Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize
New York Times ^ | 03/13/2008 | Brenda Goodman

Posted on 03/14/2008 5:08:51 AM PDT by iowamark

The $1.6 million Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”...

Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.

In doing so, he has argued against a “God of the gaps” strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot.

Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.”

Professor Heller said he planned to use his prize to create a center for the study of science and theology at the Pontifical Academy of Theology, in Krakow, Poland, where he is a faculty member....

On returning years later to Poland, where Communist authorities sought to oppress intellectuals and priests, Professor Heller found shelter for his work in the Catholic Church. He was ordained at 23, but spent just one year ministering to a parish before he felt compelled to return to academia....

The prize will be officially awarded in London by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in a private ceremony on May 7 at Buckingham Palace.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: award; creation; creationism; evolution; heller; michaelheller; poland; templeton; templetonprize
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom
As far as we are able to measure, the behavior of the molecules in a volume of gas is predictably "random with a uniform distribution."

"As far as we are able to measure" is the operative clause here TXnMA. Alamo-Girl acknowledges this; you gloss right over it, seeming to suggest that the universe itself is somehow the product of Brownian motion. But this is the very point A-G gets to with her observation that we cannot know for certain what is "random" in a system if we don't know what the system "is."

The ability to "measure" is the ability to directly observe. This is the heart of "the observer problem": As spatio-temporally located parts of the system that we observe, we are never in a position to observe "all of it." We can only see from where we happen to stand. Thus we cannot know what the total system "is" on the basis of observation in principle. We therefore have no reason to conclude that "what is" can be reduced to what can be measured.

But if we assume that reduction, we foreclose the possibility that the randomness we perceive may be a physical process manifesting a higher-order cause that is not perceptible, detectable by sense perception.

Do we really want to reduce the universe (and human knowledge) to what sense perception can report? In effect, this is to say that Man, not God, is "the Measure" of all things. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that not Man, but his five sensory "windows" on the world, are the "measure" of reality.

It seems to me that the "randomness" that God uses as a tool in nature (so to speak) is indispensable to growth, change, development, evolution. Without it, the creation -- the universe -- would be wholly static. But this is not to say that randomness means "pure, blind chance," as Jacques Monod maintains (along with Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin, Singer, et al.).

Ultimately, it seems to me that God's laws are guides to the system that operate on the random aspects of the system, in such a way as to constrain pure chance. Thus I think we need to see that the words "random" and "chance" are not synonyms, even though typically we speak of them as if they were.

Alamo-Girl is so right: We need to understand what "randomness" really means when we toss the word around in popular debates. In short, it seems to me before we start speaking about randomness and "chance," we ought to acknowledge that the observer problem is inextricably involved in whatever we say about the matter, and there is no single "privileged" human observer in the universe in a position to know the truth, because the sole observer of "all that there is" can only be God Himself.

In contrast, we humans see only partially, and "as if through a glass, darkly."

My two cents, FWIW.

41 posted on 03/15/2008 9:33:49 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
You are quite welcome, dear Mrs. Don-o!
42 posted on 03/15/2008 9:33:53 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
If the observation is qualified "as far as we are able to measure" - and if it is factually a "uniform distribution" - then there is no misleading.
43 posted on 03/15/2008 9:36:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

As far as you care to measure.


44 posted on 03/15/2008 9:40:30 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"We ought to acknowledge that the observer problem is inextricably involved in whatever we say about the matter, and there is no single "privileged" human observer in the universe in a position to know the truth, because the sole observer of "all that there is" can only be God Himself."

Seemingly obvious, and yet it's the key to all these epistomological puzzles.

We think we are "aloof" as "observers," and yet we are always trying to mint coins out of imagined gold, or wondering why we can't stare into our own eyes.

45 posted on 03/15/2008 9:44:18 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Whisper sweet words of epismetology in your ear and speak to you of the pompitous of love. S. Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for outstanding essay-post, dearest sister-in-Christ! And thank you for all of your encouragements!

Truly, it is important for everyone to understand the "observer problem" - but most especially, it is crucial for Christians to understand it. And convey it to others. As you said:

Do we really want to reduce the universe (and human knowledge) to what sense perception can report? In effect, this is to say that Man, not God, is "the Measure" of all things. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that not Man, but his five sensory "windows" on the world, are the "measure" of reality.

The consequence of acquiescing to this reduced worldview is the false supremacy of science as certain knowledge over all else - relegating Spiritual insight, philosophy, theology et al to footnotes.

We need to understand what "randomness" really means when we toss the word around in popular debates. In short, it seems to me before we start speaking about randomness and "chance," we ought to acknowledge that the observer problem is inextricably involved in whatever we say about the matter, and there is no single "privileged" human observer in the universe in a position to know the truth, because the sole observer of "all that there is" can only be God Himself.

In contrast, we humans see only partially, and "as if through a glass, darkly."

Indeed. As far as I can tell, at this moment in time, the most disturbing element in the crevo wars for Christians young and mature is "randomness." The more we can do to explicate the "observer problem" the better.

46 posted on 03/15/2008 9:58:37 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Indeed.
47 posted on 03/15/2008 10:01:03 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
the "observer problem"

Illusion. Nothing but parallax.

48 posted on 03/15/2008 10:01:54 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; betty boop
I will have no response to your philosophical cryptic remarks until you have finished your book and I've had an opportunity to read it. I need context to reply.
49 posted on 03/15/2008 10:12:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."

As we never will know any system in full, the best approach for most practical reasons is to assume randomness - and let the philosophers quibble about the difference between randomness and unpredictability....

50 posted on 03/15/2008 10:54:38 AM PDT by bezelbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
If one were to extract a series of numbers of the extension of pi, it would appear to be "random" when it is fact highly determined.
By knowing what the system "is" - the extension of pi - one also knows the extracted series of numbers is not "random" at all.

And it would be a wonderful random number generator, but, alas, the numbers are to complicated to calculate. So, we look at even simpler methods to generate things which feel random...

51 posted on 03/15/2008 11:05:56 AM PDT by bezelbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bezelbub; betty boop; hosepipe
Thank you for sharing your views!

However, the term "random" is rooted in mathematics. The issue is not a "quibble" of philosophy, it is a matter of "proof" and accuracy in speaking.

If one pointed to a rectangle with four right angels and parallel, equal sides and declared it a "trapezoid" we'd say "Not so fast, it is a square, a trapezoid has only two sides parallel and it does not have four right angles."

Likewise, if one points to a thing and says to me it is "random" I'll reply "If you have established a uniform distribution, then perhaps so, but only to the extent of your measurement - because you cannot say something is random in the system unless you know what the system 'is.'"

52 posted on 03/15/2008 11:19:00 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
However, the term "random" is rooted in mathematics. The issue is not a "quibble" of philosophy, it is a matter of "proof" and accuracy in speaking.

a propos "accuracy in speaking": We were talking (at least, I was) about the physical world, not the mathematical. And there we're talking about experiments - not proofs. And until now, no experiment has falsified the hypothesis that the quantum world acts randomly...

53 posted on 03/15/2008 1:47:38 PM PDT by bezelbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bezelbub
And until now, no experiment has falsified the hypothesis that the quantum world acts randomly...

Old chestnut: Einstein was uncomfortable with randomness in quantum mechanics and expressed his discomfort with the phrase, "The Lord God does not play dice." To which Neils Bohr retorted, "Who are you to tell God what to do?"

54 posted on 03/15/2008 1:55:09 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The women got the vote and the Nation got Harding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
your philosophical cryptic remarks

Thanks a lot.

55 posted on 03/15/2008 2:54:34 PM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: bezelbub
Thank you for sharing your views!

And until now, no experiment has falsified the hypothesis that the quantum world acts randomly...

Within the scope of a particular investigation, if it was found to be a uniform distribution, the statement is accurate. But such a determination cannot be projected beyond the scope of the investigation to apply to the universe as a whole, multi-verses or across dimensions.

Again, one cannot say something is random in the system if he does not know what the system "is."

56 posted on 03/15/2008 9:49:22 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I didn't mean to be dismissive, it's just that our philosophical discussions invariably hit a dead end on some point that will be further explained in your book. When do you hope to have it in publication?
57 posted on 03/15/2008 9:55:34 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Within the scope of a particular investigation, if it was found to be a uniform distribution, the statement is accurate. But such a determination cannot be projected beyond the scope of the investigation to apply to the universe as a whole, multi-verses or across dimensions.

What's this bizarre obsession with the uniform distribution? There is no uniform distribution on N or R... So, no scientist will assume that it applies for the hole universe.

And I fail to see how your post is related to my post #53.

Again, one cannot say something is random in the system if he does not know what the system "is."

And we cannot say that something is a straight line if we don't see the hole line.
Do you see the problems with your statement? In the physical world, there is nothing we know to be a straight line - and there is nothing we know to be random. Doesn't stop us from doing geometry or probability theory - and geometrical or statistical physics...

58 posted on 03/16/2008 12:22:05 AM PDT by bezelbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Not even discussing anything in the organic system but discussing your budding universe system.


59 posted on 03/16/2008 8:35:19 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: bezelbub; betty boop; hosepipe; TXnMA; Mrs. Don-o; Lonesome in Massachussets; metmom; cornelis; ...
Thank you for your reply!

I'm pinging a few others who might be interested in some of the following.

What's this bizarre obsession with the uniform distribution?

Full disclosure.

Depending on the circumstance, all possibilities may or may not be equally probable.

When a person buys a lotto ticket in a field of a hundred million purchases of lotto tickets, the odds of his winning the prize is announced as a ratio of 1 in a hundred million. That is combinatorics. It is blind like a roll of the dice. Each possibility is equally probable to win the full prize.

But of the hundred million people buying lotto tickets, some are using numbers which represent important things or events in their lives, and very often those numbers are birth months and days. Because there are only 12 months in a year, 28-31 days in a month – and the range of numbers from which to choose ordinarily exceeds those limits --- the odds of such a purchaser winning the total prize amount is significantly diluted. Which is to say, there exists a greater probability of certain number selections and multiple winners having to split the prize. That is Bayesian probability. It is not blind. Each possibility is not equally probable to win the full prize.

If the sports book were based on combinatorics, it would be bankrupted quickly because the possibility of each team winning is not equally probable. Conversely, in sweepstakes each ticket is equally probable to win the prize.

In the crevo debates on this forum, both sides advance either combinatorics or Bayesian probability depending on how they wish to advocate in the debate.

betty boop and I, on the other hand, promote full disclosure.

As an example, Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder uses combinatorics to point out that a single typical protein is a chain of 300 amino acids, and that there are 20 common amino acids in life, which means that the number of equally probable combinations that would lead to the actualization of the protein would be 10390.

“It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.”

The atheists in rebutting this claim advance Bayesian probability – that evolution was not blind, that all possibilities were not equally probable. Notably, betty boop and I still await the math behind their claim...

Conversely, theists often argue that this universe is improbably finely tuned for life - that the laws of physics are precisely tuned so that life will appear in this universe, e.g. the speed of light and the fine structure constant. [The following is paraphrased and/or excerpted from our book, Don't Let Science Get You Down, Timothy.]

If gravity, which is just 10-28 the strength of electromagnetism, had been increased by a factor of 1010 then fewer atoms would be required to crush the core of a star making a nuclear furnace. Stars would be about 2 kilometers in diameter and their fuel would be depleted in a year. Or if gravity were weaker than it is, the gas clouds of hydrogen and helium after the big bang would never have collapsed. Either way, no life.

Ditto for the strong nuclear force. If it had been just 13 percent stronger, all of the free protons would have combined into helium-2 at the early stage of the big bang, decaying right away into deuterons, which would then fuse to become helium-4. There would be no hydrogen, no water, and no hydrocarbons. A decrease of approximately 31 percent would make the deuteron unstable and remove a step in the chain of nucleosynthesis. Consequently there would be nothing but hydrogen in the universe.

And water, too. The hydrogen bond is the attraction of the electron-rich oxygen atoms of water molecules for the electron-starved hydrogen atoms of other water molecules. This in turn determines the precise H-O-H bond angle of 104.5 degrees. This hydrogen bond is what holds together the two strands of DNA — it also causes the crystalline structure of ice (an open lattice), which is less dense than the liquid form. Thus, ice does not collect at the bottom of lakes and oceans — building up to a frozen earth. Instead, the ice on the surface acts as an insulation, which prevents evaporation and keeps the water beneath warm. No water, no life as we know it.

There’s an even more unlikely process in carbon resonance. Within stars, two helium-4 nuclei merge to make beryllium-8, which only exists for about 10–17 of a second. So a third alpha particle (helium nucleus) must collide and fuse with the beryllium nucleus in a tiny interval of opportunity in order to make carbon. Lucky for us that there is a resonance in the three-helium reaction at the precise thermal energy of a star’s core. If it weren’t so, then most carbon would be quickly processed into oxygen. Again, no life.

In this case, Bayesian works for the theist argument. And to rebut it, the theists likewise do a 180 degree reversal and advance combinatorics – that this universe is equally probable to any other universe. They support this claim with the anthropic principle (retroactive amazement) plus the plentitude argument (everything that can happen, did) plus infinity past (that there was no beginning of real space or real time.) And we, of course, rebut each of those on the merits.

But so the debate goes on - combinatorics v Bayesian probability.

But betty boop and I promote full disclosure.

Thus whenever a correspondent advocates that a certain thing in nature is “random” we hold his feet to the fire. He is using combinatorics to make that claim – all possibilities within the scope of the investigation are equally probable - a uniform distribution.

Nor will we stand idly by while he attempts to project the observation in a sample to the whole. (An element of the "observer problem.")

As an example, in the extension of pi - a sampling of numbers from the extension may be random to the observer doing the sample - but because we can and do know what the system "is" - we know it is not random at all, but highly determined by calculating the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle and extending it to the furthest position (n) from which the sample was extracted (3.14159265358979323846...n)

Likewise, a random (uniform distribution) observation in a sample may be belied by correlation observed in a larger sample or in the whole. Causation and no boundary in the extension is why random number generators such as Chaitin's Omega are only "pseudo-random." The same can be said for observations in nature, e.g. physical causation or origins and boundaries of space/time.

Without making the observation, it is impossible to claim uniform distribution. And the extent of physical reality (cosmos, universes, dimensions) is both unknown and unknowable.

Moreover if the correspondent advances “randomness” or “equal probability” in one instance – e.g. quantum mechanics – and then decries it in another, e.g. in Schroeder’s analysis of the probability of proteins – we will call him on the inconsistency and ask him to justify how in one instance each possibility is equally probable while it is not in the other.

One cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.”


60 posted on 03/16/2008 9:10:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson