Thread: Design in the universe?

If there was design in the universe ... what kind of design would there be? I often thought that the laws of physics WAS god. That basically there was not someone that was judging good and evil and keeping notes as such but rather just some "universal" laws .... those laws almost by definition "design" the universe. Thoughts?

I think that there is God, outside and including space-time. I believe God created space-time as a basis for our existence. Of course there are those who will argue against the hypothesis of God since there is no evidence he exists, but there is also no evidence he doesn't. The idea of a universe which just exists independently of God to me is absurd - everything we understand is in reference to something else and for the universe to just happen, that would entail no reference, just an absolute, which to me is not scientific.
We can only observe what God has created - and try to comprehend the data of our consciousness (which is all each of us has) by creating a logical system or story to correlate this data. Physics, math and all of science as well as religion are the various stories we have created for this purpose, and each story is subject to change without notice, as we learn more.
Anyway that is what I think.

Design requires purpose. The purpose of the universe is to provide the necessary environment for humans to physically exist. Now, the purpose for humans is another matter entirely. How many times have we heard that if the percent of this or that were any greater or lesser we could not exist? In my opinion, those exact measurements that were required for gravity, weak and strong forces and electromagnetism were all designed for a specific purpose. God is the ultimate physicist because he designed physics. In turn, the universe follows these physical laws which ultimately enables us to have this very conversation. It's one thing to recognize that we are limited in our understanding of our universe, but it's quite another thing when we realize why we are limited in our understanding.

i can def see a design in the universe.however,i think it is arogant for us to think it was designed for "us".i think there is this miscon ception that we are the center of life.if it was made for us and we later[or already]come in contact with alien life forms does that mean they are here just for us too?the universe existed millions of years without a trace of mankind just fine.all the "laws of nature "rolled on with no humans to understand or explain them.if we were to dissapeer tomorrow,everything would continue on its merry way without any notice.we are just one of a multitude of forms matter can assume.thats not to say that life isnt amazing or beutiful,but we are still infants in the cosmic timeline.

We have all noticed how the growth of knowledge has become exponential, and growing steeper every day. And a while back I saw how Korean kids plug themselves into the internet 24 hours a day. (I am sure other nations have this problem too.) And the other day I was watching some teenagers whip out their phones and text like it was second nature, like they were born with the attachment. Maybe I am just gettin old, but it seams as though man is no longer in the driving seat. I had the thought that man is not the top of the pyramid, but some other life force was pushing us onward. Like it was anxious to escape the confines of earth. I don't have the answer, but I wonder why the knowledge of today becomes old and replaced by new knowledge. Do you think there is one person on earth who can build a car from scratch, build a computer from scratch. Does any body know how many 1's and 0's it took to write and send and receive this letter over the internet? Who is in control?

I belief there is a design at work in our universe. I think it is fractional and never is negative, anything moving other then forward is all a matter of perspective. Whatever God has done in action, the move is perfectly accurate to itself. I think it is been tasked to us as thoughtful beings to figure what that perfect move is and adapt to it.

I don't think that the universe was designed specifically for you and me, but its design is the one that is conducive to live. As we have found on Earth, I think we will find elsewhere: that everywhere there is something to eat, there is something there to eat it - life is everywhere. And not only are there "life forms" everywhere, but we have a very narrow definition of life. Perhaps it should include anything that changes, evolves - like stars and planets. In this view, the whole universe is alive, and thus it is easier to think of as a created thing.

I think that the basis for the design of the universe does give rise to everything in it, and I think that the universe is based on one simple concept - the circle (Carl Sagan's idea also).

I have some other weird ideas what I will post soon. Preview - the universe is the song that God sings. (Sounds silly, I know, but it will make sense.)

i agree rick,i see the universe as a living orginism.even though i thinki we are closer to to small end of the scale,we have microorganisms that live on and around us.why cant we be microorganisms on our planet or in our solar system.we already speak of stars and planets as living.they are born and die.i have a feeling the universe has a "heartbeat".

In this post I will discussed how the same boundary condition that is being used to mathematically derive a background independent quantum gravity (by causal dynamical triangulation theorists) might, in the context of the time symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics (TSQM) of Drs. Yakir Aharonov and Jeffery Tollaksen, be used to introduce a form of "teleology" into the time evolution of creation while preserving "free will" within a deterministic matrix of preexistent contingency.

Please consider that in quantum mechanics, the initial quantum state of any system evolves over time into a probability distribution of all possible states consistent with the initial boundary condition. If an initial state is assumed in which all possible states and spacetime geometries are subsumed, a probability distribution of possible states, including all observable states, will necessarily arise. Applying time symmetry, this probability distribution will simultaneously appear as the set of all futures and the set all histories which can arise from and lead to this common point of origination. As this point of origination constitutes both the system’s beginning and ending boundary condition, all actualizations must occur within this contextuality.

If the big bang is then understood to have occurred as an actualization event within this preexistent contextuality, it would constitute the initial boundary condition for our universe and, inter alia, embody all of the laws of physics pursuant to which our universe could thereafter evolve. All subsequent actualizations would then be strongly bounded by this and the set of all immediately preceding actualizations; but would also be subtly influenced by a future unity toward which all of our possible futures would necessarily converge.

This model introduces a kind of “determinism” into the time-evolution of Creation. The beauty of the Model is that “determinism” comprised of contingency preserves “Free Will” within that contingency. In other words, human choice exists within a set of potentials consistent with the applicable boundary conditions. From the frame of reference of the scientist, it is an entirely “natural phenomena” and, from the frame of reference of the theologian, the centripetal convergence toward unity may be thought to be “of God”.

There are two key assumptions that require further explanation.

The first assumption relates to the systems' initial state. For the purposes of this conjecture, I have assumed that the initial state is a superposition of all possible states, to include all possible space time geometries. As noted in Wikipedia, "Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all possible states that an object can have. The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two...."

Additionally, my assumption, that the initial state is a superposition of all possible states, is equivalent to that made by a promising quantum gravity theory called "Causal Dynamical Triangulation".
See: Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quantum gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and [hep-th/0509010] The Universe from Scratch

As you will note from the cited resources, Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) also assumes an equivalent superposition of all possible spacetime geometries. You will also see that Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) is the third leading quantum gravity theory behind string theory and loop quantum gravity. Although CDT is way too nascent for any predictions about its ultimate success to be made, CDT appears to be emergent, with both string and Loop Quantum Gravity theorists taking a harder look at it in the last few years.

The second critical assumption involves time symmetry. In this regard, please note that virtually all of the laws of physics are time symmetric. I wish the consideration of time symmetry in the context of a final boundary condition were entirely original to me. It is not. For example, Roger Penrose, in the article titled “The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy, wrote:
“Normally, one thinks in terms of systems evolving into the future, from data specified in the past, where the particular evolution takes place is determined by differential equations. … One does not, on the other hand, tend to think of evolving these same equations into the past, despite the fact that the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics are symmetrical under a reversal of the direction of time! As far as the mathematics is concerned, one can just as well specify final conditions, at some remote future time, and evolve backward in time. Mathematically, final conditions are just as good as initial ones for determining the evolution of a system.” (Quoted from Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Universe, Chapter 27, “The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy”, p. 687)

Additionally, in a paper titled “New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics” (See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1232 Jun 2007) Yakir Aharonov and Jeffrey Tollaksen have written as follows:
"Up until now we have limited ourselves to the possibility of 2 boundary conditions which obtain their assignment due to selections made before and after a measurement. It is feasible and even suggestive to consider an extension of QM to include both a wavefunction arriving from the past and a second “destiny” wavefunction coming from the future, which are determined by 2 boundary conditions, rather than a measurement and selection. This proposal could solve the issue of the “collapse” of the wavefunction in a new and more natural way: every time a measurement takes place and the possible measurement outcomes decohere, then the future boundary condition simply selects one out of many possible outcomes [35, 32]. It also implies a kind of “teleology” which might prove fruitful in addressing the anthropic and fine-tuning issues [77]. The possibility of a final boundary condition on the universe could be probed experimentally by searching for “quantum miracles” on a cosmological scale. While a “classical miracle” is a rare event that can be explained by a very unusual initial boundary-condition, “Quantum Miracles” are those events which cannot naturally be explained through any special initial boundary-condition, only through initial-and-final boundary-conditions."

I believe it it should be emphasized that several recent studies have quantitatively confirmed predicted outcomes which were unique to the TSQM formulation of quantum mechanics. As these outcomes cannot be explained by the traditional formulations of quantum mechanics, it appears that paradigm shifting "proofs" of TSQM are both beginning to be reported by independent research groups and to be recognized in the popular media. See Discovery Magazine Back From the Future | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine

These and numerous other experimental verifications of TSQM are occurring in the context of "weak measurement" theory and research that itself involves both intriguing explanatory and ontological implications. As examples, please consider the following:

"Experimental joint weak measurement on a photon pair as a probe of Hardy's Paradox" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.4229
"Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.1625
"Quantum interference experiments, modular variables and weak measurements" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4227
"Postselected weak measurement beyond the weak value" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2206
"Complete characterization of post-selected quantum statistics using weak measurement tomography" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.0533

... and dozens more

In terms of design, I think we should ask ourselves why it is that if there is a designer, it created a Universe with so many flaws. I think we should also say that it is beyond arrogant to assume that we are so special that an entire Universe is meant for us. Ego check on humanity, please. I think we also have to address that these fundamental constant CAN be shifted and create viable Universes. There have been several papers written and published about how shifting quark masses or even doing away with the Weak Nuclear Force entirely could still create viable Universes. So it is ultimately a fallacy to state that appearance of design or specific constants are a way to INFER design.

Perhaps there is no evidence to say God isn't there, but if there's no evidence to say that he is, believing that he is there regardless is still a poor argument. You can't prove that it's actually me writing this or it might be my buddy Dave, does that mean that it's more likely that it was Dave who wrote this reply? I think it needs to sorely be asked of believers to show that if they're going to make a positive assertion, that they need positive evidence. One can prefer to believe something, but without evidentiary backing, it is effectively not a good idea to believe it.

While one can wax philosophical about the stars and the cycle of life (I often do!), I think it needs to be said that a little too much philosophy has come into the interpretation of science by lay-people. I think we need to take a good hard look at the facts and see them as they are, rather than try to infer design just because we are here. Is it really a surprise that we exist in a universe that has the ability to sustain life? I would say no. Some can say the Universe was "fine tuned", but it clearly was not, as many natural processes are simply inefficient and faulty that if a real designer created them, we'd hand these prototypes back.

Now this is not to say that there is not beauty and poetry in the fabric of reality. Subatomic particles and stars are, by any means, glorious and beautiful. And in many ways it might be their flaws which attract many people. I find the Universe grand and glorious because it simply is. It doesn't need a purpose, it doesn't judge, nor reward, it doesn't think on its own, it just IS. Really think about that for a second. Something that just is, without any need for a purpose or grand design. It exists all on its own. Why? Because it can. In my mind, that's enough for the Universe to keep me enthralled forever. No deity necessary.