Saturday, July 9, 2011

Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System

New research is providing a fascinating new perspective on fine-tuning and a three hundred year old debate. First for the context. When Isaac Newton figured out how the solar system worked he also detected a stability problem. Could the smooth-running machine go unstable, with planets smashing into each other? This is what the math indicated. But on the other hand, we’re still here. How could that be?

According to the Whig historians, Newton, a theist, solved the problem by invoking a divine finger. God must occasionally tweak the controls to keep things from getting out of control. It explained why the solar system hasn’t come to ruin, and it provided a role for divine providence which, otherwise, might not be needed for the cosmic machine that ran on its own.

About a century later, Whig history tells us, the French mathematician and scientist Pierre Laplace solved the stability problem when he figured out that Newton’s bothersome instabilities would iron themselves out over the long run. The solar system was inherently stable after all, with no need of divine adjustment, thank you.

Newton’s sin was to use god to plug a gap in our knowledge. What a terrible idea. First, using god to plug gaps is a science-stopper. Why investigate further if god fixes the tough problems? And second, it damages our faith when science eventually solves the problem and the divine role is further diminished. The key to avoiding this problem is to sequester religious thinking to its proper role. Science and religion must be separated lest both be damaged.

That’s the Whig history. Now for what actually happened. Instead of Newton being wrong and Laplace being right it was, as usual, the exact opposite. Newton was right and Laplace was wrong, though the problem is far more complex than either man understood.

And Newton was not the doctrinaire and Laplace was not the savior as the Whigs describe. Again, the truth would be closer to the exact opposite. Newton was more circumspect than is told, and Laplace didn’t actually solve the problem. True, he thought he had solved the problem, but his claim may indicate more about evolutionary thinking than anything to do with science.

And Newton’s allowing for divine creation and providence never shut down scientific inquiry. If that were the case he never would have written the greatest scientific treatise in history.

After Newton, the brightest minds were all over the problem of solar system stability (though it is a difficult problem and would take many years to even get the wrong answer). And no one’s faith was shattered when Laplace produced his incredibly complicated calculus solution because they were banking on some Newtonian interventionism.

But what did raise tempers was the very thought of God not only creating a system in need of repair, but then stooping so low as to adjust the controls of the errant machine. The early evolutionary thinker and Newton rival, Gottfried Leibniz found the idea more than disgraceful. The Lutheran intellectual accused Newton of disrespect for God in proposing the idea the God was not sufficiently skilled to create a self-sufficient clockwork universe.

The problem with Newton’s notion of divine providence was not that it is a science stopper (if anything such thinking spurs on scientific curiosity) or a faith killer when solutions are found. The problem is that it violates our deeply held gnosticism, which is at the foundation of evolutionary thought.

Darwin and later evolutionists have echoed Leibniz’ religious sentiment time and again. Everyone knew what the “right answer” was, and this was the cultural-religious context in which Laplace worked.

Indeed, Laplace’s “proof” for his Nebular Hypothesis of how the solar system evolved came right out of this context and was, not surprisingly, metaphysical to the core. You can read more about that here.

Today the question of the solar system’s stability remains a difficult problem. It does appear, however, that its stability is a consequence of some rather fine-tuning. Fascinating new research seems to add to this story. The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own.

Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.

Like so much of evolutionary theory, this is an intriguing story because not only is the science interesting, but it is part of a larger confluence involving history, philosophy and theology.

19 comments:

Why don't you just explain, in simple language, why scientists should adopt your view (which is to insert miracles wherever you don't understand something), instead of the scientific view (which is that if you don't understand something, work harder to figure out the natural explanation, even if it takes hundreds of years).

The case of Newton is well-known to be one of the most famous cases where God-of-the-Gaps logic failed -- and it failed precisely because scientists didn't give up and invoke a miracle (despite Newton's suggestion), but instead kept working hard and eventually figured it out.

It's true that Newton's suggestion wasn't a "science stopper" -- but that's only because Leibniz et al. *didn't follow his suggestion, because to do so would be lazy and would stop science in this area*.

Oh, and please give us some method for including/excluding miracles in science. We're still waiting. Without that all you are giving us is meaningless complaining.

Cornelius Hunter: "Instead of Newton being wrong and Laplace being right it was, as usual, the exact opposite. Newton was right and Laplace was wrong, "

Err... you left out the part where you substantiate that assertion. Newton was right that God intervenes and resets the levers of gravity from time to time? Laplace didn't get it perfect, but he got a whole lot further on the problem than Newton did.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with evolution! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a creationist defending a pseudo-scientific theory, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must accept Intelligent Design! The defense rests.

Childress: "Err... you left out the part where you substantiate that assertion."

That's not a problem is it? After all, you left out the part where you substantiate the assertion that Laplace got it right, and that Newton got it wrong, over a religious cut-test. Perhaps you remember that from the other thread in which you raised those issues.

Moreover, you seem completely unaware of what heightened scrutiny was given for pure modelling with hypothesis non fingo as opposed to when you bolted some just-so story to the front of it.

If you understood the least of these things you would understand the second to last para in the post above. Further, you would understand the absolute mouth-breathing ignorance of placing absinthe fueled theories over experiment. And it's relation to the focus of the host.

No matter, folks that can't make change are still employed to do just such.

"I've read On the Origin of Species but I don't remember anything about how the Solar System evolved."===

Charlie's motivation for inventing the scheme in the first place was a Metaphysical one. He had a beef with the biblical God for taking his daughter's life. He made observations of what he considered a savage primitive people in South America and how could such a loving God make such a people and at the same time make such clearly superior race such as himself (English) who were conquering the rest of the planet with their superior brute force and intellect. Charlie wasn't out observing and studying nature and then accidently stumbled across some amazing world shaking observational findings. He was passionately motivated and driven by his hatred for what God had done to him.

He therefore had to LOOK for excuses that there was no creator and came up with his "Must-Be-Dice-Theory"[Jquip) where "NO INTELLIGENCE IS ALLOWED". Cornelius merely reminds people of their original core beliefs when it comes to their own articles of FAITH.Especially when disingenuous intellects condemn him for misrepresenting their position, which he hasn't. They've NEVER ONCE have earned the right for any guidance or direction. Once they establish just how undirected and unguided forces of physics and chemicals invented those original informational directed complex and sophisticated nano-machines, then we can discuss guidance and direction at that point.

No intelligence therefore is to be allowed to explain anything. The mathematical precision of the Universe or anything else complex and sophisticated for that matter must have therefore originated with "Big Bang" chaos and evolved into complex orderly fine tuned systems we all observe today. Lately some of the local Soothsayers have referenced articles to some Abiogenesis literature where the terminology of "evolution of molecules" was used and clearly according to the usual arguments which condemn a creationist or IDist to a Secularist version of intellectual hell, this would be heresy. One has to wonder why those papers would go against core beliefs established be the Secularist Ecclesiastical Hierarchies which are parroted here by the faithful.

Clearly evolution can have many meanings and does have much to an evolutionist's distaste when pinned.

Charlie's motivation for inventing the scheme in the first place was a Metaphysical one. He had a beef with the biblical God for taking his daughter's life. He made observations of what he considered a savage primitive people in South America and how could such a loving God make such a people and at the same time make such clearly superior race such as himself (English) who were conquering the rest of the planet with their superior brute force and intellect. Charlie wasn't out observing and studying nature and then accidently stumbled across some amazing world shaking observational findings. He was passionately motivated and driven by his hatred for what God had done to him.

It's an interesting theory but, unfortunately, there are a couple of problems.

The voyage of the Beagle took place between 1831 and 1836 but his daughter Annie didn't die until 1851 so he could not have been "passionately motivated and driven by his hatred for what God had done to him." while on board ship.

And, yes, Darwin, like most Europeans of that time, was racist by our standards. He saw some other peoples as barbarian and savage, at least to begin with. But greater familiarity could change that, as he wrote of the Fuegians:

The Fuegians rank amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. "Beagle," who had lived some years in England and could talk a little English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our mental faculties. If no organic being excepting man had possessed any mental power, or if his powers had been of a wholly different nature from those of the lower animals, then we should never have been able to convince ourselves that our high faculties had been gradually developed. But it can be clearly shewn that there is no fundamental difference of this kind. We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this immense interval is filled up by numberless gradations.

When Darwin joined the Beagle he considered himself to be an orthodox Christian, as he wrote in his Autobiography:

DURING THESE two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

So, no, I don't think there is evidence that Darwin was driven at any time by hatred of God, although we know that he thought at least one tenet of Christian theology was a "damnable doctrine"

As for evolution in its broadest sense of all things changing over time at different rates, that is what we observe but it was not Darwin's specific concern.

Science has no problem with intelligent agents or designers. We know such exist for that is what we are. What we don't know yet is if there are any others. If you want to propose some non-human intelligent agency - such as space aliens - then you will have to find evidence for it if it is to be more than just speculation.

Once they establish just how undirected and unguided forces of physics and chemicals invented those original informational directed complex and sophisticated nano-machines, then we can discuss guidance and direction at that point

Why trust physics or chemistry? All science is suspect. Except archeology which recognizes design,maybe. If we don't know everything we can know nothing

CH: Could the smooth-running machine go unstable, with planets smashing into each other? This is what the math indicated. But on the other hand, we’re still here. How could that be?

This appears to be a false dichotomy We can exist, despite the solar system being unstable in the past or the future.

We already suspect the planets have smashed into each other in the past. Yet we exist. As such, one could say we're here because we find ourselves in a relative calm in a storm of instability, so to speak. In fact, it's thought that several extinction level impacts played a significant role in the evolution of life on our planet.

Furthermore, you seem to have excluded human beings as a factor in the stability of the solar system. Assuming we do not destroy ourselves first, our ability to make wide scale change will have grown significantly 100 million years from now.

Were'e already working on ways to change the orbits of smaller objects, such comets and meteors. Eventually this will scale up to the modification of planetary orbits.

"Why trust physics or chemistry? All science is suspect. Except archeology which recognizes design,maybe. If we don't know everything we can know nothing."===

You conveniently and deliberately overlooked the point. Considering your worldview I can understand why. There is nothing wrong with physics and chemicals. It's a dogma driven researcher desperately trying to prop up an ideology that's the problem. If the research could remain neutral[will never happen from either side], then important information could be gleaned from a correct and honest study. Unfortunately we don't have a world that operates that way.---

Scott:

"Were'e already working on ways to change the orbits of smaller objects, such comets and meteors. Eventually this will scale up to the modification of planetary orbits."===

Yes I believe you are correct. Hollywood has work hard for years trying to come up with solutions to save mankind.---

Ian H spedding:

"As for evolution in its broadest sense of all things changing over time at different rates, that is what we observe but it was not Darwin's specific concern."===

This is an untruth. The ultimate in evolution, MACRO, has NEVER been observed. The term , Micro, was invented to shoehorn in the actual word EVOLUTION into any discussion. What we are given as wonderful scientific examples of evolution are nothing more than kinds of organisms developing variations of their kind within the framework of an organization system as opposed to chaos. The only time chaos is observed is when human imperfect motivated by selfishness and greed disrupts the natural world and various ecosystems fail completely.

At one time your team use to be the Eco-green champions of the globe, but now your side doesn't touch the subject unless there is some political edge or perceived ideological advantage. When pressed with evidence of bad science, they merely make excuses for science and attach importance to a subject cause if it only has a political value in obtaining more power, wealth and social prestige. Beyond that any Public relations jumping up and down is merely for damage control.---

Ian H Spedding:

"Science has no problem with intelligent agents or designers."====

You're kidding right ??? What country do you live in where this is true ??? Oh wait a minute, I forgot aliens like Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans or the ever popular modern day version amongst the respectable online gamers - 'The Goa-uld' are considered acceptable agents.

This is an untruth. The ultimate in evolution, MACRO, has NEVER been observed.

Then why do you accept the theory of plate tectonics? South American touching Africa has NEVER been observed. Sure we have tons of evidence that plates were once part of a single contiguous landmass - matching geologic data, matching fossil data, paleomagnetic data from seafloor spreading etc. And we have GPS evidence that measures the real-time drift at a few mm per year, but that's just MICRO continental drift.

So why the double standard?

The term , Micro, was invented to shoehorn in the actual word EVOLUTION into any discussion.

No, the terms macro and microevolution were first coined in 1927 Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko. But don't let facts get in the way of your spittle flying rant.

What we are given as wonderful scientific examples of evolution are nothing more than kinds of organisms developing variations of their kind within the framework of an organization system as opposed to chaos.

Please define what 'kind' of organism means. How do you determine what 'kind' an animal belongs to?

On the picture we can see Venus, Earth and Mars all in the presumed habitable zone. We know Mars atmosphere was long ago stripped away and that there is most likely no life there as well.

Venus formed in a similar way to Mars and Earth, yet out of the three, it is the most inhospitable. It suffered runaway greenhouse effects, it's atmosphere can crush any space probe we send. Venus is similar to Earth in the past, yet now is a very different and unforgiving place to be for anything living.

One look at this chart could logically conclude that of course the habitable zone must be a rule of science, question is what happened to our nighbors- Mars and Venus.

Being in habitable zone is no guarantee planet will be hospitable to life.

New research? Well, it was new two years ago. When I remember correctly, the new simulations gave a lower probability for a catastrophic event happening in a couple of million years from now than the older ones which ignored the inner planets...