Inventing worlds

Isaac Newton

Physicists seem to have lost touch with reality. Instead of figuring out how the universe works, they dedicate themselves to designing possible universes, an activity that possibly they find pleasurable, but which doesn't seem very practical. The worst thing is that they often insist that their imaginary universes are real, putting speculations above experimentation and transgressing one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method: theories must adapt to facts, not the other way around.

One of the weak points of modern physics is the difficulty of explaining the passage of time. Since Newton’s theory, but especially with Einstein’s relativity, our physicists have not been able to deal with time. This happens, despite the fact that other conceptions of physics, such as thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, require unidirectional time: quantum superposition and collapse make no sense except with the hypothesis of irreversible time.

The nature of the physical world

Arthur Eddington

The Nature of the Physical World is the title of a landmark work in the history of popular science. Published in 1928, it compiles the Gifford lectures given in Edinburgh by its author, Arthur Eddington, in 1927. Eddington was then famous, having been the scientist who, in 1919, on the occasion of a solar eclipse, organized the expedition that proved one of the predictions from Einstein's theory of General Relativity: the deflection of light when passing near a star. It was said of him that he was one of only three people in the entire world who understood General Relativity. In addition to this, Eddington was a pioneer researching on the origin of the energy of stars, for he was the first to propose that it came from the fusion of hydrogen to form helium.

More scientific misrepresentations from the media

On my first day every year, lecturing in the degree on Telecommunications Engineering, I used to say this to my students:

Don't believe any scientific news published in the press or in generalist media. Most of them are false or have been misunderstood.

In previous posts I have mentioned several cases of scientific misrepresentation by the media, although sometimes the fault lies not with the journalist, but with the scientist, who tries to sneak in philosophical ideas based on reductionist materialism as if they were science. In this post I'm going to comment on three relatively recent news stories, published in the Spanish press, and try to explain what is really behind them.

Intelligent design or random evolution?

Charles Darwin

As all scientific theories, the theory of evolution will always be provisional, but in a century and a half it has been quite well contrasted. It's not likely that a scientific revolution will declare it wrong or obsolete, although perhaps there will be fine tuning, as with Newton's physics and Einstein's theory of general relativity. An attack on the theory of evolution should be based on finding discrepant facts, which up to now have never appeared.

The problem is, some of those who defend the theory of evolution go one step further and offer philosophical speculations and dogmatic statements as though they were testable scientific theories.

As every scientific theory, the theory of evolution is a set of hypotheses that try to explain certain facts. It is based on the verification that species change, and studies the mechanisms that can lead to this change: mutations, DNA, natural selection... Added philosophical connotations are not scientific, whether it is affirmed, with believers, that there is intelligent design; or with atheists, that everything is a consequence of chance.

The enigma of the natural order

In 2019 a book I wrote was published and distributed with the Spanish newspaper El País in a collection dedicated to the popularization of mathematics. The translation into English of my book title is Everything is Number: Is Reality Mathematical?

I addressed the problem of whether mathematical ideas correspond to an external reality, or if on the contrary they are arbitrary and vary with our current mentality. In other words, the question is whether mathematics is discovered, or invented. In one of the posts in this blog I dealt with this issue in relation to the real existence (or not) of the digits of number π (pi).

In the last chapter of that book I addressed a related issue: whether scientific theories, especially those proposed by physicists, are true (in the sense that they represent an underlying reality independent of us), or if are they mental or social constructs unrelated to a reality that could be unknowable (such as Kant's noumena) or even non-existent. I suppose my readers won't be surprised if I say that my personal position is clearly realistic, as is that of many physicists, while supporters of the anti-realist hypothesis tend to be predominantly philosophers.

The problem of no best world

The Auschwitz concentration camp

In 1993, William Rowe proposed an atheistic philosophical argument to prove that God does not exist. Although based on the problem of evil (like so many other atheistic arguments), it takes a somewhat different turn. For this reason it has been given a name, as in the title of this post. The argument can be summed up like this:

If God exists and has created the universe, he must have created the best of all possible worlds, from the moral point of view. But given a universe, it is always possible to devise a better world, which means that the best of all possible worlds does not exist. Furthermore, our universe contains a lot of evil and is far from being one of the best. Therefore God does not exist.

It is curious that, in response to this argument, some philosophers who are believers (such as Klaas Kraay and others) have tried to refute it using the theories of the multiverse, which were originally devised by atheistic thinkers to deal with the fine-tuning problem. According to these philosophers, the problem of no best world would be solved if God had created, not a universe, but a multiverse containing all the best possible worlds, perhaps in an infinite number. I don’t think this attempt has much future. It is easy to foresee that the same argument that applies to the universe can also be applied to the multiverse, so the problem would not have been solved, it would only have been moved to a higher level.

In my opinion, the problem of no best world is poorly posed, because (as is usual with atheistic arguments) it contains a logical fallacy: the straw man; and forgets a very important question: original sin. Let's look first at the straw man fallacy, which in this case should perhaps be called the straw god fallacy. What kind of god does Rowe's problem envision?

Rowe's god is not free. If he creates, he must create the best of all possible worlds. This god is totally determined by human reason.

Materialistic atheism is so obsessed with saving determinism that when they try to formulate an idea about God, in whom they don't believe, they can't escape their obsession and imagine him as a deterministic god, unable to act freely. But is that the God of the Christians?

The God of Christianity is completely different. The main thing is that He is love, as said in the first letter of John, which implies that he is free, that he is not determined, for love without freedom has no meaning. The god Rowe envisions in his problem of no best world is not our God. If he proves that that god does not exist, we agree. In fact, Rowe's god closely approximates the god of philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Christian philosophy concluded long ago that this god is not our God, although this approach may have provided in its time a rational approximation to monotheism.

The second difficulty with Rowe's argument is more subtle. How can we compare worlds, to find whether one is better than another? There must be some criterion. Rowe seems to think that this criterion is given by the amount of moral evil in each world. But this criterion is very dangerous. It could lead us to the conclusion that the best of all possible worlds is one where life does not exist, an empty universe, with no moral evil at all. What could move God to create such universe?

In fact, if things are pushed to the extreme in this way, it could be argued that the best of all possible worlds is the world that does not exist. If God is a Perfect Being, God alone is more perfect than God plus a created universe that by definition must be imperfect.

Mark Twain

If God wanted to create a universe, it seems logical to think that He would choose one similar to ours, where intelligent beings can exist, image of God, capable of loving and being loved. Those intelligent beings should be free, because what interest could God have in creating a universe of automata? Once this is admitted, it is inevitable that any created universe that we can imagine will contain moral evil, for a free being can decide to do evil rather than good. That is what I meant when I said that in posing his problem Rowe has forgotten original sin. If we consider what I have said, God is not to blame for the moral evil in the universe, as implicitly implied by Rowe: we are. As usual, Rowe is looking for a scapegoat, and as usual, he finds it in God, according to Mark Twain's famous phrase:

There are many scapegoats for our sins, but the most popular is Providence. (Notebook, 1898).

In fact, the problem of no best world is ill-posed, since it is impossible to compare different imaginary worlds and classify them according to the moral evil they contain, if that evil comes from the freedom of created individuals, as an inescapable consequence of the fact of they are free. That is why I don’t think it appropriate to try to solve a problem that does not really exist, by resorting to multiverse theories that have probably nothing to do with reality.

The same post in Spanish
Thematic Thread on Science, Faith and Atheism: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca

The unreasonable effectiveness of science

Paul Davies

Paul Davies is an British physicist, expert in cosmology and quantum mechanics, well known for his activity in scientific popularization. In one of his articles [1], with the same title as this post, he wrote the following:

The fact that this rich and complex variety emerges from the featureless inferno of the Big Bang… as a consequence of laws of stunning simplicity and generality… has a distinct teleological flavor.

And in his most famous book, The Mind of God (1992), written in response to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Davies wrote the following words:

The success of the scientific method at unlocking the secrets of nature is so dazzling it can blind us to the greatest scientific miracle of all: science works.

What Davies poses here has much to do with one of the most pressing problems of our time, the debate between realism and anti-realism, if we use the terms of analytical philosophy. This debate can be summarized in the following words:

Science or philosophy

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

In a previous post, speaking about intelligence, I mentioned that there are four incompatible philosophical theories that try to explain the phenomenon of human consciousness. I summarize them briefly here:

1.     Reductionist monism or biological functionalism: The mind is completely determined by the brain and by the network of neurons that makes it. The human mind is an epiphenomenon. Freedom of choice is an illusion. We are programmed machines.

2.     Emergent monism: The mind is an emergent evolutionary product with self-organization, which has emerged as a complex system from simpler systems made up by neurons. Some argue that the underlying structures cannot completely determine the evolution of the mental phenomena. These, however, would be able to influence the underlying structures.

3.     Neuro-physiologic dualism: Mind and brain are different, but they are so closely connected that they make up a unit, two complementary and unique states of the same organism.

4.     Metaphysical dualism: Mind and brain are two different realities. The first is spiritual and non-spatial, capable of interacting with the brain, which is a material and spatial substance. Both entities can exist independently of one another, although the body without the mind eventually decomposes.

Interview with Manuel Alfonseca in a Spanish Newspaper

On February 23, 2018, a Spanish Newspaper (La Opinión, El Correo de Zamora) published this interview with me, performed by Ana Arias, which I am now translating into English. The interview was re-published a few days later (March 10) in the website ReligionEnLibertad (ReligionInFreedom). This is the translation of the interview:

He took an interest in science since he was quite small, as he says. At age 16 he wrote a book of zoology in two volumes that was never published. Anyway, whenever he has to consult information about some little known animal, he consults his book. "And I can find almost everything there," he adds. Now, at 71, he is an honorary professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

He believes in science. And also in God. Under the sponsorship of the Caja Rural Foundation and the Science-Religion University Forum held yesterday at the University College, Manuel Alfonseca gave a lecture about The Faith of Contemporary Atheist Scientists.

What is the faith of those scientists?

That God does not exist.

The problem of Achilles and the tortoise

Zeno of Elea

Zeno of Elea, a follower of Parmenides, is mainly remembered for his paradoxes which try to prove that movement does not exist, especially the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, which asserted that it would be impossible for Achilles to catch the tortoise in a race, if he had accepted a starting handicap.

We know that Achilles runs faster than the tortoise (otherwise he could not catch it and the paradox would make no sense). As he has taken a handicap, when Achilles starts to run the tortoise will already be at a certain distance, at point A. When Achilles reaches point A, the tortoise will have advanced to point B. When Achilles reaches B, the tortoise is already in C, and so on, ad infinitum.

The time Achilles needs to catch the tortoise will be the sum of the times it takes him to reach points A, B, C... The total time is, therefore, the sum of an infinite series of numbers. The problem is that Zeno thinks that the sum of an infinite series of numbers must be infinite, so Achilles will never catch the tortoise (this is the conclusion of his reasoning). This, however, is not true: there are many infinite series whose sum is finite. One of them is precisely the series that computes the time needed by Achilles to catch the tortoise, according to Zeno’s reasoning.

On intelligence

In his book On intelligence Jeff Hawkins writes this:

Francis Crick wrote a book about brains called The astonishing hypothesis. The astonishing hypothesis was simply that the mind is the creation of the cells in the brain. There is nothing else, no magic, no special sauce, only neurons and a dance of information... In calling this a hypothesis, Crick was being politically correct. That the cells in our brain create the mind is a fact, not a hypothesis. We need to understand what these thirty billion cells do and how they do it.

Wonderful! On the one hand, he states that it is a fact, not a hypothesis, that the neurons of the brain create the mind. On the other, he accepts that we don’t know what they do, or how they do it. How does Hawkins know this for a fact, not a hypothesis? By infused knowledge? How was he able to detect that fact? Are there any arguments to support it? He gives none, he just asserts. Is this good science?

About the problem of evil

The Auschwitz concentration camp

In a previous article on the hunting hymenoptera I mentioned the problem of evil, often called the problem of pain, the well-known title of a book by CS Lewis. Although this question is mainly ethical or philosophical, it also has some relationship with science, as will be seen at the end of this post.

We can consider two different types of the problem of evil:

1. Human evil, caused by man. The Auschwitz concentration camp has become its most mentioned paradigm.
2. Natural pain, the fact that natural processes can cause severe pain to humans and other living beings.

What is life?

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

After a century discussing about the origin of life, we are not closer to knowing what did happen. In the mid-twentieth century, when Stanley Lloyd Miller performed the famous experiment where he applied energy to a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water, and obtained amino acids, scientists announced the imminent manufacture of artificial life in the laboratory. Such estimates are often too optimistic. In this case they were.

The first question to be solved here is what is meant by being alive. If we consider the problem carefully, we’ll find beings that are clearly alive and others that definitely are not. Plants, animals and ourselves are alive. Stones, distilled water, carbon dioxide, are not. In these cases deciding is no trouble. When Antony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms (yeast, infusorians, bacteria, spermatozoa and red blood cells) nobody doubted that they are alive. But things are not always so simple.

Science is a tool

Francis Bacon

The utopia The New Atlantis, written by Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Galileo and pioneer of modern philosophy of science, describes a perfect society that would automatically arise from the practice of science, which the inhabitants of the island of Bensalem have made the basis of their society and its government. Like many of his encyclopedic followers, who a century later created the myth of indefinite progress, Bacon believed that science in the future will save man and solve all human problems, opening the way to a paradise on Earth.

This mistake is common. Tools are often confused with their good uses, forgetting that the same tools can also be misused. Let’s look at a few examples, among the thousands that could be cited:

Science, ethics and democracy

John Boyne’s novel, The boy in the striped pajamas (2007) is about the slaughter in the gas chamber in the Nazi concentration camps. The book ends thus:

Of course all this happened a long time ago and nothing like that could ever happen again.

Not in this day and age.

Is this true? Those things can never happen again?

I think this ending is not right. First, it’s not true that it all happened a long time ago. Seventy years is not a long time for historic events. Second, it’s not true that those things could never happen again. Have we forgotten the Ruanda massacres in the nineties?

But perhaps the author meant that those things can never happen again in Europe. Have we forgotten the Srebrenica massacre and the Sarajevo tragedy, also in the nineties?

Or perhaps he means that these things cannot happen in a democratic country. Has he forgotten that Hitler reached power after a democratic election? Has he forgotten that the Athenian democracy was discredited for millennia by their death sentence against Socrates, the result of a secret vote that took place just after the restoration of democracy, which followed the oligarchy imposed by Sparta after the Peloponnesian war?

The multiverse does not solve the fine tuning problem

Atheists use the multiverse theories to escape the need to accept God’s existence as the cause of a universe which seems to have been designed to make life possible (fine tuning). While they do this, they are contradicting one of their most beloved arguments against God’s existence, which they have been using since the nineteenth century. This one:

The theist hypothesis offers an explanation for the origin of the world based on two entities: God and the universe.

The atheist hypothesis only needs a single entity: the universe.

Ergo Occam’s razor favors the atheistic explanation.

As it is well known, the lex parsimoniae, also called Occam’s razor, one of the fundaments of the scientific method, asserts that, between two competitive theories, we must prefer that one with the fewest entities (or assumptions).

But the current situation is quite the opposite. The alternative to the theist hypothesis is no longer a single entity, the universe, but rather many (between 10⁵⁰⁰ and an infinity of universes). The previous argument must therefore be re-written thus:

Atheist arguments are still in the nineteenth century while theists have modernized

Interview with Manuel Alfonseca published in http://www.religionenlibertad.com/los-ateos-siguen-con-argumentos-del-siglo-xix-pero-los-teistas-38204.htm

Manuel Alfonseca was born in Madrid in 1946. He is the son of the painter and sculptor Manuel Alfonseca (Santana), is a doctor in Telecommunication Engineering and a Computer Scientist, has been a full professor, and is currently a honorary professor at the Universidad Autónoma of Madrid. 

His great gift is his ability to popularize science and express himself clearly, which has led him, not only to teaching and science, but also to the literary world (he has published fantasy, science fiction and historical novels). His work makes a bridge between "science" and "humanities", attested in his blog on popular science and his personal website. Now, in addition, he is one of the co-editors (along with Francisco-José Soler-Gil) of an unusual work for its breadth and ease of comprehension: 60 preguntas sobre ciencia y fe respondidas por 26 profesores de universidad (60 questions on science and faith answered by 26 professors). Without getting into the 60 questions, we shall try to explore the science-faith dialogue with a few questions, while strongly recommending the book to those who seek answers to the others.

Hallucinations

In a paper (Visions for all) published in its April 7th 2012 issue, Science News summarizes the work of Tanya Luhrmann about the God experiences that many people claim to have felt. After four years of research, the anthropologist believes that she has proved the surprising conclusion that normal people can have hallucinations. But since hallucinations are common in diseases like schizophrenia and psychosis, she predicts that people who have many of these experiences are likely to end up psychotic. In particular, the article says, it is possible that Joan of Arc would have become psychotic if the British had not burned her.

This argumentation has a hidden premise. If we make it explicit, the associated reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Dawkins Delusion

Richard Dawkins

This is my analysis of Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion (2006). I'll start by signaling a couple of inconsistencies. There are many more, but detailing all would require a book size.

·         In chapter 3, Dawkins debunks the theistic argument of the admired religious scientists (how can you not believe in God, when so many admired scientists did believe?). I agree with him, this argument has no weight. But then, why does he use once and again the argument of the admired atheistic scientists? One half of chapter 1 is dedicated to tell us that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. In chapter 2 he asserts, more than once, that most of the founding fathers of the United States were atheists, although few of them dared to confess it publicly. (I suppose that's why they printed In God we trust in their paper currency). He also says that Thomas Huxley, who invented the word agnostic to classify himself, must have really been an atheist, although he never made it public, submitting to the demands of his time. He admits that Newton... did indeed claim to be religious. So did almost everybody [in his time]. A little more, and he would have also said that Newton was another hidden atheist.

The Grand Design

In 2010, the media gave a lot of coverage to a book on popular science by Stephen Hawking and L.Mlodinow, The Grand Design. I think it is time to make a few comments, which I am going to introduce by means of quotations of the book:

·         Philosophy is dead… Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

These words appear at the beginning of the first chapter. Although most of the book is just popular science, or history of science, it is ironical that the only original contribution (model-dependent realism) is purely philosophical.

·         Objective reality is unknowable, therefore we cannot assume it exists... Only the results of observations and the model we build to explain them exist... Every model is valid (real) in its own field of application... Two models with the same explaining power are equally valid... Ptolemy's model is as valid as Copernicus's... Their only difference is the fact that the second is simpler than the first.

The preceding text is not a literal quotation, but a summarized paraphrase of chapter 3, which describes model-dependent realism, the original contribution of the book (with Berkeley's permission). The authors forget that Copernicanism predicted correctly the stellar parallax, which cannot be explained in Ptolemy's. In the same chapter, Hawking and Mlodinow discard the steady state cosmological theory because it is unable to explain certain observations on the universe. Shouldn't they do the same with Ptolemy's?