Laetoli footprints (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 14:17 (5160 days ago)
I've had the privilge of seeing a cast of those famous footprints in Tanzania. Now careful analysis of these 3.5 million year old prints confirm that fully upright walking was involved. Ape walking involves bent knee and bent thigh. To walk upright involves changes in the leg bones, the pelvis, the spine, the head and neck, a beter balance mechanism, and perhaps vision changes. Human walking or hominim walking is more energy efficient.- http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009769
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 10, 2010, 15:51 (5150 days ago) @ David Turell
I've had the privilge of seeing a cast of those famous footprints in Tanzania. Now careful analysis of these 3.5 million year old prints confirm that fully upright walking was involved. Ape walking involves bent knee and bent thigh. To walk upright involves changes in the leg bones, the pelvis, the spine, the head and neck, a beter balance mechanism, and perhaps vision changes. Human walking or hominim walking is more energy efficient. > -But also has the tradeoff of a weakening spine over time caused due to the fact that the back muscles for most people tend to be completely underdeveloped. Wear and tear on the knees due to walking upright also takes a heavy toll. The tradeoff for being more energy efficient is more wear and tear. A smarter design exists. Pigliucci offers a picture (in Denying Evolution) where an optimized human design is offered for our environment. -> > http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009769
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Saturday, April 10, 2010, 16:34 (5150 days ago) @ xeno6696
> A smarter design exists. Pigliucci offers a picture (in Denying Evolution) where an optimized human design is offered for our environment. - Unfortunately, life has one general basic set of designs, which results in having to use what is at hand, so we cannot actually re-invent the wheel of life any time we wish, and these arguements are always used to say there is no designer, as 'I can do it better than He did'.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 10, 2010, 17:10 (5150 days ago) @ David Turell
> > A smarter design exists. Pigliucci offers a picture (in Denying Evolution) where an optimized human design is offered for our environment. > > > Unfortunately, life has one general basic set of designs, which results in having to use what is at hand, so we cannot actually re-invent the wheel of life any time we wish, and these arguements are always used to say there is no designer, as 'I can do it better than He did'.-In his case, he was assaulting the evangelical idea of a "perfect creator." As the Discovery Institute ultimately serves as an engine for evangelical ideology, this is a good tactic. -To address your deeper question--if this universal intelligence is capable of planning, then why not forsee the issue I raised? Humans of shorter height don't have the same issues with knees and weak back muscles, and--lets face it--THAT is a simple problem if you're already smart enough to tinker with a machine as its being developed. You can't just brush this argument away.
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Saturday, April 10, 2010, 19:15 (5150 days ago) @ xeno6696
> To address your deeper question--if this universal intelligence is capable of planning, then why not forsee the issue I raised? Humans of shorter height don't have the same issues with knees and weak back muscles, and--lets face it--THAT is a simple problem if you're already smart enough to tinker with a machine as its being developed. You can't just brush this argument away.-The biggest word in your reply is IF. You are falling into the same trap. We do not know anything about the universal intelligence. Is the UI capable of planning or just starting? I would hope it can plan, but I don't know. Frank's approach recognized the problem I have not knowing. 'Start and let's see what develops'? 'Intervene'? And of interest in H. sapiens, they were six feet and over before the agricultural revolution, and we are now back there with less hard work and better nutrition. Your should see the height of Elizabethan doors or Henry's 5th armour size. Men were 5' 4" and women less. Our pioneer museums show the same thing. Grantged the lords and ladies were taller, but they ate better and didn't work like the peasants. Lincoln probably had Marfan's syndrome to explain his height, as he started poor aND did lots of manual labor.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 10, 2010, 22:08 (5150 days ago) @ David Turell
> > To address your deeper question--if this universal intelligence is capable of planning, then why not forsee the issue I raised? Humans of shorter height don't have the same issues with knees and weak back muscles, and--lets face it--THAT is a simple problem if you're already smart enough to tinker with a machine as its being developed. You can't just brush this argument away. > > The biggest word in your reply is IF. You are falling into the same trap. We do not know anything about the universal intelligence. Is the UI capable of planning or just starting? I would hope it can plan, but I don't know. Frank's approach recognized the problem I have not knowing. 'Start and let's see what develops'? 'Intervene'? And of interest in H. sapiens, they were six feet and over before the agricultural revolution, and we are now back there with less hard work and better nutrition. Your should see the height of Elizabethan doors or Henry's 5th armour size. Men were 5' 4" and women less. Our pioneer museums show the same thing. Grantged the lords and ladies were taller, but they ate better and didn't work like the peasants. Lincoln probably had Marfan's syndrome to explain his height, as he started poor aND did lots of manual labor.-I agree. IF the universal intelligence ISN'T capable of planning, than most of the measures we attribute to intelligence are gone. If the creator isn't capable of pre-planning, than it can be no more intelligent than a simple animal, because the two things that enable intelligence on the scale that we can recreate nature are language and a long memory. If the creator has a long memory, than it must be capable of planning. If the creator on the other hand has no long memory, than at best you have a perceptual intelligence that is literally only capable of intelligent decisions in an incredibly small frame of time. In this scenario, the creator could only make consistent decisions if its behavior were strictly limited--in this sense, it would be no different than a computer program, iterative, and with no knowledge of what it did before. If the UI isn't capable of planning--THIS is its nature. Mercurial and barely sentient, with no concept of self and no ability for language of any kind. If it is like this, than it recreates dhw's problem of "who or what set the rules that this "UI" uses in the first place? -We have no choice but to conclude that if there is a UI, then it is capable of planning, otherwise--it isn't intelligent.
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Sunday, April 11, 2010, 02:02 (5150 days ago) @ xeno6696
> I agree. IF the universal intelligence ISN'T capable of planning, than most of the measures we attribute to intelligence are gone. > > > We have no choice but to conclude that if there is a UI, then it is capable of planning, otherwise--it isn't intelligent.-But if it is capable of planning, does it want to? As I sugested, it may simply be an agent for process theology. Set the universe up with guiding rules and laws and watch what happens, evolving according to the dictates of the initial Big Bang. The key point is we have no way of knowing the limits of the intelligence or what it wishes to have happen, after the start, or if it even wishes. Maybe there are no concerns at all. Perhaps as religions posit, there is intense interest.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 11, 2010, 06:02 (5150 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I agree. IF the universal intelligence ISN'T capable of planning, than most of the measures we attribute to intelligence are gone. > > > > > We have no choice but to conclude that if there is a UI, then it is capable of planning, otherwise--it isn't intelligent. > > But if it is capable of planning, does it want to? -Keeping in context with my original argument--if life is goal-directed, the creator must want to. You might sit down as a potter with a lump of clay, but sooner or later you're going to mold it into something. You have a goal in mind, even if its just to see where the process takes you. -As I suggested, it may simply be an agent for process theology. Set the universe up with guiding rules and laws and watch what happens, evolving according to the dictates of the initial Big Bang. -We know enough about intelligence to be able to say that we know of two kinds of intelligence--via Adler. Perceptive and "human." (Forgot his term for "human".) Only human intelligence is known to possess the capacity for an extremely long-term level of planning. The kind of universe we live in--if WE were to create such a thing, would require an immense engineering feat. For this same thing to be "childishly easy" for a UI, the UI really would need to be like the all-powerful Jehovah, a conscious being with literally unfathomable and unlimited power. And if our universe is so "finely tuned," it's obvious that it's not prone to making mistakes in planning or execution. -The key point is we have no way of knowing the limits of the intelligence or what it wishes to have happen, after the start, or if it even wishes. Maybe there are no concerns at all. Perhaps as religions posit, there is intense interest.-No, but there's definite things I think are reasonable to expect if we are to assert that the universe was designed. What I've detailed are the kinds of things you could expect to see and the nature of the creator based on the kinds of intelligence we are familiar with. None of the things we've uncovered smacks of intense planning and foresight with the exception of the initial big bang. -A bigger question, one stemming from information theory--where would you possibly argue that god interfaces with life when we have no magical bits of information that seem to get interjected from nowhere? It goes back to what I stated some time ago, when I stated that the only reasonable formulation of God based on what we know is that of an extreme deism. -Here's this. We know that the universe moves towards entropy. The only moment of intense unity and control that God has in our world rapidly dissipates over time. (We've already accepted a constrained God, lets take it farther.) To the point where only isolated islands of order continue to exist in the universe. In a vain and desperate attempt to try and keep living, to make its impact on this universe even though its literally being stretched apart into nothing--it manages to manipulate a little bit of life. But because it simply can't--it does so in waves, stutters, and fits. (Vain, because our race is guaranteed to eventually die.) -I know enough about the universe to know that we only have matter and energy. (Be it dark or not.) No formulation of the universe I've seen allows for a pocket of concentrated energy to exist in perpetuity--which is what would really be needed for some kind of a "supreme being."
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
MATT: ...there's definite things I think are reasonable to expect if we are to assert that the universe was designed. What I've detailed are the kinds of things you could expect to see and the nature of the creator based on the kinds of intelligence we are familiar with. None of the things we've uncovered smacks of intense planning and foresight with the exception of the initial big bang.-In your computer world, could the machine process memory, do calculations, provide information if those who designed its programmes couldn't even conceive what memory, calculations, information were? If the universe and life were designed, it seems reasonable to suppose that the designer knew what he was doing when he set up the original mechanism that produced life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation. It's equally conceivable that he didn't know where it was all leading (otherwise he'd have been bored), but it seems to me highly unlikely that the mechanism itself did not require intense planning and foresight ... e.g. that by sticking x, y and z together, he would enable the unit to reproduce, adapt etc. By the same token, the fact that we have memory, consciousness, imagination etc. seems to me to make it likely that if there is or was a designer, he would have the same faculties. Of course we can only go by our human experience, but that suggests that the more complex the invention, the more it requires consciousness, knowledge, planning and foresight. As for faults in the design, they are only evidence that the designer may not be the omnipotent, omniscient being of the main religions, unless he actually planned the faults, or didn't care about them so long as the general design worked OK. Can you name me any human design that will not eventually break down? That is the very nature of everything in the physical world that we know. -As for whether God "interfaces with life", that is indeed the big question following on from whether such "concentrated energy" actually exists/existed. From the history of life as we know it, I would say that technically he may do, in the sense of experimenting here and there (hence the astonishing physical complexities that David keeps drawing our attention to), but otherwise the sheer randomness of the pleasures and pains suggests to me, as it does to you, that a deist God is the most likely.-Finally, putting on my sceptic's hat now, I'm at a loss to understand why the big bang smacks of intense planning and foresight. Since we don't know what went bang, and we don't know what the heck God was up to at the time (if he was there at all), the whole thing might just as well have been an enormous accident. God messing things up in his laboratory, perhaps? But then making the best of a bad job? I must say I find the intricacy of life a more straightforward example of planning and foresight.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 12, 2010, 15:03 (5148 days ago) @ dhw
In your computer world, could the machine process memory, do calculations, provide information if those who designed its programmes couldn't even conceive what memory, calculations, information were? If the universe and life were designed, it seems reasonable to suppose that the designer knew what he was doing when he set up the original mechanism that produced life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation. It's equally conceivable that he didn't know where it was all leading (otherwise he'd have been bored), but it seems to me highly unlikely that the mechanism itself did not require intense planning and foresight ... e.g. that by sticking x, y and z together, he would enable the unit to reproduce, adapt etc. By the same token, the fact that we have memory, consciousness, imagination etc. seems to me to make it likely that if there is or was a designer, he would have the same faculties. Of course we can only go by our human experience, but that suggests that the more complex the invention, the more it requires consciousness, knowledge, planning and foresight. As for faults in the design, they are only evidence that the designer may not be the omnipotent, omniscient being of the main religions, unless he actually planned the faults, or didn't care about them so long as the general design worked OK. -With what we DO know about the universe, if God exists and is a concentrated being of some sort, meaning, at some point in its continuity it can be said to possess planning and a long memory--then it is clear that he had no discrete goal with life on earth. It either didn't know what it was really doing (just tinkering) or it knew everything in advance.-If it knew everything in advance, then there's a great deal of things it either decided not to care about (our comfort being one of them) or he deliberately made them "wrongly." If its the first, why should we care back? If its the second, well, still--why should we care at all? -If someone claims intelligence, tell me about this intelligence, please!-Can you name me any human design that will not eventually break down? That is the very nature of everything in the physical world that we know. > -Mathematics. (Unless you consider the death of man.) -> As for whether God "interfaces with life", that is indeed the big question following on from whether such "concentrated energy" actually exists/existed. From the history of life as we know it, I would say that technically he may do, in the sense of experimenting here and there (hence the astonishing physical complexities that David keeps drawing our attention to), but otherwise the sheer randomness of the pleasures and pains suggests to me, as it does to you, that a deist God is the most likely. > -But David needs to demonstrate that the sudden shifts actually come from some force outside the organism for the claim that a deity is directing its growth. (Don't think he needs to worry about this under the umbrella of panentheism, but he needs it from my view.) -> Finally, putting on my sceptic's hat now, I'm at a loss to understand why the big bang smacks of intense planning and foresight. Since we don't know what went bang, and we don't know what the heck God was up to at the time (if he was there at all), the whole thing might just as well have been an enormous accident. God messing things up in his laboratory, perhaps? But then making the best of a bad job? I must say I find the intricacy of life a more straightforward example of planning and foresight.-We know a great deal more about the Big Bang than you seem to know about. I discussed some of this at length in the post dealing with Seth Lloyd's book. -The fine-tuned universe that David references resolves around the fact that many properties of the universe, had they gone one way or another would have resulted in a dead universe. (I and several cosmologists dispute this.) One problem that gets solved in a many-universes scenario is this one--if you have infinitely many universes you are guaranteed to get one like ours, no God required for direct intervention.
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Monday, April 12, 2010, 16:25 (5148 days ago) @ xeno6696
> The fine-tuned universe that David references resolves around the fact that many properties of the universe, had they gone one way or another would have resulted in a dead universe. (I and several cosmologists dispute this.) One problem that gets solved in a many-universes scenario is this one--if you have infinitely many universes you are guaranteed to get one like ours, no God required for direct intervention.-The problem with this approach is it will be total fiction until string theory is proven. Multiuniverse is pie-in-the-sky, and can never be proven if this universe has a finite edge bent back on itself. Who are the reputable cosmologists in dispute? Please don't use Stenger. He is a wack job.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 12, 2010, 17:32 (5148 days ago) @ David Turell
> > The fine-tuned universe that David references resolves around the fact that many properties of the universe, had they gone one way or another would have resulted in a dead universe. (I and several cosmologists dispute this.) One problem that gets solved in a many-universes scenario is this one--if you have infinitely many universes you are guaranteed to get one like ours, no God required for direct intervention. > > The problem with this approach is it will be total fiction until string theory is proven. Multiuniverse is pie-in-the-sky, and can never be proven if this universe has a finite edge bent back on itself. Who are the reputable cosmologists in dispute? Please don't use Stenger. He is a wack job.-You seem to have forgotten that the "many worlds" interpretation is rooted in current quantum mechanics--and has nothing at all to do with String Theory. -(Though I will repost this:) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706113702.htm If String Theory starts to have more successes like this in explaining phenomenon untouched by the Copenhagen Interpretation--I think you'll start to see more experimental physicists aligning with theoretical physicists. (Right now 9/10 of new theoretical physicists grads study String Theory.) -There's two views in physics that have a fairly equal number of supporters--consistent histories, and many worlds. Seth Lloyd is consistent histories. (And so am I.) I think Brian Greene is many-worlds, as is those physicists named on the wikipedia page for "many worlds interpretation." -Both views try to solve the problem of how a single photon appears in two places at once. Neither is necessarily experimentally valid (which is why they're called interpretations.) But both strive to explain physical phenomenon--both without resorting to strings. (Strings just solve the problem of a quantum theory of gravity.)
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Monday, April 12, 2010, 19:19 (5148 days ago) @ xeno6696
> You seem to have forgotten that the "many worlds" interpretation is rooted in current quantum mechanics--and has nothing at all to do with String Theory. - Supporters means an election of unproven opinions. Yes I had forgotten about many worlds. I'm convinced there is just one of me, and I consider many worlds really worthless, probably more than strings.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 12, 2010, 21:39 (5148 days ago) @ David Turell
> > You seem to have forgotten that the "many worlds" interpretation is rooted in current quantum mechanics--and has nothing at all to do with String Theory. > > > Supporters means an election of unproven opinions. Yes I had forgotten about many worlds. I'm convinced there is just one of me, and I consider many worlds really worthless, probably more than strings.-You were challenging me based on the fact that "String Theory" needs to be proven. While it is true that indeed, ST is as open a question as it gets (and I've called it an intellectual black hole on more than one occasion) it simply manages to sit at the edge of theoretical physics. (More results like the one I mentioned before and it won't be derided as much as it is by experimental physicists.) -Unaddressed by you is the Copenhagen interpretation--which again has its "supporters." Shall we deride it as surely as you do the "Many Worlds" interpretation? (For the uninitiated, the Copenhagen Interpretation is also called "The Standard Model.") At the point we're at now, we're squarely at the limits of all science and we can't toss out any of these models until we reach the point we can test some of them. (LHC is the first step towards verifying/nullifying ST and/or Many Worlds.) -I will reiterate that Brian Greene has a NOVA documentary (Elegant Universe) where all of these issues are discussed with other physicists and my claim about theoretical physicists is directly from that documentary. (9/10 of new theoretical physics PHD's pursue String Theory instead of the Standard Model as a research paradigm.) Some physicists claim that this trend may be leading physics down the wrong path for the next 100+ years. (Myself, I find it alarming as a layman.) But I was just trying to point out that Many Worlds isn't a String Theory issue.-As for cosmologists that argue that our universe isn't necessarily the only one that could support life, there was a SciAm article... 2 months back? Where the authors discussed a universe completely missing a fundamental force, and it was still able to produce all the necessary energy and chemistry necessary for life like ours. This means that the criterion for our universe isn't the only one that allows life to exist. -You're convinced many worlds is automatically false, but I find that interesting as it is also the only interpretation that intrinsically allows most of the paranormal phenomenon that we've discussed. The consistent-histories model closes most of those doors.
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
MATT: With what we DO know about the universe, if God exists and is a concentrated being of some sort, meaning, at some point in its continuity it can be said to possess planning and a long memory--then it is clear that he had no discrete goal with life on earth. It either didn't know what it was really doing (just tinkering) or it knew everything in advance.-If it knew everything in advance, then there's a great deal of things it either decided not to care about (our comfort being one of them) or he deliberately made them "wrongly." If its the first, why should we care back? If its the second, well, still--why should we care at all? If someone claims intelligence, tell me about this intelligence, please!-There's no difference between us here. If God doesn't care about us, why should we care about him? But if our object is to find out the "truth" about how we got here, the nature of God can only come after the existence of God. That, if I've understood David correctly, is the point he has been trying to make: 1) Life's complexity = the result of intelligence. 2) We have no way of knowing the nature of that intelligence. My rider to that would be that at least we can speculate, based on the evidence of Life on Earth.-I asked you to name any human design that would not eventually break down, and I went on to say "that is the very nature of everything in the physical world that we know." You answered "Mathematics". I had actually meant a material design ... machinery, buildings, gadgets etc. ... because you were attacking the design of us as physical beings. Nice answer, though! (Literature and music would be two more for your list. Sadly, art and sculpture are more vulnerable.)-Putting on my sceptic's hat, I challenged your statement that only the Big Bang (as opposed to life) "smacks of intense planning and foresight". In your response you argue against David's belief that our universe is fine-tuned for life, and you say an infinite number of universes would solve the problem, as we would be guaranteed to get one like ours. How does this support the possible planning and foresight behind the Big Bang? Many physicists argue that the bang was the beginning of the universe and of time ... i.e. there was nothing before it. If that theory is correct, and since planning and foresight can only come before an event, again how could there have been even a "smack" of it? If anything, I'd have thought your only argument for planning and foresight would be the same as David's: that the universe IS fine-tuned. Maybe I've missed something in your line of thought here.
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 21:20 (5147 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: With what we DO know about the universe, if God exists and is a concentrated being of some sort, meaning, at some point in its continuity it can be said to possess planning and a long memory--then it is clear that he had no discrete goal with life on earth. It either didn't know what it was really doing (just tinkering) or it knew everything in advance. > > If it knew everything in advance, then there's a great deal of things it either decided not to care about (our comfort being one of them) or he deliberately made them "wrongly." If its the first, why should we care back? If its the second, well, still--why should we care at all? > > If someone claims intelligence, tell me about this intelligence, please! > > There's no difference between us here. If God doesn't care about us, why should we care about him? But if our object is to find out the "truth" about how we got here, the nature of God can only come after the existence of God. That, if I've understood David correctly, is the point he has been trying to make: 1) Life's complexity = the result of intelligence. 2) We have no way of knowing the nature of that intelligence. My rider to that would be that at least we can speculate, based on the evidence of Life on Earth. > > I asked you to name any human design that would not eventually break down, and I went on to say "that is the very nature of everything in the physical world that we know." You answered "Mathematics". I had actually meant a material design ... machinery, buildings, gadgets etc. ... because you were attacking the design of us as physical beings. Nice answer, though! (Literature and music would be two more for your list. Sadly, art and sculpture are more vulnerable.) > > Putting on my sceptic's hat, I challenged your statement that only the Big Bang (as opposed to life) "smacks of intense planning and foresight". In your response you argue against David's belief that our universe is fine-tuned for life, and you say an infinite number of universes would solve the problem, as we would be guaranteed to get one like ours. How does this support the possible planning and foresight behind the Big Bang? Many physicists argue that the bang was the beginning of the universe and of time ... i.e. there was nothing before it. If that theory is correct, and since planning and foresight can only come before an event, again how could there have been even a "smack" of it? If anything, I'd have thought your only argument for planning and foresight would be the same as David's: that the universe IS fine-tuned. Maybe I've missed something in your line of thought here.-I think here it's just another example of my uncanny ability to take a bunch of threads and weave them with no thought. -1. If it is true that the universe is truly "finely tuned" for life, then this is a legitimate base to begin discussing a creator. -2. An argument against our universe being finely tuned can be found in those experimental physicists that have demonstrated that the chemistry necessary for life could exist in a universe drastically different from ours--in one where one of the fundamental forces doesn't exist. This strongly suggests that the... range of possibilities is greater than what at least David claims. -My general goal here is to firmly demonstrate that this part of the discussion lies at the very edge of physics, and despite David's harumphs, the further explanation of "Many Worlds" has yet to be nullified, even if it ranks as #2 in the list of favored interpretations. -Even if "many worlds" proves wrong, atheists can still simply rely on the argument that "even in a world of 10^150 possibilities, if the chances for event "x" to happen are within the scope of possibilities, than we just simply have to accept it--just like winning the lottery." I think Dawkins has mentioned something to that effect in the past. (Don't know, haven't actually read him.) Actually, the aforementioned paper concerning the lack of a fundamental force also demonstrates another "universe" of possibilities. (Pardon the pun!)-As to your comment about truth: As would be predicted, I'm ultimately of the opinion that in this question there is no truth to be found; the event is so far away that we shall never be able to truly answer for what happened--all we will have is mere speculation, however educated we may think it. -As to your comment about nothing existing before the Big Bang, few, if any, of the writings I've come across state this. What I've read is that the big bang was the beginning of our observable universe, a drastically different claim. For all intents and purposes it was the beginning, but there is no way to truly state that it was the beginning.
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
MATT: I think here it's just another example of my uncanny ability to take a bunch of threads and weave them with no thought. -An ability not to be fostered, but as always your honesty is greatly appreciated. MATT: 1. If it is true that the universe is truly "finely tuned" for life, then this is a legitimate base to begin discussing a creator. -Of course we don't know if it's true. But as with the origin of life, the more complex it all is, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss the idea of design. I'm not sure why you differentiate between "to discuss" and to "begin discussing"!-MATT: 2. An argument against our universe being finely tuned can be found in those experimental physicists that have demonstrated that the chemistry necessary for life could exist in a universe drastically different from ours--in one where one of the fundamental forces doesn't exist. This strongly suggests that the... range of possibilities is greater than what at least David claims.-A universe drastically different from ours sounds no more and no less fictional than an intelligence drastically different from ours. MATT: My general goal here is to firmly demonstrate that this part of the discussion lies at the very edge of physics, and despite David's harumphs, the further explanation of "Many Worlds" has yet to be nullified, even if it ranks as #2 in the list of favored interpretations.-Despite lots of people's harumphs, the further explanation of a universal intelligence has yet to be nullified, and probably still ranks as No. 1 in the list of favoured interpretations. Not a very convincing argument, is it? Your comment below sums it all up. MATT: As to your comment about truth: As would be predicted, I'm ultimately of the opinion that in this question there is no truth to be found; the event is so far away that we shall never be able to truly answer for what happened--all we will have is mere speculation, however educated we may think it.-My thoughts precisely, but extended to more fields than just the origin of life. MATT: As to your comment about nothing existing before the Big Bang, few, if any, of the writings I've come across state this. What I've read is that the big bang was the beginning of our observable universe, a drastically different claim. For all intents and purposes it was the beginning, but there is no way to truly state that it was the beginning.-I had countered your claim that only the Big Bang (as opposed to life) smacked of intensive planning and foresight by pointing out that we didn't know what went bang. Your response then was: "we know a great deal more about the Big Bang than you seem to know about." I quoted the "nothing before" theory (I'm in no position to accept or refute it) just to point out another argument against your planning claim, though it would now appear that you agree with me after all that we don't really know a damn thing. For further information on the commonly held view that there was nothing before the Big Bang, see a very nicely written article by Paul Davies under www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 15, 2010, 00:56 (5146 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: My general goal here is to firmly demonstrate that this part of the discussion lies at the very edge of physics, and despite David's harumphs, the further explanation of "Many Worlds" has yet to be nullified, even if it ranks as #2 in the list of favored interpretations. > > Despite lots of people's harumphs, the further explanation of a universal intelligence has yet to be nullified, and probably still ranks as No. 1 in the list of favoured interpretations. Not a very convincing argument, is it? Your comment below sums it all up. > -Apples and oranges. We have an extremely accurate physical descriptions and models that surround both "Many Worlds" and "Consistent Histories." We have explicit phenomenon that can be predicted with 100% accuracy: name a formulation of design that can claim THAT! -Both God and MW/CH fill a gap, the only difference is that MW/CH are explanations that describe phenomenon that well--we can put into our hands for all intents and purposes. So again--apples and oranges. - > MATT: As to your comment about truth: As would be predicted, I'm ultimately of the opinion that in this question there is no truth to be found; the event is so far away that we shall never be able to truly answer for what happened--all we will have is mere speculation, however educated we may think it.-> I had countered your claim that only the Big Bang (as opposed to life) smacked of intensive planning and foresight by pointing out that we didn't know what went bang. Your response then was: "we know a great deal more about the Big Bang than you seem to know about." I quoted the "nothing before" theory (I'm in no position to accept or refute it) just to point out another argument against your planning claim, though it would now appear that you agree with me after all that we don't really know a damn thing. For further information on the commonly held view that there was nothing before the Big Bang, see a very nicely written article by Paul Davies under www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html-My only issue here is that we do know "what went bang." All the energy that will ever exist in our universe. -As to your deeper thrust: Cosmologists argue that if many of the constants that appeared as our universe was born went slightly one way, or slightly another, the universe as we know it now couldn't have happened. 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. So if there is incredibly intense control over the universe--it clearly happened at this point. But at some point--clearly--things relaxed. 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; we can conceive of a way to create life. (We've just been consistently wrong or not good enough.) There's no way to do the same thing for the former. The fine level of control that one would have to have over individual particles of raw physical energy is impossible with current quantum theory. (The act of observing it changes it.) You would have to be able to interact with a system without disturbing it, which is the act that is impossible.
--
\"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.\"
Laetoli footprints
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!-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."-You began your post as follows: "We have extremely accurate physical descriptions and models that surround both "Many Worlds" and "Consistent Histories." We have explicit phenomenon that can be predicted with 100% accuracy: name a formulation of design that can claim THAT!"-One doesn't usually hear pin-point accuracy used as an argument in favour of chance and against design. The whole theory of Intelligent Design rests on intricate mechanisms that work. Antony Flew (who incidentally died on 8 April) was converted from radical atheism to belief in design because of the impossibility of believing that DNA could come about by chance.*** Any formulation of design will emphasize explicit phenomena that can be predicted with 100% accuracy. Imagine the effects if the Earth went out of orbit, or the sun became unstable, or sperm ceased to fertilize eggs. That life and our universe are a mixture of the predictable and the unpredictable is something I'm sure we agree on, but I really can't see the logic of claiming that what is predictable provides evidence of chance as opposed to design. However, I don't know enough about the MW and CH hypotheses to debate them with you. I only know that there is no consensus among scientists, which suggests that you'll continue to keep me company on the fence. -*** 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.
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Friday, April 16, 2010, 16:37 (5144 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, April 16, 2010, 16:42
> One doesn't usually hear pin-point accuracy used as an argument in favour of chance and against design. The whole theory of Intelligent Design rests on intricate mechanisms that work. Antony Flew (who incidentally died on 8 April) was converted from radical atheism to belief in design because of the impossibility of believing that DNA could come about by chance.*** Any formulation of design will emphasize explicit phenomena that can be predicted with 100% accuracy. Imagine the effects if the Earth went out of orbit, or the sun became unstable, or sperm ceased to fertilize eggs. That life and our universe are a mixture of the predictable and the unpredictable is something I'm sure we agree on, but I really can't see the logic of claiming that what is predictable provides evidence of chance as opposed to design. However, I don't know enough about the MW and CH hypotheses to debate them with you. I only know that there is no consensus among scientists, which suggests that you'll continue to keep me company on the fence. > > *** 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.-Here is more evidence of how complicated the DNA code mechanism is controlled. In non-coding DNA are 'enhancers' which control gene transcription by rounding up appropriate molecules to active the gene. Complexer and complexer:-Molecular Biology: Remote Enhancement Helen Pickersgill - Rescuing spa function by moving it closer. CREDIT: SWANSON ET AL., DEV. CELL 18, 359 (2010)- -The temporal and cell type...specific regulation of gene expression relies in part on enhancers, which are noncoding regions of the genome that control tissue-specific expression of a gene sometimes located hundreds of kilobases away. Enhancers recruit regulatory proteins to decondense chromatin and promote the assembly of transcription machinery at genes. Swanson et al. have dissected the 350-bp sparkling (spa) enhancer that controls expression of the dPax2 gene, which specifies cone cell fate in the developing Drosophila eye. The spa enhancer has been shown to consist of 12 binding sites that recruit four regulatory proteins, the combination of which was thought to be sufficient to activate gene expression. By analyzing mutated versions of a synthetic spa enhancer in vivo, the authors have identified additional regulatory regions that are required for gene expression. One of these regions was required only when the enhancer was located 846 bp upstream of the promoter, but not at 121 bp, which suggests that other enhancers may contain similar hidden remote-control regions that work at a distance. Rearranging the regulatory elements in spa switched its cell-type specificity. Thus, both distance and the order of regulatory regions enable enhancers to fine-tune gene expression, revealing more levels of complexity than previously appreciated. -Dev. Cell 18, 359 (2010).-And don't forget the epigenetic mechanisms that cause rapid adaptation, much faster than Darwin's mistaken theory of ALWAYs tiny steps, even though HE KNEW of the jumps. -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604124021.htm
Laetoli footprints
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 18, 2010, 00:27 (5143 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.\"
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Sunday, April 18, 2010, 19:03 (5142 days ago) @ xeno6696
>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. > > A great question for David would be: "How can a being without access to advanced technology do the kinds of things you claim?" -How do you know how much the UI is capable of? By definition you can't nor should you postulate what you cannot know about the UI. God is presumably behind the quantum wall of uncertainty. We are on this side and from our prespective of reality can never penetrate it. The UI may know the control over the dice. > > > *** 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.)-Again, presupposing what theoretically cannot be done. There will never be proof of many worlds, based on sister particles interacting, because that is one of the glimpses we get of quantum uncertainty. We interact by observing and cause the reaction. I realize, not understanding the math, that consistent histories tries to make Copenhagan more acceptable and less vague, but we still don't go to the underside of that reality, and I strongly feel we not supposed to ever find a way. God is hiding there, and prefers that situation.
Laetoli footprints
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 13:30 (5139 days ago) @ dhw
This thread seems to have very little to do any more with anthropological artefacts! -dhw thinks: "It would be interesting to know if George, as our resident materialist-atheist, believes in other universes." -So perhaps I should respond. The answer is that I don't know, but it is not a theory I like because it violates Ockham's Razor in a comprehensive manner, and we do not have any actual direct evidence of any other single universe let alone an infinity of them, and moreover it is difficult to see how we could have evidence of other universes if they don't interact in some way, so we could never know if they exist or not.-Matt/xeno maintains that: 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.-This is indeed something that David Turell tries to argue, repeatedly, but I don't accept his figures. The odds against the first appearance of life may be high, or they may be near to zero. We don't know. I go by what we do know, which is that the universe has been around for 14 billion years, life wasn't there at the start and is here now, therefore it appeared. However it only appeared around 4 billion years ago, and 10 billion years is a lot of time for a lot of things to happen in the zillions of places available in a very large universe. -It could be that Earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, a result of the exceptional conditions here and Earth's exceptional history, or it could be that life is everywhere, but I will only start to believe that when some other life is found.-dhw's view is: "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!"-But this is a false dichotomy. There are other forces at work in the universe besides chance. I'm referring to chemical and physical forces of course.-Talk about what happened "before the big bang" is just meaningless, as the article by Paul Davies points out. There was no "before". The origin of space was also the origin of time.
--
GPJ
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 17:45 (5139 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> dhw thinks: "It would be interesting to know if George, as our resident materialist-atheist, believes in other universes." > > So perhaps I should respond. The answer is that I don't know, but it is not a theory I like because it violates Ockham's Razor in a comprehensive manner, and we do not have any actual direct evidence of any other single universe let alone an infinity of them, and moreover it is difficult to see how we could have evidence of other universes if they don't interact in some way, so we could never know if they exist or not.-I think exactly like George for the above paragraph.-> > This is indeed something that David Turell tries to argue, repeatedly, but I don't accept his figures. The odds against the first appearance of life may be high, or they may be near to zero. We don't know. I go by what we do know, which is that the universe has been around for 14 billion years, life wasn't there at the start and is here now, therefore it appeared. However it only appeared around 4 billion years ago, and 10 billion years is a lot of time for a lot of things to happen in the zillions of places available in a very large universe. -This is not well thought out. Unless George is promoting panspermia, his argument is filled with irrelevant numbers. On Earth, extreme heat prevented life until about 4 billion years ago, as planetismals bombarded the Earth. As the Earth cooled chemical evidence of life, in organic waste products of life, appear at a site in Greenland about 3.8 byo. This is disputed, and not settled; but in Australia there is definite evidence of life at 3.6 byo. Therefore, complex single-celled organisms took a maximum of 400 million years to appear from a start of inorganic material. Not much time for the evolution of the complexity we find now in the cellular mechanisms of reproduction and the manufacture of energy for life. > > It could be that Earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, a result of the exceptional conditions here and Earth's exceptional history, or it could be that life is everywhere, but I will only start to believe that when some other life is found.-Absolute agreement- > > There are other forces at work in the universe besides chance. I'm referring to chemical and physical forces of course.-I recognize George's skill in mathematics, but I feel he needs to take another look at the problems his theorizing faces in biochemistry. Enzymes are enormous molecules with 'key' areas for molecules to fit into to make organic reactions proceed quickly. If they don't evolve, no life appears. Isn't it convenient that they appear just when needed. How were they manufactured? A huge number of amino acids just don't fall together with the proper folding to make an enzyme. I think this is a problem that Matt doesn't comprehend either. > > Talk about what happened "before the big bang" is just meaningless, as the article by Paul Davies points out. There was no "before". The origin of space was also the origin of time. -Absolutely on point.George and I agree on more than we disagree. His conclusions are just not mine, due to a different mind set.
Laetoli footprints
by David Turell , Monday, April 12, 2010, 14:49 (5148 days ago) @ xeno6696
> A bigger question, one stemming from information theory--where would you possibly argue that god interfaces with life when we have no magical bits of information that seem to get interjected from nowhere? It goes back to what I stated some time ago, when I stated that the only reasonable formulation of God based on what we know is that of an extreme deism. - I'll pick on just one point. It is just the point that DNA is filled with an enormous digital information. Enough to build a person from sperm and egg, and to rebuild the cells of that person multiple times before death intervenes. Information from NOWHERE? From CHANCE? Ha!