Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 18, 2010, 00:27 (5333 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: If one wants to argue numbers, David is absolutely right on this point: Given this universe as the ONLY universe, the chain of events leading up to where life could begin is something like winning the lottery every day of your life until you died.
> 
> It seems, then, that the only way to surmount the virtually impossible odds against life-by-chance is if there are other universes. Yet another great leap of faith. It would be interesting to know if George, as our resident materialist-atheist, believes in other universes. If not, what would he make of those odds? Personally, I'd put the multiverse theory on the same level of faith as an eternal God and a chance-assembled DNA. Fence-sitting as usual!
> -I agree, but because one can be precisely defined and explained using mathematics, in my book it has extra merit. (In general however, I will always favor explanations that can be formulated mathematically.) -> You continue: "So if there is incredibly intense control over the universe ... it clearly happened at this point." (The point of the big bang, or the period during which the universe settled into its current state, i.e. the aftermath of the big bang?) "I don't mean to say that life's complexity "simply can't be designed", but that the level of control needed to get the universe to just the right mix of energy density requires a helluva lot more effort..." I'd have thought the more effort required to get the right mix, the less likelihood there would be of chance achieving it.*** The argument that "current quantum theory" doesn't allow for the control needed by a designer still doesn't increase our chances of "winning the lottery every day". Does it shorten the odds in favour of the multiverse theory? I don't see how. All I can see is a confusion of unproven and probably unprovable theories or, as you said in your post of 14 April at 22.32, "mere speculation, however educated we may think it."
> -Red: Paul Davies' article does some work on that question for me. At the exact moment of the Big Bang, everything was indeterminate. As I discussed from Seth Lloyd's book this last christmas, there was some areas that got cooler (via quantum coin flips) and hotter (more quantum coin flips.) It was this period of time that would decide the ultimate fate of our universe. As time grew it was the cool spots that gave the early structure for our universe as we see it today. So, if a supreme being had an intensely direct hand in the universe, it would have to be during this period of time due to the simple fact that many things could have gone wrong for life. -Blue: Right, but I started that thrust asserting the universe was created. If the universe was created, what would be the sections that would require the most adjustment. David's (and others) arguments are precisely in line with what you say here. The claim is that because there were more chances for things to go wrong than to go "right," that clearly the scenario has to have had a creator god--playing with dice. -Purple: It doesn't make the multiverse any more or less likely. But what we do know about quantum theory is that it requires highly sophisticated technology to be able influence these quantum pools of cooler areas. A great question for David would be: "How can a being without access to advanced technology do the kinds of things you claim?" -> ... which suggests that you'll continue to keep me company on the fence. 
> -Yes. I'm not a fan of the multiverse, but I do hate it when people outrightly assert that something is false before its had its day. That's how great ideas get killed. -> *** I've just read David's post and the article he has recommended. Both he and it make this point much more convincingly than I can.-The best point here was reminding me that Many Worlds and Consistent Histories are both also interpreted hypotheses themselves and don't have any more intrinsic merit--aside from the fact that we'll be able to test SOMETHING about them. (Something still lacking from design explanations.)

--
\"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.\"