“Explain, as you would a child.”
--General
Sarris, brutal commander of a space-battle-ship crewed by Fatu-Krey soldiers, in the movie, Galaxy Quest.
= = = = =
The world is
not flat. It is a sphere. Nobody knows why.
Oh wait, you
say. Of course we know why. Scientists have explained it to us, as would
they, to a child. But they are wrong. They have no idea why the world is
round. Their explanation is based on
after-the-fact discovery that the world is indeed round. Once you know that what you are explaining is
certainly a fact, it is relatively simple to gather more facts, and then claim
that these “more” facts explain the first fact.
But then,
how do you explain the “more” facts, except with even more, “more” facts?
Now all this
may seem silly, at first, but it is not.
It is simply a child-like way of explaining to adults how to answer a
child’s simple questions. Why is the sky
blue? Why is grass green? Why do we fall down instead of up? The more we explain, the more the child
questions those explanations.
We never get
to the final answer.
When
scientists explain to us why the world is round, they explain to us that gravity
attracts atoms to each other, and these atoms clump together into a ball
shape. The ball gets bigger and bigger,
until it forms into a star or a planet or some other body.
Of course,
all this is brilliant as far as it goes, but then, how far does it really
go? Why does gravity attract instead of
repel? Why is gravity as strong as it
is, and neither stronger nor weaker? And
then there is the even bigger question, why is there gravity at all? Why can’t there just be no gravity?
Why is there
a universe? Why is the universe the way
it is? Why is it exactly, precisely the
way it is? Could it have been any
different? A little? A lot?
Scientists
tell us that the universe is the way it is because it is governed (or shaped)
by something called physical constants.
These physical constants seem to be nothing more than numbers. There is a number for the strength of
gravity. It is written as 6.674×10−11 N·kg–2·m2.
These
physical constants have to be within exceedingly narrow limits in order for
there to be life, civilization and technology.
Even the tiniest variation in the cosmological constant would make it
impossible for atoms to exist, and therefore of course, humans.
There are
two possible explanations for why the universe appears to be fine tuned to
support us. One explanation is
Intelligent Design (or God). Another is
random chance.
Neither of
these explanations is acceptable to physicalist scientists. The “God” theory, or anything similar, is
rejected for reasons that seem unclear to us, unless it is simply an
insurmountable bias. The random chance
theory is, by its very nature, too unlikely to be plausible.
So then,
what is left?
Scientists
have found a way to make the random chance theory work—or, so they think. Instead of depending on chance to make our
one universe as it is, they have supposed that there are vast numbers of
universes—so many, in fact, that no matter how small the chance of a universe
like ours, there are so many chances that at least one of them is almost sure
to happen. Roll the dice enough times,
and all combinations will eventually appear.
But
wait. Why does the universe have
constants at all? Why does it have
twenty-seven of them, instead of three, or three thousand? Why are the values of the constants what they
are? Could each of them be any value at
all? Is there no limit?
A die roll
may land any number from one to six. No,
not really. If the die is four-sided, it
can never land a six. If it has hundreds
of sides, it will rarely land a six.
Dice are not randomly manufactured with random numbers of sides. The point is, randomness can operate only
within nonrandom parameters. Those
nonrandom parameters must be established by—designed by—by whom? Cosmic intent? God?
If
scientists must improvise to explain away Fine Tuning of our one universe, then
how do they explain the constants of the multi-universe which they suppose
gives rise to all other universes plus ours?
The many universes hypothesis explains nothing. It simply adds to the problem.
So the
challenge to science is, “Explain, as you would a child.”
Ha, touches the sentiments in my post ;-).
ReplyDeleteI would guess that the most rational guess is that logic is somehow inherent to being. The world seems designed because maybe it was, but it certainly doesn't look like that designer is still in charge. So honestly some type of deism comes to mind - consciousness started creating and then somehow got lost in its creation. Btw, a book called Evolution 2.0 explains the unbelievably programmed nature of all life, which is often denied by neodarwinists and glorified by id-ers.