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?