Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Tomef]

Yes, evolution is in accordance with the argument.

That negates the need for the designer hypothesis.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Physical laws are the description of how things work. That is all they are. And how things work is based on the properties of things.

No, the laws of physics are the descriptions of how things behave. Ultimately, the laws would be the description of the properties of all fundamental objects, which would include how they interact. And those properties and ways of interaction are the basis of causality (to the extent it exists).

In a sense, the properties are the fundamental aspect: the various types of object are defined by what properties they have. So, an electron is defined as having a certain mass, a certain charge, a certain spin, etc. Those properties determine the strength of various possible interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, etc).

So, the fact that there are 4 known fundamental forces and several proposed fundamental 'particles' is enough to describe what happens in the universe. Those properties lead to certain statistical laws that, on the macroscopic scale, lead to 'causality' and a certain amount of determinism (although it is not absolute).

But, the order that comes out of this all does NOT depend on an intelligence. In fact, intelligence would be an incredibly more complex system that would be based on those fundamental properties.

It seems most improbable to me that a universe governed by precise and immutable law, manifesting in such intricately glorious kaleidoscopes of form, came to be without an underlying creative intelligence. So magnificent a symphony simply has to have a composer.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems most improbable to me that a universe governed by precise and immutable law, manifesting in such intricately glorious kaleidoscopes of form, came to be without an underlying creative intelligence. So magnificent a symphony simply has to have a composer.

And as I see it, things having properties requires no intelligent agent, but will produce such complexities naturally via feedback.

In fact, as I see it, intelligence is a very complex collection of interactions and needs to be based in more fundamental interactions at a lower level. Any intelligence would require at least as much explanation as the other complexities we see in the universe. To 'explain' a complex universe in terms of a complex intelligence makes less sense than to explain it via relatively simple laws that naturally produce complexity.

Furthermore, the only 'intelligences' we know about are here on this small planet. To think that what we see here (in terms of design by living things) is representative of the universe as a whole seems to be highly unwarranted. This is especially true since most of the complexity we see in the universe is the result of two basic laws: those of gravity and of electromagnetism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And as I see it, things having properties requires no intelligent agent, but will produce such complexities naturally via feedback.

In fact, as I see it, intelligence is a very complex collection of interactions and needs to be based in more fundamental interactions at a lower level. Any intelligence would require at least as much explanation as the other complexities we see in the universe. To 'explain' a complex universe in terms of a complex intelligence makes less sense than to explain it via relatively simple laws that naturally produce complexity.

Furthermore, the only 'intelligences' we know about are here on this small planet. To think that what we see here (in terms of design by living things) is representative of the universe as a whole seems to be highly unwarranted. This is especially true since most of the complexity we see in the universe is the result of two basic laws: those of gravity and of electromagnetism.

Two basic laws which govern the behaviour of mass and energy in space and time, perhaps. Not sure you can account for all of existence, without accounting for the great mystery which is time.

But if all the delicately weighted complexity we see around us truly emerges from deep simplicity, that itself it seems to me, is evidence of divine intent. There’s a line somewhere in the Bhagavad Gita, about the Unity which expresses itself as multiplicity. There’s also a line somewhere which goes, Let there be light…

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems most improbable to me that a universe governed by precise and immutable law, manifesting in such intricately glorious kaleidoscopes of form, came to be without an underlying creative intelligence. So magnificent a symphony simply has to have a composer.

What makes you feel this way?

And why don't you feel this way about God?

 

[Valjean]

It seems most improbable to me that a universe governed by precise and immutable law, manifesting in such intricately glorious kaleidoscopes of form, came to be without an underlying creative intelligence. So magnificent a symphony simply has to have a composer.

Glory and magnificence are in the eye of the beholder. The laws are what they are, and the results are what they must be. Were they different you'd be marveling at a different kaleidoscope.
Personal incredulity is not evidence of a composer, nor does it give any hint of the mechanisms or goals involved.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Glory and magnificence are in the eye of the beholder. The laws are what they are, and the results are what they must be. Were they different you'd be marveling at a different kaleidoscope.
Personal incredulity is not evidence of a composer, nor does it give any hint of the mechanisms or goals involved.

Were they even slightly different, I likely wouldn’t be here at all.

“Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that re collapse from those that go on expanding forever, so that even now, fourteen thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 10^22, the universe would have re collapsed before it ever reached it’s present size…
…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron has been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded…
…Most sets of numbers would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

 

[Polymath257]

Two basic laws which govern the behaviour of mass and energy in space and time, perhaps. Not sure you can account for all of existence, without accounting for the great mystery which is time.

But if all the delicately weighted complexity we see around us truly emerges from deep simplicity, that itself it seems to me, is evidence of divine intent.

Why would that follow?

There’s a line somewhere in the Bhagavad Gita, about the Unity which expresses itself as multiplicity. There’s also a line somewhere which goes, Let there be light…

Sure. But the question is why believe those texts in the first place.

Once again, an intelligence is inherently a very complex. Saying that such complexity is required for relatively simple laws makes no sense to me. In fact, the other way around makes more sense, by far.

 

[Tomef]

It seems most improbable to me that a universe governed by precise and immutable law, manifesting in such intricately glorious kaleidoscopes of form, came to be without an underlying creative intelligence. So magnificent a symphony simply has to have a composer.

That might make some intuitive sense, in the absence of a better explanation, but intuition is fickle. If all the elements of a system are necessary for it to function, then the fact that it functions means all those elements are necessarily there. It only seems improbable if there's some certainty that this is the only universe that has ever existed, and that however it came into being was a one-off event. If it's one in a series of all possible permutations however, then it is inevitable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That might make some intuitive sense, in the absence of a better explanation, but intuition is fickle. If all the elements of a system are necessary for it to function, then the fact that it functions means all those elements are necessarily there. It only seems improbable if there's some certainty that this is the only universe that has ever existed, and that however it came into being was a one-off event. If it's one in a series of all possible permutations however, then it is inevitable.

Yeah, this I think is one reason why, despite being unfalsifiable, various Multiverse and Many Worlds theories are taken seriously in scientific circles: Given unlimited events, statistical near-irrelevencies become inevitabilities. And given an infinite number of universes, a universe as seemingly improbable as ours will eventually occur. But that argument of course, uses non-empirical abstraction to account for observed phenomena.

Intuition may be untrustworthy btw, but it would be foolish to ignore our capacity for intuitive insight completely. If an answer makes intuitive sense, it is at least worth examining. And that applies also to multiverse theories, but let's at least acknowledge when we are doing philosophy, not science.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, this I think is one reason why, despite being unfalsifiable, various Multiverse and Many Worlds theories are taken seriously in scientific circles: Given unlimited events, statistical near-irrelevencies become inevitabilities. And given an infinite number of universes, a universe as seemingly improbable as ours will eventually occur. But that argument of course, uses non-empirical abstraction to account for observed phenomena.

Intuition may be untrustworthy btw, but it would be foolish to ignore our capacity for intuitive insight completely. If an answer makes intuitive sense, it is at least worth examining. And that applies also to multiverse theories, but let's at least acknowledge when we are doing philosophy, not science.

Putting things in context doesn't mean ignoring them. A lot of things only make intuitive sense because at some point someone worked through something that wasn't intuitive, and came up with a perspective that then became absorbed in a shared worldview in some part of the globe, and so on. Intuition can be a starting point, but can often lead to the unexpected, so relying on it as an end in itself is like never leaving the starting block.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, this I think is one reason why, despite being unfalsifiable, various Multiverse and Many Worlds theories are taken seriously in scientific circles: Given unlimited events, statistical near-irrelevencies become inevitabilities. And given an infinite number of universes, a universe as seemingly improbable as ours will eventually occur. But that argument of course, uses non-empirical abstraction to account for observed phenomena.

No, that is NOT the reason multiverse and such theories are taken seriously. The actual reason is that they show up naturally in all attempts so far to formulate quantum gravity. In fact, even quantum mechanics, without gravity, has a significant aspect pointing to multiverse descriptions (the 'sum over histories' formulation, for example).

If anything, the people I have talked to would *prefer* not to have to talk about a multiverse *beca8se* it is untestable (well, for the most part). But when string theory and loop quantum gravity both seem to work better in such a scenario and when we simply don't currently have a testable theory of quantum gravity, it is understood that we only have speculation at this point. We can see what speculation we can develop that reduces to known principles in the limit, but until we can test these ideas, they are not reliable. Any scientist in these areas understands and acknowledges this simple fact.

Intuition may be untrustworthy btw, but it would be foolish to ignore our capacity for intuitive insight completely. If an answer makes intuitive sense, it is at least worth examining. And that applies also to multiverse theories, but let's at least acknowledge when we are doing philosophy, not science.

Intuition is actually a very poor guide in these matters. Even relativity is counter-intuitive for most people, let alone basic quantum physics. But both, in their realms, provide the best, thoroughly tested, descriptions we currently have.

Our intuition was evolved to deal with subsaharan Africa and hunter-gathering as a life style. It works reasonably well for things that are human scale, but gets increasingly bad as we move away from that. Even the physics of rotating bodies, which is very well understood, is counter to the intuitions of most people. Once we get to electromagnetism and orbital mechanics, intuition, unless properly trained, simply fails.

This is why testability is so important. Our intuitions are simply not good enough to deal with the universe as it actually is. Yes, they can be trained to encompass the new facts we discover, but that is usually a long process that requires a LOT of deep thinking.

 

[Polymath257]

Putting things in context doesn't mean ignoring them. A lot of things only make intuitive sense because at some point someone worked through something that wasn't intuitive, and came up with a perspective that then became absorbed in a shared worldview in some part of the globe, and so on. Intuition can be a starting point, but can often lead to the unexpected, so relying on it as an end in itself is like never leaving the starting block.

I think one of the most important aspects of our intuition is actually its malleability. We start out with one intuition, test it, and see that it fails. We then re-formulate our models and develop a more refined intuition based on our new discoveries. The process then repeats.

So, while quantum mechanics is incredibly counter-intuitive for most people, it is possible and even common for physicists to be able to intuit what will happen in various quantum situations after they have studied the subject deeply. Although 4-dimensional geometry isn't intuitive for most people, it is possible to practice and get to the place that the properties of a 4D spacetime become 'more intuitive'.

I would even go so far as to say that one of the purposes of education is to modify intuitions so that what we have learned becomes more ingrained that the cartoon physics we learned from TV or ancient writings.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, that is NOT the reason multiverse and such theories are taken seriously. The actual reason is that they show up naturally in all attempts so far to formulate quantum gravity. In fact, even quantum mechanics, without gravity, has a significant aspect pointing to multiverse descriptions (the 'sum over histories' formulation, for example).

If anything, the people I have talked to would *prefer* not to have to talk about a multiverse *beca8se* it is untestable (well, for the most part). But when string theory and loop quantum gravity both seem to work better in such a scenario and when we simply don't currently have a testable theory of quantum gravity, it is understood that we only have speculation at this point. We can see what speculation we can develop that reduces to known principles in the limit, but until we can test these ideas, they are not reliable. Any scientist in these areas understands and acknowledges this simple fact.


Intuition is actually a very poor guide in these matters. Even relativity is counter-intuitive for most people, let alone basic quantum physics. But both, in their realms, provide the best, thoroughly tested, descriptions we currently have.

Our intuition was evolved to deal with subsaharan Africa and hunter-gathering as a life style. It works reasonably well for things that are human scale, but gets increasingly bad as we move away from that. Even the physics of rotating bodies, which is very well understood, is counter to the intuitions of most people. Once we get to electromagnetism and orbital mechanics, intuition, unless properly trained, simply fails.

This is why testability is so important. Our intuitions are simply not good enough to deal with the universe as it actually is. Yes, they can be trained to encompass the new facts we discover, but that is usually a long process that requires a LOT of deep thinking.

Didn’t String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity get lost in the weeds years ago? I’m pretty sure many of the scientists working in these fields have begun to intuit that they’re chasing ghosts…

Yes of course intuitive insights should be tested wherever possible, as should all speculative thinking. I think I already made exactly that point in the post you responded to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, this I think is one reason why, despite being unfalsifiable, various Multiverse and Many Worlds theories are taken seriously in scientific circles: Given unlimited events, statistical near-irrelevencies become inevitabilities. And given an infinite number of universes, a universe as seemingly improbable as ours will eventually occur. But that argument of course, uses non-empirical abstraction to account for observed phenomena.

We don't need multiple universes, though. One is enough.

No matter how unlikely any particular outcome is, there will be an outcome. Why not this one?

There are about 1x10^60 ways to deal a deck of 52 cards. If you randomly shuffle a deck and note the order of the cards, you're extremely unlikely to repeat that order even if you reshuffled the deck over and over for a billion years. Should we presume that invisible angels arranged the deck in the particular order that was dealt?

Intuition may be untrustworthy btw, but it would be foolish to ignore our capacity for intuitive insight completely. If an answer makes intuitive sense, it is at least worth examining. And that applies also to multiverse theories, but let's at least acknowledge when we are doing philosophy, not science.

This line of argument may not work as well as you hope.

Speaking personally, my intuition is that inferring an intelligence behind the creation of the universe is self-centered nonsense. The only reason I'm giving what you're saying any consideration at all is that I'm willing to set intuition aside.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, this I think is one reason why, despite being unfalsifiable, various Multiverse and Many Worlds theories are taken seriously in scientific circles: Given unlimited events, statistical near-irrelevencies become inevitabilities. And given an infinite number of universes, a universe as seemingly improbable as ours will eventually occur. But that argument of course, uses non-empirical abstraction to account for observed phenomena.

Intuition may be untrustworthy btw, but it would be foolish to ignore our capacity for intuitive insight completely. If an answer makes intuitive sense, it is at least worth examining. And that applies also to multiverse theories, but let's at least acknowledge when we are doing philosophy, not science.

People misinterpret probability. If I toss a fifty dice, what is the probability of all sixes coming up? Very improbable -- but what is the probability of any other combination coming up -- equally improbable. The probability of something coming up is 100%. The probability of any particular combination coming up is tiny.
So why claim our particular universe is designed? Had a noxious set of laws and constants shaken out we wouldn't be here to comment on it. Had some other survivable set occurred perhaps an entirely different sort of life would be commenting on it.
The universe we inhabit is what it is. By chance it allowed a sapient race of apes to develop on one of trillions of habitable planets. Is it really reasonable to conclude that the entire universe was intelligently and intentionally designed to generate this particular race of apes?

 

[Ostronomos]

It seems most improbable to me that a universe governed by precise and immutable law, manifesting in such intricately glorious kaleidoscopes of form, came to be without an underlying creative intelligence. So magnificent a symphony simply has to have a composer.

Indeed. Your statement in well-received. I praise you on your poetic use of language. You are worthy of high praise my man. This in itself is a testament to intelligent design.

And to add to your observation, this universe, in all its splendor, could not have arisen without an intelligence. As fragile as we are, we are living breathing organisms of the highest order. This is an incredible feat in itself so much so that it could not simply be the product of an outer shell that is merely materialistic. Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure. Reality, in other words, is perceiving itself through our eyes.
This alone points to a single source or origin.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We don't need multiple universes, though. One is enough.

No matter how unlikely any particular outcome is, there will be an outcome. Why not this one?

There are about 1x10^60 ways to deal a deck of 52 cards. If you randomly shuffle a deck and note the order of the cards, you're extremely unlikely to repeat that order even if you reshuffled the deck over and over for a billion years. Should we presume that invisible angels arranged the deck in the particular order that was dealt?



This line of argument may not work as well as you hope.

Speaking personally, my intuition is that inferring an intelligence behind the creation of the universe is self-centered nonsense. The only reason I'm giving what you're saying any consideration at all is that I'm willing to set intuition aside.

The deck of card analogy only works here, if every micro-state (in this case, every random arrangement of cards) results in a nearly equivalent macro-state (ie. a shuffled deck). But we are not talking about any shuffled deck; the universe we observe, is one in which the cards are precisely configured in suit and numerical order. Only that low-entropy micro-state will support the development within the pack, of a conscious observer capable of recognising and recording the patterns*. That's how special our universe is. Even more amazingly, it started out, pre-Big Bang, in an exceptionally special - ie low entropy - state, and has been moving towards random, high entropy states ever since.


*Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

 

[RestlessSoul]

People misinterpret probability. If I toss a fifty dice, what is the probability of all sixes coming up? Very improbable -- but what is the probability of any other combination coming up -- equally improbable. The probability of something coming up is 100%. The probability of any particular combination coming up is tiny.
So why claim our particular universe is designed? Had a noxious set of laws and constants shaken out we wouldn't be here to comment on it. Had some other survivable set occurred perhaps an entirely different sort of life would be commenting on it.
The universe we inhabit is what it is. By chance it allowed a sapient race of apes to develop on one of trillions of habitable planets. Is it really reasonable to conclude that the entire universe was intelligently and intentionally designed to generate this particular race of apes?

It appears most unreasonable to me, to deny the astronomical improbability of our universe even allowing galaxies to develop, never mind sentient apes evolving on a planet somewhere in one of those galaxies. Had the critical density of the universe at the time of the Big Bang deviated by a factor larger than 1 part in 10^15, stars and galaxies could not have formed at all*. That we are here at all is a statistical miracle. Whether or not this signifies divine intent, is up to the individual to decide for him or herself, but to attempt to explain away the phenomenal odds against our being here, strikes me as foolish and dishonest.

*John Gribbin, In Search of the Multiverse

 

[Polymath257]

Didn’t String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity get lost in the weeds years ago? I’m pretty sure many of the scientists working in these fields have begun to intuit that they’re chasing ghosts…

It is certainly the case that quantum gravity has been elusive for quite a long period of time. As far as i know, neither String theory or LQG got 'lost in the weeds'. The inability to get testable predictions is a serious problem for both, though. The lack of supersymmetry showing up at LHC is an issue for string theory as well.

But that only makes the point I made more relevant. ALL ways we have found to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics lead to some sort of multiverse, whether an eternal anti-deSitter space with universes 'budding off' or any number of other scenarios. Since QM itself seems to encourage multiverse ideas, this may not be too surprising.

So, we have the situation where GR and QM, which are both incredibly well tested in their own domains, are not easy to reconcile, but that area where they conflict is currently untestable.

Yes of course intuitive insights should be tested wherever possible, as should all speculative thinking. I think I already made exactly that point in the post you responded to.

It isn't just that intuition needs to be tested. It frequently needs to be discarded and updated. As we learn more about the universe, previously counter-intuitive aspects of the universe can become intuitive. To have intuition as a static thing leads to poor understanding.