Refuting Dawkin's Ultimate 747 argument

[spinoza99]

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a human creates if its brain is a slave to neurons.

[Warren Dew]

Although I don't have a really strong opinion on the ultimate existence of free will, comparing the brain to a computer (as we usually think of computers) surely isn't right. A computer will normally work deterministically and give the same output every time you run it with the same program and input. The brain is full of randomness (probably even some on a quantum level)and flaws, that will make it produce unpredictable and unique results when performing complex calculations.

Most modern computers are not deterministic in this sense. Random variations in things like disk access times can result in variations in the order of execution of different threads, which can then cause large variations in behavior. Most commercial software is designed to minimize the variation, because predictability is an advantage for most software applications, but that's in no way inherent in modern computer operation.

[spinoza99]

This is the called the probabilistic view of life instead of the deterministic view of life. It can be supped up like this:

Determinism:

If
object A encounters stimuli B
then
action X

Probabilism:

If object A encounters stimuli B
then
action x 33%
y 33%
z 33%

You still can't get creativity from a probabilistic worldview. Each action in a probabilstic universe is independent of the one before (stochastic), and each action does not have true knowledge of the action before. Planning and foresight are not possible in the probabilistic universe.

I want to reiterate that we live in a universe where intelligence exists. Intelligence enables humans to create and intelligence enables the universe to be fine-tuned.

[Coito ergo sum]

Spinoza99 - the argument isn't that since you don't know what causes X you don't know what causes Y. The argument is that SINCE you say that Y is too improbable to be caused by chance, and therefore X must have caused it - THEN X must be at least as improbable as Y, and therefore we're stuck with the same problem - where did X come from.

Nobody said - X caused Y, but you don't know what caused X therefore you don't know what caused Y. That's a mischaracterization of the logic. It doesn't matter that we don't know what caused X - we just know that if X caused Y it must be at least as improbable as Y.

That's Dawkins' argument, anyway.

And the problem with Dawkin's so-called logic is that "improbability" is not really a concept that applies to science. It's an intellectual evasion. By "improbable" Dawkins actually means "supernatural." The problem with that is that nothing in science or physics says that a "creator" of THIS universe has to be even remotely supernatural. It merely has to be highly advanced and not presently detectable by our primitive scientific understanding.

I think he's talking about probabilities. The idea is - what's the probability of getting a human if you have a big random explosion of material somewhere? Obviously, we all know that it's 0 or as near to 0 as makes no odds. So, the question is, since there isn't any way that a big explosion caused a human to appear at random - how did it happen?

The answer is, of course - not randomly, but in accordance with universal laws. Like, when you put certain chemicals together in the same vat, they don't behave randomly at all. They form molecular bonds quite regularly, and we can calculate the result of a mixture beforehand.

As I've said many times before, nothing in physics or science precludes the existence of a tremendously advanced intelligence existing in a parallel "membrane" or "bubble" universe that is capable of injecting a monoblock of near-infinitely compressed matter into THIS universe, as nothing more sophisticated than a high-school physics experiment for adolescent other-universe intellects.

Nothing precludes that, yes. But, there are an infinite number of things that aren't precluded.

This hypothesis neatly dissects and destroys Dawkins' "it's turtles all the way down" fallacy.

I don't see it that it does. Not even remotely. The fallacy is in the 747 Gambit in the first place, not in its refutation.

The parameters of an adjacent universe, according to our own primitive cosmological theorizing, need not be remotely like our own, nor would that universe necessary be as young as our own. It could be billions of times older than our own, with evolved intelligences so vastly superior to ours that, as Arthur Clark puts it, their advanced technology would appear to be magic, or dare I say, divine action to us primitive human beings.

Or, it could be a giant bowl of jelly beans.

This does not resolve the "where did that entity come from" infinite regress, but so what? What's under consideration here is how THIS universe came into being, and the potential that intelligent design, or merely intelligent meddling and interference in natural selection, might have occurred.

Dawkins doesn't pretend to solve that regress.

Nobody, not even Dawkins, suggests that there isn't a potential for there to have been an intelligent cause. He's a 6 or something on his atheism scale of 1 to 7. Sure, there is a potential for anything. There is a potential that that we weren't here a moment ago, and that we were poofed into existence with all the appearance of a long history. Santa might also have delivered the universe in his sleigh.

Such an extra-universal intelligence would be entirely "natural" within it's own context while seeming to be supernatural within our context.

And, when there is evidence of that, then there will be a reason to suppose it to be true. Until then, it's pure speculation that isn't even theoretical.

And there's nothing improbable about my hypothesis that isn't equally improbable about any multiple-universe cosmological hypothesis.

Yes there is. There is mathematics and theoretical physics behind the latter.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is the called the probabilistic view of life instead of the deterministic view of life. It can be supped up like this:

Determinism:

If
object A encounters stimuli B
then
action X

Probabilism:

If object A encounters stimuli B
then
action x 33%
y 33%
z 33%

You still can't get creativity from a probabilistic worldview. Each action in a probabilstic universe is independent of the one before (stochastic), and each action does not have true knowledge of the action before. Planning and foresight are not possible in the probabilistic universe.

I want to reiterate that we live in a universe where intelligence exists. Intelligence enables humans to create and intelligence enables the universe to be fine-tuned.

One, it's not an either/or universe. Not everything is "probabalistic."

Two, you don't need "creativity." We have a universe where if you mix certain molecules under the right conditions, they bond in predictable ways to form other molecules. Atoms bond naturally and form molecules, and molecules will likewise link together to form more complex molecules. Planning and foresight is not necessary.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a human creates if its brain is a slave to neurons.

The brain isn't a slave to neurons. The brain is neurons. The brain is made of neurons and glia. Neurons send signals to each other by means of axons (which are parts of neurons). Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses. That's where our consciousness is. Smash the brain with a 16 ton weight, and it's over.

A human creates, for example, by moving his hands and making something, like molding clay into a mug. The brain controls the movements, and is also the source of what we perceive as the will to do it and what we call consciousness.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fine tuning is the theists' most powerful argument?

Wow.

It's a fairly weak and feeble argument, so what does that say about the rest of their arguments?

prove that fine tuning is a weak argument

Because the universe isn't fine tuned, for one thing. It is the way it is. It isn't "tuned" at all.

If the universe was fine tuned for life, there sure isn't very much life in it....if it's tuned for anything, it looks tuned for dark matter.

[Clinton Huxley]

Two, you don't need "creativity." We have a universe where if you mix certain molecules under the right conditions, they bond in predictable ways to form other molecules. Atoms bond naturally and form molecules, and molecules will likewise link together to form more complex molecules. Planning and foresight is not necessary.

Aye, those cunning atoms will just bond together without even reading the manual

[Clinton Huxley]

My question is whether quantum entanglement in the brain might have something to do with, for example, the link between twins that seems to be rather strong.

The "Argument from Deepak Chopra" logical fallacy?

[Coito ergo sum]

My question is whether quantum entanglement in the brain might have something to do with, for example, the link between twins that seems to be rather strong.

The "Argument from Deepak Chopra" logical fallacy?

It's QED - Quantum Erat Demonstrandum. If you use the word "quantum" you prove your argument.

Mystics love the word, and they use it like they use the word "energy."

[MiM]

The how does order come out of it?

Several ways probably. Firstly I didn't mean that the brain is a complete mess. It actually has some order in it also. Secondly, given enough random events they tend to sum up to something fairly deterministic (like getting very close to 500 heads if tossing a coin 1000 times). However this it not always the case. A chaotic system can still yield a very different response from a minimal change in input.

Most modern computers are not deterministic in this sense. Random variations in things like disk access times can result in variations in the order of execution of different threads, which can then cause large variations in behavior. Most commercial software is designed to minimize the variation, because predictability is an advantage for most software applications, but that's in no way inherent in modern computer operation.

That's why I had the "(as we usually think of computers)" in there. And strictly speaking they would still be deterministic, if not for quantum effects that to some degree may effect them too.

[MiM]

There is a potential that that we weren't here a moment ago, and that we were poofed into existence with all the appearance of a long history.

Yes! I am going with this one, Then it's not my fault at al that I got into this discussion.

[Seth]

And there's nothing improbable about my hypothesis that isn't equally improbable about any multiple-universe cosmological hypothesis.

True, but both hypotheses fail because both rely on imagined evidence for the foundation of their world view. We need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of, not on wished-for or imaginary evidence.

Why do we "need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of?" By saying this you imply that the universe(s) and their nature are limited to our world view built on evidence that we know of.

This, of course, is preposterous. The universe(s) are what the universes are, irrespective of our understanding of them, are they not?

I believe we have strong evidence that the Immaterial can design the material, as I've shown in the previous post.

Yes, I think you are correct that the "mind" or "intelligence" is at its core immaterial. The combinations of synaptic responses comprised of the actions of neurotransmitters and electrical potential that make up our consciousness are inadequate to explain our consciousness in my view. We observe the same physical functions in other living creatures that do not "think" as we do, and I don't know if complexity alone is sufficient as the sole explanation for consciousness, although it may be. Thus, I agree that consciousness is immaterial in that it has no physical existence in and of itself, but it is dependent upon some sort of physical structure that permits the retention and processing of data. I do not happen to believe that the only possible combination of physical matter and energy that is capable of storing and processing data in the complex manner required to produce immaterial thought is an organic brain. I think there may be other modes and methods that use inorganic substances and/or energy that can provide the same sort of processing power to create consciousness.

Of course, I don't have an answer for how did something come from nothing, but we need to build a worldview based on the questions we can answer.

Again, why must we do so. I see this limitation as self-imposed and I describe it as a "poverty of imagination." It's one of the common conceits of science that I am highly critical of. The insistence on limiting our investigation to that which we can see, touch, taste and hear seems to me to limit the possibilities far too much. At least in theoretical physics and cosmology, the hypotheses and theories go beyond what we can directly know, and it is that quest for knowledge beyond a "worldview based on questions that we can answer" that truly advances human knowledge in directions other than inward. Science, it appears to me, largely focuses on the smaller and smaller. It seeks to explain the details of what we already know, rather than exploring the things we do not know.

Now this is only a general criticism, and I'm fully aware that cosmologists and theoretical physicists do look outward all the time, thus the very theories that support my own hypothesis of extra-universal intelligence.

But the argument against God is always explained away by calling the concept "supernatural," as if this describes anything at all. The cognitive disconnect I object to in most of these sorts of arguments is that because God is claimed to have supernatural powers, or to be supernatural, by theists, that therefore God must and is, by scientific standards, supernatural, and therefore cannot exist because science holds as a foundational concept that all things have a "naturalistic" explanation, and therefore anything supernatural is imaginary and does not exist.

As I've explained, this line of thinking is what I call the Atheist's Fallacy consisting of circular reasoning built on false premises.

I have presented a plausible explanation for at least some of the phenomena or beliefs that exist regarding a "supreme being" or "god" that does not require anything remotely supernatural. But rather than examine the hypothesis for logical and scientific validity, it's simply discarded, as you do, by saying it's outside the "worldview based on questions we can answer," as if that it's even remotely logical and scientific reasoning to reject a hypothesis simply because there is no present method of falsifying it.

But this sort of hand-waving rejection does exactly what you're doing, which is to imply that the universe is somehow limited to our understanding of it, and that we cannot go beyond our present scientific understanding because it's not "scientific" to even speculate about that which we cannot yet detect, quantify and explain. Again, this is a poverty of imagination that's rife at least in these sorts of fora.

It does not follow: you can't explain how something came from nothing, therefore atheism, nor does it follow you can't explain how something came from nothing, therefore God

That's precisely what I'm saying.

At the same time, Dawkins' failure is that he's using the "turtles all the way down" canard to evade the discussion of origins in THIS universe, and to discard the notion of God by using a fallacious argument about the improbability of ordered complexity.

The most fundamental failure in his reasoning is this: He claims that if this universe, in all its complexity, is "designed" by some intelligent entity, that entity must be at least as complex as the universe it designed. But this is only true if the entity designed and fine-tuned EVERY ASPECT of this universe. However, if only a few of the initial physical constants were "designed," such as gravity and the speed of light, and the rest was left to chance, then all that is required is intelligence great enough to create an empty universe and inject a block of matter with specified, but limited, properties into it. The rest would be watching the billiard-balls ricochet around the table to see where they end up.

And given my hypothesis of an adjacent universe containing an intelligence with sufficient knowledge and ability (or as you say, "power, will and knowledge") could exist even under our existing, presumably scientifically-valid cosmological hypotheses, it is not logical to reject the possibility of vastly more complex and powerful intelligence that might be capable of both creating this universe and meddling in its evolution.

Can we falsify this hypothesis? No, no more than we can now falsify the membrane universe, or bubble universe, or multiverse hypotheses, and no more than we can now falsify Hawking's hypothesis about evaporating black holes. It's all theoretical and speculative, but all of the above, and my hypothesis, are all built on a firm foundation of science and logical reasoning and inference.

Dawkins tacitly admits such arguments in "The God Delusion" where he grudgingly admits that there may be vastly superior intelligence somewhere in the universe, while insistently noting that this intelligence, if it exists, MUST have evolved. But he evades the direct implications of this admission most studiously. And that implication is that if a vast, evolved intelligence could exist in this universe, such an intelligence could exist in another universe, and could be even more vast and powerful than one that evolved in this universe.

The reason that this is so damaging to Dawkins' reasoning is that his argument is that no intelligence that evolved in this universe could be complex enough to have created this universe. It's a chicken-and-egg conundrum for him. How could an intelligence in this universe be complex enough to have created this universe?

But if the intelligence that created this universe does not exist in this universe, but rather exists elsewhere, under conditions that permit a vastly more complex intelligence capable of creating this universe, then his entire argument, and his defense against Intelligent Design comes crashing down around his ears. So, he must either ignore the possibilities, or he must admit that some aspects of this universe, be they the physical constants that make life possible, or merely the particular composition of DNA that creates the human being, COULD BE the result of intelligent design, at least to some extent.

He admits this much in admitting that some extragalactic intelligence could exist, and he dismisses this possibility without even the slightest bit of scientific reasoning by simply saying that he prefers not to think of himself or mankind as the pawns of some extragalactic intelligence. Go look it up. I don't have the page number, but that's how he simply dismisses the fully-scientific proposition that extragalactic intelligence capable of designing evolution on this planet doesn't exist. It's one of the most astonishing cognitive disconnects I've ever seen from someone who prides himself on his rigorous adherence to the scientific method and reason.

And then there's his claim that any advanced intelligence must have "evolved." I have a problem with that assertion as well, but I'll save it for later.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I blame Darwin.

[Seth]

Although I don't have a really strong opinion on the ultimate existence of free will, comparing the brain to a computer (as we usually think of computers) surely isn't right. A computer will normally work deterministically and give the same output every time you run it with the same program and input. The brain is full of randomness (probably even some on a quantum level)and flaws, that will make it produce unpredictable and unique results when performing complex calculations.

Most modern computers are not deterministic in this sense. Random variations in things like disk access times can result in variations in the order of execution of different threads, which can then cause large variations in behavior. Most commercial software is designed to minimize the variation, because predictability is an advantage for most software applications, but that's in no way inherent in modern computer operation.

I'm sorry...what?

Disk access times can vary the results because they vary the order of execution of different threads? Really?

Last I heard, and I started writing code back before CP/M was the dominant OS, computer programs were incredibly rigid in their processing hierarchy and the program waits for each step to be completed in sequence regardless of the disk delay. If a step of program execution is not completed in its proper order, either the result is incorrect, or the program crashes.

I've never, ever heard of the proposition that the results of a computer program can vary based on how long it takes to process the instructions. Do you have any citations for this rather remarkable assertion?