H4POR

Professor Michael Sudduth

Keith Ward, God, Chance, and Necessity

Outline Notes: Chapters 2

More Logical Mistakes in Atkins

Atkins claims that "the seemingly something [the Universe] is actually elegantly reorganized nothing, and . . . the net content of the Universe is. . . nothing."
Ward claims that the first logical mistake here is the reification fallacy, according to which one assumes that all nouns must refer to something. So "nothing" must refer to a quasi-something.
The second logical mistake is that, given the first move, nothing as something can have properties. And if it can have properties, Aktins can argue that it has a sum total of properties all of which cancel each other out (like 1 and -1, or positive and negative charges), so that the Universe in its totality is really nothing.
Aktins maintains that the Universe is generated out of fluctuations in nothingness. But fluctuations can only arise in something. So Atkins' third mistake is that, given the first move, if nothing is really something, then fluctuations can arise in it. But clearly this assumes that nothing refers to something.
Similarly, Atkins argues that fluctuations can give rise to four-dimensional space-time. Since it came from nothing, it is nothing, and hence needs no creator in either case. But the premise "universe x comes from nothing" does not logically entail "the Universe consists of nothing." It might come from nothing, but it would have to be something, so there could still be a need for a creator to explain what exists.

II. Can There be Absolutely Nothing?

1. Possibilities exist, and exist necessarily. But possibilities must exist in something actual or not exist at all. But then it follows that there must be something that is actual and contains all possibilities within itself. This would be a necessary being (for only what is necessary can contain all necessities). There could never be absolutely nothing.

2. There is some truth in the idea, then, that the Universe exists because of something necessary. But that which is necessary is not the physical universe itself (as already argued). Mathematics is necessary, like all logical possibilities are, but abstract, impersonal entities cannot bring contingent reality into existence (as already pointed out). This seems to leave only one possibility: the necessary being is God who freely created the Universe from nothing. "God bridges the gap between the necessity of the conceptual realm and the contingency of the physical realm.

3. What Atkins calls "nothing" (out of which the Universe arose) is really something, a realm of logical possibilities. And, though Atkins does not see the point, once again, he has laid the foundation for theism. For what he calls nothing is really the starting point for understanding what is meant by the word "God." The possibilia that exist, and out of which the Universe arose, are located in a necessary being, who chose to actualize some of those possibilities. Hence, the Universe.

III. Fluctuations in Nothingness?

Atkins proposes that the Universe arose as a result of quantum fluctuations in nothingness. "A quantum fluctuation is a non-determined change in such properties as position, momentum, and energy, which occurs in the microworld of subatomic particles" (p. 39).

However, (i) all such fluctuations seem to presuppose a space-time background, allowing the fluctuations to occur. And (ii) they also would require at least the existence of quantum laws, probabilistic laws governing the quantum fluctuations. Lastly, (iii) the Universe will come into being and be life producing only if there is a good deal of fine-tuning at the outset (e.g., the right balance of fundamental forces, a specified probability of particular fluctuations in this array of forces, and the forces making possible a rate of expansion that could not vary from the actual rate by one part in a million). So fluctuations can hardly take place in nothingness.

The Hartle/Hawking model (of the Universe's origin through quantum fluctuations) does not assume space-time background. But even this model requires "time" as a mathematical variable (so-called external time), which is itself the result of a spatialised quantum gravity domain. But this whole model then requires imaginary numbers, Hilbert Spaces, quantum operators, etc. This is hardly nothing! The model also exhibits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

The Hartle/Hawking model does not address the question of why the quantum laws are as they are, such as to permit the generation of life producing Universe, as opposed to no Universe or no life producing Universe. Penrose suggests that the probability of a Universe like our own coming into by chance is 1 in 10(123). But the probability would be much higher if we took as our hypothesis the existence of an intelligent mind - choice, not chance.

The Universe and Probabilities

The highly improbable character of a Universe such as our own might be reduced (i.e., the probability increased) if we assumed infinite time. Atkins could say that given enough time a Universe like ours was inevitable. The suggestion here seems to derive from the more general thesis that: every possibility is actualized given infinite time.

By "Universe" we can understand "a logically possible state of affairs" (not necessarily a physical reality). But then the idea that every possibility is (eventually) actualized is actually self-defeating for someone like Atkins because one possible Universe is one that is created by God. So if every possibility is eventually actualized then at least eventually there is a Universe created by God. How does Atkins know that the present Universe isn't such a Universe.

A related problem would be that the existence of certain Universes U (at any time) is precluded given the existence of other Universes U*, so if every possibility is actualized, then some possibilities cannot be actualized (which is obviously self-contradictory). Consider (i) A Universe U which includes God as creator, (ii) a Universe U* which excludes God as creator, and (iii) a Universe U** which includes a supreme evil being as creator. By definition, Universe U excludes U* and U** from being actual. All three Universes cannot co-exist, and if U exists at any time, then U* and U** cannot exist at any time. And similarly, a Universe without God (if actual) makes impossible a Universe with God. [God by definition is a perfect being, and this excludes his existence only at some times or in some Universes. If there is a God, God exists in every possible reality.] So not every possibility can be actualized.

Why is any Possibility Actalized? The Basic Question

The actualization of any physical realm seems highly improbable, especially a life-producing one, and that is so even if one postulates a realm of mathematical realities as necessarily existent. So even if something must exist (in the way of mathematical and logical truths), why must anything physical exist?

The Universe can only be made actual by what is itself actual. Nothing comes simply from nothing. So the choice is between a realm of purely abstract mathematical entities (which necessitate the Universe) or a being in whom such necessities are contained and who chooses to actualize the Universe for a distinct purpose. The beauty and elegance displayed in the Universe (its lawful structure and fine-tuning at the outset is exactly what we would expect if there is a God (as such a world would follow from his wisdom and goodness). The world also actualizes many valuable states of affairs, such as the existence of conscious, free moral agents, who are able to contemplate the Universe and themselves. Such complex goods are made intelligible if God's existence is taken as the hypothesis.