Just discovered AmbivaBlog. These two are well worth reading:
I regret my failure to post on this news sooner, but thought an item this important worthwhile even a delayed. I discovered via Slashdot Science that Christian Science Monitor reported earlier this month that scientists at UCLA have achieved cold fusion...really. The result was published in Nature, the top-ranking scientific research journal. (If you need some background, LBL has a basic explanation of fusion in general)
The Nature's popular summary describes the experiment:
Now Putterman, a physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, has turned a tiny crystal into a particle accelerator. When its electric field is focused by a tungsten needle, it fires deuterium ions into a target so fast that the colliding nuclei fuse to create a stream of neutrons.
Putterman is not claiming to have created a source of virtually unlimited energy, because the reaction isn't self-sustaining. But until now, achieving any kind of fusion in the lab has required bulky accelerators with large electricity supplies. Replacing that with a small crystal is revolutionary. "The amazing thing is that the crystal can be used as an accelerator without plugging it in to a power station," says Putterman.
The scientific article's abstract downplays the power genering possibilities:
Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.
(I know you were pining for a portable neutron source just the other day...)
I wonder if the pessimism about power generation is technically warranted. A quick look over the scientific article doesn't explain why the authors conclude so. Certainly it would be surprising if the reacion itself were self-sustaining, since each trigger particle is injected separately, but I wonder if energy drawn from ejected particles could be channeled back into trigger-particle acceleration to make it effectively self-sustaining. (There are political reasons to cool expectations of energy generation.)
...because only one in a million of the collisions actually produce fusion, the device is an inefficient generator of energy.
Michelle Thaller, "Coming in out of the cold: Cold fusion, for real," Christian Science Monitor (June 06, 2005).
Brian Naranjo, James K. Gimzewski and Seth Putterman, "Observation of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal," Nature 434:7037 (28 April 2005), 1115-1118. [Abstract]
Mark Peplow, "Physicists look to crystal device for future of fusion: Desktop apparatus yields stream of neutrons," Nature 434:7037 (28 April 2005), 1057.
Kenneth Chang, "Itty-Bitty and Shrinking, Fusion Device Has Big Ideas," New York Times (April 28, 2005), A18.
In my review of the controversally controversial1 film The Privileged Planet, I mentioned the problem about speaking of the "difficulty" of getting universal constants into the small range needed to allow for intelligent life.
I recalled the next day that this line of argumentation is one that I originally opened with Steve Meyer when the Discovery Institute (DI) he, Dembski, and Behe spoke at Cooper Union while I was in grad school in New York, in 1998 (I believe). I had difficulty explaining my reasoning then, but seven years have matured my thinking.
So this discussion re-sparked by the film (and book) is the resumption of a long-standing concern.
The initial problem—the one I discussed in the full review—is that we don't know what it actually means to set the value of a universal constant, even a single one. (The film and the book skirts around this difficulty by imagining a cosmic-tuning machine.)
The second problem, which illuminates the first, came to mind from reading the book:
So for instance the strong nuclear force must be set to certain narrow limits for stars to produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts.... The range for these parameters each of these parameters is narrow. The range within which all of them are satisfied simultaneously is much smaller, like the bull's-eye in the middle of an already tiny target. Add the required range for the weak force strength and the bull's-eye becomes smaller still, and so on for the other forces. Add the specific requirements for simple life (water and carbon chemistries) and it becomes even smaller, and more so for advanced and then technological life. (206)
In other words, when you combine all the small probabilities for achieving a viable value for each cosmic parameter, the resulting probability is infinitesimally smaller still.
The difficulty with this argument is that since we don't know where these parameters come from (who or what sets them) we have no idea how they may be correlated with one another. For example, it is possible that the respective strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces have a common origin in a deeper physics; such a fact would increase the combined probability of achieving a viable, habitable universe.
It's not difficult to extrapolate this argument to encompass all of the universal constants.
Some scientists, such as Cambridge cosmologist Stephen Hawking, hope the problem will be resolved by collapsing the fundamental forces, and everthing they entail, into a single Grand Unified Theory. Given such a theory, the various forces that now seem fined tuned relative to one another will be, he supposes, the inevitable outcome of some single overarching law. While this might resolve the appearance of fine-tuning between independent variables, it would inherit the same problem it was supposed to fix, for any such unified theory would posit some particular value, or number, or formula. While all the actual laws of physics might follow necessarily from it, the higher-level formula would not be necessary. The fine-tuning, it seems, would simply get moved up one level. In fact, it seems that the situation would get worse. Instead of multiple variables, there would be a single, grand one, from which the array of sublaws would produce our habitable universe. It would be like a billiard play on a table with a countless number of balls that sinks every ball in one shot. (263-264; boldface added)
The books assumes the absence of any intrinsic relationship between parameters. But what if hitting one ball made hitting the next ball unavoidable? The Privileged Planet ignores the possibility that the parameters are linked organically.
To understand what I mean better, imagine the small probabiliy of picking the number 10 out of all the positive real numbers from zero to 1000: 1/1000. Now imagine the much smaller chance of picking in addition these numbers: 60, 80, 99, 120, 200. The chance of each individually is 1/1000, so the chance of all combined is 1 in 103(6) = 1018—incredibly small indeed.
But notice that this probability is based on our utter ignorance of what these number represent and how they arise. Achieving these numbers doesn't look quite so improbable once I tell you these numbers represent human vital signs (viz. 10-Hz brain waves, 60 heart-beats per minute, blood pressure 120/80 (mmHg/mmHg), body temperature 98.6 deg F, cholesterol 200 mg/dL). Cholesterol and blood pressure, for example, are correlated. (Please pardon my medical ignorance: you'll have to use your imagination as far as further correlations are concerned.)
The point is that once you have a healthy human being, these numbers aren't improbable at all. Similarly, the ID argument treats the universal constants as complete abstractions of irrelevant provenance. Our present ignorance of their deeper interconnections may merely mask their relative likelihood once the universe exists.
Wolfgang Smith's metaphor may better explain the integrity of creation:
If you break a clay pot, you will find that the resultant shards fit together perfectly so as to consitute the pot in question; and obviously this 'fine tuning'—which seems quite miraculous so long as one does not know the true provenance of the shards—is the result neither of chance nor of design. In short, the physical universe is fine tuned because the corporeal world demands as much. (222)
(I hope to have more to say on the wholeness of the universe in future posts.)
While my reasoning uncovers a flaw in the universal ID argument, it doesn't by any means vindicate materialism. These numbers aren't improbable once you have a universe: that's the big question materialism begs.
I've boldfaced the truest phrase in the last quotation from The Privileged Planet: "the higher-level formula would not be necessary." When it comes down to it, no formula can explain itself: that's inescapable difficulty of the idolatrous goals of some Grand Unified Theory scientists. (Somehow all these bright physicists are able to don blinders opaque enough to ignore Goedel's incompleteness proof.)
Materialism is completely inadequate to facing up to the fundamental question of
Why is there anything at all?
(The simple sound of the question is misleading. Ponder that one for a while....) The issue is one of being: modern science only assumes the existence of things: it can't explain being. Explanation of being is properly philosophical or metaphysical.
The universal ID argument applies modern science with all its limitations to a properly metaphysical question—like using a screwdriver as a hammer. This misapplication sadly results in the same fundamental philosophical errors that sterilize modern science's ability to ground a truly human culture.2
But the argument is not without value. The universal ID argument can for the sake of argument grant the assumptions of modern science to manifest materialism's self-defeating nature.
But ID-advocates need be aware that implicit pre-suppositions have a way of (de)forming their adherents' beliefs. And there's also the embarrassment factor: the argument may sway some opinions in the short term, but in time its lack of integrity will become evident. Sooner or later, the materialists will find the flaw and (mixed with their own mistakes) exploit it.
For ID-advocates to hold as truth the universal ID argument based on modern science's premises is to forfeit the battlefield to the enemy.
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?....
"Can you bind the chains of the Plei'ades, or loose the cords of Orion?
Can you lead forth the Maz'zaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?3
1. Whether it should be a cause for controversy is controversial.
2. Like too many modern physicists, Gonzalez and Richards assume implicitly that being is just another characteristic of a thing, like redness or legibility or being upside-down or being an uncle, that is to say, that whether the thing has it or not, it's basically the same thing. Wrong. Without being, a thing is not a real thing—it is nothing: it has no standing in reality, but is just as well pure imagination. One delusion of modernity is to give mental things the same status as objective realities. Sure an equation may describe how everything works, but who put the fire in that equation? (Hawking's phrasing).
3. Job 38
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004).
Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Tradition, (Oakton, VA: Foundation for Traditional Studies, 2002). [reviewed here]
I know: I said that my next post would continue my criticism of the privileged universe notion, but this is a story that just couldn't be kept down:
Thanks to Slash Dot Science.
The Fox News story (reprinted from NY Post) says:Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.
The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.
But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.
Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year, according to the Safar Centre.
[Dr. Kochanek] said his goal is to be able to put humans, such as critically wounded soldiers or stabbing or shooting victims, in a state of suspended animation for a few hours until they can receive proper medical help.
Yes, "zombie" might be journalistic hype, but the research, no matter how beneficial, is still macabre.
1. BOFFIN: chiefly British : a scientific expert; especially : one involved in technological research (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Nick Buchan, Boffins create zombie dogs," NEWS.com.au (June 27, 2005). (Site's slow; text mirrored here.)
Bill Hoffmann, "Blood Swapping Reanimates Dead Dogs," Fox News (June 28, 2005).
Bill Hoffmann, "Zombie Dogs," New York Post (June 28, 2005). [free reg. required]
Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research (site contains no futher information on this development, but the 2002-2004 Annual Report confirms they do indeed conduct this kind of research)
My last posts have been somewhat critical of Intelligent Design (ID), and it occured to me that the value of this approach may not be readily apparent to everyone. So before I continue my criticism, I will explain.
The reasons for criticism fall into two categories: internal and external.
Believers need to be sure what they might believe is actually true.
We aren't Christians because we claim to know everything, but because we know we are limited and that we cannot overcome our limitations unaided. If we are truly friends of Truth, then we should have no fear of any truth; as Milton wisely wrote "Who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" (Aereopagitica, 1664). But we should we careful what we believe. As the saying goes, "The devil cedes nine truths to feed us a single lie."1 Critical examination can save us from unknowingly imbibing the falsehoods of the age along with its truths.
Moreover, what does our credulousity say to others? St. Augustine wrote in The Literal Meaning of Genesis:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." 2
More important than the things we say is the spirit in which we say them. Our attitudes bespeak our beliefs more loudly than our words. As St. Francis of Assisi is reported to have said: "Always preach the gospel, if necessary use words." Those who are truly open to Truth will recognize us. We leave it to our antagonists to rely on falsehood.
I resume my critique of universal ID next.
Socrates reportedly said after being convicted of "corrupting the young" by showing them their own limitations:
Still I have a favor to ask of [my accusers]. When my sons are grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing,—then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, I and my sons will have received justice at your hands.3
1. Cf. "Even a liar tells a hundred truths to one lie; he has to to make the lie good for anything." (H.W. Beecher, Proverbs from a Plymouth Pulpit, 1870).
2. Aurelius Augustinus, De Genesi ad litteram v.12 in Ancient Christian Writers v.41, trans. J. H. Taylor, (Newman Press, 1982). This excerpt from here. Cf. 1 Timothy 1.7.
3. Plato, Apology
I mentioned in my review of The Privileged Planet (section: "Questions") the question I'd asked about the alleged necessity of the coincidence of habitability with "measurability." I was unable to capture the response other than to summarize it by saying that it "boils down to (in my words) this link's showing we live in a 'privileged universe.'"
Through the generous ministrations of Jonathan Witt, Guillermo Gonzalez pointed out a document that contains the authors' reply in their own words:
The correlation between habitability and measurability is the specification. It’s the pattern. To discover that habitable environments (i.e., environments compatible with observers like ourselves) are also the most measurable is an intrinsically interesting pattern. It’s fishy. “Habitability” and “measurability” are distinct concepts. There’s no logical requirement that these two properties must align in every possible universe. So, to discover that they are yoked in our universe is interesting. It’s what you would expect if the universe were designed for discovery.
So any habitable planet in our universe will also be highly "measurable." Again, it isn't that our habitable planet is additionally favored by measurability but that we live in a "privileged universe" in which the two distinct concepts are coupled.
As I elaborated in the review (section: "Stuff about Numbers"), universal privilege is a problematic concept, of which this line is indicative:
"There’s no logical requirement that these two properties must align in every possible universe."
Is it only logic that constrains the properties of universes? On what basis can one rule out other constraints?
In my next post I hope to amplify my thoughts along this line.
Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, "A Response of Some Objections of Kyler Kuehn to The Privileged Planet," (Discovery Institute, April 29, 2004). [for whatever reason the document doesn't link to Kuehn's critique or even to his homepage]
As I mentioned, I attended the premier of the controversial film The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian last night.
My unfortunate habit is to zero in explicitly on the negatives of anything I examine, while leaving the positives implicit. In order to avoid this vice, I'll say here at the start that I enjoyed the film and got a lot out of it. Most of the people I talked to enjoyed it too. One notable exception being the friend I sat next to; she thought it boring (she thrives on conflict, so perhaps she didn't find enough of it to hold her attention).
Please note that this review is not intended to be comprehensive, but simply to touch on the elements of the film that most struck me. If you're looking for a more comprehensive review, Denyse O'Leary at Post-Darwinist has written an entertaining and very thorough one:
I've only seen the film once, and alas don't have Denyse's gift for remembering detail.
The event flowed smoothly with the exception of a small glitch in valet parking that recommended a half-hour delay. The Baird Auditorium, I would estimate, was not quite half full, not more than 300 in the audience. Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute, introduced those around the room involved in the film's production before introducing the film itself. Following the film, the authors of the book on which the film was based, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, took the stage to answer questions. Afterward there was a top-flight reception in the Museum's splendid Hall of Gems.
The film begins with a discussion of the "Copernican Principle" and the "Principle of Mediocrity" into which it has hypertrophied and metastasized. Recall that Copernicus demoted the Earth from its traditional placement at the center of the universe in favor of the Sun. Many people take the historical essence of this "revolution" to be the increasing realization of the unexceptionalness or "mediocrity" of us and our planet. This "Principle of Mediocrity" became a fundamental principle in many minds when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe expands unimaginable distances beyond our galaxy; and our galaxy turns out to be an unextraordinary example of the billions and billions of galaxies scattered across the cosmos. With the discovery of this second data point ("and gee whiz! two points define a line and look where it goes!"), the idea that scientific "progress" inevitably increases the Earth's marginalization became cemented in the progressive mindset.
The next section enumerated the many unusual circumstances that make a habitable planet like our own such a rarity. To introduce the "measurability"1 of our planet, a brief, semi-biographical look at the northern Indian solar eclipse that gave Gonzalez the idea. "Measurability" is his term for the suitability of a planet for its inhabitants to observe and discover the universe near and far.
The film highlights the necessary link between a planet's habitability and measurability. For example, a habitable planet can't form in a nebula2 because of the high incidence of dangerous supernovae; likewise a nebula would also obscure our view of all but the very nearest stars. A large moon stabilises a planet's moderate axial tilt to allow the seasons that are necessary for life and in Earth's case the fact that the Moon's apparent size is so incredibly coincident with the Sun's allows perfect eclipses.3 These eclipses have been key to so many scientific experiments essential to understanding the laws of the universe.
The film next turns to more universal rarities, such as the fine-tuning of physical constants that make possible astronomical bodies, chemical bonds, etc. that are prerequisite to a universe that permits life.
The film ends by summarizing its results and dispelling the false generatization of the "Copernican Principle" to the mythical "Principle of Mediocrity" that dominates modern thinking. Copernicus only showed the Earth isn't the center of the universe; Hubble only showed the universe is much larger than we had dreamed. The Earth is special for combining those rare characteristics that make it not only highly hospitable to life, but also highly conducive to discovering the universe and the fact that it is not an accident.
Far from being "unscientific," this discovery continues the quest of scientists of yore, such as Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, who turned to science seeking the purpose and design placed in the universe by its Creator. (Scandalous, isn't it?)
My view is that the production was very professional. The computer graphics were crisp and colorful. Visually the film fares well in the obvious comparison with Carl Sagan's Cosmos (though the soundtrack wasn't as memorable). I particularly appreciated the clever transitions between shots, which often played off visual similarities. One such transition (ripples from a water-drop) was belabored to the point of cloying.
For the most part, the reasoning and explanation of the argument was superb and well-paced.
The narrator was well chosen: a skilled speaker with a wonderful voice. Initially, his grand English accent struck me as lurking just this side of comically grandiose, but I gradually grew accustomed to its timbre.
The "talking heads" were well integrated into the narrative. Robin Collins, philosopher from Messiah College who appeared in the latter half, was well spoken but has a look in his eyes that could plausibly come from a diet of locusts and wild honey.
 |
I got to ask the first question6, which was definitely the most critical asked. The issue was the necessity of the coincidence between habitability and "measurability." It seems to me that (as many of the ID arguments with respect to evolution observe) a factor can express a message to the extent that it is not deterministically caused. So, for example, the fact that the physical forces between ink and paper don't completely determine the placement of ink on a page allows written communication. For this reason it seems to me that the Earth would better express a message from its "Designer"—it would be a more privileged or special planet—if the correlation between habitability and "measurability" were unnecessary, gratuitous. (The question that was the excuse for my comments died on my lips. I wanted to know whether the authors had come across any measurability characteristics that weren't necessary for habitability.)
I am unable to capture the explosion of words and ideas that flew back at me, but the response (here and talking to Jay Richards at the reception) boils down to (in my words) this link's showing we live in a "privileged universe."
The idea of universal priviledge brings us to my other difficulty with the film's argument. As even scientists inimical to the Discovery Institute admit7, the physical constants that govern the forces of the universe seem to be "fine tuned" for life, by which they rather inexplicably fall into the narrow range of values that allows the wonderful habitability of the world we live in.
My argument against the "narrow" conclusion is rather abstract and probably poorly formulated. For this reason, unless you're a geek compulsively fixated on these questions like me, you may want to skip down to the conclusion.
Basically it comes down to the question: what is the basis of comparison for saying the range of values is "narrow"?
Notice that saying something is near or far (that the distance is small or large) requires an at-least implicit comparison to another length, such as one's stride. Without a basis for comparison, using "narrow" or "wide" as a descriptor is completely arbitrary. In the abstract, any given parameter can vary from infinity down to zero: what range of values isn't narrow compared to infinity?
Conceivably, one could use the magnitude of the parameter itself as the basis of comparison. But this procedure also seems rather arbitrary: why should a five-percent variation, say, in a small-valued parameter mean a smaller absolute variation (e.g., variation of 5 for a value of 100) than in a large-valued parameter (e.g., variation of 50 for a value of 1000).
Behind these difficulties in mathematical scaling, there lurks a more fundamental problem: what does it mean to vary universal constants physically? We can talk all day about fiddling with abstract values, but mathematical and physical difficulties are not necessarily connected. For example, the difficulty of removing ten pounds from a living one-ton elephant is much greater than removing 100 pounds from a one-ton pile of sand.
Honestly I don't have a clue of even how to address the meaning of varying universal constants, but I suspect the route runs through fields more fundamental than physics.
Privileged Planet is well thought-out, well written, and well produced. My abstruse difficulties do not damage the film's overall thesis, and certainly not its intellectual and historical importance. The controversy around it alone merits its inclusion on your must-see list, but apart from sensational interest, the ideas it presents deserve serious consideration.
1. I think the term misleading: a planet's "measurability" sounds like the planet itself is being measured. May I humbly suggest some less awkward alternatives? "Vision," "sightedness," "discernment," "unobstructedness" all seem more expressive of the concept.
2. Cf. Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe, and Everything.
3. The historical contingency of scientific discovery keeps the measurability part of this argument from being quite as strong as the habitability part.
4. Cf. Kevin Smith, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001).
5. General "Buck" Turgidson in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964).
6. Of course, here more clearly formulated.
7. Indeed these naturalistic scientists have devised various "anthropic principles" to account for it without recourse to that frumpy "God hypothesis."
