wilberforce, on the other hand, was concerned with humanity: He was indignant about the belittling of humanity. (But evolution isn't the only perspective on humanity). There was a mismatch of underlying motive here.

As if to confirm the fears of the dehumanizing effect of Darwinism, in 1901 the pygmy Ota Benga was exhibited in the monkey house of Bronx Zoo and portrayed as a missing link. Black ministers were enraged that this exhibition made a beast of the pygmy. In reaction these black ministers stressed the soul of man, setting him apart from animals. [The fault line between the third person perspective vs the first person perspective was opening up between the practitioners of science and religion respectively]

But man isn't just an evolved primate. We need to understand humans in subjective and first person terms. There is "I and you" as well as an "it". We aren't just an "it". Spencer's point was that evolution dealt with the "it" only.

The expanse of time also raised questions. Why so much time between humans and dinosaurs? Spencer was asked this question by a child: His response was that important things take time. cf: Carl Sagan's quip about the time needed to make an apple pie.

Points made during Q&A time:

There are human values well mixed into science that are needed to make it work - truthfulness and integrity. 

There is a replication crisis in some sciences - many psychological studies can't be replicated. 

At what point did we become human? Where's the threshold? There is the "human revolution" of 30,000 years ago. 

Even Monkey's have a sense of fairness. Evolution isn't just about competition - it can also favour cooperation and altruism [But even taking into account the evolution of altruism, nature still comes over as utterly ruthless and impersonal, favoring only a survival ethic. This observed ruthlessness, especially when put together with the death of Darwin's daughter, slowly sucked the life out of Darwin's faith (and the faith of others too - it was yet another manifestation of the problem of suffering and evil)]

FURTHER COMMENTS

I'm glad to see that Spencer made the point about the internal first person perspective. As I've said before everything hangs on this perspective: Without it life becomes a meaningless simulacrum (See my "consciousness" label). 

What I will say however, is that the findings of systematic science have been and remain a challenge to an anthropocentric perspective on the cosmos even to the extent that some, fooled by the language games of the third person perspective, have attempted to deny the reality of the conscious first person perspective. Although distorted by polarized interests, the humanity vs mechanism fault line that was coming very much to the fore in 18th and 19th centuries is evidenced in Spencer's lecture material. (See also here). But here's a point I've made before: It's easier to design & make a car than it is to design & make a machine that designs and builds cars. It seems that in the cosmos we have something more like the latter. But it comes with overheads. 

This is a picture of the lecture video camera screen. I can be seen taking a picture of the screen. I'm on the far right at the edge of the small  audience. The diplodocus skeleton can be seen in the middle background. 

NB:  Science and Faith in Norfolk along with the Faraday Institute are the go to people for Christians interested in Science & Faith in the UK. In these days of cranky christian trends promoting crackpot conspiracy theories and anti-science notions about a flat earth and/or young earth, a source of technical & scientific competence such as we see in these institutions is sorely needed.

Links:

Network Norfolk : Dinosaurs, evolution and religion lecture (networknorwich.co.uk)

Talkative Tuesday - Dinosaurs, Evolution and Religion - YouTube

Evolution and Islands of functionality

I've said it before and I'll say it again: William Dembski, the North American "Intelligent Design"  guru, is a nice bloke and in many ways an admirable Christian; moreover, I think one of his primary publicized conclusion is entirely correct; that is, a universe such as ours, especially given the presence of life, demands a huge upfront information input. Unless we are going to invoke multiverse ideas this is a truism whether or not life is a product of the mechanisms of evolution as conventionally conceived (But see here for qualification). Dembski is also a reasonable Christian who disowns the fundamentalism abroad among many US Christians. But in spite of all this he has been rejected and even abused among some evolutionists of the academic establishment, especially by evangelical atheists. This is at least in part because some in the IDist community have assumed his work is a sure fire refutation of standard evolutionary mechanisms. But Dembski's main conclusion isn't such a refutation. In fact Dembski has given a back-handed acknowledgement of this fact. 

As I described in my last blog post there are big stakes here as a consequence of the US right-wing IDists and the atheists in the academic establishment polarizing around what they both believe to be a sharp dichotomy between "natural forces" and "intelligent agency". But the neutrality of Dembski's initial conclusions doesn't mean that Dembski is what the IDists contemptuously refer to as a "Darwinist"; rather he very much aligns with the IDist community and argues against standard evolutionary mechanisms as we shall see in this post. 

Given the establishment vs popularist right-wing polarisation in the US, it is not surprising if Dembski has been embraced by the right-wing and he has turned his talents toward supporting some of their contentions. For example in this blog post of his we find him entertaining (but falling short of outright affirmation of) the theory that Covid 19 was genetically engineered in China. His post will go down well among Trump right-wingers. In fact I'd be interested to know whether or not Dembski is a Trump supporter and believes in a stolen election. 

For myself I have no useful input on theory that Covid 19 was genetically engineered in a Chinese laboratory and then perhaps accidentally released. It is a plausible theory that may or may not be true as far as my knowledge is concerned. Unfortunately the authoritarian and secretive  nature of the Chinese regime doesn't help their case one little bit: It would be typical of a totalitarian government with little or no accountability to host a classic cock-up and cover up scenario like a laboratory escape. But if Covid 19 is a Chinese contrivance I think it unlikely it was deliberately released; that idea just smacks too much of the cold hearted Machiavellian fantasies spread about by the deluded conspiracy theorists; I find incompetence and cover up scenarios much more plausible and in line with humanity's often sleazy and idiotic behavior. In any case it cuts both ways; that lab-leak theories serve right-wing tribal interests erodes the credibility of these theories. But I'm less interested in this issue than Dembski's references to the evolution question.

***

So, as I was saying, Dembski's main work doesn't contradict standard evolution:  But even so, as I've said, Dembski, of course, finds himself on the anti-evolution side of the culture war and naturally enough has tried to advance arguments which attempt to refute evolution. In his Covid 19 post he does a resume of a frequent argument used by IDists. In his post we find the picture I've published at the head of this post and Dembski tell us about it:

This first slide illustrates, by analogy, what the Darwinist thinks must be the case, namely, that islands of functionality exist dotted along the way in getting from the left most island to the farthest off island. With all these intermediate islands, it is easy (probable) to jump from one island to the next and thus get to the far-off island by starting with the closest one (the far-off island representing the end product of evolution that we’re trying to explain).

Yes I agree, each organic variation that walks the Earth must be functional and able to transmit incremental variations to the next generation that themselves must also be functional.  Evolution is a step by step gradual process that doesn't conceive huge organic variations appearing in one generation. e.g. Lobe finned fish didn't become amphibians in just one generation; that would require millions of years of step by step change, where each step is capable of survival and replication. 

But Demsbki goes on to give us this second picture to ponder.....: 

According to Dembski this picture illustrates the possible problem with standard evolutionary mechanisms that depend on the small jumps of incremental change. Of this matter he says this:

But how do we know that those intermediate islands exist? The second slide illustrates this possibility, and insofar as it describes what is happening with biological change, it renders Darwinian evolution far less plausible. It needs to be noted here that whether these transitional islands (i.e., intermediate functional biological forms) exist is a matter for fact. The dispute between design theorists and Darwinists is over the evidence for these intermediate islands/forms. For the Darwinists, these intermediates must exist because Darwinism requires a gradual form of evolution. For the design theorists it’s not that these intermediates can’t exist but that they might not exist and if they don’t, that argues for intelligent design.

Yes again I agree: For the Darwinists, these intermediates must exist because Darwinism requires a gradual form of evolution. The battle between IDists of Demsbski's variety and the establishment evolutionists revolves round the attempts on the one-hand of IDists to show that there is no evidence for this "island" hopping scenario and on the other hand evolutionists trying to show that there is evidence of the existence of closely set islands of functionality.  The IDists, of course, are quite sure that islands of functionality are not closely set enough to facilitate evolution and they then invoke their so-called "explanatory filter" and out pops intelligent agency (I believe to this explanatory filter to be flawed if pushed beyond everyday application into the realms of the origins of life - see here for more details). 

***

But  there is one thing that Dembski's island metaphor hasn't made sufficiently explicit in my opinion. In the first picture above it could be that the sea is actually very thickly populated with islands of functionality and that the distance between these islands is a small configurational step. And yet this in itself, although a necessary condition for evolution, isn't a sufficient condition. This is because the islands may be so small that a random hop has very little chance of landing on any of these tiny islands of functionality. Actually, if one blows up the magnification of this "many small islands" picture it starts to look a little like Dembski's second picture with islands well separated. In fact it's vaguely reminiscent of what one sees of a galaxy in space - from a distance they look to be crowded with closely set stars - but blow up the magnification and one finds the stars to be very small and too far apart for space travel. Likewise, there may well be many islands of functionality and not very distant from one another in terms of steps but because they occupy such a small area in the "sea of non-functionality" random island hopping is too improbable to be practical.

One way of thinking about this situation is to understand that organisms, because they are composed of many particles, are actually multidimensional entities with huge numbers of dimensions. There may be many functional configurations within a few short steps but nevertheless too few, given the number of dimensions, to be accessible with small random hops; the overwhelming number of short hops will go in the wrong direction.

I actually much prefer what I call the "spongeam" picture to Dembski's first figure above. I have featured the spongeam structure on this blog several times before. It looks something like this:

In this metaphor we are in 3D rather than 2D, although of course we should be talking about a configuration space of immense dimensionality and where the spongeam structure is considerably more tenuous looking than it looks in the picture above.  However, the spongeam metaphor, in my opinion, conveys, the complexity of the situation better than the island picture. In the spongeam picture I identify the necessary condition for standard evolutionary mechanisms to be that the class of functional, self perpetuating organisms form a connected set in configuration space, resulting in a thin, tenuous, but complex network of fibrils spanning a space of immense dimensionality.  In this picture the random walk steps of evolution are modeled as a form of diffusion guided by the thin connections (or channels) of the spongeam. If the spongeam exists then the mechanism of evolution is a process of diffusion through this network of channels. Also, as I've remarked before, one can express this metaphor for evolution mathematically. Viz: 

I explain this equation more fully in this blog post.  Suffice to say here that Y represents some kind of population density at a point in configuration space. The first term on the righthand side is a diffusion term resulting of the random hops across the space. The second term on the righthand side represents a breeding or decaying population term, where V is a value which varies across configuration space. It is this value which describes the spongeam structure, a structure which must be sufficiently connected to provide the necessary conditions for standard evolutionary mechanisms. It embeds the upfront "Dembski information" required for those mechanisms to work.

Like Dembski, I have doubts that this necessary condition is actually fulfilled given our current understanding of the physical regime in spite of the stringent constraint that the known laws of physics put on the possible behaviours in configuration space. My feeling is, and I admit it's only a intuition, that the high organisation of life means that the number of possible organic structures are likely to be overwhelmed by the number of possible disordered configurations. That is, notwithstanding the known laws of physics which considerably reduce the "volume" of configuration space, there simply aren't enough viable organic configurations to populate configuration space with an extensive connected structure like the spongeam, a structure which is a necessary condition for molecules to man evolution. So, it may be that IDists like Dembski are actually right. But having said that I don't think the case against evolution is actually proved and standard evolutionary mechanism may yet be the engine driving natural history. I'm not strongly aligned on this question.

It is ironic that in one sense IDists of Dembski's ilk would likely agree with the academic establishment on one very important aspect of evolution; namely, that the fossil record testifies to a natural history of changing life forms over millions of years; So, in the natural history sense they both accept that evolution has occurred although would disagree on the underlying driving mechanisms: A further irony here is that the mechanisms of evolution, when stated in their most general form, even by an evangelical atheist biochemist like Larry Moran, admits intelligent design as a possible driving mechanism - see here. I wonder if Moran is aware of this? 

So, at heart the contention between IDists and establishment evolutionists is about the nature of the internal engine driving evolutionary change. But I have doubts that this contention can ever be settled conclusively given that fossil, genetic & breeding data can only ever be a way of sampling the highly complex processes of natural history. I'll have to leave the two sides arguing the evidence for that one, although I'm inclined to float my vote against the spongeam as a reality and yet at the same time stand with the evolutionists in the culture war against an extreme right-wingery which of late has manifested itself as a threat to Western democracy.

***

If the class of functional structures are closely spaced but occupy too small a "volume" in configuration space to be reachable by evolutionary diffusion, there may yet be a way round this situation, one that I've probed for many years (although without unambiguous success). If some kind of tentative expanding parallelism is in operation which probes a few steps across configuration space these islands of functionality could then be reached. But accompanying this there would have to be some underlying drive to preferentially select these islands and that aspect, which implies a built-in teleology in the physical regime, would have to exist. Quantum mechanics gives us expanding parallelism straight away; it also gives us the selection too, in the form of collapse of the wavefunction (I'm by-passing multiverse & decoherence interpretations of quantum mechanics here). But apparently (and I stress apparently) quantum selection isn't preferentially biased but random. - as far as we know. Notwithstanding that however, my radical suggestion is that there is an underlying teleology in the cosmos, a teleology embodied in a biased seek, inspect, reject and select algorithm behind the generation of life. In effect  this would both considerably speed up the diffusion and introduce a life favoring value of V in the above equation. 

Well, I suppose it's likely I'm on a hiding to nowhere here, but in the poisonous atmosphere of a  polarised culture-war, to even tentatively investigate such ideas is an affront to the hardened nihilistic atheists and a heresy to the hardened dualists among right-wing IDists & fundamentalists. Just as well I'm in a relatively unconnected domain on this part of the web; I'm not keen on meeting them. (I've already had three unpleasant chance web-meetings with fundamentalists and/or conspiracy theorists - see Richard Sweet,  Steve Pastry and Ken Ham)

For evangelical atheists whose world is ultimately meaningless these ideas would smack too much of intelligent contrivance & purpose to be acceptable. Take an atheist like Steven Weinberg for whom the universe is absurd: As his famous saying goes "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless".  And yet I can empathize to some extent with Weinberg: From a human perspective science and industry have left us with enigmas & challenges to deal with. But even so perhaps Weinberg could have asked himself more questions about the origins of a comprehensible cosmic order rather than jumping to the conclusion that it's all absurd.

It is ironic that for Christian IDists and fundamentalists the thought of a cosmos provisioned to generate life via a teleological version of evolution is, if anything, an even greater affront than it is to nihilistic atheists; the latter will brush you off as a fool, whereas right-wing religionists are inclined to see you as a subversive, may be even a malign & wicked influence. For one thing they have difficulty with the notion that God's creation is able to create of information. But creating information is what teleological algorithms achieve. There is nothing intrinsically anti-Christian in seeing human beings as a thoroughly "natural" (sic) phenomenon; for as far as we know they are a dynamical pattern that works within the operational envelope of a physical regime that the sovereign Creator has set up and manages on a moment by moment basis. In that sense human beings are at once both natural and supernatural. Moreover, as a "natural" phenomenon human beings (like natural history itself) are clearly able to create information on a daily basis. But the dualistic religionists who have committed themselves to the notion that intelligence is tantamount to some form of mysterious intellectual alchemy that cannot be described in algorithmic and material terms have backed themselves into a corner: Their vested interest in a particular line of thought brings down a taboo on any suggestion that in God's "natural" (sic) world information is being created all the time. Why is this such a difficult idea given that God is sovereign and it is God's created world? The temptations of gnosticism are never far away. 

Animism and De Facto IDism

I think this clever cartoon originates from the Faraday Institute, an organisation I would support and certainly recommend to
those who are interested in the relation of   science and religion.

 I must prefix this post with one of my usual disclaimers: Like the late Sir John Polkinghorme I can confess to the label of being an intelligent design creationist. (Although Polkinghorne was a Christian evolutionist and I'm not so sure I can claim that label in terms of evolution's internal driving mechanisms). Also, along with Polkinghorne I have to distance myself from the North American de facto Intelligent Design and creationist movements whose concepts are bound up with and influenced by the political drift to the far-right. I refer to right-wing Intelligent Design creationism with terms like "IDist", "IDism" and "de facto ID".

***

This post on the de facto ID web site Uncommon Descent quotes another ID blog post entitled "Randomness is not a scientific explanation: We can never know if anything is truly random".  I'll refer to this blogger as "Eric" and I will interleave my comments with Eric's content as below. In the following I will be implicitly drawing from the understanding I gained in compiling my work Disorder and Randomness.

ERIC: It is common in the sciences to claim aspects of our universe are random:

In evolution, mutations are random.

In quantum physics, the wave collapse is random.

In biology, much of the genome is random.

In business theory, organizational ecologists state new ideas are random.

MY COMMENT: Although randomness can be defined in a mathematically ideal way and this involves configurations of infinite size, there is such a thing as effective randomness (usually called pseudo randomness) and this does not involve the mathematical ideal: The use of randomness in practical statistics need not necessarily make an assumption of the mathematical ideal; if the "random" configurations used in practical statistics are a result of some underlying obscure and perhaps complex algorithm the statistician is unlikely to discover that algorithm and as long as the configurations under study are sufficiently disordered the overwhelming majority of statistical tests will return the expected statistics. 

An example of the practical use of configurations that don't fit the mathematical ideal of randomness are random number tables that have been generated by some known algorithm of sufficient memory space and/or execution time complexity to return relatively disordered configurations. A statistician fully aware that these tables are algorithmically generated can nevertheless still use them to test his statistical methods simply because the statistician's selection methods are very unlikely to recapitulate the generating algorithm. 

However, like the good de facto IDist that he is I can safely assume that Eric is going think in dichotomies and will only see the choice being between ideal randomness and what he and other de facto IDists refer to as "necessity" (sic). For them the natural sciences are all about "chance & necessity" (sic); they see no gradation from high order to high disorder with much statistics still practical for a broad class of configurations that are not the mathematical ideal of disorder. The North American ID mind has been tempered in the fires of US political polarization & rejection by academia and that has a bearing on so much of IDist thinking as we shall see.

ERIC: There is a general idea that everything new has its origins in randomness. This is because within our current philosophy of science, the two fundamental causes in our universe boil down to randomness and necessity. Since necessity never creates anything new, then by process of elimination the source of newness must be randomness. Similar to how the ancient Greeks believed the universe originated from chaos.

MY COMMENT: I'm not quite sure who Eric is referring to in his first sentence, but it's probably true that randomness is an  overworked concept among some atheists.

In the above quote we see reference to the so-called "randomness and necessity" (sic) dichotomy, more usually expressed by IDists as "chance and necessity" (sic). I've seen IDists claim that because algorithms generate outputs with "certainty" (or with "necessity" (sic)) then the information value of this output, which is given by -log(P) where P = 1, must be zero! One fault with this reasoning is that it confuses randomness and probability, which are in fact two different things: A high order configuration may be a big unknown to an observer and therefore probabilistic up to the point it becomes known. And yet a truly random configuration, once it is recorded and known, no longer has a surprisal value and therefore its information content becomes zero. The term "information" is observer relative. Moreover, so-called "newness" is also relative to the observer: Let me repeat: A recorded random output is no longer new and surprising. In contrast an algorithm yet to operate may produce a new configuration never seen in the life time of the universe. Eric is simply parroting his cultural line about there being a dichotomy between "chance & necessity" (sic). Whether "necessity" (sic) generates anything "new" is a question whose answer depends on relative perspective. Moreover, what IDists call "necessity" isn't necessity at all, because the laws (or algorithms) governing our universe look to be very contingent.

In one sense the Greeks were right: Order emerged out of primeval chaos, but not of its own will, but did so because God created order in a series of organising separations as attested by Genesis 1.

The following statement by Eric reveals a very common & habitual way of thinking about the discoveries of science; it is a way of thinking common to both IDists and atheists: 

Within our current philosophy of science, the two fundamental causes in our universe boil down to randomness and necessity. 

Eric is trying to get past us the oft taken for granted concept that somehow "randomness and necessity" (sic) are "fundamental causes" No, they are not fundamental causes; rather they are ways of describing the patterns of behavior that God impresses on the cosmos. In fact the notion of "cause" is itself descriptive of patterns of behavior that only hold for some cases; for example in the dynamical patterns we see in Newtonian mechanics "causation" is a fairly clear cut notion, but in quantum mechanics with its widely distributed entanglements and random collapses physical causation becomes a problematic category.

Against the IDist philosophical background where it is (unconsciously) assumed algorithms and randomness (what I refer to informally as law & disorder) are somehow fundamental sources of causation rather than methods of describing the patterns of creation, it becomes an easy next step to think of these "fundamental causes" (sic) as having their own animus, an animus which competes with the divine animus: God and the "natural" animus become mutually exclusive explanations for the state of the world. With this version of crypto-animism as an implicit background we begin to see why IDists, whose philosophical motivation is theism, are so determined to show that the so-called "natural forces of chance & necessity" (sic) do not have the efficacy to create  life; for to concede this the IDists feel they are giving way to the kind of atheism which posits a world of "fundamental causes" (sic) that needs no divine input.

The IDists, then, have effectively swallowed a paradigm whereby they see "chance & necessity" (sic) competing with divine creativity. Accordingly, we have a situation where atheists want  those fundamental forces of physical "causation" (sic) to work as the animus explaining the universe, but where IDists are determined to prove that "natural forces" (sic), that is "chance & necessity" (sic), don't work as an explanation of organic form and function. As I have documented in this blog before (see here and here) the de facto IDists are therefore committed to the idea that "intelligent agency" is a very different genus of "causation" and this makes itself felt in their so called "explanatory filter" (Another fine mess of their's). This has a further knock on effect for their understanding of human intelligence: Viz: They are unwilling to accept that human intelligence can be described in terms of natural law & disorder and believe that it transcends any attempt at algorithmic description. All in all this commits them to the idea that intelligence is an almost mystical and sacred form of causation, a form of causation they resort to as an when they are unable to find an explanation using the profanities of "chance & necessity" (sic).

ERIC: Here’s the irony of the view that whatever is unique in our universe is random: We can never know if anything is truly random. This is because randomness is unprovable, which was proven by three different computer scientists: Ray Solomonoff, Andrey Kolmogorov, and Gregory Chaitin. The only thing we can know is that something is not random. Hence, we can never know that something originated from randomness.

MY COMMENT: Regarding Eric's first sentence: As we have seen algorithms can be used to describe uniqueness and observer relative unknowns; I can't speak for those who, according to Eric, think that only pure randomness is a source of uniqueness. Eric's next two sentences are right: Like all physical patterns purported to be covered by a universal law, where humanly speaking a mere observational sampling is only possible, no absolute proof of randomness can be forth coming, especially as mathematically ideal randomness entails infinite patterns. In short Eric is saying nothing very profound here. He is simply stating that we can never absolutely prove universal patterns but can only test these putative laws, laws which are actually tendered not as causative but rather as descriptive of those patterns of behavior. I suspect that Eric, who has guru status among de facto ID followers, is name-dropping here and to ignorant followers it will look as though he's making a clever technical point. He isn't. 

Eric's last two sentences are in the absolute sense, false. We cannot absolutely prove that something is not random: As Christians we may be feel sure that the high organisation and fine tuning we see in the cosmos is evidence of divine action, but let's recall that this is no proof for the atheistic multiverse aficionados who prefer to view cosmic order and fine tuning as just a statistically inevitable blip in a huge sea of randomness; these people are exploiting the fact that, contrary to Eric's statement, it is not possible to know with certainty that something isn't random. But I wouldn't expect theists who accept the idea of a God of providence to use multiverse notions to explain cosmic organisation and fine-tuning; for  one's perspective is entirely different if one's epistemic corner stone is that behind the world of our senses is a rational God who creates order. The sample of organisation we see in our universe then makes sense, a lot of sense in my opinion. True, a belief in God is not amenable to test tube precipitating and spring extending science, rather theism is a sense making doctrine, just as the random multiverse is a sense making doctrine for some atheists.

Eric should have said: We can never (absolutely) know that something didn't originated from randomness. and we cannot  know if something is not random . We walk by faith!

ERIC: What does this result mean for science? It means that randomness can never be a scientific explanation, since we can never know that something is random. At best, saying something is random is shorthand for “we don’t know.” So, when scientists state the origin of something in our universe is random, they do not know the origin.

MY COMMENT: Eric is wrong again: Randomness, even mathematically ideal randomness, is a scientific explanation in that it states testable conditions, statistically testable conditions. Saying something is random is NOT, repeat NOT, shorthand for "we don't know" because propositions about randomness are effectively telling us about the kind of configurations we are likely to encounter. True, we can't absolutely prove randomness any more than we can absolutely prove quantum mechanics. But we can sample and test purported patterns of behavior; that's what empirical science is about, and that's what the eyes of faith rejoice in: "All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all that I haven't seen" (Emerson). 

I can't speak for atheist scientists who may use an infinite sea of randomness in their multiverse preferences. But Eric is wrong again: such preferences aren't a simple "don't know"; they have content, content about the ultimate context of pattern in which our universe is supposed to be placed. 

***

In the UD post that quotes Eric, by way of comment the writer of the post tells us: 

Takehome: Three different computer scientists have proven that randomness is unprovable. The only thing we can know is that something is not random.

This author, who appears to be one of Eric's followers, is of course welcome to take home these false lessons! It goes to show how false ideas are perpetuated in the IDist community when followers lack the acumen to contradict their gurus and therefore have no choice but to accept their ideas on authority.  Credentialed nonsense is still nonsense. 

***

At one time I naively thought that engaging the IDist and Christian fundamentalist take on science would simply be a case applying my knowledge of science, computing and mathematics. Well, I was in for a big shock, although that shock took too much time to sink in with me: It turned out that their views majored in a strong political interest component and politics was a subject I find difficult. The (often false) views of both IDists and Christian fundamentalists are formed in the highly selective fires which serve political polarization. The gradual cultural marginalization of Christianity in recent Western history, especially from its position of relative strength in the US, has led to a reactionary response among fundagelicals with a subsequent migration of many, if not all of them, to the far right. The corrupt conspiracy theory wielding Donald Trump signaled that he would champion the cause of the fundagelical right (as he did for other far right groups) in exchange for them supporting his bid for power (See here).

This shift to the right opened up intellectual fault lines as the right trending evangelicals and fundamentalists spurned the academic establishments efforts to explain life, the universe and everything using a law & disorder description of nature. Much of this project of the academic establishment I would support, although I draw the line at multiverse cosmogonies and the nihilistic & social relativist and/or Marxist mores sometimes found in humanities departments. But many North American evangelicals and fundamentalists have set apart their rendition of "science" from the academic establishment by signing up to doctrines that put a wedge between so called "natural forces" (sic) and intelligent action. They are dualists, or at least crypto-dualists who feel that natural history and the spectre of so called "natural forces" jeopardizes their notion of divine creativity and the mystique they assign to intelligent action in general.

More IDist fails:

https://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2020/03/breaking-through-information-barrier-in_5.html

The Sea of Faith

An extract from Matthew Arnold's poem "Dover Beach" published in 1867

A friend of mine sent me this link to an article entitled "Christianity is Collapsing" by an atheist who is triumphant about the decline of Christianity in America as measured by statistics. These statistics are no surprise to me, of course, and any case we have a long term decline in the UK although it would be wrong to call it a "collapse" - that's hopeful rhetoric among some entrenched anti-Christians. Of particular interest to me is just how much some of the recent eccentric expressions of Christianity  are bound up with this decline (Viz: extreme right-wing fundamentalism, young earthism, geocentrism, flat earthism, Christian conspiracy theorism,  fideism, gnosticism, Covid denial, anti vaxxers, anti-climate change lobby, the Trump followers etc). Anyway here was my reply.

Thanks for the link to the article! V. V. interesting to read!

The overall stats are likely correct as it concurs with other stats I've heard about. Of course a vested interested atheist is going to use emotive terms like "collapse" to describe this trend, terms which really describe his hopes rather than what actually may come to pass in due course. These social trends tend to be chaotically cyclic as the relevant variables are coupled into non-linear feedback loops.

What is referred to as "Christianity" actually resolves into at least three groups; fundamentalist, non-fundamentalist evangelicals and liberal (Further sub divisions are possible, no doubt!*). Along with atheists we then have population flows between these groups plus kids growing up and identifying with one or the other group and people dying from all groups. What the net result and the true story is behind it all that would require a lot of stats studies to find out. 

If there is some kind of polarising trend going on with a net loss from a broad church of Christian persuasions then as often happens in a period of crisis of confidence fundamentalism tends to consolidate itself and become more extreme & self assertive by way of reaction. Fundamentalists gain from anti-establishment & counter-cultural feelings and the disaffection which goes together with a puzzling social milieu. For example there has been a recent growth in flat earth Christian fundamentalism; they might well portray that small increase as a recovery and restoration of the true faith, congratulate themselves and see it as the start of a success story! They will also likely blame Christians who don't follow their particular brand of fundamentalism for the decline in Christianity (as does Ken Ham for example). 

But just how can we measure the number of people these fundamentalist clowns, who see themselves as the epitome of true faith, are alienating, putting off and becoming hostile toward Christianity? They certainly put me off and I'm a Christian, so I guess they must also alienate a lot of people who might otherwise give at least a little space to the faith. There are some fundamentalist to atheist conversion testimonies out there telling us that young earthism and its scientific failure was their reason for converting to atheism. 

America (on which the article in based) seems to be a very passionately polarising sort of country, especially at the moment; the extreme right, including the Christian right, are thoroughly disaffected from the establishment, culturally & politically. The consolidation of a cranky fundamentalism which is a disparate mix of young earthism, flat earthism, conspiracy theorism and all sorts of eccentricities is to my mind likely to be one of the factors behind the general cultural run-down of the faith and its alienation from the wider populace. But coupled feedback relationships abound in society and fundies of all brands will be reacting to the extremes of the opposite side; extreme and unreasonable anti-theists, Marxists & postmodernists also have a culpability here. The only good news is that such cybernetic couplings usually involve cycles. So wait for a swing back! Let's remember, for example, that atheism welcomes one to a potentially empty, nihilist, meaningless, purposeless, postmodern and random world! There will be a reaction to that!

Footnote

* I suppose you'd have to include Catholics in this mix among many others (e.g. Mormons)

Epistemology, Ontology, Creation and Salvation

A fundamentalist and young earth creationist goes over the top in more than one sense.

But I was ready for him.

I recently finished compiling a reply to a Christian fundamentalist who sent me a 13 page document criticising my stand against young earthism. Let me say straight away that it was nice of him to spend so much time trying put me back on the straight and narrow. He meant well although it is true that he is probably a bit of a curmudgeon and being a fundamentalist was, from the outset, suspicious of my motives for believing what I do. But I couldn't let it go. So I took my spiritual life into my hands and over the course of no less than two years I slowly dissembled his arguments and added another 80 odd pages to those 13 pages. On sending him the first draft the outcome however was inevitable; he was after all a fundamentalist: My name was mud! Below are a couple of extracts from the preface to my book length reply:

***

The format of this book has been styled as a reply to the contents of a 13 page document compiled and sent to me by a Christian fundamentalist & Young Earth Creationist. I shall call him Joe Smith. That 13 page document was in turn a response to a short PDF I sent him. It was very nice of Joe to reply at length to my initial PDF. But having lured him to go over the top only to have me use his arguments, like WWI troops, as target practice for my machine gun, it all smacked of dirty tricks to Joe’s suspicious fundamentalist mind and he accused me of sucker punching him. 

***

I will leave the real name & identity of Joe Smith as an enigma; although the original Smith arose out of a real correspondence that now may or may not be the case: I may or may not have concocted him from bits of Christian fundamentalist reality for the sake of illustration and for the purpose of bringing to the foreground the salient points I wish to make. Just how real or unreal this person is, need not come into it. Joe Smith is an abstraction, perhaps even another Simplico after all. But as an abstraction he has given me the opportunity to showcase in this book important technical matters whose implications go far beyond a singular debate with this or that fundamentalist: Namely:

1.      Epistemic distance & epistemic amenability.

2.    That the fundamentalist sound-bite that there is a difference between historical science and observational science is an incoherent & scientifically harmful notion.

3.      Time irreversibility and messaging.

4.      The signalling cosmos and creative integrity.

5.      The difference between historical (H) vs. algorithmic (A) descriptions and their respective epistemic distances.

6.      The interdependence of H and A.

7.      The nature of standard evolution.

8.      Interpreting the Bible.

9.      The right way to read Genesis 1.

The primary focus of this book is actually epistemological and about just how far short many fundamentalists (and secondarily some atheists) fall in their understanding of epistemology.

Timothy V Reeves, June 2021

ADDENDUM 14/07/21

Sympathy with Ken Ham!

That the fundamentalist tendency to use a polarised puritanical polemic to depict social reality is too simplistic becomes apparent when even someone like myself can sympathetically align with fundamentalists on certain issues (as ought to be clear from my book). Take this example from Ken Ham's blog: Viz: 

https://answersingenesis.org/racism/scientific-american-publishes-error-filled-hit-piece/

It's titled Scientific American Publishes Error-Filled Hit Piece, Claiming Genesis Is Racist. The piece Ken is talking about was written by Alison Hopper who according to Ken is a film maker. Ken's post includes part of the following quote from the offending Scientific American article, an article sensationally titled Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy Viz: 

At the heart of white evangelical creationism is the mythology of an unbroken white lineage that stretches back to a light-skinned Adam and Eve. In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was created in God's image. Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin. As the biblical story goes, the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants' skin. Historically, many congregations in the U.S. pointed to this story of Cain as evidence that Black skin was created as a punishment.

The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are part of the “fake news” epidemic that feeds the racial divide in our country.

It's likely true that East and West versions of Christianity have disproportionately portrayed Adam and Eve as white Europeans thus effectively promulgating an almost unconscious systemic racism.  Moreover, I can't speak for the whole history of fundamentalist brands who from time to time may (or may not) have identified the mark of Cain with Black skin; but I've never heard of any Christian groups who have have made this identification. Also, it is clear from Ken's article that it has never occurred to AiG to promote such a harmful notion and AiG certainly don't teach what Hopper is slanderously claiming. This is Hopper interpolating the contemporary concept of a heinous sin and putting these "modern blasphemies" into the mouths of innocents, inquisitional style. It certainly doesn't follow that denial of evolution necessarily entails racism any more than belief in evolution necessarily entails racism (as some anti-evolution Christians might try to maintain).

In any case I wonder if Hopper really understands evolution. In my book Epistemology, Ontology, Creation and Salvation I talk of the difference between evolution as natural history (H) and evolution as algorithm or mechanism (A), two very distinct meanings; one can be in a position where one believes one but not the other. Does one automatically classify as racist in Hopper's eyes if one challenges the status quo on evolution? Sounds as though Hopper believes one does, and who knows, if her ideas catch on the virtuous thought police may be knocking at your door! Authors like Hopper who are claiming to fight for the black cause are actually doing harm to that cause by caricaturing it so badly.

All in all it seems that some of the new watchers of our morals can be just as inquisitional & threatening as fundamentalists:  If they are anything like Hopper they too see the world through polarised spectacles; we are all labelled as racists if we don't believe what Hopper believes. But really there is no surprise here: The fact is these new moral guardians are flawed humanity like the rest of us and therefore tempted by the same draw to polarising extremism as are fundamentalists. The resultant effect of Hopper's false accusations will only entrench fundamentalists further into their embattled stance and confirm to them that the world of outsiders is out to get them. 

Finally it's important to note that at the end of this sensationally twisted article Scientific American adds a disclaimer.....

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

They've made sure they've washed their hands then!

NOTE: The de facto Intelligent Design web site, Uncommon Descent, also comment on this article:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-pj-media-a-response-to-religious-claims-made-in-scientific-americans-denial-of-evolution-is-white-supremacy-piece/

ADDENDUM 20/08/21

Lack of sympathy with Ken Ham!

In a post dated 19 August and entitled Do Conservatives have a “Difficult Relationship with Science”?  We find Ken peddling his usual anti-science notions about the difference between observational science and historical science (sic), a matter I address in the book linked to in this post. In Ken's post we find the usual cliché surfing that Ken is inclined to do on this subject:

But what the author is failing to recognize is the difference between observational and historical science. In other words, this author has a “difficult relationship with science” because the author doesn’t understand the word science. You see, very few people have a so-called “difficult relationship with science” when it comes to observational science. Observational science is studying what is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that uses the scientific method and builds our technology and medical innovations. Both creationists and evolutionists agree on observational science......But this is very different from historical science. This kind of science deals with the past—which cannot be directly tested, observed, or repeated

As I show in my book this is both false & incoherent anti-science nonsense. He simply doesn't understand epistemology any more than does Joe Smith. Instead he claims others don't understand the word science because they don't take onboard his intellectual gimcrack. He can get this nonsense past his naïve supporters and that's all that matters to Answers in Genesis

Watson, Crick, Franklin, Wilkins & Scientific Wisdom.

DNA Pioneers: James Watson, Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. 

See : https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/dna_checklist

I recently re-watched a video I had recorded way back in the March of 2003. It was recorded from the UK's Channel 4 and was entitled DNA: The secret of life. It told the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA. James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins appeared on the programme. Also appearing was Raymond Gosling who at the time was a PhD student and lab assistant to Rosalind Franklin. According to the program Franklin and Wilkins of King's College were the experimentalists who generated the X-Ray diffraction patterns which so helped Crick and Watson to successfully theorise about the structure of DNA. It's not that the King's College team weren't theorists themselves, but they also did the hard work of getting the necessary experimental data about DNA. It is very easy to put Crick and Watson into the role of the "lazy lads" who just theorised together down at the pub and let others do the hands-on science. That they appeared to be riding on the backs of others was the cause of tension. But whatever, they were clearly very bright guys who can rightly claim credit for making the right inferences from the data. It didn't help the King's College team that Franklin and Wilkins had a poor relationship; in contrast it seems that Watson and Crick worked well together (and drank well together!). Also, that Franklin was a pretty woman in a largely man's world may have introduced frustrating pressures and detrimentally affected her attitudes. Or perhaps she was just a awkward personality.

The programme tells us of Watson and Crick's first attempt at a model. The King's College team came to have a look at this model. But when Rosalind Franklin saw it she laughed out loud; in the light of the experimental data the King's team had accumulated the model was clearly wrong. Watson & Crick were suffering from their working in a too rarified experimental semi-vacuum. Then one day Wilkins, who seems to have been an obliging sort of character, showed Watson an X shaped diffraction pattern that the King's team had obtained. Watson and Crick knew immediately that this implied DNA was a double helix and they went on to develop the correct model we are all familiar with.  Lab assistant Ray Gosling takes up the story:

Wilkins undoubtedly (and I think if you ask him he will say he did), if there are any cats to be let out of any bags, he had done it.

To which Wilkins responded:

Well I suppose it's perfectly true, but science isn't supposed to be kept in bags, no more than cats. I mean, I don't know what he means but I don't like as a scientist working away and sort of "Oh no! I mustn't tell the other scientists". I don't think it's the way to be working. Science ought to be an open activity, so you can work as a community. 

Well yes, in theory, that's the ideal world: that's wisdom we should aspire to, take home and act on: But no, we aren't in that kind of world; we're in a human world. Human beings can't be so detached and dispassionate. Competition, reputations, making a name for yourself, not to mention wealth & fame are at stake and have a strong tendency to trump the cooperation and community effort thing. The consequent mutual distrust means that people keep their cards close to their chests. Competition vs community effort! It's all very reminiscent of the capitalist conundrum of free market vs community.  And yet again I'm reminded of Philippians 2:1-11 which seems to be the key to community living. 

During the program, Maurice Wilkins also came out with another pearl of Wisdom. As we've seen Crick and Watson's first model was laughed off stage by Rosalind Franklin. But of this failed attempt Wilkins comments wisely as follows:

One might say but why not? It's an exploration to make a model. You make a model and if you make a bit of a fool of yourself in the process why worry? ....you might get lucky!

A big lesson there for all blue sky theorists: Its any exploration and there's no telling whether you are going to  make a fool of yourself or win the jackpot - most likely the former,. So enjoy he ride while it lasts; you may not be the chosen one after all!

Useful Link:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data