We
recently saw the publication of the “The Big Picture” by
physicist Sean Carroll. In this book Sean paints a portrait of a gloomy,
purposeless, godless universe. Along the way he commits a few errors.
Below are some that I detected.
On
page 154 Sean discusses the work of ESP researcher Joseph Rhine, a
professor at Duke University who worked mainly during the 1930's and
1940's, producing dramatic evidence for ESP. Sean creates the impression that Rhine's work was a fluke
that was never replicated. Referring to Rhine's results, Sean says
“many attempts to replicate them failed,” and does not mention
any followup experiments supporting Rhine's results. But Sean misleads
his reader on this topic. In general, subsequent experiments on ESP
have indeed replicated Rhine's results, providing very powerful
evidence for ESP. In particular, the ganzfeld sensory deprivation
experiments provided average results of about 32% in trials in which
the expected chance result was 25% (this paper looks at a series of
ganzfeld studies, and concludes the probability of getting the
results was only about 2 chances in 100 million). More recently,
tests with autistic children (such as the scientific paper of Dr.
Diane Hennacy Powell) have provided ESP results very strongly
replicating Rhine's work, as have phone and email tests done by Sheldrake.
Other
than a handful of passing references, Sean shows no sign of having
studied anything relating to the paranormal or psychic phenomena.
But Sean nonetheless dogmatically declares the impossibility of
various paranormal claims, on the grounds that they are inconsistent
with what he calls “the Core Theory.” On page 158 he says, “And
those concepts – the tenets of the Core Theory, and the framework
of quantum field theory on which it is based – are enough to tell
us that there are no psychic powers.” Later on page 212 he states,
“The Core Theory of contemporary physics...leaves no wiggle room
for intervention by nonmaterial influences.”
But
what exactly is this Core Theory to which he refers? In Appendix A of
the book, he tells us: the Core Theory is a physics equation. Sean
describes a complicated physics equation, and then says this:
So there you have it:
the Core Theory in a nutshell. One equation that tells us the quantum
amplitude for the complete set of fields to go from starting
configuration (part of a superpostion inside a wave function) to some
final configuration. We know that the Core Theory, and therefore this
equation, can't be the final story.
Sean
is saying that this Core Theory is basically a complicated physics
equations. The inputs and outputs of that equation are purely
physical things, and none of its inputs or outputs are anything that
is the slightest bit biological, mental, spiritual, or psychological.
It is therefore absolutely false and ludicrous for Sean to claim
that this Core Theory has anything whatsoever to say about psychic
phenomena, the possibility of intervention by nonmaterial
influences, or anything whatsoever that is mental, spiritual, or
psychological. And even if there was such an implication, it would
have little force, because Sean has admitted that this Core Theory
“can't be the final story.” Sean also says the Core Theory is
based on the “framework of quantum field theory,” but (as discussed here) quantum
field theory is famous for making what is commonly called the “worst
prediction in the history of physics,” that the vacuum of space should be super-dense (as Sean himself discusses on page 304 of his
book). The idea that something so problematic can set reliable
prohibitions against completely unrelated things such as psychic
phenomena or nonmaterial influences is therefore doubly
indefensible.
On
page 220 of the book, Sean discusses near-death experiences, and
claims that “no cases of claimed afterlife experiences have been
subject to careful scientific protocols.” This is false. For at
least 25 years there have been physicians and scientists who have
methodically studied near-death experiences using careful scientific
protocols. For many years the Journal of Near Death Studies has been
publishing scientific papers on near-death experiences, papers that
have followed scientific protocols. The AWARE study published in 2014
is a study of near-death experiences authored by a large group of
scientists and physicians, and it followed careful scientific
protocols, and also produced some dramatic evidence results
suggestive of a human soul that can leave the body.
Sean
seems to have taken a look at the AWARE study, for he mentions its
failure to verify out-of-body experiences by using a particular
technique involving visual stimuli placed above the beds of people
near the brink of death. But he fails to mention that the same study
reported a dramatic case of someone who reported an out-of-body experience
while his heart was stopped, a person who reported various
distinctive details of his heart attack resuscitation attempt that
were verified. In this regard, Sean is selectively reporting facts
about as fairly as someone who might describe the Apollo program only
by saying, “The Apollo program tried to reach the moon, but the
Apollo 13 mission failed without landing on the moon,” without
mentioning that the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions did successfully land on
the moon.
On
page 220 of his book, Sean states: “Our status as parts of the
physical universe implies that there is no overarching purpose to
human lives, at least not inherent in the universe beyond ourselves.”
This is a complete non-sequitur, saying that one thing implies
another when it does no such thing. We're parts of the universe, so
there's no purpose to our lives? The first thing in no way implies
the second.
In
Chapter 36 of his book, Sean discusses evidence from physics that the
universe seems to be fine-tuned in a way that allows life to exist.
But Sean tries to discourage anyone who might conclude that the
universe was designed for life to appear. On page 305 he states, “We
don't know very much about whether life would be possible if the
numbers in our universe were very different.” This is entirely
false. For more than 35 years scientists have been very carefully
considering whether life would be possible if the numbers in our
universe were very different, and have made many relevant conclusions
about the matter. We know that galaxies and sun-like stars would not
exist if physical constants such as the gravitational constant and
the fine-structure constant were different by a relatively small
amount. We know that if there were a very tiny difference between the
absolute values of the proton charge and the electron charge, then
planets could not hold together (the proton charge is the exact
opposite of the electron charge, with the numbers matching to at
least 22 decimal places). We know that small changes in the strong
nuclear force in one direction would make stable molecules
impossible, and that small changes in another direction would have
prevented the formation of carbon and oxygen on which life depends.
We know that a tiny change in the cosmological constant or vacuum
energy density would have prevented a habitable universe. We know
that a very small change in the neutron mass or the proton/electron
mass ratio would lead to a universe in which stars like our sun could
not exist. See here or here for more information.
To
help explain why we live in such a fine-tuned universe (while
preserving his atheistic naturalism), Sean suggests the idea of the
multiverse, that there are many universes. He says on page 309 that the
multiverse is a “simple, robust mechanism under which naturalism
can be perfectly compatible with the existence of life.” Another
whopper. Postulating a vast collection of other universes is not a
simple assumption, but pretty much the flabbiest and most
extravagant assumption possible, something that is really the precise
opposite of being simple. From the standpoint of Occam's Razor and
metaphysical parsimony, imagining some huge collection of other
universes is actually far less simple than imaging a single
intelligence behind the universe.
Sean
also errs in saying, “if we get a multiverse in this way, any
worries about fine-tuning and the existence of life evaporate.”
The worries he refers to are his kind of atheist worries, but he's
wrong in suggesting that such worries would evaporate in the case of
such a multiverse. That's because the chance of success of any one
random trial is not increased by increasing the number of random
trials. So if the habitability of our universe (by a series of blind
chance coincidences) was a gazillion-to-one shot before imagining a
multiverse, it is still exactly the same gazillion-to-one shot after
you assume such a multiverse. By assuming an infinity of universes,
you do not increase by even 1 percent the chance that our universe
would be habitable.
In
this case Sean describes the most ridiculously flabby and extravagant
state of affairs as something “simple,” and he gives us the same
“black is white” type of talk in describing a parallel universes
theory he seems to be infatuated with. Sean describes the Everett
“many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, the crazy idea
that the universe is constantly splitting up into different copies,
so that everything possible happens in a vast collection of parallel
universes. Sean says on page 167 that there is “a lot to love about the
Everett/Many-Worlds approach to quantum mechanics,” and describes
it as “lean and mean.” No, pretty much nothing you can imagine
could be less lean. The Everett “many worlds”
interpretation is pretty much the most extravagant and flabby thing
imaginable. All those unnecessary parallel universes are
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of metaphysical fat and flab. Calling
such a theory “lean” is like calling a 900-pound man “thin.”
But
Sean likes the theory, which he provides no evidence for and no
reasons for believing in, other than the laughably false claim that
it is “lean.” Since he rejects life-after-death, Sean doesn't
want me to believe that my dear departed mother is in some heaven or afterlife
realm. But Sean apparently does want me to believe that there are an
almost infinite number of quantum copies of my mother strolling
around in some vast collection of parallel universes. We have
near-death experiences as a form of evidence for post-mortal
survival, but zero evidence for parallel universes. Sean apparently
thinks it's better to believe in something infinitely flabby and
infinitely extravagant and unsupported by evidence than to believe
in something vastly simpler that is supported by evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment