A Simple Proof of Intelligent Design

.
One of the biggest, and most consequential, debates in science is the question of whether the universe, and the life it harbors, are intelligently designed, or whether we all exist only by random chance.  Many minds far greater than mine (and I readily admit of my meager intellect) have debated the matter pro and con for years.  I have the audacity to propose a simple theorem that will put the matter to rest.  Here it is:

Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

The truth of that utterance is manifold, and its implications are all-embracing.  Acceptance or rejection of that simple statement decides whether we, as a society, accept moral principles that cannot possibly come from the human mind, but only from the Supreme Being.

Although this very brief commentary cannot encompass all the deep complexities, let us nevertheless begin with the manifold layers of proof, and then proceed to the implications.

To start us off, here is a trick question, using a pair of dice as the example.  Rolling a single die from the pair, what are the chances of the die-roll “landing a six?”  If you answered, one chance in six, then you fell for the trick.  I never said that the die being rolled has six sides.  Dice can have any number of sides, from four upward.

As you know, dice are not produced by random chance.  They are designed and manufactured for a purpose.  Some dice have four sides, some have six, and some have many more than six.

This trick question has fooled scientists for many decades now.  Why?  Because physical science relies on the principle of chance events.  The scientists failed to ask, what defines those chances?  How many sides do the universal dice have?

From the smallest subatomic particle, to the universe itself, and even to the theory of the multiverse, physics tells us that the universe operates within a narrow range of about twenty-seven parameters.  These parameters are called, physical constants.  The physical constants define the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the strength of the nuclear forces that hold atoms together, the mass/energy ratio of protons, neutrons and electrons, and many others.  Each parameter not only defines the universe, it determines whether any particular universe can sustain life, and indeed, which universes can or cannot exist.

Think of each of these constants as being one die among many dice.  Each die has many sides; some of them reflect values from zero to infinity.  Each constant governs uncountable numbers of ways in which the universe is coordinated to sustain life, civilization and technology, along with art, science and the other qualities of human existence.

According to physicalist science, each property of the universe, each constant, was determined at random.

Amazingly, the values of these constants have to be, collectively, and in some cases individually, within such a tiny range, that they have been compared to the ratio of one grain of sand to all the beaches on earth.  Not even the most ardent physicalists claim that our universe resulted from those odds being overcome in one try.  Instead, they propose a multi-universe, with uncountable numbers of universes, which correspond to so many rolls of the dice, that eventually, our universe has to result.

But wait.  Would not the multi-verse itself have to have parameters?  Would not those also, have to fall within narrow ranges?  And what principle of physics defines how many constants there are?  What defines what ranges those parameters must have?  What law of nature decides what the laws of nature must be?  (That would be circular causation!)  What governs the dice?

In other words, we come back to the reality that dice do not design and manufacture themselves.  They require planning and purpose, intelligent design.  Once again, to repeat for emphasis,

Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

Now for the consequences.

One of the most controversial theories in science is the Theory of Evolution, and more fundamental than that, the theory of the Origin of Life.

Physicalists assert that there is no, per se, life force (or Élan Vital) that causes life to necessarily arise and evolve.  According to physicalism, life arises by chance, and evolves by chance.

If we accept the physicalist view of life, then we define ourselves as atoms, as arrangements of matter, without any spiritual component.  If we accept that dismal definition, then by what logic can we define human rights in any specific form?  Human rights then become defined by what those in power say they are.  And let’s be frank, they will define us to suit themselves, not us.  They may say, “What inalienable rights?”

This too-brief commentary cannot encompass essential reality, but allow me to add three quick items:  life, consciousness and free will do not arise from a blind, uncaring nature.  Life is not its chemical reactions; consciousness cannot even be adequately defined in physical terms.  Free will, according to determinist physics, is impossible.  We are therefore said to be witnesses to our own lives, but not participants.

I have further detailed this, and much more, in my book, The God Paradigm, if anyone is interested.

In any case, do not be deceived by those who tell you that you are a random happenstance of nature.  Your life has meaning and purpose.

.

 

The human mind, in its quest for truth, is stumbling around in the dark

https://iai.tv/articles/15-ideas-that-inspired-the-worlds-leading-thinkers-auid-1272?fbclid=IwAR1ZOzp6BN7wgH_aYTPgE0F6yV6IPdRvP0KA7tbMXWRsJEMOWFd8jbGNN4w

Reading the article / commentary, linked above, I was struck by a thought that had occurred to me in the background of my mind.  Now it came front and center.  The human mind, in its quest for truth, is stumbling around in the dark.  Like the proverb of fifteen blind scientists, studying an elephant by touching it, we all perceive reality in differing and contradictory ways.  We do so, because for each of us, we experience only a minuscule fraction, an infinitesimally small part, of reality.

 

For many people, their personal paradigm is shaped primarily by a defining experience, usually early in life.  Once this is established in their mind, it sets like concrete, difficult to change, and doing so requires demolition and disruption in our lives.  It did in mine.

 

That defining experience may take many forms.  It could be personal, traumatic, or merely intellectual; for example, the reading of a book by an accepted philosopher.  

I wrote a very brief fictional story that, at the time, I did not realize was an expression of my own confusion regarding all these varied philosophies.  It is posted online at

   

http://thegodparadigmdiscussion.blogspot.com/2019/09/quantum-travel-science-fiction-story.html

 Spoiler alert.  Take about five minutes to read the story before proceeding.  You will find it entertaining; I am sure.
 
The story involves a city that was put together by random chance.  The city center seems intelligently designed, but the farther away one gets from the center, the more things gradually seem less purposeful, and more random.  Finally, far from the city, there is only chaos and disorder.
 
Philosophy is like that fictional city.  We all begin within a common, shared reality.  We all attempt to understand it.  Most people never stray far.  Those who do, the philosophers, move farther and farther away, until they are no longer in accord with each other, no longer firmly attached to the common reality.
 
At the fringes, there is absurdity and nonsense.  Worse yet, there are affirmatively destructive philosophies.  Some of them are so horrific that they lead quickly to mass slaughters and unspeakable tortures.  Others, more gradually, decay the already imperfect social order, resulting eventually in its collapse.  A societal vacuum is then soon filled, sometimes for the better, but too often, for the worse.
 
How bad it can get, is illustrated by a particular trial I saw that was televised nationally.  I was able to see it, and as the evidence and arguments crystallized, I reached the conclusion that I thought everyone else had.  I was wrong.  Amazingly, intelligent, well meaning observers came down on opposite sides of the trial, even though we had all witnessed the same evidence.  Likely, this was because each of us had preconceived ideas through which we interpreted the identical facts.
 
More amazingly yet, I saw another televised public proceeding in which one side actually admitted that it had no verifiable facts, but only accusations, and worse yet, accusations which were denied by some of the very accusers themselves.  The accusers disagreed with each other.  I was astounded that many people nevertheless declared that the defendant had been proved guilty.
 
There is need for a philosophy that can first, find common ground, if that is even possible any longer.  It may not be.  The social consensus has dangerously eroded.
 
Optimistically, some reasonable consensus can be approximated, enough to soften the sharp edges.  If so, then the next great challenge is to proceed methodically from the central idea, toward implementation of our shared values and ideals, to generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  Even that goal, however, is disputed by various factions.
 
Here is my personal bias on the matter:  I notice that none of the fifteen “great minds,” none of the great philosophers mentioned in the commentary, made any reference to Biblical truth.
 
It is my contention, based on the foregoing items in this commentary, that the human mind is utterly, and forever, incapable of understanding reality, nor even of comprehending any significant portion of it beyond the basic necessities of daily survival. 
 
As I mentioned earlier, the human mind, in its quest for truth, is stumbling around in the dark.
 
My contention is that, if this statement were somehow to become the accepted basis, the starting point, of modern philosophy, that we would be forced by it to turn to the ultimate and final source of all understanding.
 
When, or if, that will ever occur, I cannot of course say.  But, just knowing that that is what is needed, might at least generate a much-needed sense of humility.  Pride has gone before our fall.
.

Infinite?

.

The concept of infinity is one of the most intriguing ideas that humans have thought of.  It means “endless,” but it has much more meaning than that.  It has implications that are, well, infinite.

 

Some cosmologists propose that the universe is infinitely large, extending in all directions forever.  If true, that is mind-boggling.  Even if, as other cosmologists suggest, the universe is curved in on itself, and of limited size, even then, it is proposed that our universe exists in a larger context, a multi-verse, which contains infinite numbers of curved universes.

 

Whatever the case may be, there remains the metaphysical question, is reality itself infinite?  Is it infinitely large?  Is it infinitely old?  Will it last forever?

 

There are those who say that physical reality does not exist, or more precisely, that it exists only in a mental state, the state of spirit, or of consciousness.  This does not end the question.  If there is a fundamental reality that transcends the physical, whether that reality be God, or consciousness, or something else, we must ask, is that reality itself infinite?  Is it infinitely large? Infinitely old?

 

Infinity also extends downward.  How small can something get?  Is there a lower, finite limit, such as the Planck length?  Or, can real things actually be of zero size?  Bear in mind that zero, is not the same as, nothing.  Zero has defined, calculable, mathematical properties.  This is far different than the concept of nothingness, which logically, should be nonexistent and therefore have no properties of any kind.  Even that, however, is philosophically arguable.

 

Also, there is the question of whether the foundations of reality are an infinite regression of ever, more basic, realities.  For example, science tells us that the smallest physical entity is the atom—no, even atoms are made of smaller things, like quarks and electrons.  In turn, quarks and electrons are theorized to be made of even smaller things called, strings.  But if strings exist, are they made of something smaller?  Space itself is considered to be made of small, finite units, or granules.  In turn of course, we can ask whether there is a smallest finite granule of space, or is there an infinite regression downward?

A traditional Catholic hymn contains the words,

Infinite Thy vast domain,
Everlasting is Thy reign.

 

Even more mind-boggling is the idea of greater orders of infinity.  One interpretation of quantum physics is that not only is the universe infinitely large, there may be infinite numbers of infinitely large universes, and that these are multiplying every instant by infinite orders of magnitude.

 

Finally, the best we can do to answer the question, how large is reality, is to say, it is really big.

.

Can Nature be on Auto-Pilot ?

.
In my early years, I wondered about things that I thought no one else thought about.  Later, I discovered that many do, even such famous geniuses as Albert Einstein.

 

Einstein believed in a so-called, clockwork universe.  In that view, the universe was created by God (or, as he phrased it, the Mind of God), but that thereafter, God stepped away from His work and took no further interest in it.  He lets it run on its own.  This view has been likened to the idea of a clock-maker, who having finished his work, winds up his clock, and then (at least until it winds down) gives it no further thought.

 

The clockwork view is in contrast to a competing view, in which God (or in some views, even a godless nature) not only creates the universe, but continually monitors it in every detail, and sustains it by controlling it in every detail.  This view is the more Biblical one, in which God not only parts the Red Sea when called upon, but also, in the words of Jesus, not a sparrow falls without God noticing it.

 

There is also an intermediate view.  In such a view, a godless universe exists in a way we might loosely compare to a computer.  While I disbelieve in the universe being a computer simulation, what that view suggests is that some impersonal natural law does indeed “know,” in a sense, where everything in the universe is, its state, and what it is doing.  Countless computations (or an analogy thereof) are continually being made to keep everything in order.  Every electron, every quark, every galaxy, and everything that we do not even know about (strings, if they exist) is computed, and coordinated with each and everything else.

 

That view presents a particular possibility of catastrophe, which is that, if there is a single error, it could cascade into universal disaster, in which everything becomes chaotic, or in the worst case, nonexistent.

 

Both the clockwork view and the computer view fail to account for consciousness, whereas the Idealist view, or alternatively, the Creator view, does take it into account in a way that the other views would have to shoe-horn in as an unnecessary after-thought.  By “unnecessary,” we refer to the physicalist view that nature could exist exactly as it is (pending further discoveries) without there ever being any consciousness at all.

 

Idealism, of course, as does the Judeo-Christian view, takes consciousness as a given, an axiom, a fundamental reality, and is built upon that.

 

Even here, however, the question remains, can M@L, or God, create the physical universe (or the perception of one) and then let it run without needing to continually monitor it and keep it existing?

 

In physicalism, the only thing that really exists is material (and its associated principles).  In Idealism, the only thing that really exists is consciousness.  In Judeo-Christianity, God can intervene in the physical universe, but otherwise, He seems arguably able to let it run its own course.
.

Can Reality be Understood?

.

The history of humanity, however else one might describe it, is one of humans struggling to understand reality.  Since it is doubtful that any other species reflects as deeply as we do on existential questions, we might say that such reflection is one of the defining determinants of human existence. 

There are a number of ways in which we humans have advanced our understanding of reality.  We are tempted to say that science is one path, perhaps the premier path, but we must bear in mind that the formal practice of science is a very recent development in the timeline of history.  The earliest humans embarked on the path of science at or before the mastery of fire, which by the way, is a far more complex technology than we credit.  Try starting a fire without some manmade artifact such as a match, lighter or lens.  Lost hikers have died in the wilderness due to the lack of this skill. 

Once the scientific method was formalized, knowledge accelerated like a rocket, in some cases, literally.  This is not to say that in previous millennia, humans lacked our intellectual capacity.  They certainly demonstrated genius in the many technologies and other developments that enabled civilization to arise and prosper, setting the ground for today’s society.  Formal science did, however, stitch together the eclectic collections of the various disciplines, so that an obscure development in one technology can be combined with a completely separate field, producing a multiplier effect across the entire spectrum of science and technology. 

Unfortunately, the success of the scientific method, for all its liberating effects, has also led us down a dead-end alley.  There are many ways in which this can be demonstrated.  For example, modern weapons of war include nuclear, biologic, chemical, and even environmental techniques, which can foreseeably reduce civilization to a few surviving savages, or even annihilate us completely. 

A less obvious, but perhaps just as drastic way, is that science has led many of us to conclude that reality is entirely physical.  Science itself has become so revered, that one of the most damning remarks that can be made of an idea is that it is “unscientific.”  Unscientific ideas are considered to be the province of fools and fraudsters, of people who are either innocently gullible, or demonically evil.

Yet, even scientists themselves engage in activities which can be explained scientifically only by the most convoluted means.  Art, for example, which has been around since at least the cave-man era, is an aesthetic part of the human experience.  It could possibly be explained in material terms, but at the distant end of such a winding road, one does not really find art as we experience it.

Ethics are a huge part of science, at least in its formal mechanisms, but in the short-term, at least, some scientists have found success by violating the rules of ethics.  Are ethics a barrier to understanding reality, or an enhancement?

Interestingly, as scientists discover more and more about the cosmos, including about the quantum atom, they find ever more daunting barriers to further progress.  The discoveries of dark matter and dark energy pose not merely difficult subjects of study, but controversies as well.  For example, not all physicists accept the existence of either.  In cosmology, it seems that the precise tuning of the universe to host life, or even to exist at all in a coherent state, has been so difficult to explain, that physicists have resorted to skating on the thin ice of the “many universes” hypothesis, which is at present untestable.

As physics drifts into ever more intangible realms, it is often called upon to explain a growing number of unconventional observations that are made by credible witnesses.  Some of them may have perfectly physicalist explanations, such as the sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs, or in popular parlance, flying saucers).  Even more intangible is the realm of parapsychology, mind-reading, ghosts, and similar subjects, which are widely dismissed as deceptions, unintentional or otherwise.

Whether the barriers to further understanding involve dark matter, string theory, or the origin of the cosmos, or less physicalist subjects, it becomes reasonable to propose that there is a final limit to human understanding of reality. 

This final limit could be encountered in many forms.  It is unlikely that one day we will reach the proverbial brick wall, where scientists say, well, that’s it, we can go no further.  More likely, the barrier could be reached in increments.  The farther scientists go, the more uncertainty they will encounter, a state of science in which there are many conflicting theories, each of them plausible, but none of them provable.

It could also be reached when scientists, for example, find that every explanation they can devise for “consciousness,” falls short.  Clearly, that could lead researchers into a proverbial swamp in which every pathway they try leaves them increasingly inhibited from further understanding.  Can conscious beings understand consciousness itself?

Religion, it is said, may be the final refuge of scoundrels.  Surely, religion suffers from the same maladies that afflict other areas of human endeavor, including falsehood and fraud.

If we can, however, separate the popular notion of religion from a less well studied phenomenon, we can ask whether, in the final analysis, we must rely on divine revelation.

Such a notion is immediately attacked by skeptics, primarily with the question of, why doesn’t God speak to us in ways that are undeniable?

There is no answer that will satisfy the skeptics, but at the same time, there is no denial which will dissuade those who report having a close, personal relationship with God.  For determined skeptics, no explanation will suffice, while for others, none is needed.

One thing must be considered, however:  is the path we are presently upon leading us to destruction?  If so, then what other path might we explore?

Science Skepticism is not Science Denial

.
Scientists are human.  They make mistakes.  They form the institutions of science, and like all human institutions, they are subject to error, and even to corruption.

 

When large numbers of scientists join together to proclaim a finding of fact, they are believed.  They speak, not merely for themselves, not merely for their institutions, but actually, for science itself.

 

Or, do they?

 

Science is a venerated method of understanding the physical world, its basic rules and principles.  Without science, we would have little or none of the magnificent technology that now dominates human civilization.  Medicine, food production, transportation and communications would all be primitive.

 

My edit:  Science, when properly conducted, is all those things.

 

The problem is not science, it is scientists, who are subject to the same temptations and pressures as are you and I.  Scientists have bills to pay, families to support, and retirements for which to plan.  Ideally, scientists put all that aside, and focus only on the rigor and discipline which fact-finding requires.

 

Ideally, yes, but ideals are not always reality.  Scientific fraud exists, and it should surprise no one.  We live in a society in which some schools have forbidden teachers to use tools that detect plagiarism and other forms of academic cheating.  This seems to be a little pebble in the pond, but its pernicious effects, combined with other negative social forces, ripple far and wide through society.

 

The stakes, for scientists, are high.  Government grants in some fields amount to millions of dollars per year.  Tenure at universities, for scientists, can depend on the publication of research results, and there can be no question that “breakthrough” results achieve fame and prestige for scientists.  All of that converts into money, both for the scientist personally, and for his laboratory or university.  There are strong incentives for scientists to enhance the implications of their research, and a lexicon of jargon has evolved to enable those enhancements.  “A startling new study promises to lead the way to a cure for cancer,” might be the title of a science news article, but such a title says really nothing.  What is the relevant scientific definition of “startling?”  How good is the “promise?”  How, specifically, does it “lead the way?”

 

But the words, “cure for cancer” overshadow the ambiguous words, and garners attention.

 

Another unscientific term is, “settled science.”  Science is never settled.  It is an active and continuing investigation into the mysteries of nature.  Science is built upon thousands of what once were “settled” assertions which turned out to be wrong.

 

The danger of accepting the claims of scientists as “settled” is that it tends to stifle further research; it steers funding away from new research, and it stigmatizes scientists who resist the established dogma.

 

Today, the scandal involves mostly the topic of “climate change,” but in the past, it has affected AIDS research, evidence against Darwinian evolution theory, studies of homosexuality and transsexuality, and even Egyptology.

 

Regarding AIDS, it has become heresy to doubt that it involves the HIV virus, not because there is a lack of compelling research which demands further inquiry, but because AIDS has become more than an epidemiology, it has become an industry saturated with money, politics, and civil rights activism that demands for each subgroup a share of the “victimhood” proceeds.   See the website, http://www.rethinkingaids.com/ for detailed information. 

Darwinian evolution has been challenged by both unscientific sources and scientific ones, but the actual scientists who challenge it get little or no coverage in the literature, leading many people to think only religious lunatics dispute Darwin.

 

Regarding homosexuality and gender dysphoria, a great deal of research needs to be done to find causes and cures.  But the very word, “cure,” disqualifies any attempt to research these dysfunctions.  By redefining the abnormal as normal, science is excluded from helping those who suffer.

 

Egyptologists who find evidence against the accepted views of Pharaonic history find themselves locked out of the formal discussion panels, despite a growing body of evidence that a lost, pre-pharaonic civilization built the foundations of the Sphinx.

 

Of all these disputes, climate change is the one which has become the greatest political and economic force, despite its internally contradictory claims and methods.  Its activists proclaim that the only way we can survive climate change is to surrender our rights to an ever-growing structure of government power.  Anyone who presents contrary evidence is not merely rebuked, but demonized, in the popular press.

 

To be sure, there is a great deal of “junk science” out there, but when mainstream science sells out to politics and money, it reduces its ability to counteract it with real science.
.
.

 

 

 

 

 

Physicalism Falsified

.
Physicalism is the philosophy that says that nothing exists except the physical.  It says that everything in physical nature can be explained by, and only by, other things in physical nature.  This philosophy dominates physical science.  Physicalists aver that they are open to new evidence, but breaking through to a new paradigm is extraordinarily unlikely, given the firm resistance to it.

Physicalism is a dangerous philosophy, because it denies any empirical basis for regarding humans as anything more than material phenomena of an uncaring universe.  If we are nothing more than complex arrangements of atoms, then on what basis should we declare that humans have inalienable rights to life and liberty?

Fortunately, the physicalist paradigm can be shown to be false.  A better paradigm is available.  Here are five reasons to reject physicalism.

 

1.       The “Something from Nothing” fallacy.

 

Physicalism has no explanation for why there is something instead of nothing.  This may at first seem to be a pointless issue, but in fact, it is the proverbial elephant in the room.

 

Physics asserts forthrightly that “no thing” can arise from nothing.  Matter cannot, energy cannot, space and time cannot.  Yet, we observe all of these.  They exist.  How did that come about?

 

Physics asserts that we can convert matter to energy, and energy to matter, but nothing new is created in the process.  Whatever exists, had to come from something else that already existed beforehand.  This principle in physics is known as the conservation of mass-energy.

 

Physicalists have proposed some answers, but none of these are scientific hypotheses.  Some of them are outright contrivances, such as the mathematical assertion that the quantity zero can be expressed as minus one plus one.  This assertion has been used as an explanation for how something can arise from nothing.  If you begin with zero (nothing), you can get minus one (something) and plus one (something).  Voila, there is something (two of them!) from nothing.

 

The mathematics is accurate, but not the assertion.  First, zero is not “nothing.”  Zero is a specific mathematical quantity, and it has several specific mathematical properties.  Also, negative values are useful in subtraction, but one cannot have a rope that is negative five feet long. 

 

The alternate physicalist explanation is that there was never nothing; there was always something.  Therefore, creation never occurred; it never needed to. 

 

But that explanation opens the door to even more fallacies.  Here are some of them.

 

2.       Why are things as they are, instead of some other way?

 

This is another “elephant in the room,” that so often gets ignored.  In nature, according to the physicalist paradigm, everything is the result of something that preceded it.  Every event was caused to happen by a previous event.  Everything is, as it is, because something shaped it, produced it, or caused it.  Bread does not suddenly appear in the oven fully baked.  Ingredients were mixed, and heat applied.

 

The universe has lots of features.  It has stars and galaxies, atoms and molecules, forces and principles, that make it appear as it does, and act as it does.  But why does the universe have those?  Why, for example, does it have gravity?  Couldn’t there be a universe without gravity?  Without light?  Without matter?

 

Why, indeed, is there any such thing as a universe at all?

 

One proposed answer is that, if things were some other way, then we could ask, why that way?  Indeed, the question would still be valid, because physics would still be confronted with the same question—what is it that causes reality to be in one form, but not others?

 

It seems that physicalism has no answer.

 

3.       Why is the Universe, against all odds, Precisely Suited for Life?

 

 

The universe not only is, as it is, but the way it is, is incomprehensibly unlikely.  It supports life, but not only life; it supports intelligent life, civilization and technology.  It supports scientists, physicists who can trace back the history of the universe to a tiny fraction of a second after its beginning.  It supports our planetary culture, complete with language, art, literature, philosophy and complex legal systems. 

 

The universe is, as it is, because it is shaped by something called physical constants.  These constants define how strong gravity is, how stable atoms are, and all total, about twenty-seven properties of the physical universe that keep it from either exploding into a frigid mist, or collapsing into a fireball.

 

Each and every one of these 27 constants must be precisely “tuned,” in some cases to within a tolerance so tiny as to defy the imagination, a grain of sand compared to all the beaches of the world.

 

Not even the physicalists can explain this as coincidence, but they will not concede that such a universe must have been deliberately designed and purposely created.

 

Instead, they propose that there are infinite numbers of universes, each of them with randomly determined properties.  In such a case, it would be highly likely, even inevitable, that at least one universe like ours could arise.  They say that our universe is only a bubble universe in a much larger multi-verse.

 

The multi-verse hypothesis has several fatal flaws.  There is no scientific evidence for it.  But here is the ultimate flaw:  even if there is a multi-verse, it too must be finely tuned to support bubble universes.  If one universe’s fine tuning cannot be explained by chance, then how much less likely is it that a multi-verse could arise by chance, unless it, too, was purposely designed and created?

 

 

4.       What is Consciousness?

 

You are conscious.  Ironically, you cannot prove that to anyone but yourself.  True, there are outward appearances of consciousness that others can detect, but the essence of consciousness is your inward experience of it.  No one but you can observe your inward experience of consciousness.

 

Scientists claim that consciousness arises from matter, from complex arrangements of atoms, forming into a brain.  But that is preposterous.  There is no chain of progression that begins with atoms, and ends with what you personally experience as your inward consciousness.  There is a vast canyon between non-conscious matter, and what you experience as consciousness.  No scientist has ever made the case for any such progression.  No scientist has ever formulated a theory of consciousness that meets the standard for a scientific theory.

 

The inward experience of consciousness is in a category by itself, utterly unlike anything else you consciously observe in nature.

 

Regarding consciousness, there are two other scientific mysteries associated with it.  They are, life and free will.

 

Life is the subject of the physicalist science called biology, which purports to explain life as its chemical reactions.  Life is based in chemistry, but like consciousness, life is very different from natural phenomena.  Life is a fundamental reality which shapes atoms and molecules into forms that can carry on its activities.  Biology attempts to explain this by a principle known as evolution, but as with the universe itself, evolution is defined as the occurrence of chance mutations giving rise to ever-better-adapted organisms.  Evolution asks way too much of chance, beginning with the properties of the universe itself.

 

Free will, along with consciousness, is the third life-associated phenomenon.  In this case, physicalism not only cannot explain free will, it utterly denies that free will can ever exist, not even for a fraction of a second in all the universe.

 

Without fee will, we are helpless observers of our own lives, but not participants.  Without free will, everything we think, say and do, is beyond our control.  Without free will, we become puppets on a cosmic string, robots.  The absurdity is that, without free will, we are unable to decide whether or not to believe that free will exists.

 

Without fee will, there is no accountability for our deeds or misdeeds.  The criminal could claim that he had no choice but to commit the crime; the judge could say that he had no choice but to impose the punishment.  The concept of justice would become farce.

 

 

5.        Unexplained Mysteries

 

The origin of the universe in a primordial inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and many other observed or inferred phenomena continue to puzzle scientists.  These by no means are discrediting physicalism, but they do imply that we are running into its inherent limits.   

 

The greatest indicator of this is the science of quantum physics.  It is phenomenally successful at revealing natural principles, which in turn have generated amazing new technologies, but it is incompatible with that other phenomenally successful branch of physics, general relativity.

 

Both sciences are counter-intuitive, meaning that they require us to abandon some ways of looking at reality that we call “common sense,” and adopt new ways of thinking that seem to defy common sense.

Another break with tradition is artificial intelligence.  There is the distinct possibility that, before long, we will become so dependent on artificially intelligent computers, that we will not be able to understand them, nor will we be able to safely disregard their instructions to us, because they will have been correct in all their actions.  This, so-called technological singularity, could occur very abruptly.

 

In the end, we must decide what it is to be human, and whether the values of humanity are worth securing, even at the cost of eschewing physicalism.

 

We might speculate that other sentient creatures on other planets have already met this challenge, and that those who did not, became extinct.
.

Quantum Travel (A Science Fiction Story)

.

--by Robert Arvay

 

We finally did it!  We managed to achieve instantaneous space-travel across vast cosmic distances.  We got from our planet, Earth, to a galaxy so far away that its light can never reach us.  Now, we’re back, and do we ever have a story to tell.

 

Don’t worry, we are not going to get deep into the physics, but only into the fun part of science (I promise you’ll like it).  Instead of hard physics, there is a different field of science that we explored on our trip, but let’s not even get into that, just yet.  By the end of the story, you will have figured it out for yourself.

 

There we were, in our space ship, which was named, Queen Elizabeth.  At first, it had been named, Quantum Entanglement, and this had been abbreviated to QE, and then some people mistakenly thought—well, you get the idea.  So, we just changed the name, and everyone was happy.

In all the vastness of the universe, our telescopes had never detected an earth-duplicate planet, what is called a twin earth.  This was very disappointing.  All the fans of Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Captain Kirk and Luke Skywalker, had hoped that great adventures lay before us.  That hope seemed to have been dashed.

 

Wait.  There was still a chance.  Telescopes can see only so much, and it takes light millions of years to reach us from deep space.  Billions of planets remained to be detected.  What if there were a better way to find a Twin Earth (TE)?

 

There is.  It goes by the fancy name of Quantum Entanglement, which simply put, means that everything is connected to everything else, tangled up, in such a way, that under some conditions, two things can just change places with each other, instantaneously, without travelling through the intervening distance.  This means that we can, as we already said, travel across vast cosmic distances in an instant.

 

At first, the idea was just speculation, but science has a strange way of turning speculation into technology.  That’s what happened with Dick Tracy’s fictional two-way, wrist-radio, which became the cell phone of today.  It’s what happened with Robbie the Robot, from Forbidden Planet, which became—well, Robbie the Robot.

 

At first, only unmanned drones, powered by quantum entanglement, were sent into our galaxy, in search of Earth-like planets.  They found plenty of them, but none of them was a Twin Earth (TE).  That was a huge disappointment.  There were thousands of planets very similar to earth, but none of them were similar enough.  It seems that the planet Earth has millions upon millions of things that make it hospitable enough for us to live on.  Scientists had hoped that, just by chance alone, at least one of the billions of planets in the galaxy would be earth-like enough for us to inhabit and prosper.

 

When that did not turn out to be the case, scientists were incredulous.  How could this be?  It turns out that, mathematically, the chances of getting a hundred coin flips to come out all heads (on the first try) is as close to zero as any gambler ever gets—unimaginably close to zero.  To get millions of dice rolls to come out all sevens (on the first try) is even less likely, and—well, you get the idea.  Try finding the two proverbial snowflakes that look exactly the same.  That was what it was like trying to find a planet that, just by chance, happened to be a twin of Earth.  It was not happening.

 

We did not give up.  If we could not find an Earth twin in our own galaxy, well, there are plenty of other galaxies, a hundred billion of them, each with hundreds of billions of planets in them.  Surely, our quantum space drones would find what we were looking for.  We looked forward to finding many thousands of twin Earths.  The odds seemed to favor it.

 

The nice thing about quantum entanglement is that distance is no obstacle.  We were quickly able to send drones to galaxy after galaxy, and report back on what they found.  And yes, they did find planets that were remarkably like earth.  Remarkably.  But remarkably close is not close enough.  It’s like finding the almost perfect spouse for yourself, a spouse who has only one flaw, only one—that of being a serial axe-murderer.

 

Every planet we found had at least one flaw, but it was always a fatal one, one which made it impossible for that planet to sustain a prosperous colony that humans would wish to live on.

 

Just as things seemed too dismal to continue, someone came up with a brilliant idea.  Why not quantum travel to a planet beyond the light horizon—to a planet so far away, that the light from its galaxy can never reach us?  The very thought seemed scary, like crossing a vast ocean in a raft with no knowledge of what might be on the other side.

 

We decided to try it, and sure enough, after an exhausting search, one of the drones reported back a finding that seemed too good to be true.  It reported finding a planet so similar to present-day earth that it was all but an exact copy.  And the news got even better.  Further analysis showed that the planet showed signs of being inhabited—by human-like people.  One photograph showed what was unmistakably a modern city. 

 

After that, however, there were no further signs of life.  There were no radio transmissions, no television signals, and nothing that seemed to be artificial communications of any kind.

 

Speculation abounded.  How could we explain a planet that seemed to have cities, but no people?  Some said that a catastrophe had killed the population, perhaps a plague, or radiation from a nearby star that had exploded.  Others said that maybe everyone had just left for another galaxy.  Others said that maybe they had invented a technology that allowed them to take spiritual form, and abandon the need for physical bodies.  There was no end to the speculation.  We needed facts.

 

To get those facts, we sent more drones, but for technical reasons, they could not provide any additional, helpful information.  Nothing.  The planet seemed to be a twin earth, a place to which we could send humans and establish a thriving colony, but there was one overriding worry:  was it an axe-murderer?  What had removed the population, and would it strike again?

 

Was it a forbidden planet?  Dared we go there?

 

We decided to risk it.  It was just too good to pass up.  A number of us volunteered to get aboard an experimental quantum-travelling space ship.  It was an amazing technological advance, something straight out of a science fiction story. 

We named it the QE, and others named it the Queen Elizabeth, and the name stuck.

 

The QE space ship was by no means a luxury liner.  Compared to the ocean-going vessel of the same name, our QE was more like an out-rigger canoe, but then hey, the Polynesians did amazing things with their out-rigger canoes, and we felt the pioneer spirit.  We were eager to risk our lives to be the first to personally explore TE (Twin Earth), although I confess, we were more enthusiastic about the explore part than the risk our lives part.  Even so, given the choice, we went.

 

The big day finally came.  Well, actually, it was not so big.  There was no fanfare, no adoring crowds, no speeches or musical bands, no breaking of champagne bottles, none of that.  The people who had approved the mission had a strong suspicion that we were all doomed, and they needed plausible deniability if things went terribly wrong.

 

We boarded the QE, closed the hatches, and well, pushed a button or two, and for the few people who witnessed the launch, we just disappeared for a second, then reappeared.  They thought something had gone wrong, but it hadn’t.  We returned with an amazing report.

 

During that one second of earth time that we had been gone, our mission had actually taken several days.  We first knew that we had succeeded in reaching TE (Twin Earth), when we found ourselves in orbit around the planet.  Not being exactly an out-rigger canoe (okay, I am prone to exaggeration at times), our sensors displayed to us an awesome planet-scape.  It looked just like earth, except for the layout of the continents and oceans—but there were indeed, continents and oceans, and water-vapor clouds, and greenery!  The atmosphere registered as earth-like, with oxygen and carbon-dioxide and nitrogen in earth-like proportions.

 

The next step was to board our landing module, a small space-craft that could safely take us to the surface of the planet—we hoped.  How would we be received, if anyone still inhabited the planet?  All kinds of thoughts ran through our heads, but still, this was the chance of a lifetime, and we threw caution to the winds.  At least that’s what we say now.  At the time—well, never mind.

 

We boarded the landing module, and departed from the QE.

 

When the landing module reached the surface, we felt a small thud, and then the doors opened.  Then, just like in the movie, Galaxy Quest (it’s amazing how similar fiction can be to, okay, fiction), we all screamed, at the guy who opened the door, hey you idiot, what if the atmosphere is poison or something, but it was just like earth’s atmosphere.  Yeah, we already knew that.

 

So, throwing caution to the winds, because we had to, we stepped out of the landing module and onto Twin Earth.  It was a great moment.  We should have said something historic, like one small step for a man, but the first one out was a woman.  So instead, we just said, wow, look at that.

 

We had landed near a city that looked just like any big city on Earth, with tall buildings, and overpasses and stuff.  Instead of being in the city, we were in a suburb, a nice residential neighborhood.  Again, it could have been any nice residential neighborhood on Earth.  It had one and two-story houses, paved roads that ended in cul-de-sacs, trees and shrubs—just like on earth.

 

Nobody had seen us land, and we wondered when we would meet up with the first Twin-Earther alien.  Actually, we were the aliens, and we hoped we wouldn’t get arrested.

 

And so, there ends our story.  We didn’t find anyone, but we knew that whoever had lived in those houses looked a lot like us, because we found vehicles that we could comfortably sit in, although we did not know how to drive them.

 

Oh, there is one more part to the story. 

 

After traveling about in our landing module, touring the planet, we started finding things that looked crazy.  We found houses with no doors or windows.  We found roads that began in a tree trunk, and ended in another tree trunk.  We found an office building that was sitting in the middle of a pond, half submerged.  The farther we got from the city we had seen from orbit, the less sense things made.  We found buildings that were half-completed, it seemed, but they looked more like piles of rubble that had been scooped together by a giant hand, sort of like toy building blocks haphazardly arranged by a child.

 

We put all our observations—photographs, spectrographs and other measurements of every kind—into our onboard computer, trying to understand who or what might have built such a city, and then abandoned it.  Was it some sort of game?  A movie set?  An experiment?  Bait for a trap?

 

Finally, between us and the computer, we came to the most likely conclusion:  it was all chance.

 

What?  What kind of answer is that?

 

But, think about it.  In the vastness of the cosmos, there are millions of chances for nature to accidentally arrange things that look like they were purposely made, but were not.  There used to be a rock formation in New Hampshire, USA, called, the Old Man of the Mountain, because it looked amazingly as if the rocks which composed it had been intentionally arranged to look like, well, an old man of the mountain.

 

In an infinite universe, there will be an infinite variety of regions, each of which is subject to the rules of chance.  The city we found was just that, but even chance has its limits, and so, the planet and its city had been the unlikely outcome of chance—but the farther we got from the city, the more random the buildings became, until finally, there was only wilderness.

 

There remains only one question unanswered.  It involves the science that we promised would be fun.  What is chance? 

 

Chance says that if I roll two dice, there is one chance in six that the total of the dice-roll will be seven.  But whereas dice-rolls are governed by chance, the dice themselves are not random.  Dice are not made by chance.  They do not have random numbers of sides.  They can have as few as four sides, or more than four, many more, but somebody designed them. 

 

Dice are purposefully designed, and only after that can they be used in games of chance.  What is it that purposefully designed the universe?

 

Randomness, then, can operate only within non-random parameters.

 

So, as you have guessed for yourself by now, even if the universe is governed by chance, the laws of chance (call them the dice) are themselves not random.  Things inside the universe may be random, so that even the most unlikely combinations of events can happen.  Entire cities can come together due to random chance.

 

The universe, however, like dice, is not random.  It is intentionally designed.

.