Our Evolving, Thinking, Learning Universe?
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Some things pertaining to evolution are not common knowledge. For example, there are many strange religious ideas presented as empirical evolutionary science. In addition, people have the notion that evolution was invented by Charles Darwin, but he did not come up with the idea all by his lonesome: Evolution from a common ancestor is actually an ancient pagan belief.
Although science thrives on challenges, folks like to protect the consensus and are slow to accept better ideas. One example is phlogiston. That was the stuff that was thought to cause burning. When that idea was overturned because of better science, it met resistance and was slow to extinguish. Of course, evolution itself is protected red in tooth and claw by the secular science industry, and evidence refuting it and supporting biblical creation science are repressed with a vengeance.
Some ideas, however, are allowed to be heard and presented — as long as they do not favor the Intelligent Design movement or biblical creation science. One of these fits in with cosmic evolution, but some pagan religious ideas are smuggled in. Not only is the universe evolving, but some scientists believe it may actually be able to learn. Let's take a gander at some of an article in Live Science titled, "Can the Universe Learn?"
The controversial new idea attempts to explain why the laws of physics are as we see them using a mathematical framework to describe various proposed theories in physics, such as quantum field theories and quantum gravity. The result is a system similar to a machine-learning program.
Scientists have discovered numerous physical laws and quantities with fixed values to define the universe. From the mass of an electron, to the force of gravity, there are many specific constants in the universe that seem arbitrary to some, given their precise and seemingly patternless values.
Mathematics, the laws of logic, and science itself are actually a part of the nature of God. He also expects us to investigate and learn. The uniformity of nature, including mathematics, logic, and so forth make science possible in the first place. In a materialistic worldview, there is no reason to expect such uniformity. Will the logic operate the same tomorrow or even on the other side of the planet? Can you expect gravity to work? Is there any reason to trust your thought processes? All of these make sense in the biblical worldview, but not according to secular reckoning.
In order to have a universe that evolves, the researchers proposed an idea called the autodidactic universe — a universe that is self-learning. In this case, the learning would happen similar to how a machine-learning algorithm works, where feedback at one stage influences the next, with the goal of reaching a more stable energy state. .
. . .
Similar to how a moth can evolve to have better camouflage, an autodidactic universe could be evolving to a higher state — which in this case could mean one that is in a more stable energy state. According to the mathematical framework the researchers developed, this system could only move forward, with each iteration creating a better, or more stable universe than before. The physical constants we measure today are only valid now and may have been different values in the past.
All of their stuff is based on materialistic presuppositions and is self-refuting. Their ideas may look good (to them) on paper — or a monitor — but there is no reason to suppose that physical constants may have been different billions of Darwin years ago. If they can change, they may be different in five hours. Sure, why not? It makes as much sense as speculating on what may have happened in the unobservable past. But then, evolutionists do that malarkey all the time. At any rate, if the laws of the universe can change, science is impossible and useless.
They're materialists, and refutes themselves because logic, numbers, and all sorts of things in life are not material in nature!
However, not all researchers are as excited by the new idea. Tim Maudlin, a professor of philosophy at New York University, who was not involved in the new work, asserts there's no evidence for the concept and plenty against it, such as that certain laws of physics that have been measured are the same today as they were shortly after the Big Bang. Additionally, if the laws of the universe are evolving, Maudlin thinks there must be a larger immutable set of laws that governs that change, which negates the idea of a self-taught system.
Actually, there are already speculations that the laws of the universe were different back then, giving rise to multiple universes. No evidence, of course. Maudlin has his own made-up "larger immutable set of laws" to negate that self-taught system. Where is his evidence?
By the way, I said earlier that evolutionism is an ancient pagan belief. The New Age movement (or whatever it's called now) has a passel of pagan ideas. Notice how people are saying, "The universe is speaking to me" or similar things. Heh, watch then as they say nobody believes in God in this modern scientific era...
Again, the biblical worldview makes sense of everything that is observed, and has the necessary preconditions of human experience. Atheists know that God exists, but suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23). Jesus Christ, God the Son, is the Creator (Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2, John 1:1-3) who upholds all things (Heb. 1:3, 11:3, Col. 1:17). No amount of paganism gussied up to look all sciency, with its lofty but unfounded speculations, can remove God as Creator. Secularists need to cowboy up and realize that he makes the rules, and they and better find out what he has to say right quick.