String Theory Versus Intelligent Design

By Kenneth Silber Published 12/01/2005

...Susskind, now a professor at Stanford University, has written a book that is certain to stir up controversy, not only about the merits of string theory but over the charged question of whether the natural world displays evidence of an intelligent designer.

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/102-9769509-8157711?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance>

The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (Little, Brown) provides a valuable explanation and history of string theory, and has much of interest to say about cutting-edge physics and cosmology. However, Susskind's conclusions, including on matters of intelligent design, are debatable.

The variety of intelligent design with which Susskind is concerned consists of claims that the laws of physics were

<http://www.techcentralstation.com/073103B.html>

deliberately fine-tuned for the benefit of life. For instance, such arguments note that nuclear reactions in stars are well-suited to produce the carbon on which Earth life depends. Many such examples are quite ambiguous. (The "tuning" of carbon actually may not be that "fine"; the element could exist in a range of scenarios.) One feature of the universe, however, does appear to be strikingly fine-tuned; commonly referred to as the "cosmological constant," it is an energy level that infuses empty space. This energy level is extremely small -- which is fortunate because if it were even slightly larger, the universe would have expanded too rapidly to form galaxies, stars and planets....

***********************************************

Any one want to explain why the universe does *not* display intelligent design by virtue of its phase space position? I'm tired of explaining it myself - maybe someone else knows how to get this across to the epistemologically-challenged.

Any one want to explain why the universe does *not* display intelligent design by virtue of its phase space position? I'm tired of explaining it myself - maybe someone else knows how to get this across to the epistemologically-challenged.

Okay, let's try this:

Place all phase space possibilities on a roulette wheel.

Spin the wheel and the ball.

The ball comes to rest in any one of the astronomical number of slots.

No reason to believe that other than chance was involved in the resolution of the action by wheel and ball, right? Big deal.

Do it again, but this time, have someone pre-designate a slot for the final resting place of the ball. The ball comes to rest in that slot. Incredible! Somebody rigged the wheel!

Thus, to prove design, you have to assume your conclusion, i.e., that the emergence of life was predesignated/intended (with its emergence, otherwise wildly contrary to the probabilities, evidencing the hidden design/engineering of the roulette wheel).

Assuming your conclusion is not permitted in a proof.

Okay, let's try this:

Place all phase space possibilities on a roulette wheel.

Spin the wheel and the ball.

The ball comes to rest in any one of the astronomical number of slots.

No reason to believe that other than chance was involved in the resolution of the action by wheel and ball, right? Big deal.

Do it again, but this time, have someone pre-designate a slot for the final resting place of the ball. The ball comes to rest in that slot. Incredible! Somebody rigged the wheel!

What your analogy assumes, if I am interpreting it correctly, is that any possible universe is just as hospitable to life as the actual one. But if you look at, for example, the conditions given in the intitial singularity, you'll find this is not so. If the temperature and physical laws present in the initial singularity were off by a smidgen, the universe as we know it would not have been. What the proponents of intelligent design are saying is that an intelligently designed universe is a more probable hypothesis than one that says the universe emerged by pure chance, given that life-permitting universes are vastly less probable than life-prohibiting universes. A roulette wheel that could be thought of as analogous to the ID argument would be one in which there were a quintillion or more slots, and all of them were marked 0, except for one, which was marked 1. Any slot the ball would come to rest in would be equally probable, but it would be highly improbable that the ball would come to rest in the slot marked 0. Given the odds against there being life-permitting universes, I don't see why chance is a more or equally reasonable hypothesis for the actual universe than the ID hypothesis I just outlined.

What your analogy assumes, if I am interpreting it correctly, is that any possible universe is just as hospitable to life as the actual one.

Hi, Carl,

Thanks for responding to the point.

And I mean no offense, but I also appreciate your illustrating the very problem to which I am pointing.

And that point is precisely *not* that "any possible universe is just as hospitable to life".

You are making the error which I struggle to point to as such in assuming that the emergence of life had to be.

Again, the landing on any slot on the roulette wheel and characterizing the associated phase space after the fact (in our case, friendly to life) is completely unremarkable. Our existence is thus mere happenstance. The universe could just as well have been hostile to life or friendly to another form of life, etc.

You have to show that someone or something, prior to the eventuation of the universe - the spinning of the wheel of chance - designated our phase space as the result, thus making intent and wheel-rigging/design, an implication of this highly improbable co-incidence.

There seems to be a powerful subconscious presumption that our existence was intended/predestined, which then curiously leads us to marvel at the fact that the universe is not of a character, in all fundamental respects, that would preclude our existence.

I guess the point in summary is that, though a life-facilitating universe is but one in a zillion possibilities, it is not improbable in the sense that implies design. The notion that this particular universe is special because we are in it leads us astray. Every other phase-space universe is but one in a zillion possibilities and is just as special in its own way and well could have been the case.

A roulette wheel that could be thought of as analogous to the ID argument would be one in which there were a quintillion or more slots, and all of them were marked 0, except for one, which was marked 1. Any slot the ball would come to rest in would be equally probable, but it would be highly improbable that the ball would come to rest in the slot marked [1].
Again, this analogy assumes the conclusion as a premise.

A deity selects our phase space for distinctive marking, where otherwise all the slots are zeroes. Without that distinctive marking, no result of the wheel spin is improbable - the ball will land somewhere.

I guess the point in summary is that, though a life-facilitating universe is but one in a zillion possibilities, it is not improbable in the sense that implies design.

Let's leave the designer out of the picture for a moment. I'd like you to clarify your position for me. A life-permitting universe, as you say, is one among a zillion possibilities. Would you contend that are there as many (or more) possible universes that permit life than ones that don’t?

Again, this analogy assumes the conclusion as a premise.

A deity selects our phase space for distinctive marking, where otherwise all the slots are zeroes. Without that distinctive marking, no result of the wheel spin is improbable - the ball will land somewhere.

You are saying, it appears to me, that without someone rigging the wheel to cause the ball to land in the 1 slot, that “no result,” not even one in which the ball lands on the zero, is improbable?

Let's leave the designer out of the picture for a moment. I'd like you to clarify your position for me. A life-permitting universe, as you say, is one among a zillion possibilities. Would you contend that are there as many (or more) possible universes that permit life than ones that don’t?
No.



You are saying, it appears to me, that without someone rigging the wheel to cause the ball to land in the 1 slot, that “no result,” not even one in which the ball lands on the zero, is improbable?
Not exactly.

Please grasp that improbability depends upon predesignation. It is inevitable that the ball will merely land in a slot - improbability is introduced by the ball landing in the slot which has been predesignated (presumably by an imagined deity who has designed/rigged the wheel to produce the intended result, given the wild improbability of the co-incidence otherwise).

Let me put it another way:

1) What is the exact probability of the ball dropping into an unspecified slot (slot "x") of 100,000 slots? Think carefully, please. Do not implicitly specify a particular slot in your mind. Do not post-designate a life-bearing universe. Do not confuse the issue of the improbability of life's emergence in this universe, with the issue of the emergence of this type of (life-facilitating) universe.

2) What is the exact probability of the ball dropping into slot 10,632 - one of 100,000 slots (to simplify reference by reducing the order of magnitude of the slots).

[The answer to (1) is unity/inevitability - if the ball drops into any slot, it has dropped into an unspecified slot. The answer to (2) is 1 in 100,000, because I specified a slot, thereby making the result improbable. The two answers are different and represent the probabilistic distinction between an un-specified and a pre-specified slot.]

When you place a bet at the track, why do you have to place your bet before the race and not after?

When we remark upon the improbability of a life-facilitating universe being the one that eventuated, we are looking at it from the standpoint of the race already having been run, and we know who won.

But the horse that won was one of a dozen horses - the odds were against that horse having won. The race must have been rigged, right.

The error is in regarding the horse that won as our horse - "weren't we lucky". No, the horse that won is merely the horse that won. We had no bet on it, but because we have appropriated the horse, we implicitly reckon our deity did it and rigged the race for us.

Maybe it's the Smoking Loon, but it seems to me, NeoNietzsche, that all you're claiming is "what is is." Things are because they are, etc. Empiricism and science at its finest, but not very helpful in elucidating why we're here in the first place.

And I think the argument rests on an assumption which isn't justified: that multiple possibilities for universes existed in the first place... regardless of how probable or improbable the results may have been.

Who says multiple probabilities was the intitial state? Isn't it possible that we may discover that everything must be as it is for a certain reason, and not that it is so simply because of a dice throw (or the spin of a roulette wheel)?

Hi, Carl, thanks for responding to the point. And I mean no offense, but I also appreciate your illustrating the very problem to which I am pointing. And that point is precisely *not* that "any possible universe is just as hospitable to life". You are making the error which I struggle to point to as such in assuming that the emergence of life had to be. Again, the landing on any slot on the roulette wheel and characterizing the associated phase space after the fact (in our case, friendly to life) is completely unremarkable. Our existence is thus mere happenstance. The universe could just as well have been hostile to life or friendly to another form of life, etc. You have to show that someone or something, prior to the eventuation of the universe - the spinning of the wheel of chance - designated our phase space as the result, thus making intent and wheel-rigging/design, an implication of this highly improbable co-incidence.

There seems to be a powerful subconscious presumption that our existence was intended/predestined, which then curiously leads us to marvel at the fact that the universe is not of a character, in all fundamental respects, that would preclude our existence. I guess the point in summary is that, though a life-facilitating universe is but one in a zillion possibilities, it is not improbable in the sense that implies design. The notion that this particular universe is special because we are in it leads us astray. Every other phase-space universe is but one in a zillion possibilities and is just as special in its own way and well could have been the case.
Actually, the Intelligent Design theorists do have a point, if you assume that our universe is the only one. There's indirect reason to suppose that is not the case, however. Fluctuations of E/M fields in vacuum, theoretically predicted by the uncertainty principle and observed in such phenomena as the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect, indicate that the ancient philosopher's question "Why something rather than nothing?" was poorly considered.

Nothingness of an invariant sort cannot exist, because invariant nothingness equates with nonexistence. It differs with "nothing in sum" because there are no parts to be summed. Invariant nothingness isn't a condition, nor is it a characteristic; in fact, anything you might be thinking of cannot be invariant nothingness.

Since invariant nothings cannot exist, they do not exist, and thus they are not available to that ancient philosopher as a default condition. Nonexistence wasn't a default condition because it isn't a condition of any sort. The proper question to ask was "Why order rather than chaos?"

The default condition, deviations to which may be something to wonder at, is boiling chaos at the quantum scale and thermodynamic heat-death at every other scale. In fact, to see this properly is to see it on the quantum scale, where there's no such thing as contiguity or gradient.

But there's nothing wrong with the idea that order can come out of chaos. It's just very statistically unlikely. Most of the turbulence in the default condition means nothing: all noise, no signal. But rarely as a proportion of all chaotic events, yet maybe infinite in incidence, a universe appears.

A universe is nothing in sum, integrated over spacetime, because the forms of positive energy (mass, radiation, motion) are equal in magnitude to the forms of negative energy (force-related potential energy). But from the inside of the universe spacetime, these energy hills and valleys are structured by force and dimension that give definitions to contiguity and gradient.

Universes are isolated at least to information, and probably also to energy. Its internal dimensions enable conservation laws, define a past and a future, enable causalty and contiguity. They also provide a means of prediction, which is limited by the default condition chaos. That chaos is merely mostly superceded by, not excluded by, the universe's structure. As a universe ages, it fades back into the chaos from which it formed as a statistical fluctuation.

But the point is, there's not just a spin of one roulette wheel. There are lots of roulette wheels. Most of them spin out worthless stuff. But a small fraction of them spin out life-bearing universes.

At this point, you can apply the weak anthropic principle with a clear conscience. Our existence is not a miracle, whether or not it is a surprise.

Jerry Abbott

NeoNietzsche,

The design hypothesis is based on improbability and conforming to an independently discovered pattern. For instance, any sequence of symbols produced by a monkey seated at a typewriter would be equally improbable. But if the monkey began typing epic poems, would we not infer that it was the result of mere chance, because it would conform to the independently given pattern of English grammar. The requisite conditions biology and physics tells us are necessary for life to flourish were obtained in the initial singularity. It is the complexity of life plus conforming to an independently given pattern that lends credence to the design hypothesis. Our universe is special in light of the fact that it contains complex biological life in contrast to any alternative universe you can think of, which contain no organic life whatsoever. Furthermore, it is possible that there is something festering in my subconscious that leads me, unwittingly, to posit a divine intelligence to account for the existence of the world. But the origin of my belief in no way discredits it. This is the genetic fallacy.

Maybe it's the Smoking Loon, but it seems to me, NeoNietzsche, that all you're claiming is "what is is." Things are because they are, etc. Empiricism and science at its finest, but not very helpful in elucidating why we're here in the first place.
I am not responding to the question of "why," but am accepting the ID argument on its own terms as to the implication of the possible phase spaces of a universe and am showing that the implication is not ID.



And I think the argument rests on an assumption which isn't justified: that multiple possibilities for universes existed in the first place... regardless of how probable or improbable the results may have been.
That may be the case, but I am accepting the assumption in order to correct the ID argument in that regard.

Actually, the Intelligent Design theorists do have a point, if you assume that our universe is the only one.
I would say this is the case only with regard to the subordinate question of the probability of the emergence of life, given a universe of specific position in phase space. Even if, however, ours is the only universe that has realized a position in phase space, ID is only indicated from this consideration, as I have argued from elementary considerations, where this specific universe was pre-designated for existence.



At this point, you can apply the weak anthropic principle with a clear conscience. Our existence is not a miracle, whether or not it is a surprise.
I regard anthropic principles as mere truisms.

The design hypothesis is based on improbability and conforming to an independently discovered pattern. For instance, any sequence of symbols produced by a monkey seated at a typewriter would be equally improbable. But if the monkey began typing epic poems, would we not infer that it was [not] the result of mere chance, because it would conform to the independently-given pattern of English grammar.
This is, first, to address the subordinate question of the probability of the emergence of life, given a universe - rather than the question we have been discussing of the probability of the emergence of that type of universe.

Secondly, you mischaracterize any natural phenomenon as "independently-given," and you thus again assume your conclusion, in order to make a case with this analogy. DNA (yet to be shown the product of design) is not analogous to English grammar (obviously the product of design).

Thirdly, any such sequence is not equally probable, but the improbable is inevitable given sufficient attempts.



The requisite conditions biology and physics tells us are necessary for life to flourish were obtained in the initial singularity. It is the complexity of life plus conforming to an independently given pattern that lends credence to the design hypothesis.
Credence is granted based not upon complexity per se, but upon its implication for probability - and the probability of the emergence of life cannot exclude its inevitability, given assumptions as to the multiplicity of universes which have no less presumptive validity than that of the uniqueness of the universe of our experience. And to what, literally, do you refer with the phrase "independently-given pattern"?



Our universe is special in light of the fact that it contains complex biological life in contrast to any alternative universe you can think of, which contain no organic life whatsoever.
What is the implication for logic or evidence of "special"-ness that we have not already disposed of?



Furthermore, it is possible that there is something festering in my subconscious that leads me, unwittingly, to posit a divine intelligence to account for the existence of the world. But the origin of my belief in no way discredits it. This is the genetic fallacy.
But yours is the burden of giving it credibility. And the origin of your belief would account for it, particularly where it is mistaken.

Like Laplace, I have "no need for the hypothesis of God," however I find most attempts at some sort of existential understanding, religious or otherwise, to be little more than tedious wheel spinning. The Anthropic principles (i.e. we're here because we're here, basically) hardly suffices as any sort of understanding and, as one poster pointed out, are little more than truisms.

As a scientist it pains me to say it but we humans may not be smart enough to figure this problem out. The only honest and productive approach is to just reserve judgement and keep plugging away at our attempts to understand our universe.

Frankly, we have no basis to rule anything out, or in. Intelligent Design doesn't have to be the result of some sort of traditional diety. Once one steps outside of the Darwinian/Christian dichotomy, all sorts of possibilities come to mind. For example, in an (essentially) infinite universe, one might suppose that it is populated by myriad intelligences who meet most of the requirements for "god hood," if not THE God. These creatures, which I refer to as "GEU's" or "God Equivalent Units," might inspire some people to worship them.

Then there is the possibility that the whole universe is a simulation inside some "computer." http://www.simulation-argument.com/ Such a "computer" of course would be sentient and meet the definition for god hood even more precisely.

Of course the problem with ANY sort of god-like intelligence is that you enter into a sort of infinite regression whereby supposition of such beings begs the question, "but where did it come from?" We like beginnings and all such existential questions seem to bog down in beginnings.

As I said, I think the ability to even come close to answering these questions may be beyond the ability of humans. I really believe we are a transitional species, destined (like earlier primates) to serve as an evolutionary stepping stone for a higher form of life. It may be that we have too much evolutionary baggage to really comprehend the universe (e.g. our innate need for beginnings).

Perhaps a more interesting, or at least answerable question for us is the Fermi Paradox, if only because this hints at possible solutions to our existential dilemma. Where is everyone? Personally, I would look at a universe devoid of intelligent life besides humans as presenting a prima facie case for the existence of some sort of god.

It is too early to tell yet, however we are getting close to the point where we should have definitive evidence. If the universe has any intelligent life, it should have LOTS of intelligent life, and we should now, or very soon be able to find evidence of it existing.

We should find not just radio emmisions, but IR signatures as well. Moreover, as Frank Tipler and others have pointed out, highly advanced civilizations (a billion or more years beyond our own) would undoubtably rearrange the galaxy or parts of the universe more to their liking. For example, they might decide to prevent Gamma Ray Bursters (GRBs) from happening since such events tend to be extremely destructive to life in 100-1000 ly radii.

As of yet, we see no evidence of such manipulations. Of course that may be because our universe, where life seems such an "emergent" property, is infact very hostile to life. If you want to read a very depressing SciFi novel that explores this possibility, read "Manifold Space" by NASA scientist Stephen Baxter. He hypothesis' that life is constantly culled back by a steady series (in galactic time) of GRBs that periodically sends life "back to the pond scum." If such a universe existed, that might be considered prima facie evidence for the NON-existence of god.

-Brian

Who says there's any more intelligent life in the Universe than us, anyway? Who's to say we aren't just such an improbable phenomenon that "we've" only happened once?

I mean, so we know there's definitely one form of intelligent life in the Universe. Consider that reality, and how it came about, as the result of a long, long, long line of dice rolls; say those big ones the Japanese Navy and 'gamers' use. A series of dice rolls lasting billions upons billions upon billions of years.

In this long, long line of dice rolls, think that a 'one' would have had to have come up each time... or the chain's broken, and it's got to start again someplace else all over again.

The probability of this happening at all are pretty slim, but, for all intents and purposes the Universe is meant to be infinite. So it would to have had to have happened at least once, right? And we know it did.

But, for it to happen again is so much more of a slim possibility, that it's not really possible to tally how slim it is; I don't think we, or any of our creations, will ever be able to do so. Think about that old story about grains of wheat, being placed on a chess-board; one, then two... Think about how big that number is when you've done 64 progressions (when you've placed wheat on each checker on the board).

Now, think about how big the number might be if someone did a few thousand billion progressions (for example)? It doesn't really bear thinking-about.

The Intelligent Design argument seems to me to rest on a fundamental contradiction, by positing the "unlikely chance" that our universe could result by chance, while assuming the infinity of the universe by acknowledging the possibility of multiple possible other kinds of universes, a necessary assumption they have to make in order to posit the "universe unlikely to be friendly to life by accident" argument.

If this is the only universe, the ID argument makes no sense, since it is impossible to talk about "unlikely chance" if one cannot talk about other possible universes. Therefore the ID proponent is positing a model of reality he or she does not really believe in, merely to score a rhetorical point.

If this is the only universe, it is as it is and "chance" is a meaningless diversion. As NN points out, the ID argument in this case assumes its conclusion.

If this is just one of an infinite number of possible universes, it follows that some of these universes will be hospitable to life, and some of them will be hostile to life. Since a fraction of infinity is also infinity, it follows that an infinite number of possible universes will have life, and an infinite number will not. So based on the "unlikely chance" ID argument itself, one must conclude, if one assumes other possible universes, that a universe hospitable to life is no more "unlikely" than any other kind of universe.

Therefore the ID argument fails based on its own assumptions. ID only sounds plausible by playing a rhetorical game of bait and switch - by positing a number of possible other universes, to make the "unlikely chance" argument, and then by turning around and denying the very possibility of these other universes in order to avoid the implications of infinity negating the ID "unlikely chance" argument.

If other possible universes exist, than our universe is no more likely or unlikely than these other universes. If they do not exist, then the ID proponent has no argument to make at all.

If this is just one of an infinite number of possible universes, it follows that some of these universes will be hospitable to life, and some of them will be hostile to life. Since a fraction of infinity is also infinity, it follows that an infinite number of possible universes will have life, and an infinite number will not. So based on the "unlikely chance" ID argument itself, one must conclude, if one assumes other possible universes, that a universe hospitable to life is no more "unlikely" than any other kind of universe.
grep14w, astute as always, makes an excellent further point in regard to probability: while there is a huge, but finite, number of possible types of universe (phase space is finite) - the infinity of possible examples coming into being of all types of universes cannot be excluded in the calculation of probabilities. Though a life-facilitating universe may be but one in a zillion, if there have been an infinite number of each type of universe, this proportion is inconsequential in counting against the inevitability of the emergence of life, someday, somewhere.