On Sunday I was privileged to give the keynote address at the American Humanist Association annual conference. Even better, people actually showed up for the talk, which for a Sunday morning event is pretty sweet.
The talks were live-streamed, and naturally some enterprising young humanist (thanks Carl Wong!) captured them and put them on YouTube. So here is mine; don’t forget to check out the others (or directly from the AHA site).
My talk was similar to ones I had given before at TAM and at Skepticon, but about half of it was new. The general idea is the relationship between everyday human concerns of meaning and morality and the underlying laws of physics. For this one, I used the framing device of “purpose” — what is it, and where does it come from? The universe itself doesn’t have a purpose, nor is there one inherent in the fundamental laws of physics. But teleology (movement toward a goal) can plausibly be a useful concept when we invent the best description of higher-level phenomena, and at the human level there are purposes we can create for ourselves. All part of the “poetic naturalism” bandwagon I hope to get launched, although I didn’t specifically use that term.
My actual slides aren’t always crystal clear from the above view, so I also put them on Slideshare. Enjoy!
Sean,
I was both gob smacked and delighted by your recent Higgs Boson lecture. The Universe became much clearer. Thankyou.
You did leave gravity a little vague so I’ve had had to fill in the blanks in a way that makes sense to myself. What I came up with is this (full of holes but servicable).
The Higgs field which permeates the Universe I’ve called negative energy which has the properties of pressing inwards (similar to but not the same as air pressure) and has a reactionary rate equivalent to a universal constant (speed of light) ie if you could create a void in the Higgs field then instantaneously remove the constraint, the field would collapse at the speed of light. Matter I have called positive energy which acts outwardly and is constrained by the Higgs field. So a small parcel of positive energy can travel freely through negative energy up to the speed of light at which point the negative energy cannot properly react and becomes inelastic (shock wave).
In this way gravity’s effect is proportional to the unclosed chord of the circular lines of force (radius of half the distance between interacting bodies) as a function of their diameter and the universal constant. As the effect of gravity is a squared function rather than a cubed function then the nature of matter must be ribband like (paper christmas ball) rather than homogenously smooth and spherical.
With this mental model I can visualise the formation of the Higgs boson as being a toroidal jet of negative energy forming as two protons collide squarely on at near twice the speed of light. This ejection becomes matter from negative energy briefly as the surrounding Higgs field resists its formation. The toroid quickly destabilises to form a spherical mass until in discipates (somehow).
I have yet to watch the lecture a second time to see how the week and strong nuclear forces fit into this visualisation, but I suspect that I will incled them as different types of self regenerating positive energy.
Thankyou for giving me a method for appreciating the expansive forces of nature. I now eagerly await any new understandings that arise from the work and minds of the physics scientific community.
Addressing the subject of Universe and Purpose my thoughts revolve around progression.
The Universe as we believe it to be demonstrates an evolutionary progression. With that progression comes progressive complexity. A big bang of energy coalesces into matter which complexifies into stars and galaxies. Stars recycle to form heavier elements planetary systems around new stars. Life forms and triggers a billion years of further complexity. Life evolves to form life that can postulate about the purpose of it all.
There could be a purpose to it if our universe were in fact an experiment. String theory suggests a twenty variable set of control parameters to the substance of our universe. What if there were multiple stable variable sets to these control parameters. There could be an endless number of outcomes to how energy can be deployed, even recycled.
Still no intelligence. But the might be a outcome.
I am going to suggest that humans before they expire will develop a “report card” of their existence in the form of a crystal. The magic crystal hypothesized in fiction. This crystal is a quantum computer in solid mass form which will contain all of the knowledge and experiences of humanity locked in a form that can survive being set free into space, and can be unlocked simply by applying light to its exterior.
Still no purpose, but there can be achievement.
We need to learn more about dark energy and dark matter before we can really say that there is no purpose to existence, but may be that is just putting off the inevitable.
The NEW! Version of Sean Carroll’s lecture “Purpose and the Universe” with his slides shown in High Definition is here: http://youtu.be/bcqd3Q7X_1A
I’m “some enterprising young humanist”, as named in the 2nd paragraph above. I posted videos from the conference to YouTube because I saw a need for it.
I’ve now watched the Dark Matter/Dark Energy Universe video, and the way that I think the result will be is as I first thought with the notion of negative energy applying a confining force for positive energy/matter, it is almost certainly applying an outwards force upon itself.
So that is what I would put money on. The Higgs field is itself the dark energy which not only provides gravity, it is expanding carrying the galaxies with it. And the mechanism is a slight differential in the gravitational force towards the outer boundaries of the our universal space while still providing the gravitational force between bodies. ie gravity has a very slight bias.
Bill Bunting
“String theory suggests a twenty variable set of control parameters to the substance of our universe.”
I guess you are referring to twenty numbers that are parameters of the standard model.
Also, numbers associated with Grover’s quantum algorithm for searching unsorted database are 4, 3, and 20.2 which correspond to the number of nucleotides, the triplet code, and the number of amino acids (20) which are encoded in 20 sequences plus a stop code for 21.
Probably all a big coincidence but interesting.
@ frankl: you said: atheists who reject god … I am not an atheist, I am educated! How can you reject something that does not exist … I have proven just that: THERE is no god! … as for the placebo effect of religion not being harmful -placebo: something that does not exist that we use, hehe- why not use a placebo that will not have a side effect then? Any god/religions ideas have the side effect of numbing the brain … pills do have said side effects, if we can eliminate pills with a placebo – ever heard of a placebo with a side effect frankl?-then why keep/attach a side effect in the ‘mind’ of the placebo taker and then why not also say that the placebo last 100 times as long as the old pills. I do not mean to brag -yes I do- but the last time I checked my IQ, it was in the double digits nearing 75 as god is my witness … hard to believe I know but true. Back to atheist and their ‘offsprings’ the agnostics: what is it that you do not yet grasp in the big picture? Agnostic just differentiate themselves from atheist because they imply ‘knowledge’ in their statement -gnostic- they say they do not and can not know if god exist … take a side get, off the fence and once you hit the ground of ‘reality’ check around to see if there are any god(s) … shirley you will not try to confuse yourself as far as not taking your brain’s description of your surroundings … if yes then the voices in your heads must have taken corporality at this point and you have passed the event horizon … sorry could not resist that last one … it is funny when you reflect upon it … try that, reflecting is not done alone -when functionning as normal as humans can- it is easy, you first elect/put in charge the one voice in your head that is as trustworthy as possible … nah forget it I can not heal you either … but comfort yourself in this tidbit: it is your programming that is wrong … thus it is not your fault … some will never know … sometimes it is not in the cards or in this case in the brain … billions have done just that … they lived and died and …
Carl Wong– Thanks for uploading the video. I’ve finally gotten around to updating to the superior version.
I have thought about it some more regarding purpose, and there is a tendency to think of purpose as a singularity. It is possible that purpose is not yet apparent. Assume that there are many millions of parallel solar systems such as ours with parallel civilisations, and (now it heads into scifi) that there is a way of punching through the Higgs field to travel or communicate at many times the speed of light, there may well be a consequential matrixed purpose brought about by natures derived biological outcomes.
Creation in reverse.
The Universe routinely creates order from chaos. I would not write purpose off at this stage.
I have struggled for years trying to wrap my little head around the idea that a photon is both a wave and a particle and uneasily settled for calling my lack of understanding a failure to grasp a particularly difficult ‘counter-intuitive’ notion. As one the first questioners pointed out, you opened the door to understanding it in under a minute. You thanked him and moved on, but I wanted to take a moment and express my deep and heartfelt appreciation for what your efforts produced out here in the Intertubes… a Eureka! moment for me that I then distributed to my family at the dinner table. In short order, they too experienced a similar Eureka! reaction to my own.
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to communicate your own understanding to others. It has enriched us and we thank you.
Roland,
You’re confusing…and stop calling me Shirley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA
Sean,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my question.
Jack
Tom Clark: Agreed. 😀
Roland – You said you have proven there is no God, yet I don’t see that proof anywhere in this thread. I never mentioned a placebo effect, you must be responding to someone else on that. Admitting that one doesn’t know something is not “sitting on the fence”. Accusing people of fence-sitting in this situation is often a tactic used by people who are trying to convince others that the person disagreeing with them is a coward and not worth listening to – e.g., politicians, the intellectually insecure, etc. I’m not saying you are in that group, but if you aren’t, I expect you will offer a proof that God does not exist. So far all I hear is ad-hominems against those who disagree with you.
FrankL,
No-one can prove that there is no God until everything is known, and we are a long way from that.
However there is plenty of proof that God is a construct of our human consciousness.
We can see this in the aspirations sought from Gods through time.
To be in harmony with nature.
To have a better harvest or hunt.
To be fertile and provide sons.
To explain how it all came about.
To have the sun rise every day.
To make seven virgins available immediately upon death.
That the God of choice should be on side of the sacrificer.
To have eternal rest.
To forgive ones inevitable sins.
It is all a bit obviously self serving, isn’t it? And then there are the rules. Endless sets of them, and the punishments.
It is also very presumptuous that humans should be God’s chosen ones. Why not the whales, they live far more peacefully in harmony with nature, and they never complain.
The probability that there is a god given Purpose to the Cosmos is very low.
What we have had are great civilisers.
Ramesses
Confuscius
Budha
Thales
Pericles
Jesus
Muhammed (perhaps)
Aelfred of Wessex
Ghandi
Mandella
And no doubt a whole lot more, and it is these great people who have moulded our human world to the form that it is today.
Not Gods.
Bill Bunting – Everything that we experience is a construct of our human consciousness, so the fact that God is too is a non-starter.
The “aspirations sought from Gods” are, as you say, self serving. As a scientist, I am not interested in the list you give except perhaps as an insight into human nature. Everything on the list, the rules, the punishments, the idea that humans are God’s chosen ones, these are all tactics used by organized religions to bring order to human society at best and to control it for selfish purposes at worst.
“The probability that there is a God-given Pupose to the Cosmos is very low” – this is not a scientific statement. I just don’t know how to deal with it. What exactly is a “God-given purpose”? The probability of X is the limit of the number of instances of X divided by the total number of instances as the number of instances goes to infinity. So your statement translates to “The probability of a God-given-purpose-in-the-Cosmos is the limit of the number of instances of God-given-purpose-in-the-Cosmos divided by the total number of Cosmos as the number of Cosmos goes to infinity. We have one data point, not enough to establish a concept of probability.
The “great civilizers” – I mean, Jesus and Mohammed are represented as being sent by God. I mean, what does “sent” mean? Some big guy with a beard sitting on a cloud said “go”? I don’t think so. That doesn’t mean they weren’t “sent”. “Sent” is the best word that their followers can come up with. Maybe the word we need is a lot more subtle and deep, and we just don’t have that word in our vocabulary yet.
My attitude is that it is presumtuous to define God, to presume to understand what God is, and then to blindly accept or reject that primitive notion, usually offered by organized religions, based on your psychological need (or lack thereof) for order and authority as offered by organized religions. I see science as one possible path to understanding God, and for us to pass judgement on God and his purpose at this point is perhaps a billion years premature, if not more. If God exists, that is.
You are arguing that an idea (god) is impossible to know the existence of. Yet the only way we know about the idea of god(s) is because religions created that idea. Had religions not invented the concept of god(s), then the concept would not exist. 2 conclusions can be drawn from this.
1.) the idea of god existing outside of religion does not make sense and shows a fundamental or intentional misunderstanding of the concept of god(s).
2.) if a religion is untrue or not applicable to physical reality (stories to guide moral judgement would of course not be ‘physical’ reality) then the god of that religion does not exist.
Since gods are solely a construct of religions, and all religions are proven to be incompatible with >physical< reality, then god does not physically exist as claimed. Though I'm sure if you take enough LSD, then god does exist. Everyone is free to believe whatever metaphysical B.S. they want to believe. I can't make Pat Robertson believe in particle physics and Pat Robertson can't make Bill Maher believe in god. It's a pointless argument.
@ Meh
I am inclined to brlieve in Satan.
There is ample proof, like for instance the behavior of Christian, Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists and English beer.
Dr. Carroll states clearly that the objects studied by chemistry, biology, etc. are not “really real” in the fundamental, metaphysical sense. I admire his courage in saying so. I believe the philosophical implications of this scientific finding are important and counter-intuitive.
English beer isn’t that bad!
American beer…yeah, there’s a satan.
@ Meh
🙂
Meh – Religions did not create or invent God any more than Einstein created or invented the theory of relativity. Religions try to understand God (at their best). Religions, or systems of belief, have arisen in every culture, independently of each other, it was bound to happen, just like the theory of relativity was bound to happen. Its human nature trying to cope. And speaking of Einstein, he said “God is subtle but not malicious” and “God does not play dice”. What God of what organized religion was he referring to? I do not agree that the idea of God cannot exist outside of some organized religion. I do not agree that if some organized religion gets something wrong, then “its God” does not exist, any more than Einstein’s error with regard to the cosmological constant proves that the God he was referring to in the above quotes does not exist. The idea that one has two choices, pick a God from an organized religion to blindly follow or be an atheist, is an incomplete list of choices.
Asserting that “Religions try to understand God ” simply assumes existance in the first place, hence religion must have created their god, else there is nothing to understand.
Dick Kleinknewcht: “Religions try to understand God” means that the religions have assumed the existence of God. Yes. It does not follow that they have created their God any more than my assuming the existence of the sun implies that I have created the sun. If I cannot prove the sun exists, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t. If I cannot prove that it doesn’t exist, that does not mean it does.
Frank,
The point we’re making is that you are biased. You know very well what Dick was saying in his comment. Now I simply see you as refusing to accept logic. Also, the concept of god(s) existed long before Einstein; so I don’t see your point. Furthermore, Einstein had no such error. Like I said, anyone is free to believe in whatever metaphysical bullshit they choose to believe in; it is a pointless argument for those who rely on logic to argue with those who do not. Anyone who rejects logic can’t be reasoned with, so it is pointless to argue with them because they’ll make up or irrationally reject whatever facts they can in order to attempt to prove they are not wrong. I can’t convince Pat Robertson that quantum physics is real because he refuses to accept logic. I can’t convince you that god does not exist for the same reason. So who cares? Not I said the fly. It is a pointless debate. We are all allowed to believe whatever the hell we want to believe. Agnostic…go for it.
Einstein also did not believe in god. He was trying to communicate his ideas in a time when those ideas were in their infancy. 99.9% of those in his time believed in the existence of a god. This is a fact taken from his many personal documents. I’m not saying that the idea of god can’t exist outside of religion, I’m saying that the idea of god is an emergent (a result of) phenomenon of religion. If you have to twist words in order to prove you’re point then you’ve invalidated yourself.