Epistemology of Design (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 10, 2009, 15:55 (5460 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 10, 2009, 16:01

[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.\"