“… invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features we see in this one is just as ad hoc as invoking
an unseen Creator.”, Paul Davies, physicist
George Rebane
On these pages I have long advocated intelligent design (ID) as the most compelling idea that unifies science and certain philosophies/religions (here). A strong supportive argument for ID has been the idea that our universe is really a massive running program, that all that we are and perceive is the result of an ongoing cosmic computation. Physicists have posited this as a very plausible explanation of how things work when they look at matter, energy, and even time at the smallest of scales.
A stumbling block for the universe as a running program has been that no one was able to grapple with the configuration of such a humungus piece of code that could compute an entire universe right down to the interaction of the most basic pieces of what is called the Standard Model (which recently received additional credibility with the observation of the Higgs particle in the CERN super collider in Geneva). However, it now looks like this difficulty has also been overcome with the discovery of a very simple and short piece of code that can compute this and all logical universes.
Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced a simple ten-line code snippet to TEDx audiences recently that indeed can optimally compute the universe. He opened with –
“I will talk about the simplest explanation of the universe. The universe is following strange rules. Einstein’s relativity. Planck’s quantum physics. But the universe may be even stranger than you think. And even simpler than you think.” (the rest of the transcript and video is here)
This topic is difficult for secular humanists to consider primarily because it avoids the spot creation explanation of religious fundamentalists, explains all that science has observed, and yet allows for a “Great Programmer”, Intelligent Designer, or, if you will, God. So the secular humanists’ answer is to simply lump ID as another sneaky way to impose fundamentalist creationism on society, and then dismiss the whole thing out of hand. Next case please.
Today it looks like denying ID – as a distinct third alternative to explain what is – the forum of reasonable debate co-locates the secularists with primitives who also deny science in its core principles – Occam and falsifiability.
[Addendum] I received the following as a comment from Dr Wayne Hullett, who had trouble getting TypePad to accept it as such. Hullett’s cogent argument disputes my above proposition regarding the necessity for a Great Programmer, and expands it in a ‘scentless direction’ by re-introducing the turtles all the way up thesis which has also been covered in these pages. I have therefore included his comment (italicized) as an appropriate addendum to this post, and will offer my response later.
Re George 0639: The Discovery Institute’s stated purpose (http://www.discovery.org/about.php) is the advocacy and reinvigoration of theistic principles and everything that the ID crowd does there, including Meyer, Behe and Dembski has that agenda in mind. It is from that mindset that Meyer’s “insufficient probabilistic resources” argument flows.
Kauffman, while at the Santa Fe Institute, in “At Home in the Universe”, gives convincing arguments that life emerges almost certainly from natural processes, and there has been recent experimental support for his ideas. Like us, Kauffman is just trying to understand how things work and how they got to be the way they are, while Meyer et al have a theistic agenda to advance. DI’s Wedge Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) as well as their political actions lead me to believe that they are using ID as a trojan horse to get Creationism taught in schools.
I do not rule out the possibility that our universe is a simulation, and would not be surprised or alarmed to find out that that is the case. But to think that some “great programmer” is intervening to goose the system toward some preferred path is to assume the existence of said GP. That is just belief without evidence, i.e. religion. And, according to Kauffman, there is no necessity for such intervention.
I do not see how the invocation of the good Sir William makes the simulated universe hypothesis the simplest explanation of the observed data. If we are simulated, then there must exist a substrate in which the “great computer” exists (a super universe?), and all the questions that we have about our origins and how our universe works simply become the same questions about the super universe. (Is there a super multiverse? Is the super universe itself simulated? Is it computers all the way up?) in addition, there are then the questions about the details of the Great Computer and the program it is running. Where is the simplification? Yes, we are groping in the dark now, with various unpalatable theories like multiverses proposed as possible explanations, but if we continue using scientific principles, ie not using the God hypothesis, I think we will eventually emerge from the woods into the (possibly simulated) light. The God hypothesis is always a temptation, especially for those who give up too early and invoke it.
I am all for open, evidence-based scientific enquiry, but we need to be aware when some group is using conclusion-based reasoning to advance it’s own unsubstantiated belief system, especially when its ultimate end is totalitarianism.
[Addendum] I received the following as a comment from Dr Wayne Hullett, who had trouble getting TypePad to accept it as such. Hullett’s cogent argument disputes my above argument regarding the necessity for a Great Programmer, and expands is in a ‘scentless direction’ by re-introducing the turtles all the way up thesis which I have covered in these pages. I have therefore included his comment (italicized) as an appropriate addendum to this post.
Re George 0639: The Discovery Institute’s stated purpose (http://www.discovery.org/about.php) is the advocacy and reinvigoration of theistic principles and everything that the ID crowd does there, including Meyer, Behe and Dembski has that agenda in mind. It is from that mindset that Meyer’s “insufficient probabilistic resources” argument flows.
Kauffman, while at the Santa Fe Institute, in “At Home in the Universe”, gives convincing arguments that life emerges almost certainly from natural processes, and there has been recent experimental support for his ideas. Like us, Kauffman is just trying to understand how things work and how they got to be the way they are, while Meyer et al have a theistic agenda to advance. DI’s Wedge Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) as well as their political actions lead me to believe that they are using ID as a trojan horse to get Creationism taught in schools.
I do not rule out the possibility that our universe is a simulation, and would not be surprised or alarmed to find out that that is the case. But to think that some “great programmer” is intervening to goose the system toward some preferred path is to assume the existence of said GP. That is just belief without evidence, i.e. religion. And, according to Kauffman, there is no necessity for such intervention.
I do not see how the invocation of the good Sir William makes the simulated universe hypothesis the simplest explanation of the observed data. If we are simulated, then there must exist a substrate in which the “great computer” exists (a super universe?), and all the questions that we have about our origins and how our universe works simply become the same questions about the super universe. (Is there a super multiverse? Is the super universe itself simulated? Is it computers all the way up?) in addition, there are then the questions about the details of the Great Computer and the program it is running. Where is the simplification? Yes, we are groping in the dark now, with various unpalatable theories like multiverses proposed as possible explanations, but if we continue using scientific principles, ie not using the God hypothesis, I think we will eventually emerge from the woods into the (possibly simulated) light. The God hypothesis is always a temptation, especially for those who give up too early and invoke it.
I am all for open, evidence-based scientific enquiry, but we need to be aware when some group is using conclusion-based reasoning to advance it’s own unsubstantiated belief system, especially when its ultimate end is totalitarianism.
[Addendum2] With apologies for not providing a longer and more unified response to the above addendum by Dr Hullett, I invite extending the discussion of its points by offering a short compendium of propositions that I hold to be true.
1. Man cannot yet (ever?) think all possible thoughts. And all men cannot even think all thoughts that are possible to think today. I cannot think all possible thoughts that are thought today.
2. Being thought-limited gives rise to a ‘belief horizon’ – where the What and How end and meet the teleological Why. The belief horizon is dynamic, and recedes as our knowledge increases. Beyond the belief horizon resides the mystery of the Why. We seem to be hardwired to ask that question as we are to supply an answer.
3. Positing the mystery of a Great Programmer as part of that horizon is a simplification beyond that offered by such complexifications as a multiverse of infinite numbered universes. Most certainly Occam saw the GP as a simplifica
tion without even invoking the notion of a belief horizon.
4. Perhaps we don’t agree (or know?) how to ascribe simplicity to notions considered in such conversations. I am open to an operational definition of simplicity that allows a more objective comparison than is evinced in the comments to date.
5. What is a theory but a cohesive framework that explains past observations/experiences, and that is also useful for reliable predictions of future events. Such future events may include additional discoveries about/from the past, in addition to new experiments fashioned specifically to test the power (comprehensive range) of the theory. Failing such predictions, the theory may be weakened or completely falsified.
6. Given #1, a Theory of Everything is a display of maximum hubris by today’s science. Hypothesizing the encompass of all existence most certainly dismisses the teleology of the universe, and with it the notion of a belief horizon.
7. In my own case, I am a Bayesian with a non-monotonic belief system or credo. Therefore all of my beliefs are falsifiable (in the sense that there may yet be arguments that will make me change my mind), and as simple as I can make them.
8. Yes, it could be computers (turtles) all the way up instead. I can’t rule that out, but my mind boggles at the concept. Maybe as I learn more, my mind will not boggle prematurely.
[Addendum3] Here’s a report and a comment stream that relates to ID from a Mormon Transhumanism perspective that appeared in 10apr13 post on Ray Kurzweil’s Accelerating Intelligence blog.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment