Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Answering: Sean Carroll, "God is not a Good Theory." (part 2)

Image result for Stars in space




Responding to physicist Sean Carroll's lecture (continued from Monday) [1]

He goes on talking about how science gives scientific answers and religion doesn't. why shout it? it;s not science,  but this is all under the mistaken assumption that God is necessary beings necessary to expatiate the world rather than necessary to himself.

He turns to the origin of the universe, God is said to have created the whole universe at once, while science shows BB  is not the beginning. He continues to assert that science gives plausible theories and belief in God does not. He asserts the universe could be eternal but I've ample reasons in scientific literature not to accept that.[2] We don't have to think  of the BB as the moment of creation nor do we have to think of creation as coming in one moment. The notion of eternal universe comes with multiverse but that is never going to be proven.

He thinks that streaking explanations back infinitely in time really explains the whole

"We don't need God to Explain the Oregon of the universe."

He asserts that "we should judge God by the same standards that we judge other theories."

why should we do that? God is not just another  theory he;s not a scientific theory, The point of belief in God is not merely to explain the universe.

He says the best argument on the empirical basis is fine tuning so of course he asserts that it;s not  sensible to ask the question--we just happen to be it why wonder about it? He does admit sounds like a cop out. if course he offers an-alternative to asking the question in that other kinds of life could exist and so the parameters wouldn't be that tailored just for us. then he argues the multiverse

He explores possibility that life is a lot more generic than we think it is:  meaning the parameters would not need to be that fine turned to get life, He asserts that no one on either side knows the full extent of variables to decide the issue

then he explores  multiverse using Bayes [the illusion of technique he gives the impression that math is disproving God in  reality its just showing off nothing,]


He doesn't point out that belief in MV is belief in something not empirically demonstrated.


Gives the impression that proving multiverse  disproves God, he does not say that, it doesn't it only disproves some God argument, if it does that.


MV is not a theory but is the consequence of other theories that;s supposed to make it more real

He us answering quote from Swinburne who says MV asserts Trillions of worlds just to assert a couple of factors in our world. Carroll says you don't fault theories because thy entail lots of things in them.


 He asserts we judge plausibility of MV by plausibility of inflation. which totally accepted idea. even though he;s admitted  that;s not proven.

No matter how plausible no matter how low the probability of MV it;s still belief in non empirical theory which flys in the face of all atheists argue for. It's a Trumpanity,  betrayal of their most sacred principle to support their overall  cause.. See my defense of  Fine tuning argument. (see also my answers on Multiverse).

Futhermore, the best mechanism for multiverses that last, actually requires fine-tuning itself. The chaotic inflationary model - which seeks to avoid fine-tuning by positing that the initial conditions vary at random over the superspace of the Higgs fields - also fine-tunes its parameters, as Earman has pointed out: "The inflationary model can succeed only by fine-tuning its parameters, and even then, relative to some natural measures on initial conditions, it may also have to fine-tune its initial conditions for inflation to work."[3]
co-author in inflationary theoryPhysicist Paul Steinhardt agrees:
“The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."[4]

Now Carroll wants to  do Bayes on God. (Bayes completeness theorem, pronounced Baze).

"Is God Best Explanation for Data we see?"  As with Bayes he is going to use this to set the prior for God. The way Bayes  works is first one advances a prior probability that can be a guess or based upon anything we know. Then one takes further soundings as new info come in, Like a gunner finding his range by continually firing over and under the target,

He admits if God exists we should see life. if God exists then life should   exist

Carroll: "Data other than life get God into trouble as a hypothesis  entrap of early universe did not need to be so low for life to exist, so universe not what we would imagine if God is there." He's playing off Gods 'interest" against random occurrences in fomentation of entropy

That's a foolish prediction low entropy is not essential to life that doesn't mean there;s no fine tuning  it just means all factors  are not part of FT. See my article answering Bayes. [5]

At end he plays off sin and degradation against expectations of the divine no reference to the fall


 He appeals to Multiverse to answer the one argument or God he admits is good  and can't be disproved that is Fine Tuning. He also admits the Multiverse cant be proved. So the only answer he has to the one God argent  that can't be disproved can;t be proven. One would think that he would at least admit to a draw on God's existence. But no  he is  willing too accept a lesser standard than empirical, which is an absolute contradiction to what most atheists say.

That is no different than  me putting faith in God to fill the gaps the evidence and logic don''t cover as long I have some basis in the evidence and logic to extend faith from.


Notes



[1]Sean Carroll, "God is not a Good Theory." Video You Tube (Published on Jun 5, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI  (accessed 5/10/19)

from 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI

this half starts at at  [21:56]

[2] The Bible makes it sound like creation was instant but that need not be the case, ?The Beginning" could be a process that took time or "the heavens and the  earth" might  refer only to our space/time which is emergent in an instant from big bag. God ca do a lot of things in eternity.

Adrian Cho,  "Stphen Hawkimg's (almost) last Paper; Pitting an edge to the beginning of the universe." Science (May. 2, 2018 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe  (accessed 5/12/19 )

Cho says, "Borrowing a concept from string theory, Hawking and Hertog argue that there is no eternal inflation and only one universe. But what they’re driving at is something even more basic: They’re claiming that our universe never had a singular moment of creation."

an older article:
Staff . "Mathematics of Eternity prove The universe must have had a beginning"    MIT Technology Review, (Apr 24, 2012)
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way. They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin. 
[3]John Earman. Bangs, Crunches, Wimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995., p. 156) So rather than avoid fine-tuning, the multiverse pushes it up a level.

[4] John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15. Horgan interviews Steinhardt.

[5] JLH "Bayes Thorium and probability of God, no Dice." The Religious A Proiori (no date)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2013/02/bayes-theorum-and-probablity-of-god-no.html
(acess 5/12/19)

Index of my articles on Bayes

17 comments:

Kristen said...

This is another example of the thinking that science is the only category in which to think about anything, and God doesn't fit very well in the category. Since the starting assumption is that science is the only category that anyone can possibly think in, God (not fitting in the category) can't be real. The assumption itself is never examined or tested. And this within a mindset that is supposed to be about testing and examining everything.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

That's a great observation Kristen. It leads to a fun recursion because how could you test it? If you use science it;s untested if you use some other method it violates the premise.

Anonymous said...

Great!

So anyone can say anything is real! No need to support the claim - we can just say it is religion, not science! Now I can get 100% in every test.

Or maybe not.

Science is not the only approach to knowledge, but it is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience). We can claim any religion is true, but ultimately no religion is any more supported than the rest. That is in stark contrast to scientific claims that are tentatively accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence and testing.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

So anyone can say anything is real! No need to support the claim - we can just say it is religion, not science! Now I can get 100% in every test.

The obvious answer is to admit there are other forms of knowledge. I think God is real because his reality was proven to me in many ways including scientifically

Or maybe not.

there you go

Science is not the only approach to knowledge, but it is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience).


That is nonsense. A big question is "what happens to us when we die," Science has no way of answering that. What science tells us about that question every human has known since way before science existed.

We can claim any religion is true, but ultimately no religion is any more supported than the rest. That is in stark contrast to scientific claims that are tentatively accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence and testing.

Religion is an existential and phenomenological matter. It's a matter of which religion speaks to you. It's truth is intersubective.

Kristen said...

Anonymous seems to making the exact same, unquestioned assumptions that we've been talking about, Metacrock.

Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay." If science alone is allowed to answer the question, then the assumption that these decaying bodies are all that we are (which is actually a metaphysical, non-scientific, assumption), is allowed to be considered "scientific" and thus to answer the big question. But what if this assumption is false? What if some of the "big questions" really CAN'T be even addressed by science? After all, science itself cannot be used to establish that everything that exists can be established by science.

The problem with using science as if it can answer metaphysical questions, is that it violates science's very principle of "test everything." TEST the assumption that science can answer metaphysical questions-- that science has somehow proven that our bodies are all we are.

Keeping this assumption is like saying, "I used this ruler to check the air pressure in this room. Since the ruler showed nothing, I can confidently say that air pressure doesn't actually exist." You're using the wrong tool. Science is the wrong tool to answer metaphysical questions.

You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof. But that kind of reliability isn't possible for metaphysical conclusions, and it doesn't need to be. If you believe that our bodies are all we are, you are actually thinking metaphysically, and you can't prove your belief scientifically-- and that's ok. You don't have to believe in God; I would just encourage you to not think science has answered the God question.

Anonymous said...

Joe: The obvious answer is to admit there are other forms of knowledge. I think God is real because his reality was proven to me in many ways including scientifically

Sure there are other forms of knowledge. There is wishful thinking, for example. There is making stuff up or just simply guessing. However, science is the only one that gives us a high level of assurance it is right.

And, ironically, is the only one to acknowledge it could be wrong.

Joe: That is nonsense. A big question is "what happens to us when we die," Science has no way of answering that. What science tells us about that question every human has known since way before science existed.

No one has any way of reliably answering that question. Sure we have wishful thinking and guessing, but neither give us any assurance that they are right.

What they give is the delusion of a certain answer.

Joe: It's a matter of which religion speaks to you. It's truth is intersubective.

And so we conclude they are all true?

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Kristen: You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof. But that kind of reliability isn't possible for metaphysical conclusions, and it doesn't need to be. If you believe that our bodies are all we are, you are actually thinking metaphysically, and you can't prove your belief scientifically-- and that's ok. You don't have to believe in God; I would just encourage you to not think science has answered the God question.

U think you nailed it

Kristen said...

"And, ironically, is the only one to acknowledge it could be wrong."

Science is certainly not the only discipline that acknowledges it could be wrong. Theology and philosophy both do. And thoughtful religious people almost always acknowledge that they have doubts, and that they sometimes have to rethink philosophical or theological positions. There are thoughtless religious people who assert complete certainty about everything, but there are also thoughtless atheists who do the same.

What you're actually expressing, Anonymous, is a good deal of misunderstanding of religious people and the religious approach to life. You seem to think we're all ultra-fundamentalists, shouting about being right. Are you willing to review the evidence that you think supports the idea that all religious people think this way? If not, then what you're practicing is called "prejudice."

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: The obvious answer is to admit there are other forms of knowledge. I think God is real because his reality was proven to me in many ways including scientifically

Sure there are other forms of knowledge. There is wishful thinking, for example. There is making stuff up or just simply guessing. However, science is the only one that gives us a high level of assurance it is right.

You really classify falsehood and fantasy as "knowledge?" That's utter reductionism. Show me a scientific test that proves that "a" is not "non a?"

And, ironically, is the only one to acknowledge it could be wrong.

That what could be?

Joe: That is nonsense. A big question is "what happens to us when we die," Science has no way of answering that. What science tells us about that question every human has known since way before science existed.

No one has any way of reliably answering that question. Sure we have wishful thinking and guessing, but neither give us any assurance that they are right.

How do yo determine the nature of reliability in that context without Philosophical parameters. Show me a scientific test that tells us what that means?
For example. I think reliable means I can live concomitantly with the results. I can live o with the experiences I have had what I term "God's presence" understood in a theological context for presence, show me how science proves or disproves that context?



What they give is the delusion of a certain answer.

How can you prove it's a "delusion" if you can't define the the context?

Joe: It's a matter of which religion speaks to you. It's truth is intersubective.

And so we conclude they are all true?

they are all pointing to truth, apparently you don't understand the concept of "inter-subjective" it doesn't mean true, or false.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Pix, according to what you've said you must think only empirical knowledge counts as knowledge? so yo are jut raging for asceticism.

Anonymous said...

Kristen: Anonymous seems to making the exact same, unquestioned assumptions that we've been talking about, Metacrock.

They are not assumptions.

Kristen: Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay."

Where do I make that assumption? I agree science cannot answer that question. That does not invalidate my claim.

Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...

Not what I said. I said it was the only approach that is reliable. You are "allowed" to use tea leaves or Tarot cards or astrology. But your answers will be unreliable.

Kristen: You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof.

And yet Joe routinely demands his opponents prove their claims! Heaven forbid the playing field should be level.

Rational warrant is a bit of trickery that magically converts what is possible into a fact. It is saying that X is plausible, therefore we have rational warrant to believe it, and therefore we can feel comfortable be completely certain it happened. In reality, if something is, say, 30% like to be be true, the conclusion is that it is 30% likely to be true, not that it is 100% certain to be true.

Rational warrant is a way for theists to pretend they can be certain their personal beliefs are true.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: You really classify falsehood and fantasy as "knowledge?" That's utter reductionism. Show me a scientific test that proves that "a" is not "non a?"

Not sure what you mean here. If a person believes something, but it is not true, what do we call that? Does the person have knowledge that is wrong? I think this is a language problem, maybe?

Joe: That what could be?

Science acknowledges it could be wrong. Religion does not. And yet, the claims of science are far better supported.

Joe: How do yo determine the nature of reliability in that context without Philosophical parameters. Show me a scientific test that tells us what that means?
For example. I think reliable means I can live concomitantly with the results. I can live o with the experiences I have had what I term "God's presence" understood in a theological context for presence, show me how science proves or disproves that context?


Again, this may be a language issue; "reliable" may not have been the best choice of words.

What I mean is how certain we can be of a claim, and how justified that certainty is.

People can clearly live perfectly well thinking the world if flat, despite it being wrong. They may be completely certain of that, but we can say that that certainty is not at all justified. Their claim is - for want of a better word - very unreliable.

Joe: they are all pointing to truth, apparently you don't understand the concept of "inter-subjective" it doesn't mean true, or false.

My bad. I thought this was all about whether the existence of God was true or false. If you are merely claiming it is "inter-subjective" then sure, whatever, I agree.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Kristen: Anonymous seems to making the exact same, unquestioned assumptions that we've been talking about, Metacrock.

They are not assumptions.

then prove them

Kristen: Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay."

Where do I make that assumption? I agree science cannot answer that question. That does not invalidate my claim.

Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...

Not what I said. I said it was the only approach that is reliable. You are "allowed" to use tea leaves or Tarot cards or astrology. But your answers will be unreliable.

Nonsense! logic is reliable. logic is not science,

Kristen: You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof.

And yet Joe routinely demands his opponents prove their claims! Heaven forbid the playing field should be level.

I seek to prove my claims. If I can't proves something I find a way to soften claim so it's at a probable level. I don;t say "Gods existence is a fact" I say U have existential knowledge of God's existence

Rational warrant is a bit of trickery that magically converts what is possible into a fact. It is saying that X is plausible, therefore we have rational warrant to believe it, and therefore we can feel comfortable be completely certain it happened. In reality, if something is, say, 30% like to be be true, the conclusion is that it is 30% likely to be true, not that it is 100% certain to be true.

Yes it is saying we have a reason to believe it, Saying we have reason to believe X is not the same as saying X is a fact. I don't know where you get this. It's silly.

Rational warrant is a way for theists to pretend they can be certain their personal beliefs are true.

you are a brilliant guy my friend but you are a chemist not a logician. So I don't expect you to know. In under graduate school we studied a guy named Stephan Toulmin who had a notion about argumentation, He had "Toolman diagram" showing the parts of an argument, Here is a quote about it proving I'm not making it up.

"The Toulmin model breaks an argument down into six main parts: Claim: assertion one wishes to prove. Evidence: support or rationale for the claim. Warrant: the underlying connection between the claim and evidence, or why the evidence supports the claim."

Writer's Web: The Toulmin Model of Argumentation
writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/toulmin.html

no idea what he thought about religion but quite probable he was an atheist.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: You really classify falsehood and fantasy as "knowledge?" That's utter reductionism. Show me a scientific test that proves that "a" is not "non a?"

Not sure what you mean here. If a person believes something, but it is not true, what do we call that? Does the person have knowledge that is wrong? I think this is a language problem, maybe?

It's only your assertion that what we believe is not true. you are basing your views on assertion you take to be facts by shrouding them in the mystique of science,



Joe: That what could be?

Science acknowledges it could be wrong. Religion does not. And yet, the claims of science are far better supported.

why should it? It's revelation. That's for the individual blkiever to do as a matter of humility.

Joe: How do yo determine the nature of reliability in that context without Philosophical parameters. Show me a scientific test that tells us what that means?
For example. I think reliable means I can live concomitantly with the results. I can live o with the experiences I have had what I term "God's presence" understood in a theological context for presence, show me how science proves or disproves that context?

Again, this may be a language issue; "reliable" may not have been the best choice of words.

than what is your argument?


What I mean is how certain we can be of a claim, and how justified that certainty is.


I am certain enough of God's reality within my own precepts that I have based my life on it.I;m not trying to impose it on you.


People can clearly live perfectly well thinking the world if flat, despite it being wrong. They may be completely certain of that, but we can say that that certainty is not at all justified. Their claim is - for want of a better word - very unreliable.

True. it's still true in relation to all that you think. Your world might be wrong even in this day when you are right in so much science,

Joe: they are all pointing to truth, apparently you don't understand the concept of "inter-subjective" it doesn't mean true, or false.

My bad. I thought this was all about whether the existence of God was true or false. If you are merely claiming it is "inter-subjective" then sure, whatever, I agree.

I believe it's true, therefore, not false I also can't impose it on you since It's my belief and not yours

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Warrant
A statement authorizing movement from the ground to the claim. In order to move from the ground established in 2, "I was born in Bermuda," to the claim in 1, "I am a British citizen," the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 and 2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen." (3)

Anonymous said...

Joe: then prove them

Prove what? What assumptions do you think I made?

Joe: Nonsense! logic is reliable. logic is not science,

But it is abstract. What makes you think logic relates to the real world? Science.

Joe: I seek to prove my claims. If I can't proves something I find a way to soften claim so it's at a probable level. I don;t say "Gods existence is a fact" I say U have existential knowledge of God's existence

Can you even admit you could be wrong about God?

Joe: Yes it is saying we have a reason to believe it, Saying we have reason to believe X is not the same as saying X is a fact. I don't know where you get this. It's silly.

That is what you do. You have "rational warrant" for the existence of God. Can you admit you could be wrong, that it is possible Jesus was never resurrected, that the empty tomb was made up?

Joe: ...In under graduate school we studied a guy named Stephan Toulmin who had a notion about argumentation...

You use - or abuse - warrant in a different way to Toulmin.

Joe: It's only your assertion that what we believe is not true. you are basing your views on assertion you take to be facts by shrouding them in the mystique of science,

Where did I say they are not true? What I am saying here is that you have a false certainty that they are true.

Joe: I am certain enough of God's reality within my own precepts that I have based my life on it.I;m not trying to impose it on you.

You based your life on something you merely have warrant for? Oh, wait, If you have warrant, that magically makes it a certainty.

Joe: True. it's still true in relation to all that you think. Your world might be wrong even in this day when you are right in so much science,

Of course it is true of me too. Science could be wrong. However, science has a lot of scientific evidence to support it.

Pix

Kristen said...

Anonymous said:

"Kristen: Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay."

Where do I make that assumption? I agree science cannot answer that question. That does not invalidate my claim.

Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...

Not what I said. I said it was the only approach that is reliable. You are 'allowed' to use tea leaves or Tarot cards or astrology. But your answers will be unreliable."

Well, Anonymous, you said that science was "the only reliable approach" to the big questions of the nature of the universe." I inferred from that that you thought that science could reliably answer those questions. Since you agree that science cannot answer the question "what happens to us when we die," I must conclude that either you are not including it in the "big questions of the nature of the universe" that science can answer, or you believe that there is no "reliable" answer.

Do you, then think that any branch of human knowledge or discipline of study should try to look into the question? Or do you think philosophy and theology are no different from Tarot cards or astrology-- just unreliable fantasies, and we shouldn't even ask the question, since there is no reliable answer?