Why the Universe Cannot Have Arisen by Chance

The universe either had a beginning, or it did not.

If it did not have a beginning, then it has always existed.

If it did have a beginning, then it arose from nothing.

 

Neither of these possibilities is comprehensible, yet one of them must be true.

Therefore, the question of how the universe began is unanswerable.  It is futile to ask.

In any case, there is “something” instead of “nothing.”

 

Given that the universe does exist, then the next question is, why does it have the properties that we observe it to have?  Why not some other way?

 

Here, the binary alternatives are, that its properties are determined by chance, or if not by chance, then by intentional design.  Which is it?

 

The argument for chance must rely on a huge number of universes, so many that we may consider that number to be virtually infinite, as far as our comprehension is concerned.

 

Even here, however, the argument for chance falls apart, because of this:  in order for chance to operate, it must do so only within designed parameters.  Let us demonstrate this fact.

 

Trick question:  if one rolls a single die (singular of dice), what is the chance that the die will land a six?  If you answer, “one chance in six,” then you are assuming the die to be designed to have six sides, but in fact, it could have any number of sides, four or more.  Therefore, the operation of chance governing the die roll depends on the designed parameters.

 

There is no other form of chance.  One cannot meaningfully say, the chance is three, or five, or X.   It has to be three out of ten, or five out of X, etc.  Before chance can operate, its parameters must be specified, and those parameters cannot themselves be pure chance, unless constrained by other parameters.  In the end, all parameters are designed.

 

The parameters of the universe include its constants, such as gravitation, light speed, nuclear forces and so on.  Even if we say that those are determined by chance, we must specify the parameters in which that chance operates.  There is no getting away from it.  Chance requires design.

 

The universe has twenty-seven constants (more or less depending on the physicist, but in any case, a set number), and so the question is, why twenty-seven?  Why not five?  Why not a billion?  The number of the constants is not random, it is designed.  Even among billions of universes, or however many there may be, each universe has a number of parameters, and even if that is by chance, one must still operate within design—one chance in how many?

 

No matter how hard we may try to avoid design, we cannot.  We cannot substitute chance for design.  Design just will not go away.  The universe is (or the universes are) designed.

 

Designed for what?  Since our universe seems to be precisely designed to support life, technology and civilization, it is most likely that that is what it is designed to do.

 

 

 

Inherent Unpredictability

 --by Robert Arvay

It seems logical to many educated people that, if one knows everything about the state of a closed system, then one can, at least in principle, predict (or accurately calculate) all future states of that system. Yet, this seeming logic is provably false, as indicated by the famous three-body problem—according to which, even in principle, certain future states (or events) of finite, closed systems are incalculable. It is important to state this correctly. The unpredictability arises not because of any inadequacies of our skill in mathematics, but rather, what may be an inherent property of math and/or physics.

Quoting from Space-dot-Com (Charlie Wood), “Famed mathematician Henri Poincaré showed in 1889 that no equation could accurately predict the positions of all three bodies at all future moments, winning a competition sponsored by King Oscar II of Sweden. In this three-body case, Poincaré had discovered the first instance of chaos, a phenomenon whose outcome can effectively disconnect from how it began.”

Those last words in that quote are profound. They imply, perhaps more than merely imply, that the final state of a system might be independent of its beginning state.

If taken literally, that seems impossible from a deterministic standpoint. Even if we cannot mathematically compute an outcome, the universe, so to speak, does in fact “know” what the outcome will be, since by the chain of cause-and-effect, each step in the sequence is predetermined and inalterable. This means that the outcome is not detached from the beginning. It is inextricably connected through causation.

Computer simulations try to mimic this natural sequence of cause and effect, but achieve only limited success, because at each step, there is a slight, unavoidable inaccuracy, an approximation error. At first, such an error is so tiny as to be negligible, but after many iterations, the errors add up, until the calculations become wildly inaccurate. Supercomputers, interlocked with large numbers of processors, can keep the errors within limits, but at best, they achieve only approximations, not precise solutions.

What we are left with, is a fog of unpredictability that extends not only forward in time, but also, backward. We can use statistical methods to determine ranges of possibilities, but those ranges contain what are called, “outliers,” the improbable but still possible, extreme edges of the bell curve graph.

Note also that these imprecisions are not the same as those found in quantum mechanics, in which some theories disavow any “hidden variables,” which (if they exist at all) in principle could remove the effects of chance from physical phenomena, such as for example, nuclear decay. The inherent unpredictability of the three-body-problem is of a different sort than random chance, or randomness dissociated with physical states. What the three-body problem says is that, in effect, the universe “knows,” but will not allow us to know, the future state of certain closed systems, no matter how much we know about that present system.

What does all this mean, in metaphysics?

It reminds us of the debate between determinism and volition. If the physical universe is purely deterministic, it does not allow for free will, even if it does allow for unpredictability. This is because free will contains the principle of conscious intent. Free will is not random; it is goal-oriented.

If the universe is not deterministic, if instead there is free will, then there is an external reality, a super-nature, that governs the natural. Free will can override the chain of cause-and-effect. There is a Creator.

Life, consciousness and free will are the interlocked aspects of triunity in the physical world.

-

Happiness does not come from what you have. It comes from what you are.

Happiness is a choice.  If you choose to be happy, then choose to be compassionate.  Choose to be humble.  Choose to be productive, that is, industrious, hard working. 

Happy people are self-disciplined. They are masters of themselves, and servants to others.  They are never selfish, but always grateful for what they have.  They take pride in doing a good job, but are never boastful.  They rejoice in the success of others, never resentful.

Happy people seek not possessions, but wisdom.  They seek not praise, but respect, and that begins with respect for others.  They never feel entitled to respect, but seek to earn it. 

Happy people understand that material possessions are not toys for self-indulgence, but are tools for doing good.

Happy people seek to help other people be happy.

(These thoughts do not come from me; they are inspired by various passages from the Bible.)

Is Science Leading us Backward?

I recently watched a video interview of scientists who challenge Darwinian Evolution Theory. One of them made a remark that I found very profound. He said that evolution, at its core, seeks to explain the complexity of life. But here is its problem. The cell, which is considered to be the basic unit of living organisms, is enormously complicated. What's more, the problem is that the more we learn about the cell, the more complicated we find it to be. Therefore, instead of getting closer to explaining the complexity of life, we are getting farther away from it.

The video is at

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution - YouTube

By extension, the same problem seems to exist with physicalism in general.    It is why there is a trend among scientists to question why it is that no new territory in science has been successfully resolved in over 100 years.  That may be somewhat of an overstatement, especially in terms of technology, but essentially, relativity and quantum mechanics are the most recent paradigm shifts. 

My personal prediction is that science will reach (and may already be reaching) a sort of brick wall, in which it is recognized that there are fundamental principles of nature that govern its workings, but for which there is no physical explanation.

To quote me (LOL), "Nature cannot have arisen by natural means, because until nature existed, there were no natural means."  If someone else said that first, my apologies.

What the End Times will be Like

Years ago, there was written a book that prophesied that the anti-Christ would be a man who at the time was coming to power in Germany, a man named Adolph Hitler.  To be sure, Hitler fulfilled many of the descriptions of the anti-Christ.  As it turns out, however, he did not fulfill all of them, and while some may disagree, he was clearly not the anti-Christ.

The point of mentioning that is to caution us against interpreting scripture beyond what the scripture plainly says.  As soon as we begin saying, “This is what it must mean,” then we have gone too far.  The Bible itself warns us to neither add to, nor subtract from, the actual words of the text

The Bible also tells us that the spirit of anti-Christ is already in the world.  That being the case, we should not be surprised that present-day events, as well as events from history, can foreshadow what is later to happen.  The Old Testament in many places foreshadows the Messiah Jesus.

Looking at it in this way, and being careful not to claim Biblical authority, we can make certain educated guesses as to how present-day events are portents of the End Times.  Those days may yet be far in the future, or much sooner than that, but in either case, we should keep in mind what the Bible tells us about those future times.

It tells us of future calamities, both natural and manmade.  Of those that are manmade, there will be wars, and rumors of war.  It tells us of the rise to power of a man who will rule the world, for a time.  Many dictators have fulfilled some of the characteristics of the anti-Christ, but even the very worst of them will not be as evil, nor as powerful, as the anti-Christ.

One of the more relevant passages of the Bible tells us that no one will be able to buy, nor sell, save him that has the mark of the beast.  Are we seeing fore-shadowing of that, today?  As government grows in power, it increasingly controls who can participate in the economy.  Government can shut down businesses almost on a whim.  No one can do business without a license of some sort, or if not that, then he must be in compliance with so many rules and regulations that no one can keep track of them all.

The Bible tells us that the anti-Christ will be a great speaker, and large numbers of people will be swayed by his words.

When the dominion of the anti-Christ collapses, it will lead to devastation and death.  War, starvation and disease will take a terrible toll.  Passages in the Bible also resemble technologies that we do not yet have, but many of which are already (so to speak) on the drawing board. 

Some people believe that the collapse of the evil reign of the anti-Christ will come about when Jesus returns, but my personal belief is that the evil society will collapse of its own weight, of its own evil.  Inner rot will consume it.  All manner of sin and perversion will destroy society from within.  The Bible tells us that no flesh would survive, except that they will be rescued, apparently at the darkest hour, with the return of Jesus.

I must close by reminding the reader that I have no Biblical authority, and that my words should be checked against what the Bible actually says.  Perhaps you will partly agree with my opinions, but in any case, I think it entirely reasonable to say that we must prepare for the worst—prepare both physically and spiritually, so that when we are called upon, we will serve Jesus as He would have us to do.

-

-

 

A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question (theconversation.com)

What I like about this article is that it is written in simple language that even I can almost understand.  Therein lies a paradox.  Can something involving a truly complex subject be expressed simply?  Okay, E equals M times C-squared seems simple enough, but if that is as far as one goes, he has not understood relativity.  Can anyone?  Or more precisely, can anyone ever adequately understand nature?  The deeper we dig, the more abstract our conclusions become.  Reality is not just abstract theory; it is what we experience.

The article mentions that some theories of reality do not require (or even exclude) free will.  But the absence of free will introduces insurmountable paradoxes, one of which was alluded to by JBS Haldane, when he pointed out that, if materialism is true, we could never know that, because our brains would be material.

Therefore, at the basis of any adequate theory of reality, there must be the fundamental property of free will (and therefore, consciousness, and therefore life).  Once we understand that we cannot understand, we will have a basis for making the most of what we do understand.

UFOs, Dark Matter and Ghosts – What have they in Common?

Over the decades of my life, I have read much about UFOs and ghosts, and lately, about dark matter.  After all that, I have one question:  what practical application do they have in my life?  Or yours?

To be sure, I could ask the same question about the Himalaya Mountains, the Galapagos Islands, and ancient Greek plays.  I have no doubt in my mind that those things exist, but I cannot think of any practical effect that any of them have had on my life.  But UFOs (etc), even though impractical to me, are in a different category.

By contrast, electricity has a major impact in my life.  So also, do less obvious things, such as quantum physics (transistors) and General Relativity (global positioning technology).  They change the way I live.

There is significant dispute as to whether UFOs are space aliens, or whether ghosts are real spirits of the afterlife.  There is even doubt among some well-qualified scientists as to whether dark matter exists.  These are not the same, however, as electricity, in terms of how they affect my life.  They don’t.

I have my opinions about them.  I will even go so far as to say that I lived several years in a house that showed very strong evidence of being haunted (but nothing like in the movies).  In that respect, I have to admit that there was a practical effect in my daily life, psychologically, but we who lived there adjusted to it and got on.  We didn’t move away, for example, until other, unrelated factors caused us to do so.

Even the ghosts, which we regarded as real (and still do) were far less important to us than electricity.

By contrast, there is much practical benefit to be gained by studying the physical sciences, and music, and such things as carpentry and automobile mechanics.  Indeed, civilization depends on them.

But, ghosts?  UFOs?  Dark matter?

I will grant you that, it is conceivable—that at some point in future time, a discovery or an event may reveal such things to be important, and worthy of intense activity.  For now, however, they are like the existence of super-volcanoes, or meteor impacts, which could wreak havoc on Biblical scales.  Even though we know that they are real, there is little or nothing we can do about them.  We don’t change the way we live.

What progress has been made, really, in the study of ghosts?  Even my extended, personal experience with them has not led me to produce any useful result from all that I have read.  Likewise, with UFOs, even though the government has released film footage of them, to what avail?    And concerning dark matter, even the brainiest scientists in the world are at a standstill when it comes to producing any practical use for it—if it even exists.

We could discuss other topics, including the paranormal, with the same useless consequences.  Isn’t there a better way to spend our time?

Please don’t mistake this as a dismissal of the importance of pure research.  Much progress has been made as a result of inquiries that seemed to be useless at first, but then became important.  Perhaps such will be the case with UFOs, ghosts and dark matter.

If anything, my criticism of these three topics, is a proactive one.  The study of them should be pursued, but not in the manner they now are.  We seem to be spinning our wheels, expending much effort, but getting nowhere.

Heron’s steam engine was invented in the year ninety A.D., but was forgotten for over a thousand years, until someone took a practical approach to using the principle underlying it.  Someone saw a need, and applied steam power to meet that need.  It changed the course of history.

If I could do the same with UFOs, dark matter or ghosts, I would be wealthy, or at least famous.  I am not of that caliber intellectually.  But someone is.  Must we wait another thousand years?

-