"Roger Penrose can’t escape an ultimate explanation for the universe"

[MarkE]

Here are some discussion points on the relationship between science,
worldview and reality, which may help frame the debate over origins.
__________

"...a complete worldview must find a place for three different aspects
of reality - the mental (consciousness, the mind, thought and feelings),
the physical (the universe we live in) and the abstract (especially the
language of mathematics). These could be summarised as the three Ms –
the Mental, the Material and the Mathematical."

"...it’s a delight to see an eminent physicist and philosopher address
deep metaphysical questions, without pretending that science has answers
it doesn’t have, or assuming that the limits of science are the limits
of knowledge."

https://www.premierunbelievable.com/topics/roger-penrose-cant-escape-an-ultimate-explanation-for-the-universe/11725.article
__________

ChatGPT prompt: What is Roger Penrose's calculation of the probability
of the initial low entropy state of the universe, and is this evidence
for God?

Roger Penrose's Calculation of the Low-Entropy State of the Universe
Roger Penrose, in his book The Emperor’s New Mind (1989), famously
calculated the probability of the universe starting in the incredibly
low-entropy state required for the Big Bang and subsequent cosmic
evolution. His estimate is based on the phase space of possible
configurations for the universe.

Key Details:

• The phase space represents all possible microstates (arrangements of
particles and fields) consistent with a given system's macroscopic
properties.
• Penrose compared the total phase space of possible initial conditions
to the tiny subset corresponding to the universe's low-entropy start.
• He estimated the probability of the universe starting in this specific
low-entropy state as 1 in 10^(10^123)
This is an unimaginably tiny number. To visualize it:
• A number like 10^(10^123) is already astronomically large, far
exceeding the number of particles in the observable universe (around 10^80).
• Taking 10^(10^123) as an exponent makes the number almost
incomprehensibly small.
Penrose argued that the universe’s low-entropy state at the Big Bang is
far too improbable to occur by chance under any naive physical model.


Is This Evidence for God?

The implications of Penrose’s calculation depend on the interpretation
and the philosophical framework one adopts. Here are perspectives from
various viewpoints:

1. Argument for Design or a Creator
• Fine-Tuning Argument: The extreme improbability of the initial state
of the universe could suggest that it was not a random occurrence but
the result of deliberate design or a purposeful act, often attributed to
God or a higher intelligence.
o This aligns with theistic perspectives, where God is seen as the
creator who set the initial conditions of the universe to enable life
and complexity.
• Teleological Implication: The incredible precision of the initial
conditions might point to the universe having a purpose or goal, which
could be taken as evidence for a divine creator.

2. Naturalistic Explanations
• Anthropic Principle: Some argue that we should not be surprised by the
low-entropy state because if it were otherwise, we would not exist to
observe it. The universe must have properties that allow for observers
like us, and thus, improbable conditions can be "explained" by the fact
that we are here.
• Multiverse Theory: If there are countless universes (as some
interpretations of quantum mechanics or string theory suggest), it’s
possible that ours is just one of the rare universes that happens to
have the right conditions for life. In this framework, the improbability
of the low-entropy state is "diluted" across an infinite or
near-infinite number of universes.

3. Agnostic or Non-Conclusive Views
• Penrose himself has not endorsed the calculation as direct evidence
for God. Instead, he sees it as a profound mystery, pointing to gaps in
our understanding of physics and cosmology.
• Some argue that the improbability of the initial state reflects the
limitations of current models rather than a need for a divine explanation.

Philosophical Challenges

1. Improbability vs. Necessity: It's not clear whether the initial
low-entropy state is truly "improbable" or simply necessary. If the laws
of physics require such a state, its improbability becomes moot.
2. Limits of Probability: Applying probabilistic reasoning to the
universe’s origin assumes a preexisting framework of possible states.
However, the Big Bang may represent the emergence of spacetime itself,
making the concept of "probability" potentially meaningless in this context.

Conclusion

Penrose’s calculation highlights the astonishing precision required for
the universe's initial conditions, and this is often used as a starting
point for deeper philosophical or theological discussions. Whether it
constitutes evidence for God depends on one’s worldview:
• Theists may see it as powerful support for the idea of divine design.
• Naturalists or multiverse proponents may see it as a challenge to
uncover deeper physical principles or frameworks that can explain such
improbability without invoking God.
• Agnostics may treat it as a profound mystery, reflecting the current
limits of human knowledge.

Ultimately, Penrose’s calculation raises profound questions but does not
provide definitive evidence for or against God—it points to the need for
further exploration of the universe's origin and the nature of existence.

[MarkE]

Post by MarkE
https://www.premierunbelievable.com/topics/roger-penrose-cant-escape-an-
ultimate-explanation-for-the-universe/11725.article

I just found out this link sometimes resolves to a registerwall, so
here's the text:


Sometimes, amidst the rough and tumble of YouTube comments, a diamond
appears. While watching the recent Big Conversation episode on ‘God and
the Universe’ hosted by Unbelievable? host Justin Brierley, I noticed
that one wag had commented: “Justin’s facial expression throughout this
discussion seems to suggest he has died and gone to heaven.”

As an astrophysicist interested in the connection between science and
faith, I’d have been similarly delighted to have the opportunity to chat
with Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig. Both are major players in
their respective fields of cosmology and philosophy, with a good deal of
overlap when it comes to the ‘ultimate’ questions they both confront.
And we weren’t disappointed. Their highly-anticipated conversation
ranged over various metaphysical and cosmological matters. Here are just
a few of the highlights that struck me.


Penrose’s three mysterious Ms

The dialogue starts in metaphysical territory, with Penrose and Craig
both agreeing that a complete worldview must find a place for three
different aspects of reality - the mental (consciousness, the mind,
thought and feelings), the physical (the universe we live in) and the
abstract (especially the language of mathematics). These could be
summarised as the three Ms – the Mental, the Material and the Mathematical.

Unlike many of his atheistic colleagues in science, Penrose acknowledges
that these various realms of reality present ‘three great mysteries’ in
the way they connect and support each other. For instance, the way that
the physical realm is described with such extraordinary precision by the
abstract realm of mathematics, seems to be crying out for an explanation.

Where did they come from and how do they relate to each other? Are they
simply separate realms, or can one realm rule them all? Craig has an
interesting response.

The abstract realm cannot ground the unity of these three, after all
abstract things cannot be causes – the number 7 can’t have an effect on
anything. It is ‘causally effete’ as Craig says.

What about the physical? Well, physical things can be causes. However,
the physical realm cannot ground the unity because it doesn’t explain
the mental realm. For instance, mental things (e.g. ideas, thoughts and
intentions) can be about other things, but physical things aren’t about
anything. Physical things just exist. So could the mental realm be a
possible ground for unifying these three realms?

We certainly experience mental events causing physical events, like
intentionally raising my arm. The ideas of a mind could also account for
the abstract realm (e.g. mathematics) if that mind is metaphysically
necessary (so that mathematical truths are necessary) and omniscient (so
that all abstract truths are thereby accounted for). So Craig asks: what
if the solution to Penrose’s mysteries lies in postulating an
immaterial, infinite, omniscient, and metaphysically necessary
consciousness that is the source of the mental, physical and abstract
realms?

As Justin notes, it sounds suspiciously like God.


Penrose’s God problem

So how does Penrose respond? The cosmologist’s main objection to an
infinite mind is that it is “too vague to know what to do with.” I can
sympathise, as I suspect that this reflects a physicist’s expectations
of what a fruitful explanation looks like.

For example, in Einstein’s equations of general relativity, a physicist
can explore mathematically-formulated worlds – black holes, expanding
universes, gravitational waves and more. We are both constrained and
free: one master equation to obey, but many solutions to the equation
to explore. But what are we supposed to do with a “non-physical,
infinite, metaphysically necessary and omniscient mind” – all words, no
equations?

Penrose seems to want an idea which – like general relativity – he can
sink his mathematical teeth into. But this would simply amount to
enthroning mathematics again. It would just throw us back into the “why
is this particular mathematical truth instantiated, rather than
another?” dilemma.

Perhaps Craig is on to something. Some explanations by their nature
transcend the mathematical and physical worlds that they are seeking to
explain.


Penrose’s cosmological confusion

The discussion moves on to Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC),
which aims to remove the singular beginning of our universe and solve
the problem of its seemingly special “low-entropy” beginning.
Both of these cosmological discoveries have been used by William Lane
Craig to suggest that there is evidence for a creative intelligence
behind the cosmos. The philosopher is well-known for using Big Bang
cosmology as supporting evidence for his ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’
that the cause of the universe must be God.

So does Penrose’s CCC model remove the needs for a beginning? The theory
predicts that our universe is one ‘cycle’ in a sequence of universes
that emerge over vast ‘eons’ of time as the energy runs out in each
cycle. Penrose claims that, as well as solving these problems, there is
empirical evidence of a remnant from a previous cycle.

As a cosmologist, I’ve been closely following Penrose’s model, and I
firmly believe a dose of reality is needed. Penrose notes that his model
has not convinced many cosmologists, and there are good reasons for this.

Firstly, the model first appeared in a 4-page conference proceedings in
2006 and in a popular-ish level book in 2010, but didn’t appear in a
peer-reviewed paper until 2018. For non-scientists, this is a bit like
hearing that a movie has not been screened for critics before release.
The papers contain rather few equations, and require a hefty amount of
new particle physics to accompany the new cosmology. His 2012 conference
paper finishes with the comment, “Clearly CCC raises many issues here
which need detailed checking for their internal consistency.”

Secondly, the claimed observational support for the model is entirely
unconvincing. Penrose mentions the most recent claims (“99.4% and all
that”), but there have now been three cases in which “claimed evidence
for the CCC turns out to be nothing.”

In 2010, a paper claimed to find CCC-consistent ring patterns in the
cosmic microwave background, but these were refuted by three independent
studies in 2011. In 2013, CCC advocates claimed to find sets of
concentric rings, only to be debunked again.

Finally, in this interview, Penrose discusses the 2018 claim that there
are rings with a large temperature gradient across their width. Despite
the talk of a greater than 99% probability, Dylan Jow and Douglas Scott
in September 2019 (after this dialogue, which was originally recorded in
May) showed that the analysis must account for the fact that the CCC
doesn’t predict a specific scale for the size of the rings. Once this is
done, the features identified by CCC advocates can be found in at least
13% of random simulations of the sky, that is, simulations where we know
by construction that no such ring is actually present.

Despite Penrose’s evident brilliance and commitment to the theory, CCC
remains an unproven and highly speculative hypothesis.


Can we escape the beginning?

Penrose’s model highlights an interesting thing about cosmology.
Clues regarding the beginning of the universe have oscillated back and
forth over the last century. The standard cosmological model has a
beginning… but perhaps asymmetries would remove the beginning? Then
Penrose and Hawking’s singularity theorems ruled those models out. Then
inflationary models were proposed that might evade these theorems, until
stronger theorems were discovered. But those theorems may or may not
apply to a properly quantum theory of gravity, and so on. So are we
getting anywhere?

There is an important difference between the two types of clues.
Cosmological models with a beginning were discovered as we tried to
account for empirical data. Models without a beginning were invented for
the express purpose of avoiding a beginning, and sometimes failed to do
so. No one ordered a beginning.

Whatever their differences when it comes to the ultimate explanation,
it’s a delight to see an eminent physicist and philosopher address deep
metaphysical questions, without pretending that science has answers it
doesn’t have, or assuming that the limits of science are the limits of
knowledge.

Each advance of physics has highlighted our desire to have, and
science’s failure to provide, an ultimate explanation of existence. Is
the deepest layer of reality more like matter, mathematics or mind? The
viewer will need to decide for themselves whether Penrose’s protest of
vagueness against a fundamental mind is convincing.

____
Luke A. Barnes is a postdoctoral researcher in astronomy and cosmology
at Western Sydney University. He is the author, with Geraint Lewis, of
“A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos” and “The Cosmic
Revolutionary’s Handbook”.