Saturday, February 6, 2016

More St. Augustine: What a marriage should Be

St. Augustine and the Fire of Wisdom
Here is another thought from "Augustine Day by Day" (February 5th) that seems particularly appropriate for these times.
"This problem often arises:  if a man and a woman live together without being legitimately joined. not to  have children but because they could not observe continence; and if they have agreed between themselves to have relations with no one else, can this be called a marriage?
Perhaps, but only if they have resolved to maintain until death the good faith that they had promised to themselves, even though this union did not rest on a desire to have children."
The Good of Marriage 5, 5

Monday, January 25, 2016

Evolution directed by God?
The Lactase Persistence Gene

Distribution of the Lactase Persistence Gene 
from the University College of London

INTRODUCTION
Mammalian babies drink milk. Almost all non-human adult mammals do not drink milk. Some human adult mammals drink milk (northern Europeans, East Africans, West Africans), while many adult human mammals (East Asian, Bantu, Basque) cannot drink milk without suffering lactose intolerance symptoms (lactose, a milk sugar, cannot be metabolized).

Here's the story: mammalian infants have an enzyme, lactase that enables lactose to be metabolized. This enzyme is normally lost after infants are weaned. However in certain groups where dairy farming has been carried out, a gene, "lactase persistence gene",  enables the enzyme to continue to be present. This gene was not present in these groups (Northern Europeans/East Africans) 8000 to 10,000 years ago, but is now (77% or higher in Northern Europeans). Therefore it must have appeared as a mutation and by enhancing survivability, spread.

This was the story I heard in John Hawkes' audiobook, "The Rise of Humans", (see also the article linked in the picture caption), and it seemed plausible, but as physicist I wanted numbers. The best science according to Fr. Stanley Jaki is quantitative, so that predictions or retrodictions can be assessed quantitatively. And I have found such a mathematical test in an article by Todd Bersagiliari and many others, Genetic Signatures of Strong Recent Positive Selection at the Lactase Gene.

MATHEMATICS IN EVOLUTION

Dancing on a tightrope of very involved statistical and Markov chain calculations (I have to confess I don't fully understand all the math, but accept it) the authors find that this mutated gene, which allowed persistence of the lactase enzyme action, enhanced survivability by between .09 and 0.19 for the Scandinavian population and between 0.014 and 0.15 for the East African. I take this "coefficient of selection" to mean that those Scandinavians carrying this dominant gene produced between 1.09 to 1.19 more children per generation than those who did not have the gene.    Their retrodictive frequencies are in accord with the relative frequencies of the gene: orange to red, high;  blue to indigo, low.

COMMENTARY

Here are some of the features of this problem that I don't understand.   The lactose intolerance symptoms described in the linked article (and others) cause discomfort but are not altogether debilitating.   In many cases, yogurt and other dairy products in which lactose has been degraded can be eaten by lactose intolerant individuals.   If dairy farming started out with products such as those, whence the 10 to 20 % increase in progeny from lactase persistent gene, which enabled less refined dairy products to be eaten?

When this article was posted as a short commentary in the Biologos Forum, I put a question to one of the authors of the linked paper:  how did the mathematical analysis distinguish between a single mutation that spread and multiple mutations?   He answered that the analysis was predicated on just a single mutation, and that was all that was necessary for the spread of the desirable trait.
If one looks at the map of incidence of high proportion of this gene, it appears in multiple regions: Northern Europe, East Africa and the Arabian peninsula, West Africa, such that migration of peoples with the gene would not have been a likely mechanism for its spread.   (I've read various accounts of where the mutation originated--Hungary, Iranian plateau--but a single geographic origin doesn't seem to be compatible with the present distribution.)

My point then is (and it's altogether speculative) what about God directing such a mutation (or more) to occur where dairy farming was prevalent?   There's no way of proving it (or disproving it), but it's consistent with the facts.

And we'll leave it there for critical comments (be nice, please).  Finally, let me say that I'm happy to not throw brickbats at the Neo-Darwinians who argue for survival of the fittest as a mechanism for evolution (provided God lends a helping hand).

ADDENDUM

My wife added some enlightening comments after she read this:  perhaps I had reversed causal relations:  dairy farming came after the mutation.   Also, in the Mediterranean and other warmer climates where sheep and goats rather than cattle are raised, yogurt and hard cheese are more common than milk and soft cheeses as dairy products (less liable to spoil) and less likely to cause lactose intolerance symptoms.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

"It from bit"... What about God?

 "Consciousness from Cosmos"
" 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." John Wheeler,  Information, Physics, the Quantum: the Search for Links

 INTRODUCTION


In delving into information theory as a foundation for quantum mechanical theory,   I encountered again John Wheeler's revolutionary thesis that we create the past by observing it--"The Participatory Universe".    The thesis rests on John Wheeler's "It from Bit" hypothesis.   In what follows I'll summarize that thesis by examining the "three questions", four "no's" and five "clues" that he uses to establish the proposition.  I'll also try to see what theological implications, if any, are entailed by this scheme.   



"IT FROM BIT"--"THREE QUESTIONS".


These are the three questions:

  1. How come existence?
  2. How come the quantum?
  3. How come "one world" out of many observer-participants?"loc.cit. p.310
 Wheeler's answer to the first question is
"...every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices..., bits." ibid.
That statement seems to be implicitly based on a a physicalist view of reality; that only those things measured or tied to a physical picture of the world are real. What about all those important things that can never be quantified as a binary choice?   I'll mention just three in which degree, rather than "yes" or "no" enter as qualifiers:  love, faith, happiness.    You, dear reader, please supply some others.

Wheeler gives three examples to support the claim that information theory--"it from bit"--is a foundation for quantum theory:


  • The Wootters-Zurek demonstration that the photon can not be split, can not be cloned;
  • The Aharanov-Bohm experiment in which a magnetic field, negligible in the neighborhood of an electron, nevertheless affects its trajectory;
  • The Beckenstein entropy of dark holes, in which the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area encircled by its horizon, and thus contains (lost?) information.
Information theory as foundational for quantum theory is very much in vogue these days, as indicated by the number of popular science articles on the subject. (This assertion is disparaging, I'll admit and offer as an excuse only my own inadequate background in the subject.)  The most thorough and intelligible discussion of information theory/quantum mechanics that I've found is Christopher Timpson's Ph.D. Thesis, "Quantum Information Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics .   I'll not attempt to summarize that work, but only remark that Timpson shoots holes in several attempts to establish information theory as the grounding for quantum mechanics, but does endorse one proposal, which lays a quantum mechanics foundation not only on information theory but on the mathematics of C-algebras.

As did Wheeler, I'll leave the answer to the third question until the "four no's" and "five clues" are discussed.


THE "FOUR NO'S"

And here are the four "no's":
  1. No "tower of turtles";
  2. No laws;
  3. No continuum;
  4. No space, no time.
The "no tower of turtles" statement asserts that infinite regress in a causal chain is not possible*.  In this Wheeler, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other philosophers are in agreement.

The "no laws" assertion denies that the universe is a machine built on law, a machine that would entail a multiverse, "universes in infinite variety and infinite number".    Rather, Wheeler envisions a "world self-synthesized":
"...the notes struck out on a piano by the observer-participants of all places and all times, bits though they are, in and by themselves constitute the great wide world of space and time and things." loc.cit, p. 314
The "world self-synthesized" by "observer-participants of all places and all times" is, presumably, the answer or part of the answer to the third question above.    But more questions are raised than answered here.  Would an annelid worm, an eagle, and a human synthesize the same world, or is it only "intelligent beings"?   If the last, what about the world synthesized by a Cro-Magnon man, an Australian aborigine, and Helen Keller?  I don't see a coherent scheme here.
But I do have a different answer--see below.

By stating there is "no continuum", Wheeler denies the reality of transcendental and irrational numbers.   He uses quotes from the mathematician Hermann Weyl and the philosopher Willard Quine. to support that claim.  One should also note that  the "no continuum" condition requires that space and time must be discrete (but see below).

Wheeler's "no space, no time" condition is perhaps the most unappealing intuitively.   He claims that space and time are man-made inventions, and that at the beginning of the universe, "The Big Bang", quantum behavior would override General Relativity--there would be no connectivity in space and before and after would have no meaning.


THE FIVE CLUES

The five clues are listed below, but I'll not go into a detailed discussion of them, because (frankly) I find them confusing.


  1. The boundary of a boundary is zero;
  2. No question, no answer;
  3. The super-Copernican principle;
  4. Consciousness;
  5. More is different.
As near as I can understand the first clue, it rests on topology: for example, the boundary of a line are end-points--zero length;  the boundary of a plane area is a circumference, zero area; etc.    The second clue I don't understand in full, other than it says that probabilistic analyses in physics are misleading and that physics should be built on bit-theoretic principles.   The third clue extends the Copernican spatial principle  to time (we are not the center of the universe; any location is equally suitable as a reference):  "now" is a misleading characterization of reality.   By "consciousness", Wheeler does not refer to any of the issues that engage philosophers of mind, connecting quantum theory with an observer directly.   Rather (as near as I can understand it) he refers to shared communication, as per his quote of Fellesdal:
"Meaning is the joint product of all the evidence that is
available to those who communicate."
 D. Fel1esdal: "Meaning and experience," in Mind and Language, p. 25-44.
"More is different" states what many philosophers and scientists propose:  there are "emergent" properties of a group of elements that are not best analyzed by reduction to the properties of the individual elements;  for example, superconductivity is not best treated as a problem involving individual electrons in a metal.

Wheeler outlines a program for physics research that would employ all the ideas above, but that program won't be discussed here; it is available on the online version of his paper, linked above.


MY TAKE 

Missing from Wheeler's thesis is any notion of the Divine as Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and to me, this lack renders the enterprise without value, however interesting it might be.  I believe that quantum mechanics does provide an insight into Divine intervention.

In an article posted two years ago (almost to this day!) I wrote about the theological and philosophical implications of the quantum delayed choice experiment.    The experiment was originally proposed by Wheeler, and has been successfully implemented by several physicists,   What are the philosophical/theological implications of the delayed choice experiment?   I believe this has been best expressed by the American physicist Raymond Chiao, in his article "Quantum Non-Localities: Experimental Evidence" in Quantum Mechanics--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, V.5  (publ: Vatican Observatory and Center for Theology and Natural Science;  see below for link).
Although it's a long quote, it expresses better than I can the link between quantum mechanics and neo-Berkeleyan vision of Divine intervention.
"I shall assume as a basic principle that the universe we live in bears witness to the Creator who created it  [emphasis added]...let us generalize Berkeley's philosophical principle to a 'neo-Berkeleyan point of view' in which God is the Observer of the universe, in the quantum sense of 'observer'.   This generalization starts from small systems...in which an observer created reality is seen to occur upon every elementary act of observation, and ends up with large systems--in particular with the entire universe.  
In this viewpoint, every elementary, individual quantum event...is a result of a creative act of the universal Observer, in which all properties of all particles come into existence on their observation, in continual acts of creatio ex nihilo, which constitutes a kind of creatio continua  occurring everywhere at once.   Thus the existence of the universe itself is contingent upon the continual observations of the Creator.   The idea of contingency of existence, in the sense of the utter dependency of the universe for its properties and existence at each moment upon its Creator, is thereby introduced via quantum physics into philosophy and theology...
...Furthermore, this viewpoint suggests a new meaning of the immanence  of the Creator with respect to creation, since God is acting everywhere at once in the universe.   Thus God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent...The neo-Berkeleyan viewpoint introduced here suggests not only a continual creatio ex nihilo qua creatio continua by an immanent Creator, but also a singular creatio ex nihilo by a transcendent Creator.
Moreover, the above Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effects imply a quantum non-separability, which ties together the universe non-locally as a whole.  This reminds one of the words of the Apostle John,'All things come into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being that has being.'  (John I:3)and of the words of the Apostle Paul,'All things have been created through him and for him...and to him all things hold together.' (Colossians I:16,17)...We infer that 'all things' refers to the universe.  Not only are all distant parts the universe woven together throughout space, but also its future and its past are entangled throughout time, as if the universe were one seamless garment."  Raymond Chiao,  "Quantum Non-Localities: Experimental Evidence" in Quantum Mechanics--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, V.5**
So, to summarize:  the Anglican theologian Bishop George Berkeley gave us the dictum, "esse est percipi"--to be is to be perceived, which we can invert:
percipi est esse.   In this Wheeler's Participatory Universe stands, but it is God who is the participating observer.    And to reinforce this point, what could be better than Monsignor Ronald Knox's limerick about Berkeleyan idealism:

"There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad.'
REPLY--
'Dear Sir:
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
GOD.' "

NOTES

*Wheeler is paraphrasing the expression "turtles all the way down".   There's  a famous anecdote about the elderly lady asserting a flat earth theory to a famous philosopher (two versions: William James or Bertrand Russell):  the earth rested on the back of a large elephant, which in turn rested on a larger turtle.   When asked what that turtle rested on, the lady replied, "don't be silly--it's turtles all the way down."

**Click on the reddish-violet icon for the book and the chapter headings will appear on the right;   click on the one for Raymond Chiao and a summary will appear.

About Me

My Photo

Retired, cranky, old physicist.   Convert to Catholicism in 1995.   Trying to show that there is no contradiction between what science tells us about the world and our Catholic faith.   Intermittent blogs and adult education classes to achieve this end (see http://rationalcatholic.blogspot.com/   and http://home.ptd.net/~rkurland)

Extraordinary Minister of Communion volunteer to federal prison and hospital; lector, EOMC.
Sometime player of bass clarinet, alto clarinet, clarinet, bass, tenor bowed psaltery for parish instrumental group and local folk group.

And, finally, my motivation:
“It is also necessary—may God grant it!—that in providing others with books to read I myself should make progress, and that in trying to answer their questions I myself should find what I am seeking.
Therefore at the command of God our Lord and with his help, I have undertaken not so much to discourse with authority on matters known to me as to know them better by discoursing devoutly of them.”
St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity I,8.