The Universe Itself May Be Unnatural

Local realism is dead and the universe only makes sense if you look at it as a program. Seth Lloyd's book Programming the Universe talks about this and makes some really good points. The problem here is, people have turned materialism into a religious belief. So everything must fit into a materialist box even though it makes no sense.

When it comes to the physical Universe, we fully expect things obeying the same fundamental laws to unfold in similar fashions, and to be comparable to one another today. By the same token, if they obey vastly different rules, we expect them to be different from one another today. If aspects of the Universe that should be very different turn out to be similar, we call this a "coincidence problem." If aspects that we expect should be similar turn out to be very different, we call that a "hierarchy problem." In general, these fine-tuning problems are puzzles that either have a natural explanation for why these coincidences or hierarchies exist, or we have to face the most dissatisfying solution we could ask for: the Universe is simply unnatural.

www.forbes.com...

If you look at the universe as a program, many of these things just make sense. If you look at the computer code of a website, you will not see a one to one correspondence with what you see on the website.

This is because computer code is written in a language with values and symbols that cause a certain output to occur on the website but it would make no sense if you tried to say everything in the code has to correspond with what you see on the website. Here's a simple Hello World code written in Java.

public class HelloWorld
[
public static void main(String[] args) [
System.out.println("Hello World!");
]
]

The point is, there's values we see in the laws of physics that make sense when you look at it as values put in place to execute a program not to naturally give rise to the universe. Here's more:

There are lots of examples of these fine-tuning problems in the Universe, including the facts that:

The Universe has similar amounts of dark matter and dark energy today, which is a coincidence problem.

The fact that the masses of the fundamental particles are ~10^17-10^23 orders of magnitude lower than the Planck mass, which is a hierarchy problem.

The fact that the spatial curvature of the Universe is indistinguishable from 0, which is a coincidence problem.

The fact that the strong interactions exhibit no CP-violation whereas the weak ones do, a hierarchy problem where a particular rate is suppressed by a factor of a billion or more from what's expected.

And the fact that the neutrino mass fraction, the normal matter mass fraction, and the dark matter mass fraction are all within 2 orders of magnitude, another coincidence problem.

www.forbes.com...

Don't forget the vacuum catastrophe and the axis of evil in Cosmology.

a reply to: neoholographic

Or what if it's created by a powerful Cosmic Entity (Not necessarily God, but a superpowerful being)

I think such scenarios are covered in the Marvel Comics (Well the ones involving Cosmic Entities).

silicone implant?

That code example is for the simplest sequential program possible. If you were to do something like simulating the universe with an infinitely powerful supercomputer, you would have something like Navier-Stokes equations:

en.wikipedia.org...

These would split the universe up into a super fine grid of sample points, way smaller than even a quark. Then every point would be evaluated simultanenously. But that wouldn't model the slowdown of time in areas of high mass or velocity.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

(Not necessarily God, but a superpowerful being)

GOD is often described as a superpowerfull being


but nice side step you dont want to piss off the atheists and science fanboys

If aspects of the Universe that should be very different turn out to be similar, we call this a "coincidence problem." If aspects that we expect should be similar turn out to be very different, we call that a "hierarchy problem."

That's the thing about reality: it's fine in practice, but it would never work in theory.

I saw this article the other day. What I find most amazing are the outlandish possible causes people try to come up with to explain the fine tuning we see in the universe. The explanations sounds science-y (and scientism is indeed prevelant in our western culture) but they are more fiction than fact. They are just avoiding the truth that many of us see so plainly.

God is a very reasonable explanation for fine-tuning. Some people refuse to consider it, so they do some insane mental gymnastics to avoid it.

Not only is God a reasonable explanation for fine tuning, I believe He is the only reasonable explanation.

Thanks for posting the article - interesting stuff.

a reply to: VegHead

Yes, God is always a great explanation for things you can't otherwise explain. Doesn't make it a correct explanation though.

God used to be the explanation for all sorts of things from weather to sickness to the sun rising and setting when we didn't have an explanation for those things either.

Now that we do, God has had his duties reduced to simply being a voice in people's heads now and then. Well, that and the occasional appearance on a piece of toast or water stain somewhere.

a reply to: mOjOm

I understand what you are saying ... the "God of the gaps" issue. But both sides are equally guilty of this. Materialists often assume some future, yet unknown, discovery will explain everything.

Someone has tinkered with the physics... whether you think that is God or an intelligent computer programmer or something else, the fine tuning issue demands an answer. It's a fascinating thing. But to assume future science will find an answer is groundless. (I know, you might say my belief in God is groundless too... but I'd argue that my faith based not only on personal experience but also reason and objective evidence.)

So, anyway... I'm saying you make a fair point. Although the toast comment was pretty needlessly snarky.

originally posted by: VegHead
I saw this article the other day. What I find most amazing are the outlandish possible causes people try to come up with to explain the fine tuning we see in the universe. The explanations sounds science-y (and scientism is indeed prevelant in our western culture) but they are more fiction than fact. They are just avoiding the truth that many of us see so plainly.

God is a very reasonable explanation for fine-tuning. Some people refuse to consider it, so they do some insane mental gymnastics to avoid it.

Not only is God a reasonable explanation for fine tuning, I believe He is the only reasonable explanation.

Thanks for posting the article - interesting stuff.

I quoted your whole piece. We need no thoughts of God in any of this business. From elementary nature up through the animals we have one tried and true constant: Survival of the fittest. What you don't eat, eats you. In a mechanical universe run according to what we know about physics, the same law applies. Black holes are one example, probably something else eats them in some fashion.

a reply to: VegHead

Why is future science finding an answer groundless??? Our past science has found out many answers which I think provide good grounds to expect our future science to do the same.

The way I see it, Science provides solid, repeatable, demonstrable answers for our natural world. That is the goal of it essentially and that's it. To provide answers which can be testable and reliable to anyone. That's what makes it so nice and useful is that it's available to anyone regardless of what group or anything you belong to. Like math, it just is what it is and if you follow the steps correctly you'll get the same answers regardless of what you believe.

That doesn't mean it will answer everything however. It's ability is to answer things in the natural world first of all. The natural world however has limits and rules to govern it. So that's what it's trying to figure out.

Religion however has gone very paranormal and supernatural as times have changed and science has dominated. Religion is being kept alive by being the place of miracles and magic and things and powers outside our natural world. Because that is the only place left where it's safe from the grip of science. Once science figures out the mechanics behind something supernatural it is no longer supernatural anymore and becomes just another system which can be explained by natural processes. Out of all the things that were thought to be magic in times past, not one of them has actually turned out to be actual magic yet.

Of course there are still plenty of holes and answered questions we have yet to solve. Science certainly hasn't got an answer for it all yet and it might not ever. But pointing at the holes doesn't mean you can just insert god or magic in to them. Even if one day all of science fell apart and we had to start over again it still wouldn't mean it's ok to just insert magic. Unless of course you have proven Magic first.

BTW, what objective evidence are you talking about in regards to your faith?? The logic might be interesting as well if you'd like to add that too. The personal experience doesn't matter since that's personal and does no good for anyone other than you and trying to object to it or agree with it as a outside party is pointless anyway.

a reply to: neoholographic

The closer we get to a technological or theological singularity the more we will imagine a 'created' universe.

Basically, the further our consciousness towards the universe becomes the more we understand it.
The more we understand it the closer we become to conveying or translating it to not only ourselves, but others.
It then becomes as simple to us as math, and our ego's and bullheadedness as humans cannot truly comprehend that the universe is natural after all, and always has been.

Once we know all, we have a knack to go further, and that'll be, a god.

This reminds me of an old movie "Creator" and some of Peter O'Toole's lines.

"You know, Boris, when science finally peers over the crest of the mountain, it will find that religion has been sitting there all along. "

"I tell you Sid, that one of these days we'll look in to our microscope and find ourselves staring right into God's eyes, and the first one who blinks is going to lose his testicles."

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: neoholographic

Or what if it's created by a powerful Cosmic Entity (Not necessarily God, but a superpowerful being)

I think such scenarios are covered in the Marvel Comics (Well the ones involving Cosmic Entities).

The Beyonder!
The Monitor!...

.... Anti-Monitor!

a reply to: mOjOm

I usually avoid these types of discussions because I can try to convince you of my beliefs and you can try to convince me of yours, but ultimately neither of us will succeed in convincing the other. We could all benefit from more open-mindedness and skepticism, true skepticism… Christians like myself included.

OK, you asked what I consider to be evidence supporting my faith. Mountains of books and articles have been written on this topic – and I know I couldn’t do these arguments justice here on a post on a message board (or anywhere else probably – I’m not the most eloquent person). But I appreciate that you asked and I assume you are genuine in your curiosity to hear where I am coming from. So I’ll highlight what, in my mind, has been compelling objective evidence to support my beliefs…. I imagine you are familiar with most of these, you probably just disagree with my conclusions. So in no particular order…

-the existence of objective moral values
-origins of information (such as DNA)
-issues surrounding abiogenesis
-cosmological arguments
- origins of consciousness
-fine-tuning of the universe

There are more but you get the idea. I imagine you, and many atheists here on ATS, have answers at the ready for each of these. And some are very good and thoughtful responses. But I don’t find them to be more compelling or more reasonable than the conclusions that these all point to the reality of God.

Oh, btw, there are also a list of reasons/evidence that I believe that Jesus was who he said He was and His resurrection was the ultimate proof. The minimal facts approach by Gary Habermas, for example, is a very reasonable approach to evidential support of the resurrection. Also corroborating evidence regarding Jesus with secular ancient writings (Tacitus, Thallus, Celsus, Phlegon, etc.)

Mind you, this is evidence supporting a conclusion… this isn’t proof. I believe the conclusion is that a Christian faith is reasonable and and the evidence is compelling… especially as a cumulative case. That combined with my personal experiences (which are certainly not objective) are the basis for my faith. I don’t know if evidence alone would have been enough for me, but it opened my heart and my mind. Many personal experiences have firmly confirmed my faith, and that was probably even more personally persuasive than the evidence. (But again, personal experience is just that… personal and pretty subjective in interpretation even if it feels absolutely like rock solid proof to the individual.)

Sorry for the long and sloppy post and then I have to run. Family is heading out on a road trip early in the morning so I won’t be posting on ATS for a few days. Most of the above is pretty off topic and I apologize to the OP if he (she?) feels I derailed this thread. I hope you can forgive me… but even the name of the thread/article suggests that there is something unnatural our universe. I agree… it’s supernatural.

OK… the Jesus Freak is leaving the party. Thanks for listening.

a reply to: VegHead

About Jesus, even if he resurrected a friend and himself, doesn't mean God exist. It just means, if this is true, that he was able to grasp something 99,99% of us can't. He also said that we were all alike, including himself. The christians apparently pretend he was the son of God, albeit he himself contradict this by saying we all are. Also it's funny that christians refer to God as a HE, why not a SHE? it's laughable that god has a gender. The very least would be to make it gender neutral, a spiritual being of some sort.

Now, a logical reason why God might exist is, because a beginning to life/universe makes no sense. Why? because we have to agree that at one point there was nothing, and that is impossible in my book. So therefore the universe always existed. But why would the universe always existed, is this a coincidence? i believe there is a intelligence behind it that always been there. Time do not exist, it makes no sense from the perspective of an eternal being. Think about it, what is time if there was no beginning? what would be the reference?

originally posted by: VegHead

Not only is God a reasonable explanation for fine tuning

So who created this god that is capable of creating universes? Another god? And so on?

You must see how this explanation doesn't really take us anywhere - it's a scientific and philosophical dead end.

a reply to: Conan The Usurper

Also it's funny that christians refer to God as a HE, why not a SHE? it's laughable that god has a gender.

egypt was matriarchal and the abrahamic faiths needed someone to blame, women figuratively got it.

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke

"So who created this god that is capable of creating universes? Another god? And so on? "

if God exist, no one created it, it has ALWAYS been there. this is a different paradigm, there is no beginning to an eternal being. Time is irrelevant.

And if God exist, it transcends the universe most probably, its consciousness is everywhere at the same time. there is no thing, no place, this being can not be.

a reply to: Conan The Usurper

A similar argument can be raised for the universe "coming from nothing " or just recycling itself. You're not the first or the last who while say this. Arguing about this is like dividing by zero. Let's not worry about the absolute origin or end of either god or the universe and focus on what's in between those extremes.