AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

In my most recent reply to George/David in the Stenger thread, I alluded to why Behe (and the argument for design at large) have what I currently consider an unconvincing case.-A month or so back dhw pointed out to me an important case in dealing with design: How can we say that nature was designed when we have nothing to compare it to? -In that argument he was attacking me on a typical view of design--"life seems chaotic and unstructured compared to what we typically see in designed structures. -This question then presents a profound problem for claiming the opposite: Life was designed. -If the only objects we know were designed conform to a human-centered approach for design, and we know that life does not conform to this approach, then we have no logical ground to stand on to claim design. -I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. -We also know that there is a finite amount of matter. That means, if the universe is big enough, then any event with any given chance of probability will be guaranteed to happen. -The problem with this view? It's an "if." We don't actually know how large the universe is, so though "it can be," we don't know.-Which again provides another problem for claiming design. (Converse arguments for "not designed" are identical.) -Since we don't know how big the universe is, we can't use probability as a tool. Even if we use Bayesian probability--something I'm actually intimate with--it can only operate using a "known to be true" value. -Consequently, my time here on this board has pushed me further and further into the realm of... well, I've called dhw's skepticism near paralyzing--however I see no other way to be after having given strong consideration to all given arguments on this issue. Atheism isn't tenable due to the nature of what we can know; making generalizations at this point seems nearly immoral.-Design isn't tenable due to the things we cannot know; we cannot call something designed when we've never designed something like it. ----
For nobody is curious, who isn't malevolent.
Plautus

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5095 views


> This question then presents a profound problem for claiming the opposite: Life was designed. - 
> I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. -You are not following my line of logic. Because this universe appears to be designed for life, the 'fine-tuning' allows for the Earth to appear in a form that allows life to emerge.
> 
> We also know that there is a finite amount of matter. That means, if the universe is big enough, then any event with any given chance of probability will be guaranteed to happen.-We are discussing the limited resources of the Earth. - By your reasoning the Earth is finite. The chances for de novo life on this planet is limited to the Earth and are finite. -> 
> Design isn't tenable due to the things we cannot know; we cannot call something designed when we've never designed something like it. -
We use life's designs all the time to to develop micro-engines and adaptations. 
> ---
> For nobody is curious, who isn't malevolent.
> Plautus

5073 views


> > This question then presents a profound problem for claiming the opposite: Life was designed. 
> 
> 
> > I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. 
> 
> You are not following my line of logic. Because this universe appears to be designed for life, the 'fine-tuning' allows for the Earth to appear in a form that allows life to emerge.
> > -No--I get that. But the implication here is that in universal terms.-> > We also know that there is a finite amount of matter. That means, if the universe is big enough, then any event with any given chance of probability will be guaranteed to happen.
> 
> We are discussing the limited resources of the Earth. -And all of Earth's components are derived from stellar material that was created in the interstellar cloud that formed our sun and solar system. It's imperative we look outside our planet for these details. If you're only looking here, you're casting your net in shallow waters. -> 
> By your reasoning the Earth is finite. The chances for de novo life on this planet is limited to the Earth and are finite. 
> -There's a minor snafu in your logic: If you're stating that I assert that life can only exist here, I don't agree with that. If however you're stating that the chances for life on earth are finite, this I can accept, but it does nothing to our conversation outside of a general statement that there is a finite number of chemical combinations to create life; nothing new here for either of us. In mathematical terms: A solution exists. -> > 
> > Design isn't tenable due to the things we cannot know; we cannot call something designed when we've never designed something like it. 
> 
> 
> We use life's designs all the time to to develop micro-engines and adaptations. -That's not the same thing. Studying chemistry/nanophysics and applying it isn't the same thing as being able to say "This was designed." Far from it. You can make the argument that "you're studying a design" but there's no way to know it was actually designed. Life follows a pattern that breaks every design rule we would ever apply--and the only reason we know that a bridge was designed is because we know its component parts; rheebar, concrete, struts, girders--were all made by men, and something had to fashion them together. -Does this make it more clear what I'm driving at? We only know that man-made objects are designed. We can't know whether or not a non-man-made object was designed. -Human chemists can create chemicals in much more simple and efficient pathways than what happens in nature. So, if life was designed, why didn't the "supreme intelligence" use paths of lesser resistance? -In the end I'm still doing little more than pointing out that accepting design is still an act of faith. This whole exercise seems circular, even to me, at this juncture, heh.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5026 views


> > We are discussing the limited resources of the Earth. 
> 
> And all of Earth's components are derived from stellar material that was created in the interstellar cloud that formed our sun and solar system. It's imperative we look outside our planet for these details. If you're only looking here, you're casting your net in shallow waters.-The Standard model and our knowledge of star and solar system formation are pretty complete. We know the available elements. We can study how life is formed right here and we are outside looking also with our satellite probes, etc. 
> 
> > 
> > By your reasoning the Earth is finite. The chances for de novo life on this planet is limited to the Earth and are finite. 
> > 
> 
> There's a minor snafu in your logic: If you're stating that I assert that life can only exist here, I don't agree with that. If however you're stating that the chances for life on earth are finite, this I can accept, but it does nothing to our conversation outside of a general statement that there is a finite number of chemical combinations to create life; nothing new here for either of us. In mathematical terms: A solution exists. -I agree; but we are not dealing with a system that has infinite or almost infinite opportunities for chance to do this. Life can appear anywhere in the universe where the right conditions, such as here, exist. But the requirements of a living cell are very specific, to repeat myself, which greatly reduces the result to be from contingent chance events.
> 
> > > 
> > > Design isn't tenable due to the things we cannot know; we cannot call something designed when we've never designed something like it. 
> > 
> > 
> > We use life's designs all the time to to develop micro-engines and adaptations. 
> 
> That's not the same thing. Studying chemistry/nanophysics and applying it isn't the same thing as being able to say "This was designed." Far from it. You can make the argument that "you're studying a design" but there's no way to know it was actually designed. Life follows a pattern that breaks every design rule we would ever apply--and the only reason we know that a bridge was designed is because we know its component parts; rheebar, concrete, struts, girders--were all made by men, and something had to fashion them together. 
> 
> Does this make it more clear what I'm driving at? We only know that man-made objects are designed. We can't know whether or not a non-man-made object was designed. 
> 
> Human chemists can create chemicals in much more simple and efficient pathways than what happens in nature. So, if life was designed, why didn't the "supreme intelligence" use paths of lesser resistance? -You cannot negate a designer by defining the designer. Intelligent designing usually requires choices, so simplest may not be best for a particular system. Human chemists can choose what they need off a shelf. Life has to take what comes along and use it. Life has to be more adaptable than the chemist. 
> 
> In the end I'm still doing little more than pointing out that accepting design is still an act of faith. This whole exercise seems circular, even to me, at this juncture, heh.-We are back at the same point. I've admitted in the past that the only proof of a designer is a negative one, showing that life is so complex, only intelligenced could have designed it..

5018 views

[EDITED]
David,
> > > 
> > > We are discussing the limited resources of the Earth. 
> > 
> > And all of Earth's components are derived from stellar material that was created in the interstellar cloud that formed our sun and solar system. It's imperative we look outside our planet for these details. If you're only looking here, you're casting your net in shallow waters.
> 
> The Standard model and our knowledge of star and solar system formation are pretty complete. We know the available elements. We can study how life is formed right here and we are outside looking also with our satellite probes, etc. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > By your reasoning the Earth is finite. The chances for de novo life on this planet is limited to the Earth and are finite. 
> > > 
> > 
> > There's a minor snafu in your logic: If you're stating that I assert that life can only exist here, I don't agree with that. If however you're stating that the chances for life on earth are finite, this I can accept, but it does nothing to our conversation outside of a general statement that there is a finite number of chemical combinations to create life; nothing new here for either of us. In mathematical terms: A solution exists. 
> 
> I agree; but we are not dealing with a system that has infinite or almost infinite opportunities for chance to do this. -We don't actually know this. We'd have to know the size of the universe first; then--and only then--can we say there's a finite chance. I say this because mathematically this is a permutation/combination problem. How many possible combinations are required? -I've been learning about quantum computing some more, and how it works. That Book from Lloyd is absolutely excellent, and though I'm not done, I will stress that these ideas I'm about to put forward are based on quantum science, but are not Lloyd's. (To my knowledge, at least!)-Quantum mechanically, all particles have two states or "spins." This means that any event that has a statistical probability of happening that is LESS than the total number particles in the universe is guaranteed to happen.-This means that I now have a hard piece of evidence to support my long-previous claim that there isn't enough information to make a judgment here, and ties in with my "probability primer" from... did I join 2 summers ago already? Regardless, we don't know the size of the universe, and we don't know how many particles the universe contains. In that light, there is no way to make a judgment that "life is too complex," and in the same light there is no way to say there isn't a God, because anything that existed before the Big Bang is unknowable. (Before George pounces on me, I stress that I use a mathematician's strict logic.) -According to this view, life is a deterministic property based upon the total number of particles in the universe. Basically, it means that the "computer" that is the universe is guaranteed to produce life based purely on the concept of spin or "bits" in my more familiar language. -
Life can appear anywhere in the universe where the right conditions, such as here, exist. But the requirements of a living cell are very specific, to repeat myself, which greatly reduces the result to be from contingent chance events.
> > -Please, consider above. Quantum computing is definitely giving us DEEP insights here. [EDIT] In conclusion on this matter, if the probability of life occuring ends up being less than the total number of particles in the universe, then there is absolutely no chance argument to be made. In a universe of n particles, each with two possible states, any probability less than 2^n will happen deterministically! This--to me is exciting to think about... though it still doesn't solve the creator problem. -> > > > -> > Human chemists can create chemicals in much more simple and efficient pathways than what happens in nature. So, if life was designed, why didn't the "supreme intelligence" use paths of lesser resistance? 
> 
> You cannot negate a designer by defining the designer. Intelligent designing usually requires choices, so simplest may not be best for a particular system. Human chemists can choose what they need off a shelf. Life has to take what comes along and use it. Life has to be more adaptable than the chemist. 
> > -I'm not arguing that it negates, only pointing out a philosophical problem to the position that needs to be addressed. If we've never designed something like it there's nothing to compare (life) to that allows us to say "This was designed."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5070 views

We don't actually know this. We'd have to know the size of the universe first; then--and only then--can we say there's a finite chance. I say this because mathematically this is a permutation/combination problem. How many possible combinations are required? -> 
> Quantum mechanically, all particles have two states or "spins." This means that any event that has a statistical probability of happening that is LESS than the total number particles in the universe is guaranteed to happen.
> 
> According to this view, life is a deterministic property based upon the total number of particles in the universe. Basically, it means that the "computer" that is the universe is guaranteed to produce life based purely on the concept of spin or "bits" in my more familiar language. -Taking these statements on all at once: there are 10^80 estimated particles: fermions and bosons. That number is a fine estimate, but as far as we know life is confined to the Earth and its 92 original elements. It is from this batch of matter that life came. We don't needs the odds of the whole universe's contents. By providing the Earth, those contingent events are over and need not be included. Origin of life is a confined to Earth problem. Origin elsewhere need not concern us. And further we can study life's design as we are doing now. We can tear a building apart and put it back together just like new. So far it doesn't work that way for so-called abiogenesis. Maybe we can't. Maybe it is too complex for human intelligence to figure out.

5083 views

We don't actually know this. We'd have to know the size of the universe first; then--and only then--can we say there's a finite chance. I say this because mathematically this is a permutation/combination problem. How many possible combinations are required? 
> 
> > 
> > Quantum mechanically, all particles have two states or "spins." This means that any event that has a statistical probability of happening that is LESS than the total number particles in the universe is guaranteed to happen.
> > 
> > According to this view, life is a deterministic property based upon the total number of particles in the universe. Basically, it means that the "computer" that is the universe is guaranteed to produce life based purely on the concept of spin or "bits" in my more familiar language. 
> 
> Taking these statements on all at once: there are 10^80 estimated particles: fermions and bosons. That number is a fine estimate, but as far as we know life is confined to the Earth and its 92 original elements. It is from this batch of matter that life came. We don't needs the odds of the whole universe's contents. By providing the Earth, those contingent events are over and need not be included. Origin of life is a confined to Earth problem. Origin elsewhere need not concern us. And further we can study life's design as we are doing now. We can tear a building apart and put it back together just like new. So far it doesn't work that way for so-called abiogenesis. Maybe we can't. Maybe it is too complex for human intelligence to figure out.-And as I've stated several times--life didn't just magically appear. It was a chemical process both before and after--I still say your general thrust on a maker is "misguided." (forgive the word... I couldn't think of a gentler one!) In this quantum light the answer isn't really in biochemistry/organic chemistry, it's in the genesis of the whole universe. -If we crack the code of life, and the probability of it occurring is a number that is not smaller than the total number of particles in the universe; then it is simply one possible combination of particles. There IS no "chance" argument at all; life's existence was determined. The only way you have a legitimate argument that a maker perhaps had a direct hand in life, is if that combination's chance is larger than the total number of particles. Specifically, if the probability of a specific distribution, 1/n is a number smaller than the appearance of any specific combination in the entire permutation, then you've got a case. -If it's a universe of n particles, the probability would have to be something like 1/4n, for example's sake. (one divided by four times the number of particles in the universe.) If the probability of life occuring is some number less than n: 1/(n-m) than life is a determined property, and the search for God in biochemistry is over, in my eyes.

5065 views


> If it's a universe of n particles, the probability would have to be something like 1/4n, for example's sake. (one divided by four times the number of particles in the universe.) If the probability of life occuring is some number less than n: 1/(n-m) than life is a determined property, and the search for God in biochemistry is over, in my eyes.-Matt: I'm sorry I just don't follow your reasoning. My only training in statistics in cook-booking formulas for papers and undrstanding T and p values. If all research has concentrated on biochemical molecules (with the standard particles inside) why use numbers of particles. Life came from available molecules and some basic elements. And the universe provided the Earth as a suitable playground for life. We don't need to odds for that initial development. If the whole process was programmed from the beginnning then there is a God hiding out somewhere.

5042 views


> > If it's a universe of n particles, the probability would have to be something like 1/4n, for example's sake. (one divided by four times the number of particles in the universe.) If the probability of life occuring is some number less than n: 1/(n-m) than life is a determined property, and the search for God in biochemistry is over, in my eyes.
> 
> Matt: I'm sorry I just don't follow your reasoning. My only training in statistics in cook-booking formulas for papers and undrstanding T and p values. If all research has concentrated on biochemical molecules (with the standard particles inside) why use numbers of particles. Life came from available molecules and some basic elements. And the universe provided the Earth as a suitable playground for life. We don't need to odds for that initial development. If the whole process was programmed from the beginnning then there is a God hiding out somewhere.-I will try to clean this up a bit. Since the universe can be modeled as bits, I can use Newton's binomial theorem and related analyses to generate my answers.-1. My only real issue is having the ability to claim that "life couldn't come about by chance." Not because I believe in chance, but because I don't believe the system we're studying is understood well enough for anyone to be able to make that claim. -2. My main thrust then, is to show what information would be needed in order to be able to say that "life couldn't come about by chance." This information is "in the bits" of the universe. -Since this is a binomial distribution we can model the probability as a fraction: 1/(2^n) where 'n' is the total number of particles in the universe. -A binomial distribution is that old (x + y )^n you should remember from algebra.-(x + y )^2 algebraically expands to x^2 + 2xy + y^2-x represents particles of one spin, y particles of another. In a universe where the total number of particles is 2, you will have four possible combinations, x^2 represents both particles having the spin 'x,' the middle term represents 2 combinations where the particles will be x and y, and the last term represents both particles having the spin 'y.' Obviously, there is even more computationally that can be discussed here, but I don't know if you've ever been exposed to the terms nCr or nPr. For now, we'll leave it here. -What I'm saying, is that if in this particular (and tiny) universe, the odds of life occurring must be a number smaller than 1/4 before you can begin to claim that "chance" is even a valid argument. This is because that at some point in time, every possible combination of spin is going to be "computed." This is akin to saying "somewhere on earth it's 5:15." -Now, where "life is special" plays in, is if the probability requires more than one universe before it can appear. -Meaning: if our universe is 1/(2^4), and the odds of life occuring are 1/(2(2^4)), the 2 in front of (2^4) means that you'd have to create two universes before your result would be deterministic. 1/(3(2^4)) would be three universes, etc.-Your probability of life appearing in our universe must have a number or "probability limit" (to use one of your previous examples) of that kind of magnitude before chance can even enter the conversation. Before then, life is a deterministic property of the universe with or without a creator God.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5134 views


> Your probability of life appearing in our universe must have a number or "probability limit" (to use one of your previous examples) of that kind of magnitude before chance can even enter the conversation. Before then, life is a deterministic property of the universe with or without a creator God.-Matt: I know you are trying hard, but you have totally lost me. I'm talking about biochemistry and you are bringing in particles which make up molecules. I've read about spins, half-spins, 2/3 rd spins. I know about quarks. I don't see why we have to jump, as I view it, backwards to the basic particles underlying elements and molecular structure. Particles as bits of information, if the universe is treated as a giant computer, is understandable, but seems to me to be extraneous to our discussion. Shannon information theory might apply to understanding the coding of info in DNA, but DNA, itself, is not life. All I know about Shannon theory is that it exists. With my basic algebra years and years ago finally reaching analytic algabra is all I've got and most is forgotten. I suggest you use lay terms for your math, and explain your point differently, or let's stop at this point. I do appreciate your effort.

5163 views


> > Your probability of life appearing in our universe must have a number or "probability limit" (to use one of your previous examples) of that kind of magnitude before chance can even enter the conversation. Before then, life is a deterministic property of the universe with or without a creator God.
> 
> Matt: I know you are trying hard, but you have totally lost me. I'm talking about biochemistry and you are bringing in particles which make up molecules. I've read about spins, half-spins, 2/3 rd spins. I know about quarks. I don't see why we have to jump, as I view it, backwards to the basic particles underlying elements and molecular structure. Particles as bits of information, if the universe is treated as a giant computer, is understandable, but seems to me to be extraneous to our discussion. Shannon information theory might apply to understanding the coding of info in DNA, but DNA, itself, is not life. All I know about Shannon theory is that it exists. With my basic algebra years and years ago finally reaching analytic algabra is all I've got and most is forgotten. I suggest you use lay terms for your math, and explain your point differently, or let's stop at this point. I do appreciate your effort.-Alright, I'll try again, with as little math as possible...-What it means is that the universe has a finite set of matter, with predetermined combinations. In order to make an appeal to a creator based on a probability limit, you need to demonstrate that the probability limit or threshold is a number smaller than the probability of randomly grabbing a single particle of the universe. -So say we figure how to make life, and figure its chances of happening are 1/100 or 1%. -Say that the total number of particles in the universe is 100. -Since the probability we're talking about has a 1:1 relationship with a particle in this universe, it has an equal chance of appearing in our universe as any other particle. This means, that even if we can calculate that it has a 1% chance of occuring, because its probability is in line with the rest of the particles in the universe, its existence is actually predetermined. -If we double the odds to 2%, then it is even more likely to happen; its predetermination is doubly guaranteed. -If we halve the odds to 0.5%, then we start getting into rough territory. The only way to improve the odds is to double the total number of particles in the universe; the equivalent of doubling the universe, since the only thing important to us is matter and not dead space. This is also impossible. -In this manner of accounting, the kind of probability threshhold you're looking for is one that would need to be measured against the size of the universe, not among the component parts and materials in our general vicinity. It won't matter that you're artificially limiting your search to earth; if this view has any truth behind it, it means that life and earth are part of a predetermined part of the universe, albeit a predetermination that still needs to be explained!-It means that the amount of information we know is woefully insufficient for us to come to any reasonable determination at all about a creator; everything we know now is but a mere fraction of what exists in our universe. They can estimate the number of particles, but that's as good as an estimate as a "jigger" or "pinch." The estimation is still inferred from a model and not independently verified; the range is 10^72 to 10^87, and that is absolutely shameful in terms of precision.

5055 views

It seems you are trying to prove a designer or creator by studying the whole universe, presuming that the appearance of life is predetermined and therefore we must look at the designer's plan from the beginning. I'm willing to take the early part of the plan as a given, and start just on Earth. -Assume that we study life and find that the controls in DNA/RNA/epigenetics/ methylation/etc. are thousands, or millions of times more complex than we now know. Starting with very simple chemicals and reaching that level of complexity implies an enormous number of contingent steps, the odds for which appearing spontaneously would also become so enormous as to reach a probability limit. To me this would be an inferred proof of a designer. You seem to want an absolute proof. I am content with an inferred one.

5040 views

It seems you are trying to prove a designer or creator by studying the whole universe, presuming that the appearance of life is predetermined and therefore we must look at the designer's plan from the beginning. I'm willing to take the early part of the plan as a given, and start just on Earth. 
> 
> Assume that we study life and find that the controls in DNA/RNA/epigenetics/ methylation/etc. are thousands, or millions of times more complex than we now know. Starting with very simple chemicals and reaching that level of complexity implies an enormous number of contingent steps, the odds for which appearing spontaneously would also become so enormous as to reach a probability limit. To me this would be an inferred proof of a designer. You seem to want an absolute proof. I am content with an inferred one.-Lets assume your above example. If that probability number still "fits within" this universe, then it's a determined property. There is no chance; no spontaneousness about it at all. It was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang. However improbable life may seem, it was a predestined artifact based purely on permutations and combinations of matter. How life got HERE isn't answered by this. But it gives us a benchmark for us to be able to say "How common is life?"-What makes it a bit more frustrating in your case, is that you are willing to make the claim without much to say about the nature of this deity... an explanation that includes a God must also include how it does what it does. I don't think I've ever asked you that...

5133 views

Matt: However improbable life may seem, it was a predestined artifact based purely on permutations and combinations of matter.-Well, folks, I've just submitted my application for a grant of 100,000,000 euros to build COOL. The purpose of COOL is to prove my theory of TIKL. Let me explain. -COOL is a giant machine, designed by myself, to create a random distribution of letters. As you've probably guessed, COOL is an acronym which stands for Chance Organization Of Letters. This machine will operate at an astonishing speed, juggling letters at a rate that would normally take millions of years, and it will discharge billions of permutations and combinations. Each of these will automatically be measured against the Master Model to see if it matches, and if it does, my theory will be proved once and for all, and the Nobel Prize*** will be mine, ha ha! The Master Model, as the more astute among you will also have guessed, is King Lear. I don't care about Hamlet, or Macbeth, or All's Well That End's Well (though the latter does provide an apt commentary on the expected outcome of my project). King Lear is the benchmark. -Once COOL has produced KL, we shall know for a fact that KL was predestined, or inevitable ... which is why my theory is called TIKL (The Inevitability of King Lear). If it was inevitable, or predestined, we can at last jettison two theories that have plagued mankind for centuries, as we shall have proved beyond reasonable doubt that: 1) King Lear was not the product of Intelligent Design; 2) there was no such person as William Shakespeare.-
*** I shall, of course, invite you all to the celebration in Stockholm, where I would like David to say grace, Mark to pronounce the blessing, Matt to read the lesson from Nietzsche's Die Geburt der TragÃ¶die, Frank to process the food, Spotti-crow TO TEST IT FOR WORMS, and George and BBella to perform the following dialogue between Lear and Cordelia, which sparked the whole thing off:
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
LEAR: Nothing?
CORDELIA: Nothing.
LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing...

5076 views

dhw,-While that was a piece worthy of John Cleese, I don't think you're taking this seriously; I really think my idea provides a numerical measure that would allow you to really start answering the question, "Can life happen by chance?" The problem here is that I can't go through the math which is frustrating, and leads to bad metaphors because I can't think of a way to communicate this so everyone can understand me...-I wish I could put my brain into yours so you could see what I'm trying to say here, I'm not trying to be facetious or anything; but if the universe is a "quantum computer" like Lloyd states, there's MANY questions that we should be able to finally get a crack at--and this is just one of them.-I spoke some time ago about how quantum computers would render all crypto technology null and void. The universe itself *knows* all prime numbers.-What you'd do to break the code is essentially "ask" the computer what the key is and it will "magically" give it to you. There is a way to start defeating it however, and that's to pick a key that consists of prime numbers larger than the total number of particles in the universe. The universe's knowledge has limits, which itself is a piece of information that is absolutely invaluable...- Similarly the universe "knows" all possible combinations that exist of the particles that lie within it. If you were to give a quantum computer a combination of particles representing the code of life--if it gave an answer back of "yes" then it literally means that life is predetermined. Whether by God or accident, whatever created the universe set in motion a chain reaction that would end up in ourselves. -The problem here is that you would have to have a quantum computer as big as the universe; but I think there's computational tricks to get around that. -This actually... gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine...-I really, really wish I could go through the math with you guys... though I don't mind ridicule I think you'd appreciate it better! I know you think this is fantasy but I really feel I've stumbled onto something profound...

5032 views


> This actually... gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine...
> 
> I really, really wish I could go through the math with you guys... though I don't mind ridicule I think you'd appreciate it better! I know you think this is fantasy but I really feel I've stumbled onto something profound...-Since we know about'spooky action at a distance', and the theory is two sister particles, apart at a distance of the diameter of the universe, communicate instantaneously, it is not fantasy! I've been acquainted with the idea of the universe as a computer. I just can't follow your math decisions at the beginning. I don't know why you start as you do. Don't try to explain. We're doing fine this way.

5114 views

Matt: Whether by God or by accident, whatever created the universe set in motion a chain reaction that would end up in ourselves. 
The problem here is that you would have to have a quantum computer as big as the universe [...] This actually...gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine.-David: I just can't follow your math decisions at the beginning. I don't know why you start as you do. Don't try to explain. We're doing fine this way.-I'm very much with David on this, but first of all my apologies if you thought my little satire was meant to ridicule you. That really wasn't the object. It was just a light-hearted attempt to find a different image from the one I used in a similar discussion, when I had a bit of fun telling you about my pet chimpanzee and its typewriter. The serious point underlying the joke is that there have to be limits to one's credulity. I'm in fact saying that your principle of permutations and combinations does not convince me that a mechanism as mind-bogglingly complex as life, reproduction and evolution can assemble itself. I'm also sorry that I can't discuss all this on your mathematical wavelength, and realize how frustrating it must be for you. -Your first statement seems to me self-evident: our presence here proves that there was a chain reaction. In your post of 9 December at 19.32, you wrote: "In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this fine tuning. The universe at large is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life." I replied: "I don't know if this is true. Just how dependent is life on factors outside our planet? [...] Maybe our solar system itself depends on factors elsewhere." What I was getting at in my response was precisely what you have said about all things being tied together, which suggests to me that the universe IS fine-tuned for life ... deliberately or not.-However, the crucial question for me is precisely that: whether the universe does or does not have a consciousness directing the process that has led to life. Obviously, no-one disputes the fact that life happened, and so we are left with a choice: did it happen (i) because it was deliberately set up, (ii) because eventually it was bound to happen, or (iii) by sheer chance? If I've understood you correctly, you're trying to eliminate the third of these by proving that mathematically life was inevitable. With my monkeys on typewriters and my COOL machine I've tried in my amateurish way to demonstrate that there must be limits to what is credible (or mathematically feasible). -I'm not sure, though, that the choice between (ii) and (iii) is all that significant to our decision whether life is a deliberate creation or the product of a mindless universe. If it's mindless, (ii) = what I as a layman would call the law of averages ... sooner or later, the bits and pieces were bound to come up with the right combination ... while (iii) = the combination wasn't bound to happen, but it did. The greater the complexity, the less likely the combination, but either you believe (ii) / (iii) is feasible, or you don't (hence my monkeys and my COOL machine). Can you apply laws of probability when you don't have all the facts? The alternative is consciousness, and the additional feature that you've brought in is the idea that if there really is a universal mind, its thoughts would be in a state of flux. This makes very good sense to me, since it would be bored stiff if it was stuck in a single groove. The concept also ties in, I think, with those proposed by Frank and by BBella. But none of this requires your formulae, and like David I see no advantage in binding ourselves to equations which can only be highly speculative anyway. However, I must confess it was a triumph for me as a teenager to pass O-Level maths, and so perhaps my resistance to the mathematical approach is not entirely philosophical!

5121 views


> Matt: Whether by God or by accident, whatever created the universe set in motion a chain reaction that would end up in ourselves. 
>
> The problem here is that you would have to have a quantum computer as big as the universe [...] This actually...gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine.-
Matt: I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. -
These two statements are in conflict. The universe is fine-tuned for life. It provided all the elements and conditions for an iron-rich(and metal rich)solar systerm in which an Earth could appear and foster life somehow. Only certain universes in a multiverse can do this. There seems to be general agreeemnt on this point. The anthropic principal is a handmaiden to it.

5221 views


> > Matt: Whether by God or by accident, whatever created the universe set in motion a chain reaction that would end up in ourselves. 
> >
> > The problem here is that you would have to have a quantum computer as big as the universe [...] This actually...gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine.
> 
> 
> Matt: I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. 
> 
> 
> These two statements are in conflict. The universe is fine-tuned for life. It provided all the elements and conditions for an iron-rich(and metal rich)solar systerm in which an Earth could appear and foster life somehow. Only certain universes in a multiverse can do this. There seems to be general agreeemnt on this point. The anthropic principal is a handmaiden to it.-It may not be a strong argument, but it seems to me that saying "The universe is fine-tuned for life" is kinda like looking in a mirror and saying "I'm special."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5080 views


> It may not be a strong argument, but it seems to me that saying "The universe is fine-tuned for life" is kinda like looking in a mirror and saying "I'm special."-It IS a very strong argument, and it does mean that this is a very special universe, in a way the Goldilocks argument.

5053 views

The universe is fine-tuned for life. It provided all the elements and conditions for an iron-rich(and metal rich)solar systerm in which an Earth could appear and foster life somehow. Only certain universes in a multiverse can do this. There seems to be general agreeemnt on this point. The anthropic principal is a handmaiden to it.-A very recent paper states that the cosmologic constant (which measures the energy density of the vacuum) should be slightly negative rather than slightly positive for the 'best opportunity'to create life, and thereore this universe is not really fine-tuned for life.-http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/

4797 views

Yes, says this book:

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo62/finely-tuned-life

"Rana’s working hypothesis is, “f the Creator intentionally designed the universe to be biofriendly, then he wouldn’t have limited the influence of the universe’s physical constants to the processes of star and planetary formation,” but rather would have “designed the physical constants to influence chemical and biological systems as well.”1 Rana points out that Henderson demonstrated over 100 years ago that anthropic principles abounded in chemistry. This was manifested in Henderson’s insightful characterization of the acid-base buffering systems in blood, the cytoplasm of the cell, and other bodily fluids. Henderson had argued that such a perfect system could never have arisen from the unguided processes of natural selection.

"In examining several key biochemical systems (nucleic acid and protein synthesis, cell membrane formation, and energy harvesting pathways), Rana sought to answer three questions: (1) Does a molecular rationale and logic undergird the structure and function of these systems? (2) Are such physicochemical constraints as molecular geometry and hydrophobicity (the property of being repelled by water), dictated by the laws of nature, responsible for the configuration and activity of these systems? (3) When the structural properties and functional features of natural biochemical systems are compared with other conceivable biochemical analogs, do the natural systems display the just-right properties that make them unusually fit for life? If the answer to all three questions is yes, Rana argues, then these biochemical systems manifest anthropic coincidences.

"Rana’s investigation reveals that not only are all three of these criteria met but that they demonstrate optimization—which is not what we would expect from complex systems arising from purely materialistic processes.

***

"Under the naturalistic paradigm, biochemical systems are said to be the consequence of blind processes occurring over geological time. Consequently, research has primarily focused on characterizing or describing their properties. Rana suggests that an anthropic framework opens up new avenues for research because, as questions formerly raised to answer “what” and “how” are advanced to answer “why,” scientists will seek principles informed by such a framework. These principles would be powerful tools for developing new technologies.

"Scientists will likely resist a biochemical anthropic principle (as many did the cosmological one) because methodological naturalism has held sway for so long. Nevertheless, Rana asserts that there are excellent reasons to affirm the biochemical anthropic principle that biological systems demonstrate exquisite fine-tuning with the just-right properties to sustain life—characteristics that by necessity evince a Mind."

Comment: I have constantly presented complex biochemical processes that are irreducibly complex and require a designing mind. It is an easy step to accept its existence.

741 views

dhw,-I never got the email for this post--has any of the recent discussion I've given helped you here? It appears your most recent reply in "Origins" was a distilled version of what you said here. I think My answer there handles the one here.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5047 views


> *** I shall, of course, invite you all to the celebration in Stockholm, where I would like David to say grace, Mark to pronounce the blessing, Matt to read the lesson from Nietzsche's Die Geburt der TragÃ¶die, Frank to process the food, Spotti-crow TO TEST IT FOR WORMS, and George and BBella to perform the following dialogue between Lear and Cordelia, which sparked the whole thing off:
> CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
> LEAR: Nothing?
> CORDELIA: Nothing.
> LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing...-
I shall be there!!!-bb

5134 views


> What makes it a bit more frustrating in your case, is that you are willing to make the claim without much to say about the nature of this deity... an explanation that includes a God must also include how it does what it does. I don't think I've ever asked you that...-Frankly, I have no idea. Frank's convoluted theology was instructive in how one might go about developing explanations. I don't think you can. I think a designer can be implied if the odds turn out to indicate that 'chance' has no chance, as I like to say. If the odds (probability bound by your rules) for life by chance exceed 10^80th, then there has to be a designer. We are now at a supernatural level and science and our reason can't go there. This is where didactic religion has its faults. They say God is unknowable and then invent all sorts of things about Him. This is where Adler is sharp. God is a personage like no other person, period. Adler stops!-{Sorry I broke off last evening: had to make a fire, swim 1,000 yards (to stay young) and have dinner, fascinating as our discussions are.:-}

5219 views

Matt: A month or so back dhw pointed out to me an important case in dealing with design: How can we say that nature was designed when we have nothing to compare it to?-We usually come to the same conclusion, but arrive there by different routes! My argument has actually been in the other direction, because we have had Jason Rosenhouse, Greta Christina, Victor Stenger and others parroting out the same silly claim that nature/the universe/life look exactly as we would expect them to look if they were NOT designed. I have therefore asked how the heck they could possibly know. This argument against design is pure speculation, while the argument for design, as David has stressed, is the negative one of complexity. Life is unique in our experience, and so it seems to me absurd to pretend we know what designed/non-designed nature would look like. -You say: "In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this fine tuning. The universe at large is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life." I don't know if this is true. Just how dependent is life on factors outside our planet? Obviously we depend on the sun, and on all kinds of physical constants within our solar system. Maybe our solar system itself depends on factors elsewhere. And in any case, a different sun, or different physical factors could lead to a different form of life, but equally "fine tuned". This is where speculation runs riot. Dawkins argues that there could be life on a billion planets, and neither you nor I exclude the possibility of life elsewhere. But it IS all pure speculation, and even if other forms of intelligent life were discovered, it still wouldn't solve the design issue, though some of us might revise our ideas. (In my view, though, it would badly damage the anthropocentric view of life!)-As for atheism not being "tenable due to the nature of what we can know", I would prefer to say that neither atheism nor theism is supported by what we do know ... which is all we can base our present beliefs on. Each approach requires faith (in chance or in a designer), but in all fairness to the theists of my acquaintance, they admit this. Most atheists I know scream blue murder if you tell them their scepticism is based on faith.-This leads me to our only point of disagreement. You refer to my scepticism as being "near paralyzing". I would argue the opposite. It's belief that's paralyzing, and the stronger the belief, the less movement there is. Fundamentalists (theist and atheist) have formed their pattern, and they will tie themselves in knots in order to shut out the problems arising from it. Scepticism will only lead to paralysis if you automatically reject every possibility ... and that in itself is a sort of fundamentalism. I would like to think that in my case and in yours, it's balanced by open-mindedness. While we do not believe, we do not reject. For instance, we don't rule out chance, we don't rule out design, we have respect for science, but we also have respect for certain forms of mysticism. Paralysis, in my opinion, only comes with closure.

5011 views

dhw,
> This leads me to our only point of disagreement. You refer to my scepticism as being "near paralyzing". I would argue the opposite. It's belief that's paralyzing, and the stronger the belief, the less movement there is. Fundamentalists (theist and atheist) have formed their pattern, and they will tie themselves in knots in order to shut out the problems arising from it. Scepticism will only lead to paralysis if you automatically reject every possibility ... and that in itself is a sort of fundamentalism. I would like to think that in my case and in yours, it's balanced by open-mindedness. While we do not believe, we do not reject. For instance, we don't rule out chance, we don't rule out design, we have respect for science, but we also have respect for certain forms of mysticism. Paralysis, in my opinion, only comes with closure.-As you will read in my response to david, I've been learning more about quantum computing, and it turns out its not as complex as I'd expected. -Essentially, if the universe has enough particles that the chances for life occuring is a number less than the number of total particles, then life is a deterministic property of the universe; meaning the argument you have for "chance" dissolves into the mist. We are still talking "ifs" here, but this is a powerful if. The demonstration for this is akin to my old discussion of probability. -When I spoke of paralysis, I meant a paralysis in terms of science: science cannot function in terms of the level of strictness that you appear to operate in, and well, I operate in when it comes to accepting/rejecting claims. In science, an explanation is accepted because of its utility. If it explains something better, it is accepted, and that is that. -You... appear to stop at that point. I get the impression that even if a model is as explanatory as possible that your skepticism prevents you from accepting it on any level--even though the nature of science itself is a chain of provisional explanations. -At this point it's a discussion of my judgment of your thinking, and lacking the ability to be in your head--I'm in lala land. -There's a point where skepticism paralyzes, and its the point where I would say idealism trumps utility. In some terms that means accepting a relative truth over something we wish to be ultimate. Though I would go so far as to assume that you're not actually as skeptical in day-to-day life as you are on this board! (As you have often pointed out--I don't scrutinize my wife the same way I scrutinize ideas on this board!) -Your comment about paralysis is downright Nietzschean and I absolutely love it!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5087 views

Matt: In science, an explanation is accepted because of its utility. If it explains something better, it is accepted, and that is that. 
You...appear to stop at that point. I get the impression that even if a model is as explanatory as possible that your skepticism prevents you from accepting it on any level ... even though the nature of science is itself a chain of provisional explanations. 
At this point it's a discussion of my judgment of your thinking, and lacking the ability to be in your head ... I'm in lala land. -Here comes a dangerous generalization: it is dangerous to generalize from the particular. The subjects of God's existence, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness are all bound up with a unique set of circumstances. My scepticism-cum-open-mindedness in this context should not be taken as a sign of general scepticism, and in most other contexts I do indeed accept "a relative truth over something we wish to be ultimate." George thinks I should never sit on a jury. I'd back myself to do a good job! -I am not, in my view, unduly sceptical even towards science, although I'm far from convinced that science has all the answers. I'm happy, for instance, to accept the theories of evolution (with some reservations) and the Big Bang. But there is a huge difference between accepting scientific models and accepting people's interpretations of them. If there is general consensus on a model, I have no choice but to accept it. I am not a scientist, and rely on the knowledge of the experts ... if I didn't, I would never go to the doctor or sit in an airplane. But the moment scientists make pronouncements about processes being directed by chance or by God, they cease to speak as scientists, and I cease to trust in their authority. -The fact that science is "a chain of provisional explanations", and that there are vast gaps in our knowledge of life and the universe, is a clear enough indication that the chain will undergo many more changes before there is a consensus (if there ever is). I can accept a useful explanation, but "that" is definitely not "that" in this unique context. I would therefore disagree with you even over what you call scientific paralysis. You say "science cannot function in terms of the level of strictness that you appear to operate in". I would say that science HAS to function at this level of strictness ... it HAS to be sceptical, because it's only by eliminating doubt that it can come up with working models. In the context of our discussion, and keeping in mind the excellent article by Marcelo Gleiser, what is so admirable about science is that even if the Theory of Everything may never materialize, humans continue their quest for it. You say: "There is a point where skepticism paralyzes, and it's the point where I would say idealism trumps utility." I'd say that science is actually kept moving by idealism's constant encroachment on utility. Scepticism is an indispensable tool in the quest for truth (= the ideal), and the continuation of the quest is the ultimate triumph over scepticism! Now what would Nietzsche say to that?

5372 views

Matt: In science, an explanation is accepted because of its utility. If it explains something better, it is accepted, and that is that. 
> You...appear to stop at that point. I get the impression that even if a model is as explanatory as possible that your skepticism prevents you from accepting it on any level ... even though the nature of science is itself a chain of provisional explanations. 
> At this point it's a discussion of my judgment of your thinking, and lacking the ability to be in your head ... I'm in lala land. 
> 
> Here comes a dangerous generalization: it is dangerous to generalize from the particular. The subjects of God's existence, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness are all bound up with a unique set of circumstances. My scepticism-cum-open-mindedness in this context should not be taken as a sign of general scepticism, and in most other contexts I do indeed accept "a relative truth over something we wish to be ultimate." George thinks I should never sit on a jury. I'd back myself to do a good job! 
> 
>....But the moment scientists make pronouncements about processes being directed by chance or by God, they cease to speak as scientists, and I cease to trust in their authority. 
> -*applause* -> The fact that science is "a chain of provisional explanations", and that there are vast gaps in our knowledge of life and the universe, is a clear enough indication that the chain will undergo many more changes before there is a consensus (if there ever is). I can accept a useful explanation, but "that" is definitely not "that" in this unique context. I would therefore disagree with you even over what you call scientific paralysis. You say "science cannot function in terms of the level of strictness that you appear to operate in". I would say that science HAS to function at this level of strictness ... it HAS to be sceptical, because it's only by eliminating doubt that it can come up with working models. In the context of our discussion, and keeping in mind the excellent article by Marcelo Gleiser, what is so admirable about science is that even if the Theory of Everything may never materialize, humans continue their quest for it. You say: "There is a point where skepticism paralyzes, and it's the point where I would say idealism trumps utility." I'd say that science is actually kept moving by idealism's constant encroachment on utility. Scepticism is an indispensable tool in the quest for truth (= the ideal), and the continuation of the quest is the ultimate triumph over scepticism! Now what would Nietzsche say to that?-Tough stuff here and I have no argument with any of it--how could I? Science *should* be a tug of war. I certainly wouldn't disagree that science needs to be skeptical; that is its nature and would be a husk otherwise. Your last statement earns its own unique sort of praise: It raises my "ocean's wave" metaphor of human existence to a more noble and "owned" thing. -I don't know how much you've read Nietzsche, but I would think you would appreciate this line, in reference to Moses: "Whoever said man should love man for God's sake is one who's flown the highest yet--yet most beautifully astray!" -In Nietzsche's writing you see a constant battle between utility and "high-thinking," that aspect ascribed to mystics really who fed from and build on some kind of abstract idea. I don't know the man but I think he'd agree with you.

5067 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum