Origin of Life (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 26, 2009, 13:44 (5242 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: ...in order to make a probability argument ... something that is viciously difficult to do ... we need to know what we're pulling our sample from. That's where the total number of particles in the universe comes in. But then we need something to measure our attempts by ... which is an amount of time. Because of Einstein, time = matter, so 1 particle = 1 unit of time. If we pass through enough time such that it is equal to the total number of particles in the universe, then we've had enough time to try every possible combination.-We are covering the same ground as under Epistemology of Design, so we can stay on this thread, though I'm tempted to rechristen it Epistemology of Chance. I like the story of the engineer, physicist and mathematician, but although a solution must exist (i.e. the truth is out there somewhere), I remain sceptical that you've built a system that "will allow us to analyze probabilities in such a way that we can make a claim for or against a creator". Even if you were able to make a claim for or against chance "without needing to rely on something as soft and squishy as faith", we both know there is more to a creator than a mathematical formula.-Now, I shall ask you in advance to forgive me for my obtuseness, but I don't suppose I'm the only reader of these posts who needs guidance. Bearing in mind that the nature of 96% of the universe remains unknown to us, how do you know the "total number" of particles? How do you know that that "total number" has always been the same, and how do you know the "total number" of possible combinations, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago? Why do you work according to a formula of time and particles, and not a formula of time and the number of possible combinations of particles? And how do you calculate the odds for/against a combination when you don't actually know what that combination is? -You are trying to provide "an accurate model for the number of attempts". Scientists talk of the "primordial soup", creating a picture of a vast cauldron into which the ingredients are thrown and stirred, constantly being mixed with one another to try out new flavours. But according to the theory of chance, there was no-one to throw and stir. The ingredients had no form of locomotion. They were at the mercy of what ... winds, waters, eruptions, explosions? All such movements are incalculable, and not one of them was "attempting" anything. They were Hoyle's bits and pieces being blown round the scrapyard. How, then, can you accurately calculate the number of "attempts" made, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago?-I'm not trying to be awkward. These are things I simply don't understand, and I really appreciate your "playing the mathematician" and "trying to set things up to help us to reach a conclusion, one way or another...". In any case, the discussion is interesting in itself, so I hope my questions will be less of a hindrance than an aid to clarification.