Hawking co-scientist Roger Penrose debunks M-theory on Christian Radio
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 09. 2010
- Prof Alister McGrath and famed physicist, and atheist, Prof Roger Penrose discuss the following questions: Is Hawking's M-theory good science? Does Hawking's M-theory show that God did not create the universe? Is our fine-tuned universe simply one of many in a multi-verse?
Taken from Unbelievable? radio show with Justin Brierley, Saturday 25th September 2010.
For more info, visit: www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable - Věda a technologie
As a christian i must say. Out of all the atheist scientists i listen to i have the most respect for Sir. Penrose.
+logan77777771 Penrose is agnostic.
The atheist is in a losing battle.. keep rejecting God ..but invoke trillions and trillions of untestable unseen universes with some universe generating machine out there somewhere... Absolutely hilarious!
he is not an atheist. He is agnostic and is still not convinced by anyobdy.
Firstly, I'm confused. Why is it "Hawking's M-theory"? I thought Edward Witten proposed M-theory. Secondly, which of Hawking's books or papers are we referring to in this video?
You are right. Edward Witten proposed M-theory and he himself admits that this theory is not complete and says that he has no idea about the multiverse. Hawking was just misleading the public with sheer nonsense in his book The Grand Design.
@MaitreyaRocket
who were you originally talking about/to?
@gmdinformation I'd like to read your blog entry if you can give me a hint as to where to find it while avoiding actually posting a link, which is prohibited here. Maybe I can Google it?
@brando92346 "Andrej Ule, Ljubljana." I mistakenly pasted his location. His name is Andrej Ule.
If the universe came out of "nothing" (quantum vacuum), then doesn't that mean that the laws of physics existed before the universe itself? And if the laws of physics always existed and are metaphysical or abstract entities like numbers, then wouldn't they apply to all universes? If the same laws of physics apply to all the universes, then why would the other universes be any different to ours? Wouldn't the other universes be fine tuned too like our universe?
Before the universe there was no quantum vacuum, no quantum fluctuation.
jonesgerard There was no quantum vacuum in our universe,before its own creation.Makes perfect sence,since if it did not yet exist,it could not have had anything. However, what i think he means to say is that our universe is a bubble in a bubble bath, according to the M-theory.Bubbles are made AFTER the placement of water and soap , upon which they build, and as such all bubbles,although different, contain the same essentials.
God could make things abit simpler than that but whatever.
@MaitreyaRocket
Do you even know who Penrose is and his contributions?
The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Astrophysicist ,PCW Davies: "It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe..the evidence for design is overwhelming”,He also adds “The universe is a put-up job,”and “The multi-verse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance.”
The description is somewhat misleading in that M Theory was offered by Edward Witten not prof Hawking.
@gmdinformation Thanks. I read your blog entry. Well done. Hawking is certainly an interesting chap. One commenter on your blog quoted from Einstein something I haven't read, which I appreciated - regarding experiencing the mystical. I will have to save that quote.
@Free4tshouldBfun ...suggests that there are certain causal conditions, which lead to the effect based on our own observation of those cause-effect relationships. We call it a law simply because of the cause-effect relationships we observe and confirm. The law therefore, is not causal but only descriptive.
@Birdieupon "The laws of physics are precisely that: abstract. After all, they are dependent upon logic and mathematics in order to form the description which is applied to this physical behaviour." Exactly. You said it better than I.
And therefore perfectly usable as a counterargument for Kalam-like arguments such as dr. Craig's...
@Free4tshouldBfun ...the most important issue of causality. A naturalistic metaphysic does not go far enough in explaining ultimate reality through causation. In other words, naturalism presumes that material essence are all that exist, without addressing the absurdities that arise with such a presumption. (sorry - a bit of a correction from my last post - physical regularities are not ultimate causes - there's cause involved, which presumes an ultimate cause). I guess that's my main point.
my understanding is that m-theory is underpinned by math.
if it's confirmed that the particle found in the hadron collider is a higgs then that makes string theory look pretty good, and string theory underpins m-theory.
What happens when we try to assign a probability to the fine-tuning of all the known constants of nature? Oxford physicist Roger Penrose concluded that such a task would be impossible, since the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe.6 This level of precision completely dwarfs human technology and innovation.) Given all the possible variations of the constants, why do we happen to find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life? cont'd
Is Penrose really an atheist? I have read all of his books and many of his papers but I don't have the feeling he is.
@johnmcdonagh Sorry, I think I misspoke about Occam's Razor. It is the multiverse "theory," which would appear to be in deference to Occam's Razor. The only thing it does is set the equation back to infinity regarding the infinite regress problem. It's a sort of magical solution that seems to get rid of the problem, but in effect, does the opposite. They are correct in stating that the multiverse is not science because it is not observable, and that is an excellent point in more ways ......
@stepchangeable "The problem with metaphysics is that accepting your perceptions as truth is not really an assumption at all, but is rather 'default logic'."
Step, our ability to know truth is based on our perceptions. It doesn't lie in the senses alone. How you perceive what you experience with your senses is entirely connected to what you will conclude. Perception is not simply part of the senses, but part of reason. Reason is not a sense, but an appeal to abstract concepts, which...
@reasonedfaith1 I don't believe that's HIS article. It's simply an excerpt from the new book. The excerpt's title (near as I can tell) was something the WSJ came up with. The subtitle was: _There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world-no gods required_. Does that subtitle sound like something Hawking would write to you? At the article's bottom it states: 'Adapted from "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.' Hawking doesn't submit articles to rags....
@johnmcdonagh ....than one. It is not observational because it can't be. If we are to talk about either an infinite number of universes or even a finite number, we are still not solving the problem. With regard to the infinite number "theory," just how would we know that we are truly looking at a universe if universes are infinite in number? It would seem to contradict what we observe about our own - that it had a beginning. You know what happens when you add or subtract from an infinite?
@sponsoredwalk1 BTW, in the video Penrose says more than just that M-theory is untested, he says it isn't even really a theory yet, just a collection of ideas. So, using your own standard of judgment, should I say that you're being dishonest when you represent his view as "M-theory is 'untested as of yet?'" Or have you simply stated your case somewhat inaccurately?
@thwonk121 - Based on my statement, why would you ask ??? Did I make make false statement concerning Dr. Penrose ???
@Free4tshouldBfun ....that physically exists. And by the way, that's what I refer to when speaking of the universe - everything that physically exists. That is the classic definition of the universe. So it's not a category error at all. I was challenging the argument that causality cannot be applied to the universe itself, only the things in the universe. That is where the category error is made.
@Free4tshouldBfun based on Wikipedia's definition of physical law as "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior," Why is it not then a category error to assert that physical laws are causal.? They clearly are not. what are causal are the phenomenon described by physical laws.
@MaitreyaRocket
oh yes, the "I know you are but what am I" response.
@philWynk Yes, that is correct. I was merely pointing out that when Darwinists face roadblocks to Darwinian theory - which is based on a priori assumptions of materialism - those roadblocks such as the issues inherent in causality, rather than resort to acceptance of theism, in some sort of Lewontian denial of the "divine foot," they often resort to speculations about a multiverse to explain away what they can't explain.
"A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing observable patterns. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community." Wikipedia
@reasonedfaith1 The excerpt you quote does not say he doesn't believe there could be a God. He also says, "Their [universes] creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god." Not requiring a God is a far cry from saying they weren't created by one or that there isn't a God.
Professor Roger Penrose is not biased and he certainly does know what he is talking about, being arguably one of the reputable theoretical physicists over the past 30 years. But I do agree that this does not debunk M-theory, it just means theoretical physicists should continue to work out the problem and hopefully come up with a way to achieve observational evidence.
@Free4tshouldBfun "It makes sense to apply the rule "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" to objects within the Univese, because we know there are other objects in which a cause can reasonably be sought. But this is not the case when we think of the universe itself." The problem here is that the objects in the universe - i.e, everything that physically exists, are the universe. If you distinguish the objects in the universe with the universe itself, you are again making a category...
@Free4tshouldBfun ...error. The universe is the objects in the universe definitionally. therefore the cosmological argument applies to the entirety of everything that physically exists. Your argument is similar to saying, "well, all the walls and everything that make up the house burned to the ground, but the house itself is still standing." The walls and everything that make up the house are the house itself definitionally. Maybe not the best analogy, but I think you can understand.
"most breakthroughs of m-theory have come a long time after Penrose stopped being a good scientist."
Don't be ridiculous. You're saying that because he postulates ideas you don't like the sound of. Penrose has a good a handle on what is and must be the case as anyone on the planet, including Hawking. He continues to be without peer in these matters.
@woyoho3 The title is misleading, but Penrose is a brilliant, highly respected physicist whose views on consciousness would make a lot of atheists uncomfortable. He is an atheist in the strictest sense, that of no God, not in the common sense of rejecting any sort of mind that is not restricted solely to chemical processes in the brain.
@johnmcdonagh ....knowing as opposed to certainty; which strikes me as very wise. I look to Antony Flew as an example of the culmination of allowing for provision as opposed to certainty, while he apparently left us as a Deist - but no longer an atheist. I would differ with them in believing that there are things we CAN be certain of, which allow us to know other things provisionally. Not everything is provisional, while it is wise to hold that position until one can be certain...
@Free4tshouldBfun "you merely asserted that laws can't be causal," No, I explained why they can't be causal, because they are merely our quantification of causality. To state that the laws of physics create anything is like saying that mathematics can create or cause anything.
This Is Crzazy .....
String Theory dose not have Observational Data.
Dose God is Testable ?
@stepchangeable ...Einstein 's Metaphysics: Simplifying the Metaphysical, which quotes Einstein's "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge," where he observes that modern scientists tend to overlook metaphysical considerations to their detriment. By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, ...."
@stepchangeable Would you reject Newton's laws of motion and gravity on the basis that they were formed out of his religious conviction that the universe is deliberately ordered and comprehensible to mankind?
To reject metaphysics and human intuition, you have to head down the path of scientific reductionism (scientism). Such a path is demonstrably limited. The progress of science relies absolutely on metaphysical assumptions, and who are you to say which are religious and which are not?
@brando92346 a) The “laws of physics” seen in textbooks are really only descriptions of the laws of physics - and of course our descriptions are descriptive! A cause can in principle be described, so there’s no inherent contradiction in maintaining that the laws of physics are causal and our knowledge of them descriptive.
The fact that it can be disproved is what makes it good science. It's the beliefs that hold themselves up to be beyond challenge that are the gangrene of civilization.
@Free4tshouldBfun "But the laws of physics decribe relationships between physical objects, mathematical laws describe relationships between abstract entities." I gather from the word "but" that you're objecting to my analogy by pointing to the differences between mathematics and physical laws. Analogies only go so far when comparing two different things. You have to recognize that which is similar, which you pointed out is description, as opposed to causality. You made my point.
@gmdinformation Well I don't think Hawking lives in a vacuum of his own writings. There are other sources regarding Hawking, which would seem to suggest that he's a committed atheist - one of those sources is a recent book authored by his first wife, who also has a PhD - where she discusses at length his atheism. I haven't actually read the book, but I have reasonably gleaned it's premise from several sources.
Empirical science, is totally dependent on the continuing validity&consistency across the universe of the1st principles of logic & rational thought. Its based upon on the assumption that the underlying laws of science are universal & immutable.Science is based upon a set of unprovable principles, that are known 2b true only by intuition. Thus, if science is valid, then intuition is also assumed to be valid. Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists - b/c intuition is transcendent.
@johnmcdonagh "He is also a strongly self-proclaimed Platonist. I think he's been very polite with regards to Stephen Hawking's positivism/scientism." They are friends and have worked together, so there would have to be a certain comeraderie in order to maintain such a relationship. I think Hawking would do well to re-examine his own materialistic presuppositions. Sometimes a brilliant mind can be sidetracked by them. Penrose seems to have avoided them somehow - a sort of provisional...
Do you?
I haven't read the new Hawking book yet, but he has always been quite open-minded about the possibility of a mind at the bottom of the well so to speak, so I doubt very much that he said anything in this book that could be construed as a negation of God and religion. In fact, I'm guessing these people are probably misunderstanding him, and that what he's saying is about the universe creating itself includes a mind in the mix, much like Chris Langan's CTMU.
@johnmcdonagh ....also the author of what we define as relativity. Although Einstein was probably not a theist but perhaps a deist, his thinking was much more in line with that of Augustine, who didn't find a contradiction with eternity touching the finite. But the materialist typically finds contradictions where none exist.
Hay, dagigerheadman. I don't smoke. But I am going to have a drink to celebrate my new Theory! So, what is your theory of Everything?
Recently read that their are a few researcher who are willing to use indirect methods of testing string theory....*****
"Very solid models like Gen Rel & QM are more than enough to make any "god" superfluous." How does discovering extraordinary scientific laws that govern planetary motion explain their origin & existence? If atheism is true by what logical necessity should abstract laws and math exist, let alone produce a rationally comprehensible universe? Wouldnt a purposeless universe of blind forces & random chaotic motion justify atheism or r u going to postulate a zillion universes based no evidence?
@brando92346 - you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis ...
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, a scientifically proven fact.” R. Jastrow NASA
@Free4tshouldBfun To speak of causation is all we have. It is not nonsensical. What we observe in the universe, in fact the very premise upon which science operates is causation: events in the past lead to effects in the future, which lead to further causes and effects. Time while relevant, is not something which contradicts causation. It is every bit involved in causation. Furthermore, when we speak of eternity, we don't mean infinite time, but the absence and/or transcendence of time...
Sir Penrose my idol.
@benthemiester: Good to see someone else also read “The Road To Reality”? :)
@stepchangeable "you havent argued against any of my points," I think I argued quite soundly against your point that there is no physical evidence for God, and I can continue along that line if you'd like. Calling your opponent dishonest and pathetic is not an argument.
Merely claiming that we could not observe ourselves in any other universe offers no explanation for why we are actually in a fine-tuned universe in the 1st place.
Does this mean that multiverses, if they were ever discovered, would undermine God? Absolutely not! We'd still ask the question "what generated our fine-tuned universe"? Any system that generates a habitable universe must itself be fine-tuned. The multiverse hypothesis simply moves the fine-tuning problem up one level.
@tensacross - It's not Hawkings theory ...
@stepchangeable ....Which leads us to the Theory of Relativity. We would not have a theory of relativity without Einstein's prior metaphysical assumptions.
@johnmcdonagh ....I'm thinking that they are similar to the lover level positivists of whom Godel speaks. They seem to believe that philosophy and logic has been replaced by science.
@johnmcdonagh Self-evident truth for example, is not something I think we can be provisional about. The law of noncontradiction is one such self-evident truth upon which all other truth is dependent. If we aren't certain about it, we can't really hold even a provisional position on anything else.
@Free4tshouldBfun ...refute it without at least attempting to redefine the terms of what we mean by the universe, what we mean by everything that physically exists, or what causality means. Once we get caught up in such a game of semantics, then we can't really say that we understand each other. I think I perfectly understand what you are saying and why you believe it. I simply don't accept it for what I believe are sound reasons, not because I understand the terms differently.
@stepchangeable ...have failed to do is successfully persuade - at least not me, and I would hazard a guess, not Johnmedonagh either. Keep trying, though. Maybe you will find something to say that we haven't heard already. There's always hope. Agreed?
@brando92346 There was a part in _The Brief History of Time_ where he talks about how he is dismayed that the universe bothers to exist at all that's downright poetic, and sounds to me as though he seems very open to the possiblity of a God having some hand in things. I haven't got the new book yet, but in all the excerpts I've found online he never says there is no God or that God doesn't exist. He just says that a universe doesn't "require" a God to exist. I disagree with much of it though.
brando92346 - you state that to the laws of physics create anything is like saying that mathematics can create or cause anything. But the laws of physics decribe relationships between physical objects, mathematical laws describe relationships between abstract entities.
@adeworks
Interesting....The fact that the universe started 'out' in such an ordered state (low entropy) could also mean that 'God' (by definition) is hardwired INTO the evolving universe.
I think they're talking more about how physics can't provide an answer to 'what is really going on out there' for lack of a single word. Penrose has even argued that string theory may be a red herring. Btw I'm not a theist.
@brando92346 Furthermore, if it is a finite number of other universes, then a God hypothesis is still in the equation. A prime mover is still required.
@Free4tshouldBfun ...parsimonious in respect of having dealt with the infinite regress problem. It is also more parsimonious in that it seems to suggest that God is necessary and not simply optional as a prime basis for a rational metaphysic. This is so because logic requires an appeal to certain first principles, which are self evident, and which are incongruent without a prime mover.
@Free4tshouldBfun I don't think you're understanding. A first cause doesn't need to be explained. A first cause is necessary - all other existences are contingent on a first cause. Maybe this will help - probably take a few responses. It's the basic of the cosmological argument:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a cause.
If the universe was caused, something outside the universe that was not caused, caused the universe...
@stepchangeable "asking me to prove a mathematical equation (which has nothing to do with our discussion about god," step, what john is attempting to do is to get to the fact that everyone operates on certain assumptions. But some are self-evidently valid - such as the law of non-contradiction, for example. The question of God's existence is intricately tied into these assumptions, the same way mathematics and science are.
@stepchangeable .....two mens' differing conclusions about time. It's a downloadable pdf entitled "Einstein, Gödel and the Disappearance of Time" by Andrej Ule, Ljubljana. You can find it by Googling "Einstein on Carnap" and scrolling down to "Einstein, Gödel and the Disappearance of Time." Here is a quote: " We can see the important difference between Einstein and Carnap. Einstein was somehow interested in the reality of Now, .......
@JarJar88forever: Witten even went back to 4-dimensional spacetime, being unsatisfied with the 26/13/11/10 dimensions of the current string theories. Penrose tells about Witten talking to him about that in one of his lectures or talks here on youtube. He also mentions that in his book “Road To Reality”.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though SOMEBODY has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". "The laws [of physics] seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'" BY WHOM?
@gmdinformation That's a possibility. He doesn't seem to articulate that though - not in his first book, and not in anything that has been quoted from this book, or in reviews of the book. Still one has to keep an open mind until the book is read. You're right. I'm thinking he might accept what early Greek philosophers termed the Logos. Of course the New Testament gave that new meaning.
@stepchangeable (continued) "...a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics."
(Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge, Ideas and Opinions, 1954......
@johnmcdonagh I'm a regular poster on the UncommonDescent blog. Recently we've been involved in a discussion regarding Human Consciousness. In fact, that's the title of the thread. There are materialist contributors, as well as supporters of intelligent design in that thread. The one thing you will notice if you read the entire thread is the complete abandonment of first principles of logic among the materialists - particularly that there are certain truths, which are self-evident......
@brando92346 I'm saving that one too. I've never heard it one before either.
@brando92346 Occam's Razor is on the side of the idea that the phsical regularities of this universe are ultimate. You believe there was a cause? Then you believe in one more thing than I do, and must justify that belief. The God and the multiverse idea are both somewhat lacking in evidence, so we we have to look at complexity which is where Occam's Razor comes in.
@stepchangeable "If you disagree cite me even ONE source of physical evidence for god or god." Since God is not physical, it would be difficult to pick up something and say "see, I found a piece of God. However, most theists believe that evidence for God's essence as a designer and prime mover is found in nature itself. We refer to such as a "design inference." There is plenty of physical evidence, which would allow one to make a valid design inference. Big Bang cosmology is one of them.
@stepchangeable ....rather, the concurrent beginning of time with the beginning of contingent causes. Or we can define "first" simply as primary, not necessarily connected with time. So you haven't defeated the cosmological argument based on a semantic issue. It's the concept, which is foremost, and not the inadequacy of language to conceive of it. Language is limited in all spheres of knowledge. If it were sufficient, then it wouldn't need to evolve with new knowledge.
@sponsoredwalk1 Yet, Hawking cites M-theory in his book as possibly eliminating the need for a god to explain the beginning of the universe, does he not? So Penrose's comment can be seen as debunking Hawking's improper philosophical application of M-theory. I can see claiming that the title of this posted video states the matter inaccurately as "debunking M-theory," but I can't see calling that pedestrian error "dishonest."
You don't think so?
Penrose on another show: "The Big Bang is not a chaotic state; it's highly ordered. This is an observational fact. It's a feature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which tells us that the universe gets more and more random. [..] The puzzle is: why was the initial state of the universe so highly organized? One can even give a figure as to how organized that state was: at least 10^10^ 23. That's a ridiculously huge number. None of the theories that are being put forward explain that."
Respond to this video......are entirely separate from material things, which you can touch, taste, or see.
@whollyheathan ...that possibility. This is what makes the concept patently absurd on it's face. You can then explain anything as possible.
@Free4tshouldBfun "But the laws of physics decribe relationships between physical objects, mathematical laws describe relationships between abstract entities." Yes, exactly. that's the point I'm trying to make. Mathematics and physical laws are similar, in that they are formed from language. Neither are causal of anything in reality. The physical laws are not themselves the relationship between physical objects. They only describe them.
@woyoho3 "I don't know about you guys, but I don't anybody can help whispering when.."
Is this the sort of english that makes sense to you? Perhaps if youre going to criticise someone for coherency u might consider your own first. Then you might be about to tell us exactly where Mcgrath is making nil sense?
&give. Further more, some of it's predictions will be tested at the LHC at CERN. If these prediction bare fruit they may also point to a possible explanation for Dark Matter. Hawking's new book is just another platform to discuss physics in general and the possible paths that it may take. There's nothing wrong with that. 'Flexing' our mental muscles is a good thing, especially in a world that is becoming increasingly bereft of intelligence (not to mention intellilect) by the popular media.
@stepchangeable "That's not a logically coherent argument in any way shape or form." The cosmological argument for God's existence has been around for thousands of years, and is coherent. If you read some of my earlier posts here I explain the basics of it, though not exhaustively. God is necessary for existence. It is atheism that is not coherent nor parsimonious.
@Free4tshouldBfun Yes, but the things you believe are not sufficient to explain everything. Therefore, your argument does not stand. Physical regularities are simply our description of what happens. They are not the cause of what happens. Occam's Razor is not simply interested in what can explain something, but what can sufficiently explain something such that there are no parameters left out, and yet not so complex as to add more than is necessary to explain. Your belief leaves out the...
@stepchangeable I'm afraid John is correct. You seem to operate on a very simplistic understanding of science in relation to philosophy. Science developed out of philosophy, and it is therefore, very important to have a grasp of that development. Simply quoting Carnap will not do it for you. There are many scientists and philosophers who disagree with him - Einstein would be one of them judging by his own statements.... in fact, another article I found supports this particularly in the ....
@stepchangeable ....while Carnap tried to sink it in the objectivity of events, scientifically described and explained." You can see in this a distinction between the scientism of Carnap, and the thoughtful reflection of Einstein, who had a problem with the reality of time. Carnap simply believed that science had explained time sufficiently, and that we know all there is. So Carnap's scientism was actually a science stopper.
@albedoshader Someone who agrees with me. Thats pretty rare lol.
As Paul Davies has stated before, there are many cosmologist & physicist, & not just Penrose who agrees that the universe is in many aspects FT for life. For many, this notion is unthinkable, & it's better for some to imagine many different universes such as Mverse or its counter part Mtheory, rather than accept what is an empirical observation. FT is to close to comfort to theology. Thats why its called the fine tuning problem.
3. So the Design argument says little if anything about the nature of a Creator. To try to rebut the argument by assuming to know the true nature of God is plain stupid. Based on current scientific data however, it says much to destroy any naturalistic explanation for our rationally intelligible, law-abiding, life permitting universe based on chance or physical necessity. The FACTS, findings & conclusions I cite are from eminent scientists & Nobel Laureates.and EASILY verifiable if one looks!!
@AtheistAltar that's just plain confusing.
I have to go to bed, but thanks for the civil chat.
@stepchangeable Try to get your head around this idea:
Scientific endeavor requires certain metaphysical assumptions. Without them all you have is direct evidence/observation together with basic logic.
Positivism/materialism do this, and they are self-refuting approaches.
The assumption does not HAVE to be God, but for Newton it was.
Just because you have no idea what your assumptions are, does not mean the rest of us are so unthinking. Science IS predicated on metaphysical assumptions.
A universe which is finite, rationally intelligible and law abiding is indeed compelling evidence for deism. But why wouldnt a Creator who brings such a world into existence from non-existence with the most complex laws and physical constants, not bother to act in it? The fact there is an intelligent lifeform capable of wondering in awe at its power precision & predictability& asking transcendent questions about meaning purpose & destiny is prime face evidence for theism.
@AtheistAltar I mean, if you're going to be agnostic about the existence of a multiverse, then why not God.
As Penrose points out here and in various articles/interviews, the problem with m-theory is that it very hard if not impossible to falsify, and doesn't really provide any testable theories. So it's likely to be around for a long time, even while it falls out of favour.