Let's say life is produced in at least one box. What would it be correct for that life to reason? Imagine the lifeforms realised that there was only one parameter, and that the probability of it being sentient was 1 in a billion. Does this probability tell it anything about the initial conditions? Without understanding anything about the mechanism that produced them, they cannot infer a probability and therefore infer that something must have been skewed. What if in my box making machine that parameter is always set to the "correct" value? What if it's 50:50 for a "correct" and "incorrect" value? Well there's no way to know. The only way to experiment on this would be to witness several such creations, but we have defined that as impossible.
Is it even possible for them to correctly recognise the parameters? Think about our universe for a second, and the infinite number of ways it could vary. What about if gravity turned off every minute for just a tenth of a second? What if there was an extra fundamental force? My point is, all our knowledge of reality and what it is like, stems from our observations and subsequent analysis of it. Without actually testing anything about the parameters of the box making machine, they should be careful making statements about it based on their universe. Naturally, the same applies in our universe.
But can't we use our intuition? Well how does intuition about reality form? Humans are pattern recognisers, by familiarising ourselves with a set of causes and effects, we begin to recognise the patterns. From this we infer a mechanism, an inference to the best explanation. Our brains are colossal and amazing, truly, the fact we regularly make sense of such complicated and noisy data is astounding. However, we can get carried away and over-apply it. At the conclusion of the cosmological argument, many conclude that a personal, all powerful deity is the most intuitive cause. I would say that the origins of the universe and whether anything else exists is no question suitable for our everyday intuition or emotion. If you want to derive a God from what you feel is correct, you need to take the assumption that your feelings are an authority. I am not willing to take this unnecessary assumption, and the principle of Occam's razor would agree with me. Anyway, life has probably given you enough examples of where your feeling have been wrong, however decent they are as an everyday heuristic.
Back to this example, I am the creator of the boxes, I am the box making machine, but there is no way for the life form to know this. The life form could equally imagine an upper-universe (that's where I, the creator live), where I do not exist. They could imagine an upper-universe where I have three eyes. They could imagine a universe where I am a tea-pot. To eliminate me completely would be a correct usage of Occam's razor. If two theories produce the same outcomes, then the one with the least assumptions should remain. To see this, start with me; then simplify me, producing identical consequences. For example, I have one eye, I have no mouth... Until I am just a single statement, their universe is created. I am unnecessary and untestable. Notice that they would be incorrect (absolutely incorrect) to say I don't exist, even if from their viewpoint they were logically correct to eliminate me.
To move our perspective back to our universe (but it equally applies to my fictional one too), consider the two explanations of our universe.
1.The universe began, and it was like this.
2.There is a creator with these set of morals and he began the universe, and it was like this.
Number 1 is uniquely simple, you could argue: "but you've made number 2 look complex with language". And I admit, that it is possible to obfuscate with language, but I will struggle to explain it without. If you can see a hole please say. Perhaps I can try to lay it out plainer:
2a. There is a creator with these set of morals and she began the universe, and it was like this.
2b. There is a creator with this other arbitrary set of morals and he began the universe, and it was like this.
They are all equivalently plausible, even if they are a little facetious. Perhaps you could agree the following is one less assumption.
3. There is a creator and he began the universe, and it was like this.
If you keep eliminating parts, you find you are left with 1. Again, it's not that it must be true, it's simply all you can assert. Any more detail is both completely baseless and unnecessary.
My point is, there is currently no, and may never be, a way to know about what is outside our box. If we can make no physical statements about what is outside our box, we can't assign probabilities to it. Consequentially (as in by examining the consequences) the simplest explanation is simply that we are, ie we know nothing. All other explanations are at least currently useless and untestable, which is fine to believe in, but don't come telling me you're sure unless you're willing to present decent evidence.
I have seen arguments that go something like this: "The best theory from atheist scientists is to invoke a multiverse. But a multiverse doesn't help because what created that? Therefore, there's a personal God with a son called Jesus." First, presenting a false dichotomy between the multiverse and a Christian God is ridiculous and unnecessary. I would submit that the current best explanation is none at all, to accept that "this reality simply exists" is all we can reasonably conclude from what we know.
So where does a multiverse theory come from? As in, why was it devised? Why did the silly atheist scientists devise it? I would submit that this links back to intuition. This branch of physics, namely theoretical physics is a mathematicians game. Above all, they hold a certain intuitive sense of elegance and simplicity of theories. This is where the multiverse is born, as a nice and intuitive explanation. Do the scientists stop there? Well, the theoretical physicists may but it by no means becomes an established theory until evidence is found. If you will, for now the multiverse theory is just a plaything for mathematicians. It isn't supposed to be an explanation for everything, it's an intuitive and nice explanation for some people. It's easy to believe too, and doesn't over reach. Because there is no evidence for it, it would be stupid to make decisions based on it. Likewise, even if you find God an intuitive explanation, that as evidence is not strong enough to warrant you to change your actions.
But you may say that we still need an ultimate explanation, from the cosmological arguments. But lets do a similar exercise as before.
1. There's an uncreated, sentient, omniscient, just and kind cause called God. This cause produced the universe.
2.There's an uncreated cause. This cause produced the universe.
Which one is preferable logically? I would suggest the second. It makes less assumptions. The explanation is no better by adding sentience, never mind the other attributes, because they both explain it all.
God although not impossible, is either untestable or there is currently insufficient evidence for him. We cannot conclude with any surety from intuition that God is required. We cannot conclude this from a priori logic either, as God is logically superfluous. To you this theory might feel unsatisfactory, but this is no grounds for logical discourse, reality is often cruel, heartless and disconcerting.
No comments:
Post a Comment