Header 1

Our future, our universe, and other weighty topics


Tuesday, November 15, 2022

Paranormal Luminosities

On page 48 of the document here, we read a physician describe seeing this when a patient died: 

"The head of the body became suddenly enveloped in a fine, soft, mellow, luminous atmosphere. . . . The brain began to attract the elements of electricity, of magnetism, of motion, of life and of sensation into its various and numerous departments. The head became intensely brilliant; and I particularly remarked that just in the same proportion as the extremities of the organism grew dark and cold, the brain appeared light and glowing.” 

 On page 20 of Death and Its Mystery: After Death by the astronomer Camille Flammarion, we have an account of an apparition that appeared as a "phosphorescent cloud" shortly after the death of someone named Cognet. We read this account by someone named Texier:

"Suddenly I saw a glow which made me utter a cry of terror. My father got up and took me into bed with him. The glow persisted; it was a sort of phosphorescent cloud, without definite outlines....My father pronounced these words in a loud voice: 'If you are Cognet, strike three blows on the chest of drawers.' This piece of furniture, marble-topped (it is still in my possession) was in the room giving on to the alcove. Three loud and measured blows were then struck upon the marble of the chest of drawers. Then, little by little, the glow thinned, melted, and I saw nothing more."
 
In the book Occult Science in India and Among the Ancients by Lewis Jocolliot, a distinguished Chief Judge, we have many reports of seeing the paranormal. On page 246 we read this account:

"As he uttered these words, he imposed his hands above one of those immense copper platters inlaid with silver such as are used by wealthy natives for dice playing, and almost immediately there ensued such a rapid and violent succession of blows or knocks that it might have been taken for a hail-shower upon a metal roof, and I thought I saw (the reader will observe that I do not express myself positively in this respect) a succession of phosphorescent lights (plain enough to be visible in broad daylight) pass to and fro across the platter in every direction."

A professor of chemistry at the University of St. Petersburg, A. Butlerof wrote up an account in which he claimed to have witnessed the most astonishing paranormal phenomena while testing a medium named Williams, while the medium was tied up in a hotel room of Butlerof and a Mr. Aksakof.   Below (dating from 1875) is an excerpt:

"Presently phosphorescent lights were floating in the air, and immediately the form of John King became visible. This apparition is accompanied by a greenish phosphorescent light..."

Another witness reported seeing something similar when seeing an apparition of his brother, one that appeared about the same night the brother died very far away:

"His  death  took  place, or  rather  he  fell,  though  he  may  not  have  died  immediately, on  the  8th  of  September,  1855. That  night  I awoke  suddenly  and  saw  facing  the  window of  my  room  by  my  bedside,  surrounded  by  a bright  sort  of phosphorescent  mist  as  it  were ... my  brother kneeling."

In his memoir Beyond Coincidence: One Man's Experiences With Psychic Phenomena, the late psychic Alex Tanous says on page 123, "On several occasions, I saw a shapeless mist drift away from a patient when he died."  Tanous says that he could create with his mind balls of light.  On page 2 he says "I have created floating balls of light in totally dark rooms." On page 53 he says, "I've been able to project balls of light into my hands or into the room, in otherwise absolute darkness." On page 101 he says, "I discovered I could project not only balls of light, but actual images, images which could be seen by everyone in the room."  On page 110 we read that many witnesses saw a ball of light mysteriously near Tanous. 

The book The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism states this: "There are so many stories of holy priests who lit up a dark cell or a whole chapel by the light which streamed from them or upon them, that I am strongly inclined in adhere to the more literal interpretation." The book then gives several accounts of such cases.

In his long and very interesting work Human Survival After Death, Charles Tweedale gives many first-hand accounts of the paranormal, some including anomalous light phenomena. On page 218 he indicates the variety of what he saw in the quote below:

"These  manifestations  continued  several  years  with varying  degrees  of  power,  frequency  and  interest,  up  to about  a year  ago,  when  there  began  to  be  a marked  falling off,  though  occasionally  we  still  get  remarkable  manifestations. This  occurred  so  late  as  April- June  (1918),  when  a wonderful  materialised  apparition  appeared  seven  times, six  times  in  daylight,  seen  on  one  occasion  by  my  wife, myself,  and  my  son  together,  and  on  others  seen,  heard and  felt,  by  myself,  wife  and  daughter,  also  in  daylight. These  experiences  have  covered  the  whole  range  of  psychic phenomena  : apparitions,  materialisations,  etherialisations, lights,  pillars  of  fire,  the  direct  voice,  very  loud  and  in daylight,  appearances  of  animals,  automatic  writing, psychic  photography,  movements  of  furniture  and  other objects,  volleys  of  bell-ringing,  remarkable  warnings  and prophetic  forecasts  of  coming  events  accurately  fulfilled, sometimes  to  the  day,  hour  and  minute,  and  many  evidential messages  from  my  ' dead '  relatives  and  friends,  a very remarkable  guardian-angel  attitude  shown  by  the  manifesting intelligences  of  the  utmost  service  (page  139),  sometimes warning  us  of  danger,  and  on  one  occasion  saving  life  ; and  many  other  phases  too  numerous  to  mention."

A woman recalled seeing a strange light when an apparition of her dying father occurred:

"A day  or  two  before  his  death,  somewhere  between  the 4th  and  10th  of  December  (the  day  of  his  decease),  when  he was  lying  in  an  unconscious  state  in  a room  on  the  ground floor,  and  I was  sleeping  on  the  second  floor,  I was  awoke suddenly  by  seeing  a bright  light  in  my  bedroom — the  whole room  was  flooded  with  a radiance  quite  indescribable — and my  father  was  standing  by  my  bedside,  an  etherealised  semi- transparent figure,  yet  his  voice  and  his  aspect  were  normal. His  voice  seemed  a far-off  sound,  and  yet  it  was  his  same voice  as  in  life.  All  he  said  was.  'Take  care  of  mother.'  He  then  disappeared  floating  in  the  air,  as  it  were,  and  the light  also  vanished."

In his autobiography Incidents in My Life (which includes many a fascinating account), the medium Daniel Dunglas Home describes a case of a paranormal luminosity:

"The family had retired to rest, and I at once went to my room, which was so completely filled with the moonlight as to render a candle unnecessary. After saying my prayers, I was seated on the bed, and about to draw the sheet over me, when a sudden darkness seemed to pervade the room. This surprised me, inasmuch as I had not seen a cloud in the sky ; and on looking up I saw the moon still shining, but it was on the other side of the darkness, which still grew more dense, until through the darkness there seemed to be a gleam of light, which I cannot describe, but it was similar to those which I and many others have since seen when the room has been illuminated by spiritual presence. This light increased, and my attention was drawn to the foot of my bed, where stood my friend Edwin. He appeared as in a cloud of brightness, illumining his face with a distinctness more than mortal. His features were unchanged except in brightness, and the only difference I saw was that his hair was long, and that it fell in wavy ringlets upon his shoulders. He looked on me with a smile of ineffable sweetness, then slowly raising the right arm, he pointed upward, and making with it three circles in the air, the hand began slowly to disappear and then the arm, and finally the whole body melted away. The natural light of the room was then again apparent.  I was speechless and could not move, though I retained all my reasoning faculties. As soon as the power of movement was restored, I rang the bell, and the family, thinking I was ill, came to my room, when my first words were, ' I have seen Edwin — he died three days ago at this very hour.'  This was found to be perfectly correct by a letter which came a few days afterwards, announcing that after only a few hours illness, he had died of malignant dysentery."

On page 94 of a July 1951 edition of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, we have this account of a paranormal luminosity:

"I was sitting in my living room reading. It was about 7:30 in the morning on a nice clear day. Suddenly the room seemed to be filled with brilliant light—not light seen by the physical eye but a quality of light akin to ecstatic joy or triumph, and yet with the physical radiance of light too. In a moment I 'heard’ Carl Morgan telling me it was wonderful, that he had always believed that death must lie something like this. He was free now and so happy he could scarcely believe it. The experience lasted for about two minutes and was so vivid I can recall every detail. I did not hear a physical voice but the words seemed to speak inside my head somehow and were unmistakably Carl Morgan’s in ‘voice’ and intonation. My sister-in-law taught in the same studio with me at that time and as soon as we met there (about 8:30 that same morning) I told her of this experience. She insisted that I write it down and that we both sign it before we tried to check on Carl Morgan’s condition.”

On the next page we read this:

"Going to considerable trouble, the two women finally learned that Carl Morgan had died in a hospital in their city early on the morning of the experience, after having been in coma for some hours. They never were able to ascertain the exact moment of death (for he was found dead by a hospital nurse), but it seems reasonably certain that it occurred within a half hour to two hours before the auditory apparition was experienced." 

Another woman recalls seeing a dramatic luminous sight when her father died:

"I was  just  about  to  slip  quietly  down  into  the  bed  when on  the  opposite  side  of  it,  that  on  which  the  nurse  was  sleeping, the  room  became  suddenly  full  of  a beautiful  light,  in  the midst  of  which  stood  my  father  absolutely  transfigured, clothed  with  brightness.  He  slowly  moved  towards  the  bed, raising  his  hands  as  though  to  clasp  me  into  his  arms,  and  I ejaculated,  'Father.'  He  replied,  'Blessed  for  ever,  my child,  for  ever  blessed.'  I moved  to  climb  over  nurse  and kiss  him,  reaching  out  my  arms  to  him,  but  with  a look  of mingled  sadness  and  love  he  appeared  to  float  back  with  the light  towards  the  wall  and  was  gone.  The  vision  occupied so  short  a time  that  glancing  involuntarily  at  the  window again  I saw  the  morning  dawn  and  the  little  bird  just  as  they had  looked  a few  minutes  before.  I felt  sure  that  God  had vouchsafed  to  me  a wonderful  vision,  and  was  not  in  the  least afraid,  but,  on  the  contrary,  full  of  joy  that  brought  floods  of grateful  tears,  and  completely  removed  all  anguish  except  that of  having  lost  my  father  from  earth."

In 1918 Alexandrina  M'Gillivray reported the very unusual sight of seeing a strange luminosity on the night her sister had an unusually vivid dream of her late mother:

"Once  when  sharing  a room  with  a sister  I could  not  sleep. I was  looking  towards  her  bed  when  I saw  a luminous  cloud hovering  over  her  head.  It  did  not  frighten  me  in  the  least so  I did  not  waken  her,  but  in  the  morning  she  told  me  that she  had  had  a very  vivid  dream  of  our  mother  who  had  died some  time  previously — so  vivid  that  she  could  hardly  believe my  mother  was  not  present."

On page 141 of the document here, a woman recalls a strange experience with light, one occurring three weeks after her husband's death:

" I woke up with a rushing noise of wind in the room, as if all the windows were open and everything in the room was swirling round and round as it does at sea in a storm. But the strange thing is, I was not in the least frightened ; only I knelt up in my four-poster to see if the windows were really shut (as they were) and to look at what was happening. . . . Then I saw a small light by the fireplace and it grew bigger and brighter. . . . All on a sudden, before one could think, the whole room and all in it— I myself and the bed— everything was enveloped in a perfectly gorgeous light, like the most wonderful, bluish opaque light— opaline— lovely ! It seemed clear, and yet I cannot remember being able to see through it.  I fell back on my pillows saying: 'Oh! don't go ! ’ It seemed to bring so extraordinary a rest. . . . Remember there was not the least fear in my mind from the beginning ; only the feeling one could go on watching this fight for ever. . . . It was so peaceful— so full of bliss— no least atom of fear.  I kept on saying : ‘ Oh ! don’t go ! ’  But it went. While the whole room was illuminated it suddenly went. It went as it came, only more quickly, for it began with a small light that spread. . . ."

Below is a quote from Professor Charles Richet, who won a Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology in 1913, describing a human form seeming to appear from a luminous orb: 

"I see something like a white luminous ball of undetermined outline suspended above the floor. Then suddenly there appears, emerging from this white orb of light as from a trap-door, the phantom 'Bien Boa.' It is of moderate height. He is draped in a flowing garment with a belt around his waist.  One cannot say whether he walks or glides...Without opening the curtain he suddenly collapses and vanishes on the floor. At the same time one hears the noise of a body falling on the floor. Three or four minutes afterwards the same white orb appears in the opening of the curtains above the floor, then a body is seen quickly rising straight up and attaining the height of an adult, and then it again collapses on the floor." 

This was observed in a place that had no trap-door. A similar account by Richet can can be found here.  Richet's very interesting book "Thirty Years of Psychical Research" can be read online here.

In the account here a witness reports both a shockingly inexplicable paranormal luminosity and also a sudden drop in temperature, often reported when paranormal phenomena are witnessed:

"On  the  night  of  19th  December  1907  my  wife  was awakened  by  a feeling  of  intense  cold,  and  by  a strong  cold breeze  blowing  upon  her  cheek.  She  turned  her  head, raising  herself,  and  saw,  to  her  amazement,  standing  at  the foot  of  the  bed,  and  on  my  side  of  it,  a tall  column  of  white cloudy  light  reaching  from  the  bed’s  foot  right  up  to  the ceiling.  She  gazed  at  it  spellbound  (the  cold  wind  blowing the  whole  time)  for  a minute  or  more,  during  which  period she  noticed  that  the  light  illuminated  the  bed  coverlet,  and she  could  see  its  pattern  distinctly,  and  also  the  dressing table  and  mirror  by  the  light,  and  then  becoming  terrified she  buried  her  head  under  the  clothes,  and  on  looking  up after  a considerable  time  found  the  room  in  darkness.  She described  the  light  to  me  when  I awoke  as  like  a column of  muslin  wrapped  in  spiral  swathes,  with  a strong electric  light  in  the  midst  and  shining  through  it."


Friday, November 11, 2022

Templeton's Fine-Tuning Review Omits Some of the Biggest Examples

On the web site of the "rich as Croesus" Templeton Foundation, we see a page inviting us to learn more about the weighty topics below:

  • Complexity 
  • Extended Evolutionary Synthesis  
  • Fine-Tuning 
  • Forgiveness  
  • Free Will  
  • Future-Mindedness  
  • Hope & Optimism  
  • Intellectual Humility  
  • Origins of Life 
  • Positive Neuroscience  
  • Research on Emergence  
  • Science of Wellbeing  
  • Self-Control  
  • The Origins of the Universe  
  • The Psychology of Purpose  
  • The Science of Awe  
  • The Science of Generosity  
  • The Science of Gratitude  
  • The Science of Immortality  
  • Time
I have already published a rather long critique of a document that you can see a link to if you click on the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" link. Now let me take a look at the main document you get a link to when you click on the "Fine Tuning" link above. The link takes you to a page that briefly discusses "how the existence of life in the universe similarly relies on improbable cosmic conditions, with physical variables seemingly aligning perfectly to enable the evolution of intelligent beings." The page mainly serves as a brief introduction to an in-depth 52-page document entitled simply "Fine Tuning," which you can read here. Billed as a "full research review," the paper is authored by a science journalist who seems to have previously written very little or nothing on this very complex and specialized topic. The document speaks as if it will be reviewing all of the discovered cases in which the universe seems improbably fine-tuned to allow the existence of creatures such as us. But some of the most dramatic cases are not mentioned. 

cosmic fine-tuning

The first very big example of cosmic fine-tuning not discussed involves the fine tuning of the Higgs field or Higgs boson. In a TED talk particle physicist Harry Cliff describes the situation like this:

"But there is something deeply mysterious about the Higgs field. Relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that it has two natural settings, a bit like a light switch. It should either be off, so that it has a zero value everywhere in space, or it should be on so it has an absolutely enormous value. In both of these scenarios, atoms could not exist, and therefore all the other interesting stuff that we see around us in the universe would not exist. In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on, not zero but 10,000 trillion times weaker than its fully on value, a bit like a light switch that's got stuck just before the off position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe."

This is an extreme case of fine-tuning. Physicists were so bothered by this case of fine-tuning that they spent innumerable hours (plus countless tax dollars) working on a very ornate speculative theory called supersymmetry, designed mainly to explain away this particular case of fine-tuning. But the theory is really just one of those “rob Peter to pay Paul” affairs, as it requires the existence of a whole set of undiscovered particles, the existence of which would be just as big a case of fine-tuning as the fine-tuning that the theory tries to explain away. So far the Large Hadron Collider has failed to confirm the predictions of supersymmetry, leaving it in a state that one commentator has described as a deathbed state.

Scientists are puzzled by why the Higgs field has the strength it has, and they say that it seems to require fine-tuning to at least 15 decimal places. This is a problem called the hierarchy problem or the naturalness problem. It is discussed in this scientific paper entitled The Higgs: so simple yet so unnatural. As a Daily Galaxy article put it, “Using theory as it currently stands, the mass of the Higgs boson can only be explained as the result of a random fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe at a level of accuracy of one in one quadrillion.”

An article states this about the fine tuning of the Higgs field/Higgs boson:

"One logical option is that nature has chosen the initial value of the Higgs boson mass to precisely offset these quantum fluctuations, to an accuracy of one in 1016. However, that possibility seems remote at best, because the initial value and the quantum fluctuation have nothing to do with each other. It would be akin to dropping a sharp pencil onto a table and having it land exactly upright, balanced on its point. In physics terms, the configuration of the pencil is unnatural or fine-tuned."

In an article in Symmetry magazine, we have a similar explanation:

"To understand what’s fishy about the observable Higgs mass being so low, first you must know that it is actually the sum of two inputs: the bare Higgs mass (which we don’t know) plus contributions from all the other Standard Model particles, contributions collectively known as 'quantum corrections.'  The second number in the equation is an enormous negative, coming in around minus 1018 GeV. Compared to that, the result of the equation, 125 GeV, is extremely small, close to zero. That means the first number, the bare Higgs mass, must be almost the opposite, to so nearly cancel it out. To some physicists, this is an unacceptably strange coincidence."

How big a coincidence? The Symmetry article later quotes physicist Lawrence Lee Jr. as saying “the conundrum with the Higgs mass, which would require fine-tuning on the order of 1-in-1034,” which is a coincidence like the coincidence of you correctly guessing the full phone numbers of three consecutive strangers. 

What mention do we have of the hierarchy problem or the fine-tuning issue involving the Higgs mass/ Higgs field in the so-called "full research review" of fine-tuning offered by the Templeton Foundation? None at all. There are a few mentions of the Higgs field, but no mention of any fine-tuning issue regarding it. This is pretty inexcusable, because the hierarchy problem involving an apparent very precise fine-tuning of the Higgs field or Higgs mass has been one of the most widely discussed topics in theoretical physics for many years. Could our author's scholarship on this topic really have failed to bring this issue to her attention? Or was a decision made to make no mention of this example, just to avoid making the case for cosmic fine-tuning look too strong?

Another gigantic example of cosmic fine-tuning that is strangely ignored by the so-called "full research review" of fine tuning by the Templeton Foundation is the matter of the very precise equality of the absolute values of the proton charge and the electron charge. In our universe each proton has a mass 1836 times greater than the mass of each electron. But the electric charge of each proton is one particular value (+ 1.602176634  x 10-19 Coulomb) that is the very precise opposite of the electric charge of each electron  (-1.602176634  x 10-19 Coulomb). 

Gravitation is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of physics, being more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism. Accordingly, very, very slight changes in electromagnetism would result in forces overwhelming gravity, and preventing large bodies such as the Earth and the Sun from being held together by gravitation. On pages 64-65 of his book "The Symbiotic Universe," astronomer George Greenstein (a professor emeritus at Amherst College) said this about the equality of the proton and electron charges (which have precisely the same absolute value): 

"Relatively small things like stones, people, and the like would fly apart if the two charges differed by as little as one part in 100 billion. Large structures like the Earth and the Sun require for their existence a yet more perfect balance of one part in a billion billion." 

In fact, experiments do indicate that the charge of the proton and the electron match to eighteen decimal places. So here we have a case of cosmic fine-tuning in which the numbers are fine-tuned to eighteen decimal places, with our existence very much depending on such a case of fine-tuning. If such a fine-tuning existed to only sixteen decimal places, things like the Sun would not even hold together, because the electromagnetic repulsion of their particle charges would be greater than the gravitational attraction holding such bodies together. 

What mention do we have of this very impressive case of cosmic fine-tuning in the Templeton Foundation's so-called "full research review" of fine tuning? None at all. 

cosmic fine-tuning

Things are a tiny bit better in the document's mentioning of dark energy. We have some mention of dark energy seeming to be fine-tuned. We read the following:

"But why should empty space have some intrinsic energy? The answer is that even in a vacuum, 'virtual' particles are constantly popping up, lasting for a fleeting moment, before disappearing again —known as 'quantum fluctuations.'...It is possible to calculate how much quantum energy should theoretically reside in a single cubic centimeter of empty space using particle-physics models; the answer is a mind-bogglingly large amount, 1093 grams. Strangely, however, this value is way more than the dark-energy mass density that astronomers actually measure, which only adds up to a meagre 10-28 grams—120 powers of ten less than theory had suggested. It is thus highly confusing that the measured value is so small. Physicists have calculated that if the dark-energy mass density had been only about ten times greater than its measured value today, galaxies, planets, and life wouldn’t have been able to form—which seems a shockingly small margin."

Although correctly giving us almost all of the relevant facts, this explanation almost completely fails to explain this fine-tuning of dark energy in any kind of way that a reader will understand or remember. A better way to explain it is like in the example below. Let us imagine you have a computer that is programmed to generate a random number between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Now, if the random number is between 1 and 10, then the universe will allow your existence, but if the random number is greater than 10, the universe will not allow your existence. What is the likelihood of you existing under such conditions? Less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That is the kind of math that we are involved in with the fine-tuning of dark energy. Because theory predicts dark energy with a value 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than the maximum that would allow us to exist, there would seem in this regard to be some fantastically improbable good luck involved, something more unlikely than you throwing a box of Alpha Bits on the ground, and them spelling out a meaningful correctly spelled paragraph. 

The Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of the topic of fine-tuning very much drops the ball in its discussion of the cosmological flatness problem. Cosmologists became aware of this problem in the late 1970's. They realized that the universe's expansion rate had to be fine-tuned to something like 50 decimal places near the time of the Big Bang in order to end up with a universe like ours. Another way to describe this fine-tuning is to describe two parameters (a "critical density" just sufficient to barely cause an expanding universe to begin to one day contract, and an "actual density" that is the average density of matter), and to point out that at the beginning these two apparently independent numbers had to be equal to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  to end up with a universe like the one we live in. The "full research review" attempts to quickly dispose of this "flatness problem" by evoking a little triumphal legend. We read this:

"This is referred to as the 'flatness problem'—another example that has been cited as evidence of fine tuning (Rees, 2000; Martin, 2020). The consensus resolution to the flatness problem is 'inflation theory,' which asserts that the infant universe went through a short period of rapid expansion. Inflation lasted for only a fraction of a second, flattening cosmic curvature in that moment."  

But it is extremely wrong to be suggesting here that scientists managed to get rid of this example of very precise cosmic fine-tuning in the early universe by creating some "inflation theory."  Cosmologists and physicists have invented hundreds of versions of such inflation theories, and they all require as much or more fine-tuning than the expansion rate fine-tuning that scientists were trying to get rid of. Quite a few parameters have to be very precisely fine-tuned in order for you to get any working theory of primordial cosmic inflation.  So there is no reduction in the cosmic fine-tuning. It is simply removing a gigantic amount of fine-tuning in one place (the universe's expansion rate) at the cost of adding a whole bunch more fine-tuning in various other places.  It's like someone paying off a $30,000 hospital debt by authorizing a $10,000 charge on his Master Card, another $10,000 charge on his Visa Card, and another $10,000 charge on his American Express Card.  No actual reduction in debt has occurred. Similarly, no actual reduction in cosmic fine-tuning requirements occur if we postulate an "inflation theory" imagining primordial exponential expansion. 

Judging from a 2016 cosmology paper,  the cosmic inflation theory requires not just one type of fine-tuning, but three types of fine-tuning. The paper says, “Provided one permits a reasonable amount of fine tuning (precisely three fine tunings are needed), one can get a flat enough effective potential in the Einstein frame to grant inflation whose predictions are consistent with observations.” Speaking about the cosmic inflation theory, Cal Tech physicist Sean Carroll says here, “When perturbations are taken into account, inflation only occurs in a negligibly small fraction of cosmological histories,” and then spells that out as a fraction less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. A 2019 paper states "the theory of inflation requires finely tuned initial conditions" and that it "is therefore far from clear that inflation truly solves the fine-tuning puzzles that it was designed for." Another paper (referring to fine-tuning required by the cosmic inflation theory) says, "The staggering amount of fine-tuning which is required disturbs many cosmologists." 

A 2022 scientific paper notes that "generic inflationary models make a prediction that has not yet been observed — the existence of a background of primordial gravitational waves," and notes the failure of many years of attempts to detect such primordial gravitational waves, despite ever-more-expensive and ever-more-sensitive equipment. Noting the complete failure of searches for the primordial B-modes, a scientist recently stated, "If, however, future measurements continue to find no gravitational-wave signal, it will likely imply that we must seriously reconsider our inflationary models or perhaps dismiss inflation altogether, which would be a significant paradigm shift."  A more candid version of that statement would say something like this: "All these observational failures are making it pretty clear that cosmologists have been wasting their time for forty years messing around with groundless theories of primordial cosmic inflation." Suggesting a floundering of cosmic inflation theoretics, a 2019 article states, "Models such as natural and quadratic inflation that were popular several years ago no longer seem tenable, says theorist Marc Kamionkowski of Johns Hopkins University." A 2018 paper quotes physicist Phillip Gibbs as saying, "The problem is that no particular model of inflation has been shown to work yet," and states this:

"Inflationary theories require that there be a mysterious pre-gravity energy field (called the 'inflaton')...The Big Bang theory is derived from general relativity, which is entirely a gravity theory. To require that a gravity theory incorporates a pre-gravity phase within its cosmology, however brief in duration, sounds very much like nonsense. Moreover, cosmic inflation is an ad hoc theory '… contrived with the goal of arranging for the density perturbations to come out right' [Guth (1997), page 238]. Cosmic inflation, in its many different ad hoc forms, appears to be a deeply flawed theory, as nicely elaborated by one of its founders [Steinhardt (2011)].” 

In his paper "Does Inflation Solve the Hot Big Bang Model’s
Fine Tuning Problems?" C. D. McCoy states on page 21, "Insofar as the HBB [Hot Big Bang] model’s fine-tuning problems are probability problems, the likely verdict, for not only now but the foreseeable future, is that inflationary theory fails to solve them, even on the weakest reasonable standard of success."

Clearly the Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of the topic of fine-tuning has erred by telling us the simple legend that some unproven cosmic inflation theory got rid of fine-tuning required at the beginning of the universe.  The document should have told us that such an alleged "removal" was obtained at the price of introducing a wildly speculative poorly-performing theoretical regime that required about as much fine-tuning as the fine-tuning it was trying to get rid of. 

cosmic fine-tuning

The Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of the topic of fine-tuning refers 40 times to cosmic fine-tuning denialist Fred C. Adams, often referring to a 2019 paper he wrote on the topic of cosmic fine-tuning. Unfortunately, that paper was guilty of quite a few errors, as I discuss at length in my 2019 post "Where Adams Goes Wrong on Cosmic Fine-Tuning." 

In the "Conclusion" section of the Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of the topic of fine-tuning, we are very greatly misinformed. We are told this:

"The parameter that can vary the least is the mass of the down quark. If this were too heavy or too light, it would prevent atomic nuclei from being stable. It is estimated to be able to vary only by a factor of 7, which some consider extremely constraining." 

No, the mass of the down quark is not anything close to "the parameter that can vary the least."  There are four parameters that require fine-tuning many trillions of times greater than any fine-tuning required by the down quark mass:

(1) The Higgs field/Higgs mass situation described above requires fine-tuning to better than 1 part in a quadrillion, or even greater fine tuning, for above I quoted a physicist saying it would "require fine-tuning on the order of 1-in-1034,” which is a coincidence like the coincidence of you correctly guessing the full phone numbers of three consecutive strangers. 
(2) The fine-tuning of dark energy apparently involves fine-tuning something on the order of 1 part in 10 to the hundredth power.
(3) The fine-tuning of the absolute value of the proton charge and the electron charge requires fine-tuning on the order of 1 part in 10 to the twentieth power or thirtieth power, to allow stable planets and stars.
(4) The fine-tuning of the universe's initial expansion rate requires fine-tuning on the order of 1 part in 10 to the fiftieth power, regardless of whether there did or did not occur any "cosmic inflation" near the time of the Big Bang, because any successful "cosmic inflation" requires multiple types of fine-tuning with a collective unlikelihood on the order of 1 part in 10 to the fiftieth power.

All of these fine tuning requirements are very gigantically greater than any fine-tuning requirement involvement involving the down quark mass, very erroneously cited as the most stringent fine-tuning requirement by our Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of the topic of fine-tuning. Besides very incorrectly citing the down quark mass as "the parameter that can vary the least," as if it was the strongest example of cosmic fine-tuning, the Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of fine-tuning has suggested that the fine-tuning in quark masses is not very great, allowing variation by "a factor of 7," in other words 700%.  But at the end of their paper “Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass,” Epelbaum and others state that the “formation of carbon and oxygen in our Universe would survive a change” of about 2% in the quark mass or about 2% in the fine-structure constant, but that “beyond such relatively small changes, the anthropic principle appears necessary at this time to explain the observed reaction rate of the triple-alpha process.” This suggests very precise quark mass fine-tuning with disastrous results from a change of a mere 2%, fine-tuning far more stringent than something that can vary by 700%. Similarly, we read this in a scientific paper entitled "Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and Its Abundance in the Universe":

"We conclude that a change of more than 0.5 % in the strength of the strong interaction or more than 4 % change in the strength of the Coulomb force would destroy either nearly all C [carbon] or all O [oxygen] in every star. This implies that irrespective of stellar evolution the contribution of each star to the abundance of C or O in the ISM [interstellar medium] would be negligible. Therefore, for the above cases the creation of carbon-based life in our universe would be strongly disfavoured."

This is another fine-tuning requirement many times more stringent than the example incorrectly cited in the Templeton review as the best example of fine-tuning. 

The document ends up by stating, "If we decide to consider fine tuning to be a real conundrum, then, as discussed in Chapter 3, the most popular explanations are either to accept it as a lucky coincidence or to subscribe to an infinite multiverse."  Mention of a "lucky coincidence" is inappropriate, as cosmic fine-tuning involves many different "hit the distant bulls-eye" situations, not just one.  As for infinite multiverses, the moment you appeal to such an infinite multiverse as an act of desperation, you've confessed an overwhelming impression of purpose in the universe's arrangement. The utter futility and worthlessness of the multiverse as an explanation for cosmic fine-tuning is discussed here. Imagining some infinity of other universes does nothing to increase the probability of our universe being habitable, just as imagining an infinity of lottery gamblers does nothing whatsoever to increase your odds of winning a billion dollars in the Powerball lottery. And why should we be interested in "the most popular explanations" rather than the most plausible and simple explanation? 

An extremely great defect of the Templeton Foundation's "full research review" of the topic of fine-tuning is its complete failure to consider the topic of fine-tuning in biological organisms. Looking only in physics or cosmology for evidence of teleology in nature and ignoring equally abundant evidence (or even greater evidence) in biology is like being a doctor and only examining a patient above his neck, ignoring his chest, arms and legs.  

I suggest that the Templeton Foundation take maybe a few millionths of the billions that it has in its bank account, and pay for someone to redo its problematic so-called "full research review" of the very important topic of fine-tuning in nature. Writing on this extremely deep and complicated issue is best done by those who have been studying this weighty and extremely complex question for many years, which the young author of the Templeton Foundation's review shows no signs of having done.  Alas, the Templeton Foundation also fails us when we click on its link for the topic of Complexity. We get links to three so-called "full research reviews," none of which even gets halfway to first base in describing the vast levels of complexity in biological organisms, or the basic facts of physical complexity in human bodies. The readers of these lengthy reviews will learn very little about the stratospheric levels of complexity in the human body and other organisms. It's rather as if the Templeton Foundation was more interested in sweeping our physical complexity under the rug than describing it. An example of one of the obtuse statements in one of these reviews is this statement: "At the most basic level, we can understand what we are by examining our place in a taxonomic tree." No, looking at some speculative ancestry tree does not give any understanding at all about the vast physical complexity and hierarchical organization of our bodies, nor does it gives us any understanding of who we are in a mental sense (there being the most gigantic intellectual difference between humans and all other organisms). 

Monday, November 7, 2022

Developmental Biologists Can't Get Their Story Straight

Developmental biology is the branch of biology studying the process by which an organism progresses from a speck-sized state of a newly fertilized zygote to a full adult state that is vastly more organized and much larger. A recent Quanta Magazine article here tries to give us some sound bites suggesting that developmental biologists are making progress. But inadvertently the article is rather much a portrait of developmental biology in disarray, not getting much of anywhere, without any convincing story to tell for how marvels of biological organization occur. There's a little halfhearted mention of chemicals, a little halfhearted mention of physics, and nothing that adds up to a hundredth of an explanation of how vastly organized human bodies could arise from the tiny speck-sized simplicity of a newly fertilized zygote.  

Over the past few decades we have seen these common elements in these types of articles and the papers of developmental biologists:

(1) Again and again, words will be carefully chosen to try to make the problem of morphogenesis sound a billion times simpler than it is. For example, someone will talk about a problem of the origin of "form" or "shape." The problem is vastly bigger than that. It is the problem of explaining why fantastically organized structures appear, with so many levels of very high organization. That is a problem almost infinitely bigger than the problem of explaining how human-shaped bodies arise.

(2) Again and again, appeals are made to "patterns," as if an organism's body was a mere pattern. A human body is something almost infinitely more impressive than some mere pattern. 

(3) Again and again, dubious claims are made that some tiny little thing has been explained, often with some kind of mention of physics or chemistry. Almost all of the claims fail to be well-replicated scientific results.  An example is the unfounded claim that there are "morphogen gradient" chemicals that tell cells where to go to. For a long discussion of why this claim has no real explanatory value and is also not well grounded in observations, see my post here. 

(4) The explanatory sound bites given made are ever-changing. For decades  biologists told us the bogus story line that the human body arises because of a blueprint in DNA (despite the lack of any such anatomical blueprint in DNA). But the Quanta Magazine article ends with this statement, which sings a different tune:

“ 'We used to think if we just studied the genome with more and more depth and rigor, all of this would be clear,' Shyer said, but 'the answers to the important questions might not be at the level of the genome.' Once it seemed that developmental decisions were made through the interplay of genes and their products within cells, but the emerging truth is that 'the decision-making can be happening outside of the cell, through the physical interactions of cells with each other.' ” 

You do not explain how cells know where to go in the developing body or how to progress by using the vague wooly phrase "the physical interactions of cells with each other." If we don't understand how cells are able to go to the right places in the body (as if they had some knowledge they should not have), we do not explain such a thing by imagining such cells are interacting with other cells that also should not have such knowledge of the proper destinations of cells. And you don't get "decision-making" from "physical interactions"; you get decision-making from a mind. 

(5) There is an abundant use of imprecise wooly phrases and poorly defined terms, such as "morphogens" (a term defined in many different ways) and "the physical interactions of cells with each other." 

(6) Again and again, we will read the use of spurious action verbs in which it is unreasonably claimed that mindless information-free things "guide" or "direct" things.  An example is when the Quanta Magazine article claims that "physical tensions within an embryo set up patterns that guide growth."  

(7) Again and again, we hear about meaningless unimpressive experiments that are described in glowing terms, as if some great insight was gained. An example may be found in the Quanta Magazine article here when we read about some silly experiment in which scientists "removed the skin from a chicken embryo and disintegrated the tissue to pull apart the cells," putting the cells into a petri dish, and adding some chemical. They then observed the cells form a shape that is described as a ring shape (even though it does not look like a ring at all). This unimpressive result is described in the most glowing terms in the Quanta Magazine article, as if it provides some great insight. We see three pictures, and the third picture hardly looks any more organized than the first. But the result is described glowingly as evidence for "self-organization." Scientists are deluding themselves if they get excited about such results. 

Another example of this is the Quanta Magazine article here. Besides the unsolved problem of how cells end up in the correct positions in the body (not at all solved by the socially constructed myth of morphogen gradients), there is the problem of how simple stem cells turn into 200 types of cells in the human body, most of which are many, many times more organized and complex than such stem cells.  The Quanta Magazine article above offers no answer to this great mystery. It merely discusses scientists fooling around with artificial methods of making cells change their color.  

Quanta Magazine typically assigns its online articles about developmental biology (involving riddles a thousand miles over the heads of PhD's) to writers who lack even a bachelor's degree in biology. Any generalizations you read in such articles should be treated with great suspicion, and when PhD's in developmental biology are quoted, their statements should be treated with only somewhat less suspicion. Almost every biology origins claim you hear from a developmental biologist should be regarded with suspicion, and you should not take for granted the truth of any origins generalization they make. We should remember that many developmental biologists told us for so many years the fictional story that the human body arises from the reading of a DNA blueprint, a fiction many such biologists continue to assert (even though many other scientists have denied it). DNA contains no such blueprint for human anatomy, but merely low-level chemical information. 

The article on developmental biology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes the following interesting comment, noting a lack of any guiding theory in developmental biology:

"Although it is common in philosophy to associate sciences with theories, such that the individuation of a science is dependent on a constitutive theory or group of models, it is uncommon to find presentations of developmental biology that make reference to a theory of development (see discussion in Minelli and Pradeu 2014). Instead, we find references to families of approaches (developmental genetics, experimental embryology, cell biology, and molecular biology) or catalogues of 'key molecular components' (transcription factor families, inducing factor families, cytoskeleton or cell adhesion molecules, and extracellular matrix components). No standard theory or group of models provides theoretical scaffolding in the major textbooks (e.g., Slack 2013; Wolpert et al. 2010; Gilbert 2010). The absence of any reference to a constitutive theory of development or some set of core explanatory models is prima facie puzzling." 


biological complexity

A very recent paper on morphogenesis rather much hints at how our scientists are pretty much empty-handed in their explanations on this topic. The paper is entitled "Closing the Loop on Morphogenesis: A Mathematical Model of Morphogenesis by Closed-Loop Reaction-Diffusion." We have a paper that tries to explain a little by some speculative model involving what is called a cellular automaton. A cellular automaton is some little piece of software whereby each individual two-dimensional cell on a flat grid (roughly comparable to a checker on a checkerboard) behaves according to some rule that requires it to know about the states of all other cells on the two-dimensional grid (kind of like a checker that moves in some way after pondering the positions of all other checkers on the checkerboard).  What is wrong here? Three big things: first, cells don't have a two-dimensional arrangement, but a three-dimensional arrangement; second, a cell can't be aware of the states of all the cells that are nearby; third, cells don't seem to be microscopic computers capable of doing such calculations.  Using the term "in silico" to mean "occurring only within a computer," the authors confess, "This work is purely in silico; we have yet no evidence that this particular cellular automaton exists in nature."  Why would scientists be "grasping at straws" in this way by suggesting explanations so lame and implausible? Because they are pretty much "empty handed" in regard to explaining morphogenesis; and when you're empty-handed, you grasp at straws.   

Studying the topic of systems referred to as molecular machines, you may get an idea of the explanatory shortfalls of developmental biologists, their almost total failure to credibly explain the arising of stratospheric heights of organization in a human body. Below from page 137 of a PhD thesis is a list of biological systems described as if they were very impressive machinery:


Subcellular assembly

Sample of ‘molecular machine’ language

Source reference

Ribosome

“probably the most sophisticated machine ever made”

Garrett (1999)

Proteasome

“a molecular machine designed for controlled proteolysis”

Voges et al. (1999)

Glideosome

“a molecular machine powering motility”

Keeley et al. (2003)

Spliceosome

“among the most complex macromolecular machines known”

Nilsen (2003)

Blood clotting system

“a typical example of a molecular machine”

Spronk et al. (2003)

Photosynthetic system

“the most elaborate nanoscale biological machine in nature”

Imahori (2004)

Bacterial flagellum

“an exquisitely engineered chemi-osmotic nanomachine”

Pallen et al. (2005)

Myosin filament

“a complicated machine of many moving parts”

Ohki et al. (2006

RNA degradasome

“a supramolecular machine dedicated to RNA processing”

Marcaida et al. (2006)

RNA Polymerase

“a multifunctional molecular machine”

Haag et al. (2007). For details on the vast complexity of the RNA Polymerase III protein complex, consisting of more than 3000 well-arranged amino acids existing in more than a dozen proteins coded by genes scattered across more than 10 different chromosomes, see here.

An article by scientists discusses molecular machines in the human body:

"A molecular machine (or ‘nanomachine’) is a mechanical device that is measured in nanometers (millionths of a millimeter, or units of 10-9 meter; on the scale of a single molecule) and converts chemical, electrical or optical energy to controlled mechanical work [1,2]. The human body can be viewed as a complex ensemble of nanomachines [3,4]. These tiny machines are responsible for the directed transport of macromolecules, membranes or chromosomes within the cytoplasm. They play a critical role in virtually every biological process (e.g., muscle contraction, cell division, intracellular transport, ATP production and genomic transcription)...Myosin, kinesin and their relatives are linear motors that convert the energy of ATP hydrolysis into mechanical work."

Humans are not machines, largely because humans have minds and lives and understanding that no machine has. But within our bodies are many types of extremely complex functional systems that can reasonably be described as molecular machinery. How does machinery so complex and purposeful arise in a growing human body long after the appearance of a speck-sized zygote? Our developmental biologists have no credible explanation. Trying to explain such wonders of origination,  without resorting to the lie that a DNA blueprint for building humans is read, our developmental biologists do little more than mutter unimpressive sound bites about "patterns," "shapes," "cellular interactions" and "physical forces." Similarly, when trying to explain such basic mental phenomena as learning and recollection, our neuroscientists do little more than mutter unimpressive and implausible sound bites such as "synapse strengthening," "circuit reactivation," and "connection patterns."

Very strangely, philosophers of mind tend to pay no attention at all to the unsolved mystery of morphogenesis, the problem of how a speck-sized zygote is able to progress into the vastly more organized state of the human body, consisting of trillions of well-organized cells of about 200 different types.  So, for example, in David Chalmer's book The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Theory of Conscious Experience, we have 1362 uses of the word "consciousness," but no substantive references to morphogenesis or developmental biology.  It is senseless for philosophers of mind to ignore the mystery of morphogenesis, for that mystery offers us a profound clue that seems to point us in the right direction when trying to explain minds: that both the physical origin of a human body and the origin of a human mind are probably in some very large sense top-down affairs, rather than merely bottom-up affairs that can be explained mechanistically.