arndt@apple.DEC (07/09/85)
I disagree with a posting by beth.
Beth says the 'order' we see in the universe is a function of our attempts
to see it.
"*We've* set up an 'order' with the one and only purpose of
describing the universe. So it's no surprise that the universe appears
ordered. But it's humans that have IMPOSED THE MATHEMATICAL ORDER ON THE
UNIVERSE, not a supernatural force. (italics mine)"
I think she doesn't understand what Heisenberg said. I'm not at all sure what,
"And if you look at things without the preconceived (very human) notions of
physics, the universe *does* seem pretty random." means???
The 'notions' of physics that are 'preconceived' appear to be very few if not
only one - that there IS order (symmetry) in the universe which makes thinking
and speaking about it possible! She appears to be saying is that if there
is 'order', we can't really tell. Why couldn't one just as rationally say
that if one didn't believe in the 'laws' of order coming from a GUT theory
(Superforce) one could see 'order' coming from a metaphysical source? I
mean since, according to her thinking, 'order' is a product of our minds
(scientific solipsism?) why are not metaphysical answers just as valid?
Besides, science rejects her interpretation of what it is scientists are
doing. That is, imposing order.
This is a common argument against 'design' used by those who reject a
'designer' behind it all. (you know who)
May I quote from Paul Davies in SUPERFORCE - he's not a Christian and does
believe in evolution and not in God (see his GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS).
Speaking of the argument Beth uses:
"(that) we impose order on the world to make sense of it. The point here
is that the human mind is most adept at finding patterns amid a tangle of
data, a quality which presumably confers evolutionary advantages on us."
"Nevertheless, the argument is not wholly convincing when applied to science.
There are objective ways of determining the existence of order in a physical
system. The order of living organisms, for example, is clearly not a figment
of our imagination. When it comes to fundamental physics, the laws of nature
find expression in mathematical structures which are often known to
mathematicians well in advance of their application to the real world. The
mathematical description is not simply invented to give a tidy mathematical
description of nature. Often the fit between the world and a particular
mathematical structure comes as a complete surprise. The mathematical order
EMERGES as the physical system is analysed."
"A good example is provided by the eleven-dimensional description of the
forces of nature. The mathematical 'miracle' that the same laws which
govern the forces can be expressed in terms of some previously obscure
geometrical properties of a multidimensional space must be considered
amazing. The order that is being revealed here has not been imposed, but
has emerged from lengthy mathematical analysis."
"No physicist would seriously believe that his subject matter was in fact
a disorderly and meaningless mess, and that the laws of physics represented
no real advance of our understanding. It would be ludicrous to suppose
that all science is merely an artifical invention of the mind bearing no
more relation to reality than the constellation of Pisces bears to real fish."
p 237.
Regards,
Ken Arndtbeth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/11/85)
"Who is more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows the fool?" -- Obiwan Kenobe Yet here I am replying to Arndt. I must be slipping.... From: arndt@apple.DEC, Message-ID: <3047@decwrl.UUCP>: >I disagree with a posting by beth. > >Beth says the 'order' we see in the universe is a function of our attempts >to see it. > > "*We've* set up an 'order' with the one and only purpose of >describing the universe. So it's no surprise that the universe appears >ordered. But it's humans that have IMPOSED THE MATHEMATICAL ORDER ON THE >UNIVERSE, not a supernatural force. (italics mine)" > >[...] > >The 'notions' of physics that are 'preconceived' appear to be very few if not >only one - that there IS order (symmetry) in the universe which makes thinking >and speaking about it possible! She appears to be saying is that if there >is 'order', we can't really tell. Actually, I was trying a different way of refuting the "design implies a designer" argument (all the clear, straightforward, effective ways are being ignored :-)). I was basically rephrasing the question "if a tree falls in the forest ...?". The real question there is "is it 'sound' because the air is being compressed in certain ways at certain frequen- cies, or is it 'sound' because those waves are being perceived?" My question is "is the universe 'ordered' because of the way it functions, or is it 'ordered' because humans perceive patterns in it?" I don't recall people marvelling at the 'order' of the universe until they set up theories that facilitated their understanding of it. Primitive people with no 'laws of physics' don't sit around marvelling at how ordered the universe is - in fact, they make up gods to explain how UNordered things are(!). For that matter, we ourselves don't sit around marvelling at how 'ordered' the weather patterns are. But I suspect that if we ever identify connections that enable us to predict the weather, eventually somebody's gonna marvel at the connections and say "isn't it wonderful the order that exists in weather patterns - they must have been designed". Which makes me think that "it's 'ordered' because humans perceive patterns in it". Which, if true, would invalidate the statement "the order that exists in the universe implies an intelligent supernatural creator of the universe" - it does imply an intelligent creator, but a *natural* (i.e. human) creator of the *order*, not a creator of the universe. Hell, I've gotta do SOMEthing all evening.... -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/16/85)
> [Beth Christy] > I don't recall > people marvelling at the 'order' of the universe until they set up > theories that facilitated their understanding of it. Primitive people > with no 'laws of physics' don't sit around marvelling at how ordered the > universe is - in fact, they make up gods to explain how UNordered things > are(!). A worthy hypothesis, and subject to test. So let's test it. Presumably you consider the God of the Bible one of those invented to explain disorder and not order. Reading Psalm 104, we find a counterexample to (and hence disproof of) the hypothesis: the psalmist marvels at, and attributes the *order* of the creation to his God. Beth, you've fallen into the trap (just like creationists who criticize evolution when they don't understand what it is) of *disproving* something you apparently know little about, in this case making unsupportable statements easily found to be false by a little inspection. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/22/85)
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois), Message-ID: <1285@uwmacc.UUCP>: >> [Beth Christy] >> I don't recall >> people marvelling at the 'order' of the universe until they set up >> theories that facilitated their understanding of it. Primitive people >> with no 'laws of physics' don't sit around marvelling at how ordered the >> universe is - in fact, they make up gods to explain how UNordered things >> are(!). > >A worthy hypothesis, and subject to test. So let's test it. > >Presumably you consider the God of the Bible one of those invented to >explain disorder and not order. On the contrary, I had no such intention. I was thinking more of the gods of sun and rain and thunder and etc. that primitive tribes in Africa, South America and Australia have worshiped. >Reading Psalm 104, we find a >counterexample to (and hence disproof of) the hypothesis: the psalmist >marvels at, and attributes the *order* of the creation to his God. > >Beth, you've fallen into the trap (just like creationists who criticize >evolution when they don't understand what it is) of *disproving* >something you apparently know little about, in this case making >unsupportable statements easily found to be false by a little >inspection. Your "little inspection" could only have proved that not all gods are invented to explain disorder. It could not prove that no gods are. I know for a fact (although I've no references handy) that many primitive tribes have worshiped gods that we don't recognize, and that anthropologists have concluded that the "gods" were created to explain natural events that the tribes were unable to comprehend otherwise. But as long as we're here, I might as well point out that, unless you're claiming that the author of Psalm 104 is the *creator* of the concept of the biblical god, your "little inspection" didn't even prove that the god of the Bible wasn't created to explain disorder. It merely demonstrated that people can later on attribute order and design to said god. Which I don't argue in the least, since such attributions are why we're talking about this stuff in the first place. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.