Theoretical origin of life; Koonen's odds against (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, February 23, 2015, 22:27 (3561 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He has to state this disclaimer to keep his card as an atheist, materialism scientist. He has not proven at all that these complex systems can develop by chance. He can only theorize they can.
Dhw: You lauded him as a “highly respected scientist” when cherry-picking his theoretical odds against chance. Might it not be that as a card-carrying atheist he actually believes his arguments as strongly as you believe yours? And you know as well as I do that nobody can prove any of the hypotheses, and everybody including yourself can only theorize.-DAVID: His essay did not require those comments about ID. They are obviously purposeful in a attempt to refute a point of view. He is as guilty as you point out I am in defending a position. Your underlying position of neutrality as an agnostic I think blinds you to purposeful content produced on one side of the other.-Everyone with a fixed point of view makes purposeful comments to further their cause at the expense of other causes. Far from being blind to this, it is what I am constantly fighting against. There is absolutely no scientific or philosophical consensus on any of the major questions we all discuss. If there were, there would be no discussion. And yet over and over again, theists and atheists state their hypotheses as if they were based on incontrovertible facts, and each side cancels the other out. You dismiss the theory of an infinite eternal universe inevitably coming up with life, because Koonan hasn't proved it and “can only theorize”. You haven't proved intelligent design and you can only theorize. But perhaps you are blind to the pot and kettle syndrome.-xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -dhw: NB He does not see the multiverse as a necessary requirement, but only an infinite universe. Add eternal [...] and we have the same argument that you and i have been discussing: infinity and eternity make anything possible. 
DAVID: Second Thoughts:
He uses the multiverse. Note:
“The plausibility of different models for the origin of life on earth directly depends on the adopted cosmological scenario. In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable. Therefore, under this cosmology, an entity as complex as a coupled translation-replication system should be considered a viable breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution.”-Perhaps the parenthesis is simply a possible alternative, to cover both scenarios. In the conclusion he is quite specific: 
“For the present concept to hold, the only essential assumptions are that the universe is infinite [e.g., any (island) universe under MWO; the multiverse, per se, is not a must] and that the number of macroscopic histories in any finite region of spacetime is finite."-The argument is simply that infinity and eternity make anything possible. I remain baffled by all the vehement opposition to the two concepts. You believe in eternal first cause energy, which would allow for any number of universes. Koonan's infinity would offer infinite combinations of energy and matter (which George says are interchangeable) to come up with life and knock a dent in the odds against chance, but George says no to infinity. Of course the chance argument is no reason for believing in infinity, but until someone proves that our universe is finite and/or came from nothing, it will remain as much a hypothesis as an infinite eternal universe or succession of universes.