The immensity of the universe (The nature of a \'Creator\')
An article in The Guardian a short while ago seemed to me to bring home the sheer magnitude and impersonality of the universe. Astronomers analysed starlight from more than 220,000 distant galaxies, and concluded that “the universe is slowly losing its twinkle”. This is because there is a progressive decrease in the formation of new stars, which they think peaked about 8 billion years ago. Estimates vary wildly, but there seems to be a general consensus that the observable universe contains between 100 and 200 billion galaxies, each of which in turn contains between a few thousand and one hundred trillion stars. That's just the observable universe. It is believed that the Milky Way has a black hole at its centre, whose mass is some 4 million times greater than our sun.-The figures may be tentative, but the immensity is beyond doubt. And so one can hardly be surprised if people are sceptical at the very idea of a single mind creating and controlling billions and billions of galaxies and zillions and zillions of stars. It becomes even more unimaginable if one realizes that new stars are being born and old ones are dying all the time (a macrocosmic parallel to life and death on microcosmic Earth). Could this cosmic coming and going really be purposefully directed towards some end? I can't help being equally sceptical at the idea that all this sprang from “nothing”, but that does not make it any easier to believe in a mind that can encompass hundreds of billions of galaxies. Far easier to believe in what is observable: namely, a vast expanse of energy and matter constantly changing as matter comes and goes, apparently undirected and purposeless.-“Easier to believe” does not of course equate to truth. My agnostic balancing act demands acknowledgement that the astonishing complexity of living cells and cell communities makes it “easier to believe” in conscious design than in blind chance as the creative force. BBella's solution to the dilemma is conscious beings from elsewhere in the universe, but as we have agreed, that only transfers the question of origin to them instead of us and our fellow organisms.-It seems to me that just as atheists wilfully close their eyes to the scale of life's complexity, theists close theirs to the scale of a universe in which our own planet is one of zillions of lumps of matter which in the course of time will disappear, seemingly with as little purpose as a grain of sand swirled away by the ocean. The human ability to keep the eyes closed is perhaps as remarkable a talent as the ability to keep them open.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell 
, Thursday, September 17, 2015, 00:48 (3354 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:Could this cosmic coming and going really be purposefully directed towards some end? I can't help being equally sceptical at the idea that all this sprang from “nothing”, but that does not make it any easier to believe in a mind that can encompass hundreds of billions of galaxies. Far easier to believe in what is observable: namely, a vast expanse of energy and matter constantly changing as matter comes and goes, apparently undirected and purposeless.-I see lots of purpose. Humans are here and we can study the universe and understand it. Why should that have happened? The odds against that chance event are stupendous. > > dhw: My agnostic balancing act demands acknowledgement that the astonishing complexity of living cells and cell communities makes it “easier to believe” in conscious design than in blind chance as the creative force. -The magnificent creation called the living cell, cries out for design. > dhw: It seems to me that just as atheists wilfully close their eyes to the scale of life's complexity, theists close theirs to the scale of a universe in which our own planet is one of zillions of lumps of matter which in the course of time will disappear, seemingly with as little purpose as a grain of sand swirled away by the ocean. The immensity of the universe I find is of no issue. It is the site of the creation of humans, and the place for human creativity. Perhaps its size is a requirement that we do not recognize.
The immensity of the universe
dhw: It seems to me that just as atheists wilfully close their eyes to the scale of life's complexity, theists close theirs to the scale of a universe in which our own planet is one of zillions of lumps of matter which in the course of time will disappear, seemingly with as little purpose as a grain of sand swirled away by the ocean.-DAVID: The immensity of the universe I find is of no issue. It is the site of the creation of humans, and the place for human creativity. Perhaps its size is a requirement that we do not recognize.-This is what I mean about the wilful closing of the eyes. Your “perhaps” blots out the inconceivability of a mind (for the existence of which there is no evidence beyond the speculative) that can encompass zillions of stars in billions of galaxies which have come and gone perhaps for an eternity before humans arrived, and will continue to come and go perhaps for an eternity after Planet Earth has disappeared. On the microcosmic scale, your “perhaps” also includes the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, with thousands of organisms appearing and disappearing like the stars but somehow “perhaps” required for the production of humans. I carefully balanced my first post between the apparent impersonality of the immense universe and the apparent design of the living cell. You gaze wide-eyed at the latter, demanding an explanation for life's complexities, focusing all your powers of reasoning to draw your conclusion, and castigating those who refuse to acknowledge the rationality of your arguments. And then you close your eyes to the former, not interested in finding an explanation for the vastness and the endless comings and goings (it's simply “of no issue”), abandoning reason, content with a “perhaps” that you would ridicule if it were uttered by someone referring to the possibility of life originating by chance amid an eternal and infinite mixing of materials. -Although I am responding to you personally, this should not be taken as a personal criticism. What you are doing is what most people do in various contexts, myself included, and I finished my post with a general observation: “The human ability to keep the eyes closed is perhaps as remarkable a talent as the ability to keep them open.” It might be interesting to know why you chose to leave that out.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Thursday, September 17, 2015, 19:13 (3353 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I carefully balanced my first post between the apparent impersonality of the immense universe and the apparent design of the living cell. You gaze wide-eyed at the latter, demanding an explanation for life's complexities, focusing all your powers of reasoning to draw your conclusion, and castigating those who refuse to acknowledge the rationality of your arguments. And then you close your eyes to the former, not interested in finding an explanation for the vastness and the endless comings and goings (it's simply “of no issue”)-Since you are forcing the issue, I will repeat the comments I have made before about the universe and what its makeup might mean. We don't know what it came from but cause and effect strongly suggest it is energy, since the universe is at its simplest forms of energy. I have said that perhaps it has to be this big in order to create the special galaxy which is the Milky Way, one of the largest galaxies known. The galaxy must be big, so the Earth can be in the safer outer reaches away from the Black Hole and the severe radiation activity nearer to the center. (We are 2/3rds out on the second spiral arm. To have life (which I believe is the purpose of the universe) it requires a special planet just like the Earth with all the metals and minerals we find here. That requires a sun that has those metals, and it turns out that such stars are rare when analyzed in a post I just entered today. I've said that God uses evolution in construction of the universe and it is obvious in how science has shown it developed.-Our sun will explode in 5 billion years. So humans on this planet are limited to somewhat less than that time. Since the universe is so large and evolving, another Milky Way with an Earth could develop and God's next experiment in humans could begin. In fact it might already be developing. We can only know our circumstances.-There, I've ruminated on the giant size of the universe. I see purpose where you struggle with it. As Paul Davies points out, the appearance of sentient beings who can study the universe and understand its workings, is a highly significant event. And I would add high unlikely due to chance.-> > dhw: Although I am responding to you personally, this should not be taken as a personal criticism. What you are doing is what most people do in various contexts, myself included, and I finished my post with a general observation: “The human ability to keep the eyes closed is perhaps as remarkable a talent as the ability to keep them open.” It might be interesting to know why you chose to leave that out.-I do not see it as personal criticism, but your attempt to make an observation about how humans react. I didn't respond because what I wrote above in on the record already. I've not closed my eyes to the dilemma of why the universe is like it is, but have chosen to concentrate on the appearance of life, which I think is easier to analyze from the point of view of teleology. 'How' is what you seem to concentrate on, not 'why' as I do. I think that is our difference.
The immensity of the universe
DAVID: ...I will repeat the comments I have made before about the universe and what its makeup might mean. We don't know what it came from but cause and effect strongly suggest it is energy, since the universe is at its simplest forms of energy. We have agreed on that. The disagreement is over whether that energy is conscious.-DAVID: I have said that perhaps it has to be this big in order to create the special galaxy which is the Milky Way, one of the largest galaxies known. The galaxy must be big, so the Earth can be in the safer outer reaches away from the Black Hole and the severe radiation activity nearer to the center. -But why did there have to be a black hole? See later. -DAVID: (We are 2/3rds out on the second spiral arm. To have life (which I believe is the purpose of the universe) it requires a special planet just like the Earth with all the metals and minerals we find here. [...]-Yes indeed, life as we know it requires the conditions we know. If your starting point is God, then that's how God made it (or had to make it), and if your starting point is no-God, then that's how it happened. Easy so far, but watch out, here comes trouble...-DAVID: Our sun will explode in 5 billion years. So humans on this planet are limited to somewhat less than that time. Since the universe is so large and evolving, another Milky Way with an Earth could develop and God's next experiment in humans could begin. In fact it might already be developing. We can only know our circumstances.-The same problem as with your concept of evolution: does your God plan and control the environment? If the large universe is evolving and another Milky Way and Earth “could develop”, you have a purposeless drift and a lucky break. So up to there, you are with the atheists. Then your God intervenes, whereas they opt for another lucky break. If he plans and controls it, you are once again stuck with your problem of the billions of galaxies, not to mention that nasty black hole, all for the sake of you and me. DAVID: There, I've ruminated on the giant size of the universe. I see purpose where you struggle with it. As Paul Davies points out, the appearance of sentient beings who can study the universe and understand its workings, is a highly significant event. And I would add high unlikely due to chance.-Thank you for your ruminations. I agree 100% with you and Paul Davies, but of course it doesn't need God to make our appearance highly significant, and while I agree that chance is highly unlikely, it seems to me no more unlikely than the concept of an eternal mind that encompasses billions of galaxies.-DAVID: I've not closed my eyes to the dilemma of why the universe is like it is, but have chosen to concentrate on the appearance of life, which I think is easier to analyze from the point of view of teleology. 'How' is what you seem to concentrate on, not 'why' as I do. I think that is our difference.-Your starting point is the assumption of teleology, and of course it is easier to find design in the appearance of life than in the possibly infinite, seemingly pointless comings and goings of billions of galaxies and zillions of stars. It is not the ‘how' that I focus on, but the question of whether there is a ‘why'.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Friday, September 18, 2015, 18:19 (3352 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: But why did there have to be a black hole? -Apparently it is a physical requirement to form a galaxy, nothing more. The universe has a series of physical requirements for its evolution. > > dhw: The same problem as with your concept of evolution: does your God plan and control the environment? If the large universe is evolving and another Milky Way and Earth “could develop”, you have a purposeless drift and a lucky break. So up to there, you are with the atheists.-Not so fast. You may see purposelessness, I don't. My concept allows for more than one trial at humans. This bunch is far from perfect. He could be trying for that. -> dhw:Then your God intervenes, whereas they [atheists] opt for another lucky break. If he plans and controls it, you are once again stuck with your problem of the billions of galaxies, not to mention that nasty black hole, all for the sake of you and me.-Ah, you are critical of my God when the setup and its evolution could be perfect for his purpose. You don't understand it, but it works. Why can't you accept that?-> dhw: I agree 100% with you and Paul Davies, but of course it doesn't need God to make our appearance highly significant, and while I agree that chance is highly unlikely, it seems to me no more unlikely than the concept of an eternal mind that encompasses billions of galaxies.-If highly unlikely, and you accept cause and effect, how do you explain us? I see only chance as a fall back position. > > dhw: Your starting point is the assumption of teleology, and of course it is easier to find design in the appearance of life than in the possibly infinite, seemingly pointless comings and goings of billions of galaxies and zillions of stars. It is not the ‘how' that I focus on, but the question of whether there is a ‘why'.-You don't seem to realize what you are doing, by assuming the universe looks pointless (a la Weinberg) when it produced us and obviously works, evolved according to a very precise set of physical rules and fine tuning. You are still concentrating on the 'how' when the 'why' is obviously us.
The immensity of the universe
dhw: But why did there have to be a black hole? DAVID: Apparently it is a physical requirement to form a galaxy, nothing more. The universe has a series of physical requirements for its evolution.-So your God was hamstrung by the physical requirements of the universe he is supposed to have created? dhw: The same problem as with your concept of evolution: does your God plan and control the environment? If the large universe is evolving and another Milky Way and Earth “could develop”, you have a purposeless drift and a lucky break. So up to there, you are with the atheists. DAVID: Not so fast. You may see purposelessness, I don't. My concept allows for more than one trial at humans. This bunch is far from perfect. He could be trying for that. -So does he or doesn't he plan and control the environment?-dhw: Then your God intervenes, whereas they [atheists] opt for another lucky break. If he plans and controls it, you are once again stuck with your problem of the billions of galaxies, not to mention that nasty black hole, all for the sake of you and me. DAVID: Ah, you are critical of my God when the setup and its evolution could be perfect for his purpose. You don't understand it, but it works. Why can't you accept that?-Carts before horses. If your God doesn't control the environment, he leaves the “development” of the right conditions to chance. An atheist would also say it all happened by chance, and you don't understand it, but it works, so why can't you accept that? -dhw: I agree 100% with you and Paul Davies, but of course it doesn't need God to make our appearance highly significant, and while I agree that chance is highly unlikely, it seems to me no more unlikely than the concept of an eternal mind that encompasses billions of galaxies.-DAVID: If highly unlikely, and you accept cause and effect, how do you explain us? I see only chance as a fall back position.-Now we have left the problem of the vast, seemingly impersonal universe and have come back to the origin of life, where you feel you are on safer ground. Yes, eventually chance is the fall back position, though my panpsychist variation of billions of individual intelligences remains an alternative to your single supercolossal, universe-embracing mind. -dhw: Your starting point is the assumption of teleology, and of course it is easier to find design in the appearance of life than in the possibly infinite, seemingly pointless comings and goings of billions of galaxies and zillions of stars. It is not the ‘how' that I focus on, but the question of whether there is a ‘why'. DAVID: You don't seem to realize what you are doing, by assuming the universe looks pointless (a la Weinberg) when it produced us and obviously works, evolved according to a very precise set of physical rules and fine tuning. You are still concentrating on the 'how' when the 'why' is obviously us.-If you could find an "obvious" link between our existence and the billions of galaxies and zillions of stars that came and went before us and will come and go after us, it might help me see the - apparently dwindling - light. (See also my response to Tony.)
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Saturday, September 19, 2015, 14:41 (3352 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Apparently it is a physical requirement to form a galaxy, nothing more. The universe has a series of physical requirements for its evolution. > > dhw: So your God was hamstrung by the physical requirements of the universe he is supposed to have created?-This is one of the theories that have been presented. God appears to have evolved the universe to its current state and that state allowed the appearance of Earth as a home for humans. Is that the only possibility? No, but it fits what we observe if one accepts the idea that there is a theistic mind running all of this.-> DAVID: Not so fast. You may see purposelessness, I don't. My concept allows for more than one trial at humans. This bunch is far from perfect. He could be trying for that. > > dhw: So does he or doesn't he plan and control the environment?-See my entry of today as to how the fossil story is so confusing and convoluted. As for the environment, I doubt He takes control of day to day thunderstorms or ice ages. These are all part of an evolving Earth.-> DAVID: Ah, you are critical of my God when the setup and its evolution could be perfect for his purpose. You don't understand it, but it works. Why can't you accept that? > > dhw: Carts before horses. If your God doesn't control the environment, he leaves the “development” of the right conditions to chance. An atheist would also say it all happened by chance, and you don't understand it, but it works, so why can't you accept that?-Again, look at all the attempts to create H. sapiens. God obviously uses an evolutionary process, not a direct creation of a species and a variable environment fosters different adaptations leading to different results. I don't believe in instant creationism. > > DAVID: If highly unlikely, and you accept cause and effect, how do you explain us? I see only chance as a fall back position. > > dhw: Now we have left the problem of the vast, seemingly impersonal universe and have come back to the origin of life, where you feel you are on safer ground. Yes, eventually chance is the fall back position, though my panpsychist variation of billions of individual intelligences remains an alternative to your single supercolossal, universe-embracing mind. -No, I was referring only to the chance creation of this life-supporting universe. Presents you with the same problem. > > dhw: If you could find an "obvious" link between our existence and the billions of galaxies and zillions of stars that came and went before us and will come and go after us, it might help me see the - apparently dwindling - light. -I have to go back to what is admittedly an argument from incredulity: the stupendous odds against the fact that you and I are debating the issue through amazing electronics invented by human brains, on a rocky planet that had no reason to spawn us. And God may wish to have several attempts at beings that recognize Him in this universe, before He starts another universe. I think that is what an eternal mind would do.
The immensity of the universe: dhw questions size
by David Turell , Monday, December 19, 2022, 18:04 (703 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: ...I will repeat the comments I have made before about the universe and what its makeup might mean. We don't know what it came from but cause and effect strongly suggest it is energy, since the universe is at its simplest forms of energy. We have agreed on that. The disagreement is over whether that energy is conscious.-DAVID: I have said that perhaps it has to be this big in order to create the special galaxy which is the Milky Way, one of the largest galaxies known. The galaxy must be big, so the Earth can be in the safer outer reaches away from the Black Hole and the severe radiation activity nearer to the center. -But why did there have to be a black hole? See later. -DAVID: (We are 2/3rds out on the second spiral arm. To have life (which I believe is the purpose of the universe) it requires a special planet just like the Earth with all the metals and minerals we find here. [...]-Yes indeed, life as we know it requires the conditions we know. If your starting point is God, then that's how God made it (or had to make it), and if your starting point is no-God, then that's how it happened. Easy so far, but watch out, here comes trouble...-DAVID: Our sun will explode in 5 billion years. So humans on this planet are limited to somewhat less than that time. Since the universe is so large and evolving, another Milky Way with an Earth could develop and God's next experiment in humans could begin. In fact it might already be developing. We can only know our circumstances.-The same problem as with your concept of evolution: does your God plan and control the environment? If the large universe is evolving and another Milky Way and Earth “could develop”, you have a purposeless drift and a lucky break. So up to there, you are with the atheists. Then your God intervenes, whereas they opt for another lucky break. If he plans and controls it, you are once again stuck with your problem of the billions of galaxies, not to mention that nasty black hole, all for the sake of you and me. DAVID: There, I've ruminated on the giant size of the universe. I see purpose where you struggle with it. As Paul Davies points out, the appearance of sentient beings who can study the universe and understand its workings, is a highly significant event. And I would add high unlikely due to chance.-Thank you for your ruminations. I agree 100% with you and Paul Davies, but of course it doesn't need God to make our appearance highly significant, and while I agree that chance is highly unlikely, it seems to me no more unlikely than the concept of an eternal mind that encompasses billions of galaxies.-DAVID: I've not closed my eyes to the dilemma of why the universe is like it is, but have chosen to concentrate on the appearance of life, which I think is easier to analyze from the point of view of teleology. 'How' is what you seem to concentrate on, not 'why' as I do. I think that is our difference.-Your starting point is the assumption of teleology, and of course it is easier to find design in the appearance of life than in the possibly infinite, seemingly pointless comings and goings of billions of galaxies and zillions of stars. It is not the ‘how' that I focus on, but the question of whether there is a ‘why'.
I put dhw's comment in bold. dhw want to know why God made the universe so big. I have just found a scientific answer from Michael Denton:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-denton-the-miracle-of-man/
"Some ask how the almost immeasurable size of the universe fits into what might appear to be this rather tidy teleological view. As it turns out, however, even the most distant galaxies influence the inertia of earthly bodies! As Denton writes, “The existence of beings of our size and mass with the ability to stand, to move, and to light a fire is only possible because of the influence of the most distant galaxies, whose collective mass determines the precise strength of the inertial forces on earth.'”
And later:
"The human brain, for its part, performs 1015 synaptic operations per second and may be “the most complex functional assemblage of matter possible in our universe,” according to Denton.
"These are stunning ensembles in themselves, but they become even more so when one considers that they must be synchronized with features like the size of the Earth, its atmosphere, its hydrological cycle, and its soils, along with a staggering number of other variables.
"Denton concludes with a Biblical like paean to man: “Our destiny was inscribed in the light of the stars and the property of atoms since the beginning. All of nature sings the song of man. We now know what medieval scholars only believed, that the underlying rationality of nature is indeed ‘manifest in human flesh.'’”
Denton has given us an answer to satisfy dhw's question. I can state the universe is at its necessary size.
The immensity of the universe
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 18, 2015, 21:34 (3352 days ago) @ dhw
The average human retains billions upon billions of pieces of information in the form of conscious memory, and this is not even including the unconscious pieces of information. Yet, we boggle at the thought that a mind that could create even a single human would be capable of containing infinitely more pieces of information?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
The immensity of the universe
TONY: The average human retains billions upon billions of pieces of information in the form of conscious memory, and this is not even including the unconscious pieces of information. Yet, we boggle at the thought that a mind that could create even a single human would be capable of containing infinitely more pieces of information?-I boggle at the idea of a mind that can encompass thousands of millions of galaxies and zillions of stars which come and go for no apparent purpose (see my post to David), and I wonder if such a mind actually exists. There is no evidence for its existence, other than speculative theory and various books and myths and reported visions (often relating to multiple minds). And I ask how it could have come into existence, because if our own minds are too complex to have evolved from something simpler, and had to be specially designed, surely an even more complex mind would also have had to be designed. We get caught in the web of cause and effect. If we can believe in a supercolossal intelligence that had no origin, our credulity may also stretch so far as to believe in less colossal intelligences that did have an origin, namely a chance combination of materials resulting from an eternal process of energy transmuting itself impersonally into matter. In my case, credulity does not stretch far enough in either direction, but of course I am the fool because one of those two theories must be (approximately) right. Ah, but which one?
The immensity of the universe
An article in today's Guardian has the headline “Solar wipeout hints at Earth's fate”:-QUOTE: “The destruction of a solar system has been captured for the first time by astronomers, who said the violent events provided a grim glimpse of Earth's ultimate fate. Images from Nasa's Kepler 2 space mission reveal the rocky remains of a world being torn apart as it spirals around a dead star or white dwarf, in the constellation of Virgo, 570 light years away from Earth. [...] Astronomers say it is possible that the star's death destabilised the orbit of a massive neighbouring planet so that smaller rocky worlds were kicked towards the star; being so close the searing heat would begin to vaporise them as the gravitational forces tore them apart. [...]”-It is the sheer immensity of the universe and the apparently impersonal process of materials forever appearing and disappearing that makes the concept of a single “universal mind" so difficult to accept. Do you truly believe there is a mind “within and without” the explosive destruction of a vast solar system 570 light years away - let alone a mind that created it all in order to produce humans?
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Thursday, October 22, 2015, 14:00 (3319 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is the sheer immensity of the universe and the apparently impersonal process of materials forever appearing and disappearing that makes the concept of a single “universal mind" so difficult to accept. Do you truly believe there is a mind “within and without” the explosive destruction of a vast solar system 570 light years away - let alone a mind that created it all in order to produce humans?-Simple answer: as a playwright you created whole worlds of entertainment from your brain. Why can't God use his mind to make the universe? Further, if you have followed my thoughts, He uses any evolutionary process to create the ever complex universe, and like animal evolution, things live and things die, like that solar system. Our system will die also in 5 billion years, but we are here now, and perhaps other human civilizations will appear elsewhere in the vastness, after we are gone.
The immensity of the universe
dhw: It is the sheer immensity of the universe and the apparently impersonal process of materials forever appearing and disappearing that makes the concept of a single “universal mind" so difficult to accept. Do you truly believe there is a mind “within and without” the explosive destruction of a vast solar system 570 light years away - let alone a mind that created it all in order to produce humans?-DAVID: Simple answer: as a playwright you created whole worlds of entertainment from your brain. Why can't God use his mind to make the universe? Further, if you have followed my thoughts, He uses any evolutionary process to create the ever complex universe, and like animal evolution, things live and things die, like that solar system. Our system will die also in 5 billion years, but we are here now, and perhaps other human civilizations will appear elsewhere in the vastness, after we are gone.-In some respects, I like the playwright image. Your God creating a world for his entertainment might fit in nicely, and so might your concept of the creator being both inside and outside his work. Also, as many playwrights will tell you, we often start with an idea but the characters themselves rapidly take over and develop their own story. However, there the various possible analogies end. We know the intelligent playwright exists/existed because we have the meaningful script, but (here comes the monkey on a typewriter reversing its common usage) if the universe is the script, we have what appear to be zillions and zillions of pages apparently consisting of erjkghlp[erJdc lp[ghq w0wlpj Hp[e]1[fhefjisdfg7y pdfgopnp9tygw3lazjkclifevopagfsKlakf[p[hk8dp[adjk!dutos with just one combination of letters that happens to make sense. You can't even decide whether your God controls the Earth's environment, let alone the billions of stars and solar systems endlessly coming and going: one estimate is that there are 100,000,000,000 galaxies in our universe, with maybe the same number of solar systems in each galaxy. BILLIONS of them, covering who knows how many million light years, with planet Earth barely even a grain of sand, but all of this is contained within one mind which is inside and outside every part of it, and it's all purpose driven, all for humans? -But that is my atheist self talking. On the other hand....well, we don't need to tell each other the theist case for the design of life or for experiences that defy material explanation. He who looks for sense will end up on the fence...
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Friday, October 23, 2015, 14:14 (3318 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In some respects, I like the playwright image. Your God creating a world for his entertainment might fit in nicely, and so might your concept of the creator being both inside and outside his work..... but all of this is contained within one mind which is inside and outside every part of it, and it's all purpose driven, all for humans? > > But that is my atheist self talking. On the other hand....well, we don't need to tell each other the theist case for the design of life or for experiences that defy material explanation. He who looks for sense will end up on the fence...-Why does it have to make sense? We are here and enjoying it while we debate 'why'.
The immensity of the universe: and life is rare
by David Turell , Saturday, October 24, 2015, 01:53 (3317 days ago) @ David Turell
An essay on the rarity of life in an immense universe. Does that have meaning?:-http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/is-life-special-just-because-its-rare-However, there's another, grander perspective from which life in the cosmos is rare. That perspective considers all forms of matter, both animate and inanimate. Even if all “habitable” planets (as determined by Kepler) do indeed harbor life, the fraction of all material in the universe in living form is fantastically small. Assuming that the fraction of planet Earth in living form, called the biosphere, is typical of other life-sustaining planets, I have estimated that the fraction of all matter in the universe in living form is roughly one-billionth of one-billionth. Here's a way to visualize such a tiny fraction. If the Gobi Desert represents all of the matter flung across the cosmos, living matter is a single grain of sand on that desert. How should we think about this extreme rarity of life?-***-Modern biology has challenged the theory of vitalism. In 1828, the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler synthesized the organic substance urea from nonorganic chemicals. Urea is a byproduct of metabolism in many living organisms and, previous to Wöhler's work, was believed to be uniquely associated with living beings. Later in the century, the German physiologist Max Rubner showed that the energy used by human beings in movement, respiration, and other forms of activity is precisely equal to the energy content of food consumed. That is, there are no hidden and nonmaterial sources of energy that power human beings. In more recent years, the composition of proteins, hormones, brain cells, and genes has been reduced to individual atoms, without the need to invoke nonmaterial substances.-Yet, I would argue that most of us, either knowingly or unknowingly, remain closet vitalists. Although there are moments when the material nature of our bodies screams out at us, such as when we have muscle injuries or change our mood with psychoactive drugs, our mental life seems to be a unique phenomenon arising from a different kind of substance, a nonmaterial substance. The sensations of consciousness, of thought and self-awareness, are so gripping and immediate and magnificent that we find it preposterous that they could have their origins entirely within the humdrum electrical and chemical tinglings of cells in our brains. However, neuroscientists say that is so.-***-And what is that special arrangement deemed “life?” The ability to form an outer membrane around the organism that separates it from the external world. The ability to organize material and processes within the organism. The ability to extract energy from the external world. The ability to respond to stimuli from the external world. The ability to maintain stability within the organism. The ability to grow. The ability to reproduce. We human beings, of course, have all of these properties and more. For we have billions of neurons connected to each other in an exquisite tapestry of communication and feedback loops. We have consciousness and self-awareness.-***-But if we can manage to get outside of our usual thinking, if we can rise to a truly mind-bending view of the cosmos, there's another way to think of existence. In our extraordinarily entitled position of being not only living matter but conscious matter, we are the cosmic “observers.” We are uniquely aware of ourselves and the cosmos around us. We can watch and record. We are the only mechanism by which the universe can comment on itself. All the rest, all those other grains of sand on the desert, are dumb, lifeless matter.-Of course, the universe does not need to comment on itself. A universe with no living matter at all could function without any trouble—mindlessly following the conservation of energy and the principle of cause and effect and the other laws of physics. A universe does not need minds, or any living matter at all. (Indeed, in the recent “multiverse” hypothesis endorsed by many physicists, the vast majority of universes are totally lifeless.) But in this writer's opinion, a universe without comment is a universe without meaning. What does it mean to say that a waterfall, or a mountain, is beautiful? The concept of beauty, and indeed all concepts of value and meaning, require observers. Without a mind to observe it, a waterfall is only a waterfall, a mountain is only a mountain. It is we conscious matter, the rarest of all forms of matter, that can take stock and record and announce this cosmic panorama of existence before us.-***-And given our existence, our universe must have meaning, big and small meanings. I have not met any of the life forms living out there in the vast cosmos beyond Earth. But I would be astonished if some of them were not intelligent. And I would be further astonished if those intelligences were not, like us, making science and art and attempting to take stock and record this cosmic panorama of existence. We share with those other beings not the mysterious, transcendent essence of vitalism, but the highly improbable fact of being alive.-Comment: why is there anything?
The immensity of the universe
An article in last week's Guardian reported that “Astronomers have spotted the most powerful supernova in human history. The cosmic explosion was 570bn times brighter than the sun and about 200 times more powerful than a typical supernova, scientists said.” -It happened last June, about 3.8bn light years away. One single light year = approx. 6,000,000,000,000 miles. Quite apart from the astonishing brilliance of human technology, I have to say once more that this puts the scale of things into perspective. Our solar system is one of billions, and all the time these unimaginably vast bodies are coming and going, and for all we know may have done so and may go on doing so for ever and ever. We may all acknowledge that we are mere specks of dust, but do we feel our insignificance deep down? If we do, how is it possible to contemplate even the idea of a single mind encompassing but also occupying this vastness, let alone creating it, let alone controlling it, let alone having some kind of purpose that entails the coming and going of billions of exploding stars and vanishing solar systems, let alone connecting us humans to itself and to all these comings and goings? This is the mind-blowing macrocosmic converse to the microcosmic (but in my view equally potent) argument for life's mind-blowing complexities as a product of design.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Monday, January 18, 2016, 02:09 (3231 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 18, 2016, 02:16
dhw: An article in last week's Guardian reported that “Astronomers have spotted the most powerful supernova in human history. The cosmic explosion was 570bn times brighter than the sun and about 200 times more powerful than a typical supernova, scientists said.” > > It happened last June, about 3.8bn light years away. One single light year = approx. 6,000,000,000,000 miles. Quite apart from the astonishing brilliance of human technology, I have to say once more that this puts the scale of things into perspective. Our solar system is one of billions, and all the time these unimaginably vast bodies are coming and going, and for all we know may have done so and may go on doing so for ever and ever.-Supernovas are the means by which the increasing speed of expansion of the universe has been measured. Without supernovas spreading elements required for life around the universe, there would be no life. Remember our universe appears to have had a beginning, but you are quite correct. we have no idea how many beginnings there have been.-> dhw: We may all acknowledge that we are mere specks of dust, but do we feel our insignificance deep down? If we do, how is it possible to contemplate even the idea of a single mind encompassing but also occupying this vastness, let alone creating it, let alone controlling it, let alone having some kind of purpose that entails the coming and going of billions of exploding stars and vanishing solar systems, let alone connecting us humans to itself and to all these comings and goings? This is the mind-blowing macrocosmic converse to the microcosmic (but in my view equally potent) argument for life's mind-blowing complexities as a product of design.-"I feel the arrival of sentient beings who can unravel the mysteries of the universe and of life is an event just as mind-blowing, and supernovas are a requirement for their existence. Looks planned to me. Note this comment from David Deutsch posted earlier:Sunday, January 17, 2016, 15:24 -"It is uncontroversial that the human brain has capabilities that are, in some respects, far superior to those of all other known objects in the cosmos. It is the only kind of object capable of understanding that the cosmos is even there, or why there are infinitely many prime numbers, or that apples fall because of the curvature of space-time, or that obeying its own inborn instincts can be morally wrong, or that it itself exists."
The immensity of the universe
dhw: An article in last week's Guardian reported that “Astronomers have spotted the most powerful supernova in human history. The cosmic explosion was 570bn times brighter than the sun and about 200 times more powerful than a typical supernova, scientists said.” It happened last June, about 3.8bn light years away. One single light year = approx. 6,000,000,000,000 miles. Quite apart from the astonishing brilliance of human technology, I have to say once more that this puts the scale of things into perspective. Our solar system is one of billions, and all the time these unimaginably vast bodies are coming and going, and for all we know may have done so and may go on doing so for ever and ever.-DAVID: Supernovas are the means by which the increasing speed of expansion of the universe has been measured. Without supernovas spreading elements required for life around the universe, there would be no life. Remember our universe appears to have had a beginning, but you are quite correct. we have no idea how many beginnings there have been.-Which means we have no idea how many billions of supernovas have been spreading the required elements around the universe during the course of eternity, and yet you have expressed the belief that we are the only life in the universe. Oh, what a waste of all those billions of supernovas and galaxies and solar systems and stars and planets... all created by and containing a single mind set only on producing you and me. Faith does not just move mountains - it moves universes. But who knows? Maybe you are right. dhw: We may all acknowledge that we are mere specks of dust, but do we feel our insignificance deep down? If we do, how is it possible to contemplate even the idea of a single mind encompassing but also occupying this vastness, let alone creating it, let alone controlling it, let alone having some kind of purpose that entails the coming and going of billions of exploding stars and vanishing solar systems, let alone connecting us humans to itself and to all these comings and goings? This is the mind-blowing macrocosmic converse to the microcosmic (but in my view equally potent) argument for life's mind-blowing complexities as a product of design.-DAVID: "I feel the arrival of sentient beings who can unravel the mysteries of the universe and of life is an event just as mind-blowing, and supernovas are a requirement for their existence. Looks planned to me. Note this comment from David Deutsch posted earlier:Sunday, January 17, 2016, 15:24 -Yes, it is mind-blowing. And much of it looks planned. The immensity of the apparently impersonal, never-ending process of cosmic birth and death is also mind-blowing, and the explosion of a solar system (reported a few weeks ago) and of a supernova 3.8 billion multiplied by 6000,000,000,000 miles away doesn't look planned to me, unless you believe your God blows up every supernova in order to start life somewhere else.-DAVID:"It is uncontroversial that the human brain has capabilities that are, in some respects, far superior to those of all other known objects in the cosmos. It is the only kind of object capable of understanding that the cosmos is even there, or why there are infinitely many prime numbers, or that apples fall because of the curvature of space-time, or that obeying its own inborn instincts can be morally wrong, or that it itself exists."-Yes, it is uncontroversial, and I really don't know why so many people keep stating what so many other people keep stating. We are very intelligent animals. I'm afraid that doesn't prove that your God exists, or that he blew up the supernova last June, or that the supernova had to be blown up for our benefit or indeed for any other purpose.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Monday, January 18, 2016, 21:41 (3230 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Which means we have no idea how many billions of supernovas have been spreading the required elements around the universe during the course of eternity, and yet you have expressed the belief that we are the only life in the universe. Oh, what a waste of all those billions of supernovas and galaxies and solar systems and stars and planets... all created by and containing a single mind set only on producing you and me. Faith does not just move mountains - it moves universes. But who knows? Maybe you are right.-Without the supernovas there would be no life at all. It takes lots of explosions to spread the necessary elements around to the rocky planets that can support life. And the final evidence is here. We are debating each other. It worked at least once. > > DAVID:"It is uncontroversial that the human brain has capabilities that are, in some respects, far superior to those of all other known objects in the cosmos.-> > dhw: Yes, it is uncontroversial, and I really don't know why so many people keep stating what so many other people keep stating. We are very intelligent animals. I'm afraid that doesn't prove that your God exists, or that he blew up the supernova last June, or that the supernova had to be blown up for our benefit or indeed for any other purpose.-It still gets back to why is there anything?
The immensity of the universe
dhw: Which means we have no idea how many billions of supernovas have been spreading the required elements around the universe during the course of eternity, and yet you have expressed the belief that we are the only life in the universe. Oh, what a waste of all those billions of supernovas and galaxies and solar systems and stars and planets... all created by and containing a single mind set only on producing you and me. Faith does not just move mountains - it moves universes. But who knows? Maybe you are right.-DAVID: Without the supernovas there would be no life at all. It takes lots of explosions to spread the necessary elements around to the rocky planets that can support life. And the final evidence is here. We are debating each other. It worked at least once.-A good argument for atheistic chance. Given a potentially infinite number of exploding supernovas, eventually it will work “at least once”. But if you insist on your all-planning God being within and without everything, you are left with not only billions of failed experiments, but also the fact that he is still busy exploding his supernovas and his solar systems, even though according to you he has achieved his purpose. -DAVID: "It is uncontroversial that the human brain has capabilities that are, in some respects, far superior to those of all other known objects in the cosmos.-dhw: Yes, it is uncontroversial, and I really don't know why so many people keep stating what so many other people keep stating. We are very intelligent animals. I'm afraid that doesn't prove that your God exists, or that he blew up the supernova last June, or that the supernova had to be blown up for our benefit or indeed for any other purpose.-DAVID: It still gets back to why is there anything?-Yes indeed. Not just why are there intelligent humans, but why is there anything at all?
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 01:46 (3229 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Without the supernovas there would be no life at all. It takes lots of explosions to spread the necessary elements around to the rocky planets that can support life. And the final evidence is here. We are debating each other. It worked at least once. > > A good argument for atheistic chance. Given a potentially infinite number of exploding supernovas, eventually it will work “at least once”. But if you insist on your all-planning God being within and without everything, you are left with not only billions of failed experiments, but also the fact that he is still busy exploding his supernovas and his solar systems, even though according to you he has achieved his purpose. -No loss of a species is a failed event. It is evolution in process. As for supernovas, they are built into the cosmic system and maybe God has plans for more sentient species in this vast universe that will eventually communicate with us. >> > DAVID: It still gets back to why is there anything? > > dhw: Yes indeed. Not just why are there intelligent humans, but why is there anything at all?-There could just as well be nothing. Smells of purpose, since amazing humans have arrived and chance events seem not to be the approach.
The immensity of the universe
DAVID: Without the supernovas there would be no life at all. It takes lots of explosions to spread the necessary elements around to the rocky planets that can support life. And the final evidence is here. We are debating each other. It worked at least once. (dhw's bold) dhw: A good argument for atheistic chance. Given a potentially infinite number of exploding supernovas, eventually it will work “at least once”. But if you insist on your all-planning God being within and without everything, you are left with not only billions of failed experiments, but also the fact that he is still busy exploding his supernovas and his solar systems, even though according to you he has achieved his purpose. -DAVID: No loss of a species is a failed event. It is evolution in process. -You are quite right that it is evolution in process, and always has been (though each loss is literally a failed event, since the species has failed to survive; it's just that some humans - and maybe God - don't care). As conditions change, organisms come and go in the great higgledy-piggledy. However, I was actually talking here about supernovas: the billions that must have come and gone throughout eternity, apparently as part of God's plan to produce humans. You wrote: “It worked at least once.” That means it didn't work billions of times. DAVID: As for supernovas, they are built into the cosmic system and maybe God has plans for more sentient species in this vast universe that will eventually communicate with us. -Or maybe all these supernovas and solar systems are just appearing and disappearing with nothing controlling them and with no purpose. -DAVID: It still gets back to why is there anything? dhw: Yes indeed. Not just why are there intelligent humans, but why is there anything at all? DAVID: There could just as well be nothing. Smells of purpose, since amazing humans have arrived and chance events seem not to be the approach.-All life is amazing. We agree that its complexities are such that chance seems unlikely. On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me that the comings and goings of billions of solar systems are purposeful or under the control of a single mind. BBella thinks our complexities were designed by other complex beings, but then you and I ask how they came to exist. And Dawkins rightly asks how your God came to exist. Back to first cause: energy and matter, with consciousness always present (unlikely-seeming God) or evolving through a lucky combination of energy and matter (unlikely-seeming chance). Two unlikely-seeming hypotheses. Good reason to keep an open mind.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 14:54 (3229 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: However, I was actually talking here about supernovas: the billions that must have come and gone throughout eternity, apparently as part of God's plan to produce humans. You wrote: “It worked at least once.” That means it didn't work billions of times.-You misunderstood my comment: To create humans requires the explosion of millions/billions (?) of supernovas to create the critical elements in space for life that could then arrive at Earth to start life and finally humans. Humans are here, at least once! > > DAVID: As for supernovas, they are built into the cosmic system and maybe God has plans for more sentient species in this vast universe that will eventually communicate with us. > > dhw: Or maybe all these supernovas and solar systems are just appearing and disappearing with nothing controlling them and with no purpose. -It is easy to recognize purpose if you don't accept chance.-> > dhw: All life is amazing. We agree that its complexities are such that chance seems unlikely. ....Back to first cause: energy and matter, with consciousness always present (unlikely-seeming God) or evolving through a lucky combination of energy and matter (unlikely-seeming chance). Two unlikely-seeming hypotheses. Good reason to keep an open mind.-To repeat: Chance or design equals purposeless chance or eternal consciousness. Only one is logical. Do you have a third choice?
The immensity of the universe
dhw: However, I was actually talking here about supernovas: the billions that must have come and gone throughout eternity, apparently as part of God's plan to produce humans. You wrote: “It worked at least once.” That means it didn't work billions of times. DAVID: You misunderstood my comment: To create humans requires the explosion of millions/billions (?) of supernovas to create the critical elements in space for life that could then arrive at Earth to start life and finally humans. Humans are here, at least once!-So let me get this right (please correct where necessary). In order to fulfil his purpose to produce humans, your God had to create billions of solar systems containing trillions of stars, millions of which had to blow themselves up (by chance) or be blown up (by God) so that the critical elements could form (by chance) or be created (by God) and travel higgledy-piggledy to Earth (by chance) or be directed to Earth (by God). (Or perhaps he programmed the millions of explosions and the journey to Earth of the critical elements.) Once they had arrived, God put them together to make the first cells, which he preprogrammed with the weaverbird's nest and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct, so that life could continue until humans evolved (though they are so “different” that he may have created them separately). And humans are here, so the above must be right. DAVID: As for supernovas, they are built into the cosmic system and maybe God has plans for more sentient species in this vast universe that will eventually communicate with us. dhw: Or maybe all these supernovas and solar systems are just appearing and disappearing with nothing controlling them and with no purpose. DAVID: It is easy to recognize purpose if you don't accept chance.-And it is just as easy to recognize chance if you don't accept purpose. But for some of us, recognition and non-acceptance are equally balanced, since both theories are so full of question marks. (See above for a few of them.)-dhw: All life is amazing. We agree that its complexities are such that chance seems unlikely. ....Back to first cause: energy and matter, with consciousness always present (unlikely-seeming God) or evolving through a lucky combination of energy and matter (unlikely-seeming chance). Two unlikely-seeming hypotheses. Good reason to keep an open mind. DAVID: To repeat: Chance or design equals purposeless chance or eternal consciousness. Only one is logical. Do you have a third choice?-Yes, my equally unlikely “bottom-up” panpsychist hypothesis, in which consciousness begins by chance through interaction between energy and matter, and from then on engineers its own self-designing evolution through experience and cooperation. Plenty of questions here too, but at least not as complicated as the supernovanovel narrated above.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:53 (3227 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: So let me get this right (please correct where necessary). In order to fulfil his purpose to produce humans, your God had to create billions of solar systems containing trillions of stars, millions of which had to blow themselves up (by chance) or be blown up (by God) so that the critical elements could form (by chance) or be created (by God) and travel higgledy-piggledy to Earth (by chance) or be directed to Earth (by God). (Or perhaps he programmed the millions of explosions and the journey to Earth of the critical elements.) Once they had arrived, God put them together to make the first cells, which he preprogrammed with the weaverbird's nest and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct, so that life could continue until humans evolved (though they are so “different” that he may have created them separately). And humans are here, so the above must be right.-That is how I view it! > > dhw: Yes, my equally unlikely “bottom-up” panpsychist hypothesis, in which consciousness begins by chance through interaction between energy and matter, and from then on engineers its own self-designing evolution through experience and cooperation. Plenty of questions here too, but at least not as complicated as the supernovanovel narrated above.-This is just chance all over again. Accept it and don't accept it as you dance back and forth. Still only two choices.
The immensity of the universe
dhw: So let me get this right (please correct where necessary). In order to fulfil his purpose to produce humans, your God had to create billions of solar systems containing trillions of stars, millions of which had to blow themselves up (by chance) or be blown up (by God) so that the critical elements could form (by chance) or be created (by God) and travel higgledy-piggledy to Earth (by chance) or be directed to Earth (by God). (Or perhaps he programmed the millions of explosions and the journey to Earth of the critical elements.) Once they had arrived, God put them together to make the first cells, which he preprogrammed with the weaverbird's nest and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct, so that life could continue until humans evolved (though they are so “different” that he may have created them separately). And humans are here, so the above must be right. DAVID: That is how I view it!-Ugh, if he was powerful and clever enough to create all these billions of heavenly bodies that contained the critical elements, I'm surprised he couldn't just create the “critical elements” without the rest of the cosmic saga, but whaddoiknow? dhw: Yes, my equally unlikely “bottom-up” panpsychist hypothesis, in which consciousness begins by chance through interaction between energy and matter, and from then on engineers its own self-designing evolution through experience and cooperation. Plenty of questions here too, but at least not as complicated as the supernovanovel narrated above. DAVID: This is just chance all over again. Accept it and don't accept it as you dance back and forth. Still only two choices.-Just a reduction in the amount of chance required, since it dispenses with the usual vast accumulation of lucky breaks that some atheists believe in. The concept of comparatively simple consciousness arising by chance and then evolving through experience and cooperation is no more fantastic than that of a single conscious mind that creates and controls billions of solar systems and is, and always has been, magically just “there”. Incidentally, you will have noted that the above supernova scenario has your God possibly leaving an ENORMOUS amount to chance.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Monday, January 25, 2016, 01:42 (3224 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Incidentally, you will have noted that the above supernova scenario has your God possibly leaving an ENORMOUS amount to chance.-Not so. The exploding supernovas and all other exploding stars bathed the universe in life-giving elements, which could work toward life only after the proper planet appeared to offer a stabilizing platform, about 9.3 billion years after the Big Bang. It can be seen as a progressive well-thought-out plan.
The immensity of the universe
dhw: So let me get this right (please correct where necessary). In order to fulfil his purpose to produce humans, your God had to create billions of solar systems containing trillions of stars, millions of which had to blow themselves up (by chance) or be blown up (by God) so that the critical elements could form (by chance) or be created (by God) and travel higgledy-piggledy to Earth (by chance) or be directed to Earth (by God). (Or perhaps he programmed the millions of explosions and the journey to Earth of the critical elements.) Once they had arrived, God put them together to make the first cells, which he preprogrammed with the weaverbird's nest and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct, so that life could continue until humans evolved (though they are so “different” that he may have created them separately). And humans are here, so the above must be right.-DAVID: That is how I view it! -dhw: Incidentally, you will have noted that the above supernova scenario has your God possibly leaving an ENORMOUS amount to chance.-DAVID: Not so. The exploding supernovas and all other exploding stars bathed the universe in life-giving elements, which could work toward life only after the proper planet appeared to offer a stabilizing platform, about 9.3 billion years after the Big Bang. It can be seen as a progressive well-thought-out plan.-The language is becoming interesting: the elements could “work toward life”? I thought your God planned and did all the work. “The proper planet appeared”? I thought your God specially planned and created it. In my summary, I indicated other factors that your God might have left to chance (now in bold). So just to clarify again: are you now eliminating the chance alternatives and saying: 1) God organized (and presumably still organizes) all the billions of solar systems and all the colossal explosions of giant stars? And 2) this was his method of creating a relatively tiny collection of “life-giving elements” which he directed (not sure about the timing here) to land on a specially created Earth? And 3) once he'd prepared Earth, he assembled these products of millions of explosions into the first minute cells, which he preprogrammed (apart from when he dabbled) to produce the weaverbird's nest and the rest of evolutionary history, with us the final goal? Sorry about the interrogation, but as you know, I do like a bit of clarity!
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 01:22 (3223 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The language is becoming interesting: the elements could “work toward life”? I thought your God planned and did all the work.-I used the word 'work' in the sense of a progressive working process. -> dhw: “The proper planet appeared”? I thought your God specially planned and created it.-It is just as possible that His evolving universe developed the Earth due to His process or He carefully directed the production of an Earth. Either is possible as I view it.-> dhw: In my summary, I indicated other factors that your God might have left to chance (now in bold). So just to clarify again: are you now eliminating the chance alternatives and saying: 1) God organized (and presumably still organizes) all the billions of solar systems and all the colossal explosions of giant stars? And 2) this was his method of creating a relatively tiny collection of “life-giving elements” which he directed (not sure about the timing here) to land on a specially created Earth? And 3) once he'd prepared Earth, he assembled these products of millions of explosions into the first minute cells, which he preprogrammed (apart from when he dabbled) to produce the weaverbird's nest and the rest of evolutionary history, with us the final goal? Sorry about the interrogation, but as you know, I do like a bit of clarity!-As I noted above. He either created a process which gave the proper final results, or He carefully directed every desired result. Either works for me. He was always in control.
The immensity of the universe
dhw: The language is becoming interesting: the elements could “work toward life”? I thought your God planned and did all the work. DAVID: I used the word 'work' in the sense of a progressive working process. -In which case perhaps you mean it's your God who worked towards life. But the elements doing it themselves fits in rather nicely with a possible atheistic pansychist approach. dhw: “The proper planet appeared”? I thought your God specially planned and created it. DAVID: It is just as possible that His evolving universe developed the Earth due to His process or He carefully directed the production of an Earth. Either is possible as I view it.-Anyone who believes in cosmic as well as biological evolution will agree that the “evolving universe developed the Earth”, since the Earth exists. But if your God did not carefully direct the production, it's difficult to find any need for him at all. See below.-dhw: In my summary, I indicated other factors that your God might have left to chance (now in bold). So just to clarify again: are you now eliminating the chance alternatives and saying: 1) God organized (and presumably still organizes) all the billions of solar systems and all the colossal explosions of giant stars? And 2) this was his method of creating a relatively tiny collection of “life-giving elements” which he directed (not sure about the timing here) to land on a specially created Earth? And 3) once he'd prepared Earth, he assembled these products of millions of explosions into the first minute cells, which he preprogrammed (apart from when he dabbled) to produce the weaverbird's nest and the rest of evolutionary history, with us the final goal? Sorry about the interrogation, but as you know, I do like a bit of clarity! DAVID: As I noted above. He either created a process which gave the proper final results, or He carefully directed every desired result. Either works for me. He was always in control.-Since no one can read your God's mind, how does anyone know what are the “proper final results”? But I quite like the idea of your God creating a process and NOT carefully directing every desired result, since it fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that he created an autonomous inventive intelligence that produced the vast higgledy-piggledy history of evolution. Similarly, as far as the cosmos is concerned, your comment allows for him to have set off the whole “process” of solar systems and individual stars appearing and disappearing, and to have left it entirely to chance to put all the elements together, since he knew that if he created an infinite number of such systems, eventually one of them would give “the proper final results”. That also fits in perfectly with atheism: given an infinite number of combinations, eventually you are bound to get life and evolution. But then you don't have to call it the proper or desired result. Just the result we have.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 00:28 (3222 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As I noted above. He either created a process which gave the proper final results, or He carefully directed every desired result. Either works for me. He was always in control. > > dhw: Since no one can read your God's mind, how does anyone know what are the “proper final results”? But I quite like the idea of your God creating a process and NOT carefully directing every desired result, since it fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that he created an autonomous inventive intelligence that produced the vast higgledy-piggledy history of evolution. Similarly, as far as the cosmos is concerned, your comment allows for him to have set off the whole “process” of solar systems and individual stars appearing and disappearing, and to have left it entirely to chance to put all the elements together, since he knew that if he created an infinite number of such systems, eventually one of them would give “the proper final results”. That also fits in perfectly with atheism: given an infinite number of combinations, eventually you are bound to get life and evolution. But then you don't have to call it the proper or desired result. -Doesn't fit with atheism at all. All they revel in is chance, nothing directed. I fell it is all directed somehow.
The immensity of the universe
DAVID: As I noted above. He either created a process which gave the proper final results, or He carefully directed every desired result. Either works for me. He was always in control. Dhw: Since no one can read your God's mind, how does anyone know what are the “proper final results”? But I quite like the idea of your God creating a process and NOT carefully directing every desired result, since it fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that he created an autonomous inventive intelligence that produced the vast higgledy-piggledy history of evolution. Similarly, as far as the cosmos is concerned, your comment allows for him to have set off the whole “process” of solar systems and individual stars appearing and disappearing, and to have left it entirely to chance to put all the elements together, since he knew that if he created an infinite number of such systems, eventually one of them would give “the proper final results”. That also fits in perfectly with atheism: given an infinite number of combinations, eventually you are bound to get life and evolution. But then you don't have to call it the proper or desired result. Just the result we have.-DAVID: Doesn't fit with atheism at all. All they revel in is chance, nothing directed. I feel it is all directed somehow.-It is the “somehow” that causes the problems. The intricacy of living organisms seems to me to offer a powerful case for belief in design, which you always present with the utmost clarity. The immensity of the universe is a very different proposition, and is a major factor in my non-belief (not disbelief). If your God didn't carefully direct every result, he must have left a lot to chance. But I simply don't buy the hypothesis that a single unsourced mind created billions of solar systems and blew up millions of stars in order to get the ingredients of life to land on Planet Earth, where he put them together in order to produce us. We must also bear in mind that solar systems and supernovae continue to come and go, and presumably will carry on doing so. “I feel it is all directed somehow” is no counter to the “infinite number of combinations” argument, which does fit in with atheism, but not with your beliefs as to how your God works. This is not an attack on those beliefs, but an attempt to explain why they are too irrational for me to accept. Unlike the complexities of life, “feel...somehow” is not a very convincing argument.
The immensity of the universe
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 18:39 (3221 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Doesn't fit with atheism at all. All they revel in is chance, nothing directed. I feel it is all directed somehow. > > dhw: It is the “somehow” that causes the problems. The intricacy of living organisms seems to me to offer a powerful case for belief in design, which you always present with the utmost clarity. The immensity of the universe is a very different proposition, and is a major factor in my non-belief (not disbelief). If your God didn't carefully direct every result, he must have left a lot to chance...... “I feel it is all directed somehow” is no counter to the “infinite number of combinations” argument, which does fit in with atheism, but not with your beliefs as to how your God works. This is not an attack on those beliefs, but an attempt to explain why they are too irrational for me to accept. Unlike the complexities of life, “feel...somehow” is not a very convincing argument.-I can't give you a rational discussion about the evolution of the universe, when I cannot discern God's method. The universe had a creation event and very improbably arriving humans are here with an unexplained form of consciousness far beyond that of other organisms. I think that requires design and guidance, and so I have faith in my decision God did it. The improbable complexity of the universe is fine tuned for life. That is enough for me, but not for you. It sure looks designed. The improbabilities add up. 'Nuff said.
The immensity of the universe;addentum
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 20:25 (3221 days ago) @ David Turell
I might add we have no real understanding of the quantum mechanism basis of the universe. We have a much deeper understanding of the biology of life, although there are many quantum processes in life of which we are aware, photosynthesis as a prime example. This is why my presentation to you of design is much better at the biology level. The true complexity of the universe is at the quantum level. I attribute nothing of consequence to its vastness, although it is possible that to achieve the level of concentration of life-giving elements may require an enormous number of exploding stars to provide that level. That the stars can achieve carbon by internal pressure at the proper level of resonance is part of the fine-tuning. Fred Hoyle commented that it appeared someone "monkeyed with the inner works" to paraphrase him, and with his discovery he left atheism, but I don't believe he ever joined theism. We have a carbon-based life, and it seems ideal for the job it does in the way protein molecules can be created with such variable function based on shape and folding. As even Dawkins said, study of biology makes teleology and design look real. Why can't it be real?
The immensity of the universe;addentum
DAVID: I can't give you a rational discussion about the evolution of the universe, when I cannot discern God's method. -Billions of solar systems coming and going, millions of exploding stars...possibly for ever...It is BECAUSE it all seems so impersonal and undirected, i.e. BECAUSE there is no discernible “method”, that some of us doubt the existence of a God. Your starting point is that God exists and so the seeming disorder must have a purpose. My starting point is the seeming disorder, and this sheds doubt on the existence of a purpose and a God. It is the same with the seemingly disorderly history of comings and goings and lifestyles and wonders of biological evolution, for which again you struggle to “discern God's method”. -To restore the balance, however, this does not detract from the rationality of your biological design argument, to which you hastily and understandably return in the rest of your post and in your addendum: DAVID: Fred Hoyle commented that it appeared someone "monkeyed with the inner works" to paraphrase him, and with his discovery he left atheism, but I don't believe he ever joined theism. We have a carbon-based life, and it seems ideal for the job it does in the way protein molecules can be created with such variable function based on shape and folding. As even Dawkins said, study of biology makes teleology and design look real. Why can't it be real?-It can be real! By all accounts, Hoyle saw both sides and became an agnostic. Agnostics allow for both interpretations of the facts. Like Dawkins, though, you have made up your mind, and prefer to ignore the huge gaps in your interpretation of life and the universe. Unlike Dawkins, however, you have many times acknowledged that ultimately your beliefs are a matter of faith and not reason, and this I respect. One of these two faiths (in an originating god or in originating chance) must be close to the truth, and there are powerful arguments for and against both, so I am wrong one way or the other!
The immensity of the universe;addentum
by David Turell , Thursday, January 28, 2016, 19:02 (3220 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I can't give you a rational discussion about the evolution of the universe, when I cannot discern God's method. > > dhw: Billions of solar systems coming and going, millions of exploding stars...possibly for ever...It is BECAUSE it all seems so impersonal and undirected, i.e. BECAUSE there is no discernible “method”, that some of us doubt the existence of a God. Your starting point is that God exists and so the seeming disorder must have a purpose. My starting point is the seeming disorder, and this sheds doubt on the existence of a purpose and a God. It is the same with the seemingly disorderly history of comings and goings and lifestyles and wonders of biological evolution, for which again you struggle to “discern God's method”.-I'm not making myself clear. By not 'discerning God's method' I am stating that I really don't know why God chose to evolve a universe which I view done in an orderly fashion to create the elements to support life. It all seems personal and directed, just sort of roundabout.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
DAVID: I can't give you a rational discussion about the evolution of the universe, when I cannot discern God's method. dhw: Billions of solar systems coming and going, millions of exploding stars...possibly for ever...It is BECAUSE it all seems so impersonal and undirected, i.e. BECAUSE there is no discernible “method”, that some of us doubt the existence of a God. Your starting point is that God exists and so the seeming disorder must have a purpose. My starting point is the seeming disorder, and this sheds doubt on the existence of a purpose and a God. It is the same with the seemingly disorderly history of comings and goings and lifestyles and wonders of biological evolution, for which again you struggle to “discern God's method”.-DAVID: I'm not making myself clear. By not 'discerning God's method' I am stating that I really don't know why God chose to evolve a universe which I view done in an orderly fashion to create the elements to support life. It all seems personal and directed, just sort of roundabout.-Still not clear, I'm afraid. In October 2015 it was reported that astronomers had captured the destruction of a solar system a mere 570 light years away from Earth (long, long, long after life is believed to have begun). I do not understand why your almighty God should create billions of suns and zillions of stars which appear and will eventually disappear, when all he wanted to do was assemble the elements with which he could produce life on Earth. You do not seem to understand it either, so please explain why the destruction of a solar system 570 light years away (as an example to illustrate the whole problem) seems to you to be orderly, personal and directed.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, January 29, 2016, 18:20 (3219 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: In October 2015 it was reported that astronomers had captured the destruction of a solar system a mere 570 light years away from Earth (long, long, long after life is believed to have begun). I do not understand why your almighty God should create billions of suns and zillions of stars which appear and will eventually disappear, when all he wanted to do was assemble the elements with which he could produce life on Earth. You do not seem to understand it either, so please explain why the destruction of a solar system 570 light years away (as an example to illustrate the whole problem) seems to you to be orderly, personal and directed.-I think your problem is that you do not think in the context of what is known about the universe. We know stars explode all the time spreading elements. In the case you cited a star with planets exploded, and we observed that for the first time. So? This is the pattern of how elements spread around, nothing more and it provides for our life. Nothing unusual to me. God provides through evolution of the universe for the elements needed for the creation of life. Obviously I don't know why He did it this way.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
dhw: In October 2015 it was reported that astronomers had captured the destruction of a solar system a mere 570 light years away from Earth (long, long, long after life is believed to have begun). I do not understand why your almighty God should create billions of suns and zillions of stars which appear and will eventually disappear, when all he wanted to do was assemble the elements with which he could produce life on Earth. You do not seem to understand it either, so please explain why the destruction of a solar system 570 light years away (as an example to illustrate the whole problem) seems to you to be orderly, personal and directed.-DAVID: I think your problem is that you do not think in the context of what is known about the universe. We know stars explode all the time spreading elements. In the case you cited a star with planets exploded, and we observed that for the first time. So? This is the pattern of how elements spread around, nothing more and it provides for our life. Nothing unusual to me. God provides through evolution of the universe for the elements needed for the creation of life. Obviously I don't know why He did it this way.-You believe that the billions of solar systems and zillions of stars that come and go are all for the purpose of creating life and, specifically, humans. But you don't know why God did it this way, or cannot “discern God's method”, and clearly cannot tell me why it all seems “personal and directed” and “done in an orderly fashion”. In other words, you cannot see how what is known about the universe fits in with your beliefs, but your beliefs must be right, and therefore you can't see why I have a problem detecting any order or personal direction in what is known about the universe! However, we both have the same problem: neither of us KNOWS the context of what is known about the universe, and it is what we don't know that gives rise to all these discussions. I can only explain why the gaps you acknowledge make your hypothesis as difficult for me to accept as any other explanation that humans have come up with.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, January 30, 2016, 14:16 (3219 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You believe that the billions of solar systems and zillions of stars that come and go are all for the purpose of creating life and, specifically, humans..... However, we both have the same problem: neither of us KNOWS the context of what is known about the universe, and it is what we don't know that gives rise to all these discussions. I can only explain why the gaps you acknowledge make your hypothesis as difficult for me to accept as any other explanation that humans have come up with.-Just ask the 'why' question instead of being hung up on the 'how' question. That is our difference. Why are humans here? Extremely improbable, therefore purposeful!
The immensity of the universe;addendum
dhw: You believe that the billions of solar systems and zillions of stars that come and go are all for the purpose of creating life and, specifically, humans..... However, we both have the same problem: neither of us KNOWS the context of what is known about the universe, and it is what we don't know that gives rise to all these discussions. I can only explain why the gaps you acknowledge make your hypothesis as difficult for me to accept as any other explanation that humans have come up with. DAVID: Just ask the 'why' question instead of being hung up on the 'how' question. That is our difference. Why are humans here? Extremely improbable, therefore purposeful!-Perhaps it would be better to ask no questions at all, but you would not have written your books and I would not have started this website if we were not curious by nature. My curiosity, however, does not allow me to stop at humans. I ask why your God would create and destroy billions of solar systems, or give private tuition to the weaverbird, in order to produce you and me, and I find no satisfactory answer. And when you ask me why humans are here, I ask whether there is a why at all. And I do not equate improbability with purpose, because improbability could be the result of chance. A quick google reveals that the chances of winning the jackpot in something called the Powerball Lottery are 1 in 175,223, 510, but I think most of us would say the winner is lucky rather than his/her win was part of a divine plan. I am not, however, opposing your design argument, because I too am unable to believe in chance as a creator of life's complexities. I am merely pointing out that there are far more questions to be answered than “why are humans here?”
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, January 31, 2016, 15:25 (3218 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: And when you ask me why humans are here, I ask whether there is a why at all. And I do not equate improbability with purpose, because improbability could be the result of chance. A quick google reveals that the chances of winning the jackpot in something called the Powerball Lottery are 1 in 175,223, 510, but I think most of us would say the winner is lucky rather than his/her win was part of a divine plan. I am not, however, opposing your design argument, because I too am unable to believe in chance as a creator of life's complexities. I am merely pointing out that there are far more questions to be answered than “why are humans here?”-I think the odds for the appearance of humans is way beyond the last Powerball on which we bet $5. I think you are questioning the process by which humans appeared more than being stunned, as I am, that we arrived from an impersonal dangerous universe and can turn around and study what seems to have created us or been created for us. We are at different levels of wonder and philosophy.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
DAVID: I think you are questioning the process by which humans appeared more than being stunned, as I am, that we arrived from an impersonal dangerous universe and can turn around and study what seems to have created us or been created for us. We are at different levels of wonder and philosophy.-I am as awestruck as you are, not only by the amazing fact of our own existence, but also by that of all other creatures, so please do not assume that only theists are capable of wonderment at the miracle of life. After all these years of discussion between us, you should know better! Unfortunately, our shared wonderment and our love of life do not answer any of the awkward questions which you would clearly prefer not to be asked! (I don't blame you, since we both know the questions are unanswerable and you can only fall back on irrational faith.)
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 02, 2016, 01:02 (3216 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Unfortunately, our shared wonderment and our love of life do not answer any of the awkward questions which you would clearly prefer not to be asked! (I don't blame you, since we both know the questions are unanswerable and you can only fall back on irrational faith.)-I think my faith is very rational in the way I arrived at it, through studying science.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
dhw: Unfortunately, our shared wonderment and our love of life do not answer any of the awkward questions which you would clearly prefer not to be asked! (I don't blame you, since we both know the questions are unanswerable and you can only fall back on irrational faith.)-DAVID: I think my faith is very rational in the way I arrived at it, through studying science.-Reason and science have certainly taken you part of the way, which is why I have such admiration for your research into the complexities of life and for the two books in which you argue so persuasively for design. But I see no trace of reason or science in your vision of an eternally conscious, sourceless mind that creates, encompasses and controls billions of solar systems, and preprogrammes or supervises the weaverbird's construction of its nest, all for the purpose of producing humans. This I see as the equivalent of the atheist trying to explain how a bunch of chemicals can by sheer chance blunder into a combination which can reproduce itself, adapt itself, and potentially transmute itself from a bacterium to a brontosaurus to a Beethoven.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 02, 2016, 19:18 (3215 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Reason and science have certainly taken you part of the way, which is why I have such admiration for your research into the complexities of life and for the two books in which you argue so persuasively for design. But I see no trace of reason or science in your vision of an eternally conscious, sourceless mind that creates, encompasses and controls billions of solar systems, and preprogrammes or supervises the weaverbird's construction of its nest, all for the purpose of producing humans. -We are back to first cause. There has to be a chain of events that avoids chance. Only design is left. Therefore there MUST be a planning mind.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
dhw: Reason and science have certainly taken you part of the way, which is why I have such admiration for your research into the complexities of life and for the two books in which you argue so persuasively for design. But I see no trace of reason or science in your vision of an eternally conscious, sourceless mind that creates, encompasses and controls billions of solar systems, and preprogrammes or supervises the weaverbird's construction of its nest, all for the purpose of producing humans. -DAVID: We are back to first cause. There has to be a chain of events that avoids chance. Only design is left. Therefore there MUST be a planning mind.-First cause, yes. But there does NOT have to be a chain of events that avoids chance. Your atheist will tell you that there has to be a chain of events that avoids the invention of a sourceless, invisible, supernatural, unknowable supermind that creates and controls billions and billions of solar systems and also shows the weaverbird how to build its nest. First cause, then, he will argue, MUST be the billions and billions of mindless material bodies and processes that eventually chance to produce life on Earth. No, I don't believe it either. But it is no more fantastic than the God theory.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 03, 2016, 15:32 (3215 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: First cause, yes. But there does NOT have to be a chain of events that avoids chance. Your atheist will tell you that there has to be a chain of events that avoids the invention of a sourceless, invisible, supernatural, unknowable supermind that creates and controls billions and billions of solar systems and also shows the weaverbird how to build its nest. First cause, then, he will argue, MUST be the billions and billions of mindless material bodies and processes that eventually chance to produce life on Earth. No, I don't believe it either. But it is no more fantastic than the God theory.-You have presented two fantastic theories. I favor one. You mention the other. Is there a third way? If not only one of the two is correct. Logic tells me it is mine.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, March 17, 2017, 00:39 (2807 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw has recently again questioned the vastness of the universe as it relates to the appearance of humans. I have found such a reference, but so far cannot locate any support for the contention in the copious material I know:
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/03/08/life-beyond-thulcandra/
"God might indeed decide to make life on earth a unique case, and the vastness of a cosmos uninhabited by other physical beings a matter for himself alone. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours requires. God’s prodigality in doing so much for us would make as plausible, and inconclusive, a case. Yet Chalmers once more shows that extraterrestrial life poses no inherent problem whatsoever for Christianity. Neither, though, does a universe in which life is unique to the earth – a situation (presently the only one for which actual evidence exists) that in contrast poses a big problem for metaphysical naturalism." (my bold)
Comment: the overall intent of the article is to discuss whether Christians can accept more than one colony of humans in God's universe. It appears they can. However, what I found interesting is the contention that part of the fine tuning observations is the requirement for vastness of the universe. That vastness is required is implied in he multiverse theories, but that dos not prove the point. I will pursue it.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
DAVID: dhw has recently again questioned the vastness of the universe as it relates to the appearance of humans. I have found such a reference, but so far cannot locate any support for the contention in the copious material I know:
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/03/08/life-beyond-thulcandra/
QUOTE: "God might indeed decide to make life on earth a unique case, and the vastness of a cosmos uninhabited by other physical beings a matter for himself alone. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours requires. God’s prodigality in doing so much for us would make as plausible, and inconclusive, a case. Yet Chalmers once more shows that extraterrestrial life poses no inherent problem whatsoever for Christianity. Neither, though, does a universe in which life is unique to the earth – a situation (presently the only one for which actual evidence exists) that in contrast poses a big problem for metaphysical naturalism." (David's bold)
DAVID’s comment: the overall intent of the article is to discuss whether Christians can accept more than one colony of humans in God's universe. It appears they can. However, what I found interesting is the contention that part of the fine tuning observations is the requirement for vastness of the universe. That vastness is required is implied in he multiverse theories, but that dos not prove the point. I will pursue it.
As I said before, the uniqueness of life on Earth would reduce the odds against chance, and it is absurd to insist that your God would have confined his life experiments to one blob in infinity. Why it has to be humans elsewhere I do not know, other than what Shapiro calls “large organs chauvinism”. As for the observation that the vastness of the universe is required for life, how the heck does anyone know? Has the author tried and definitively failed to create life without the billions and billions of solar systems extant and extinct? There is and can be no evidence for such a statement, so why make it, and indeed why take it seriously?
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, March 18, 2017, 00:49 (2806 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: dhw has recently again questioned the vastness of the universe as it relates to the appearance of humans. I have found such a reference, but so far cannot locate any support for the contention in the copious material I know:
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/03/08/life-beyond-thulcandra/QUOTE: "God might indeed decide to make life on earth a unique case, and the vastness of a cosmos uninhabited by other physical beings a matter for himself alone. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours requires. God’s prodigality in doing so much for us would make as plausible, and inconclusive, a case. Yet Chalmers once more shows that extraterrestrial life poses no inherent problem whatsoever for Christianity. Neither, though, does a universe in which life is unique to the earth – a situation (presently the only one for which actual evidence exists) that in contrast poses a big problem for metaphysical naturalism." (David's bold)
DAVID’s comment: the overall intent of the article is to discuss whether Christians can accept more than one colony of humans in God's universe. It appears they can. However, what I found interesting is the contention that part of the fine tuning observations is the requirement for vastness of the universe. That vastness is required is implied in he multiverse theories, but that dos not prove the point. I will pursue it.
As I said before, the uniqueness of life on Earth would reduce the odds against chance, and it is absurd to insist that your God would have confined his life experiments to one blob in infinity. Why it has to be humans elsewhere I do not know, other than what Shapiro calls “large organs chauvinism”. As for the observation that the vastness of the universe is required for life, how the heck does anyone know? Has the author tried and definitively failed to create life without the billions and billions of solar systems extant and extinct? There is and can be no evidence for such a statement, so why make it, and indeed why take it seriously?
The vastness has to be taken seriously as in the Wikipedia article I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Carter was not the first to invoke some form of the anthropic principle. In fact, the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904: "Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required [...] in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man." In 1957, Robert Dicke wrote: "The age of the Universe 'now' is not random but conditioned by biological factors [...] [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem."
***
Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
Comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!
The immensity of the universe;addendum
QUOTE: Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours
DAVID: The vastness has to be taken seriously as in the Wikipedia article I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
QUOTE: Carter was not the first to invoke some form of the anthropic principle. In fact, the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904: "Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required [...] in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."
“May have been…” Alternatively, may not have been.
QUOTE: In 1957, Robert Dicke wrote: "The age of the Universe 'now' is not random but conditioned by biological factors [...] [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem."
Why should we assume that the fundamental constants of physics require billions and billions of solar systems extant and extinct? See below for more unanswered questions.
QUOTE: Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
A nicely balanced summary of the conflicting views, with the second choice requiring a theory we do not have.
DAVID’s comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!
Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, March 18, 2017, 13:56 (2806 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!dhw: Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?
The immensity of the universe; new measurement
by David Turell , Saturday, March 18, 2017, 14:31 (2806 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw:
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
David: Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?
Here is a new measurement for cosmic distances as the universe expands:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124950-cosmological-ruler-could-help-us-get-the-m...
"Currently, astronomers measure distances by taking advantage of the fact that the distribution of galaxies throughout the universe fluctuates in predictable ways, a relic of sound waves that echoed through the early universe.
"In its infancy, the universe was a hot soup of matter that was distributed in a mostly uniform fashion, with a few dense spots of dark matter. About 30,000 years after the big bang, gravity made normal matter collapse around those dense spots, but pressure from photons caused it to rebound outward again. This cosmic bounce created acoustic waves, called baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), that expanded outwards in a spherical shape and carried normal matter with them.
"These waves kept expanding until the cooling of the universe halted their progress, freezing each of them at roughly the same point in their expansion. The resulting dense patches of matter at the edge of the waves and their points of origin were more likely to form galaxies, creating a lasting imprint of the acoustic waves that rang out in the early universe.
“'All our galaxies are close to the surface of these spherical shells or their centre,” says Glenn Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.
Because each of these spherical shells is the same size, astrophysicists use the distance between a central galaxy cluster and galaxy clusters at the edge of the wave – about 500 million light years – as a kind of cosmological ruler.
"But it isn’t perfect: as the universe aged, this neat structuring of galaxies blurred as gravity and magnetic fields pulled galaxies in different directions. That means that to use the technique mathematical models are needed to make a series of assumptions about how galaxies have shifted over time. Some BAO distances could be spot on, but others are off by several per cent, and there is no way to tell which ones are which.
"Now, Starkman and his colleagues have come up with a ruler that sidesteps the need for these assumptions. Instead of following the galaxies’ motions, the team measure distance relative to an unmoving mathematical midpoint in the BAOs called the linear point. Starkman says the technique is up to four times more accurate than existing methods.
"Being able to measure very large cosmological distances is critical to understanding the nature of dark energy, says Will Percival at the University of Portsmouth in the UK. But while using the linear point appears to reduce the number of errors in estimating cosmological distances, he says, it’s not yet clear whether using it will yield more precise measurements than existing methods.
"For more precise measurements, we will have to wait for the results of future galaxy surveys such as the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission, which will observe areas of the universe that aren’t polluted by light from the Milky Way. The data from these surveys will be at least 10 times more precise than existing surveys, Percival says, and will provide a good opportunity to test whether the proposed cosmological ruler is better than current measurements."
Comment: For most universe expansion is undoubted, and measurements are improving. At least we are beyond Cepheid stars as the only measure of distance.
The immensity of the universe; new measurement
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 30, 2019, 01:51 (2123 days ago) @ David Turell
Astronomers are now using quasars as standard candles, as very bright objects have always been used to estimate distances:
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-galaxies-physics-cosmic-expansion.html
"A new study, led by Guido Risaliti of Università di Firenze, Italy, and Elisabeta Lusso of Durham University, UK, points to another type of cosmic tracer – quasars – that would fill part of the gap between these observations, measuring the expansion of the universe up to 12 billion years ago.
"Quasars are the cores of galaxies where an active supermassive black hole is pulling in matter from its surroundings at very intense rates, shining brightly across the electromagnetic spectrum. As material falls onto the black hole, it forms a swirling disc that radiates in visible and ultraviolet light; this light, in turn, heats up nearby electrons, generating X-rays.
***
"Astronomical sources whose properties allow us to gauge their distances are referred to as 'standard candles'.
"The most notable class, known as 'type-Ia' supernova, consists of the spectacular demise of white dwarf stars after they have over-filled on material from a companion star, generating explosions of predictable brightness that allows astronomers to pinpoint the distance. Observations of these supernovas in the late 1990s revealed the universe's accelerated expansion over the last few billion years.
***
"Digging into the XMM-Newton archive, they collected X-ray data for over 7000 quasars, combining them with ultraviolet observations from the ground-based Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They also used a new set of data, specially obtained with XMM-Newton in 2017 to look at very distant quasars, observing them as they were when the universe was only about two billion years old. Finally, they complemented the data with a small number of even more distant quasars and with some relatively nearby ones, observed with NASA's Chandra and Swift X-ray observatories, respectively.
"'Such a large sample enabled us to scrutinise the relation between X-ray and ultraviolet emission of quasars in painstaking detail, which greatly refined our technique to estimate their distance," says Guido.
"The new XMM-Newton observations of distant quasars are so good that the team even identified two different groups: 70 percent of the sources shine brightly in low-energy X-rays, while the remaining 30 percent emit lower amounts of X-rays that are characterised by higher energies. For the further analysis, they only kept the earlier group of sources, in which the relation between X-ray and ultraviolet emission appears clearer.
***
"After skimming through the data and bringing the sample down to about 1600 quasars, the astronomers were left with the very best observations, leading to robust estimates of the distance to these sources that they could use to investigate the universe's expansion.
"When we combine the quasar sample, which spans almost 12 billion years of cosmic history, with the more local sample of type-Ia supernovas, covering only the past eight billion years or so, we find similar results in the overlapping epochs," says Elisabeta.
***
"'However, in the earlier phases that we can only probe with quasars, we find a discrepancy between the observed evolution of the universe and what we would predict based on the standard cosmological model."
"Looking into this previously poorly explored period of cosmic history with the help of quasars, the astronomers have revealed a possible tension in the standard model of cosmology, which might require the addition of extra parameters to reconcile the data with theory.
"'One of the possible solutions would be to invoke an evolving dark energy, with a density that increases as time goes by," says Guido.
"Incidentally, this particular model would also alleviate another tension that has kept cosmologists busy lately, concerning the Hubble constant – the current rate of cosmic expansion. This discrepancy was found between estimates of the Hubble constant in the local universe, based on supernova data – and, independently, on galaxy clusters – and those based on Planck's observations of the cosmic microwave background in the early universe.
Comment: This should help in getting a finer measurement of the Hubble Constant and how it has sped up during the life of the universe. Hopefully dark matter may be better understood.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-galaxies-physics-cosmic-expansion.html#jCp
The immensity of the universe; new measurement
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 30, 2019, 20:53 (2122 days ago) @ David Turell
Gravitational waves also can possibly be used to define Hubble's constant:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universes-fate-rests-on-the-hubble-const...
"A burst of gravitational waves from the merger of two black holes is one piece of the new method for calculating the Hubble constant. Not unlike standard candles, binary black hole systems oscillate. As they spiral into each other, the frequency of the gravitational waves they spew out changes at a rate correlated to the system’s size. From this, astronomers derive the waves’ intrinsic amplitude. And by comparing that with their apparent amplitude (similar to a comparison of the actual brightness of a Cepheid with its apparent brightness), they compute how far away the system is. Astronomers call these “standard sirens.” The measured the distance to this particular collision as some 540 megaparsecs, or about 1.8 billion light-years, from Earth.
"An associated redshift, such as that of the sirens’ host galaxy, provides the second piece of the new method. The researchers used redshift data from the Dark Energy Survey, which just finished mapping a portion of the southern sky more broadly and deeply than any previous survey. The redshift data combined with the distance measurement provided researchers with their new figure for the constant.
"Antonella Palmese, a research associate at Fermilab and co-author of the study, says the method holds promise in part because black hole mergers are relatively plentiful. Although it is still a proof of concept, she says that as more gravitational events from LIGO/VIRGO become available, the statistics will improve. University of Oxford astronomer Elisa Chisari, who was not involved in the study, agrees. “The level of constraints that they obtained on the Hubble rate is not competitive at the moment compared to other measurements,” she says. “But as LIGO builds up its catalogue of gravitational wave events in the coming years, then by combining multiple events, this will really become a competitive method.”
Comment: It would be nice to have agreeing methods. We will better understand the future of the universe
The immensity of the universe;addendum
DAVID’s comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!
dhw: Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
DAVID: Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?
I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, March 19, 2017, 14:41 (2805 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result. That is the connection and the result of the energy of the Big Bang causing the expansion. The question of the expansion itself is that some scientists do not accept the concept of inflation because its cause is unknown. On the other side inflation fits the findings which is a bastardized way of supporting the concept.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.
Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 14:02 (2803 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.
dhw: Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.
I set out to see whether hugeness was a vital component of fine tuning. It turns out to be concomitant. Another replaced entry.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.
dhw: Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.
DAVID: I set out to see whether hugeness was a vital component of fine tuning. It turns out to be concomitant.
If by concomitant you mean that it took time for life-supporting elements to develop and the universe is huge, fair enough. If you mean that the universe had to be huge for life-supporting elements to develop, no such cause-and-effect relationship has been established, so it’s still "maybe" (and therefore maybe not), as per Wallace et al.
The immensity of the universe;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 22, 2017, 13:37 (2802 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.
dhw: Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.DAVID: I set out to see whether hugeness was a vital component of fine tuning. It turns out to be concomitant.
dhw: If by concomitant you mean that it took time for life-supporting elements to develop and the universe is huge, fair enough. If you mean that the universe had to be huge for life-supporting elements to develop, no such cause-and-effect relationship has been established, so it’s still "maybe" (and therefore maybe not), as per Wallace et al.
The first sentence above is agreed. It is what I meant.