AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

"something cannot have been designed if we cannot explain the existence of the designer"-It seems to me that when we come across examples of design it is very compelling to seek to explain the capacity for that design. A beaver dam, a honeycomb, a weaver's nest .. are a few of the designs we come across in nature. We know who constructs them but that is hardly the end of it. It isn't enough to say "well the honeycomb is designed by bees". We very naturally want to know how they evolved that capacity. The same is true for our own many and varied designs: where'd that capacity come from? -So to ask the same of a hypothetical cosmological designer seems to be a fair enough question. When you think about our capacity for design, it is obvious that we are progressing. From shaped rock, wood and bone to metals, rockets and silicon chips is quite an improvement. Given what we know about ourselves as designers, it seems fair to ask of a cosmological designer how he/she/it acquired the capacity to design us. What stretches the imagination is to imagine a designer with no beginning, no apprenticeship, no history of any kind.-Yet that is where we end up if we are skeptical about the powers of chance. Of course chance only enters into it once DNA, the machinery of evolution, is in place. From there adaptive/reproductive advantage of the rare chance mutation over eons of time makes perfect sense. But where'd that DNA come from?-Perhaps the formation of the pre-organic molecules from which DNA is formed is as inevitable as the formation of rust and crystals. Given the nature of the material itself and its interactions with its surroundings under the necessary conditions, crystals and rust are inevitable. The same may be true of pre-organic molecules. If the nature of the materials under the necessary conditions were sufficient to bring about the formation of DNA, then I think chance by way of evolution can account for the variety and complexity we see.

7720 views

"something cannot have been designed if we cannot explain the existence of the designer"-The ancient and many modern philosophers choose to accept the ancient Grecian principle of "First Cause".
> 
> Yet that is where we end up if we are skeptical about the powers of chance. Of course chance only enters into it once DNA, the machinery of evolution, is in place. From there adaptive/reproductive advantage of the rare chance mutation over eons of time makes perfect sense. But where'd that DNA come from?-Now that is a mighty question! Getting to DNA is a mega-leap. The real question is where did the information in DNA come from? That is at an intellectual level, and requires a powerful mind to create a code that is so clever.
> 
> Perhaps the formation of the pre-organic molecules from which DNA is formed is as inevitable as the formation of rust and crystals. Given the nature of the material itself and its interactions with its surroundings under the necessary conditions, crystals and rust are inevitable. -Crystals and rust are very simple products. Sixty years of research has come up with nothing but conjecture.-> The same may be true of pre-organic molecules. If the nature of the materials under the necessary conditions were sufficient to bring about the formation of DNA, then I think chance by way of evolution can account for the variety and complexity we see.-"The same may be true" requires lots of faith. Most reactions in organic chemistry require heat (certainly available in ocean floor vents) but also enzymes, some of which can be inorganic metals. These special perfect requirements will have to be in place in a very lucky fashion to achieve your wish. And it won't be DNA that appears, but simple organic molecules. Once they start to try and join each other to get to RNA and then DNA heat again will be required and at some point large, really massive organic enzymes will be required to push the reactions, which otherwise might take millions of years. We know it didn't take billion of years to reach life: Earth at 4.5 bya, life at 3.6-3.8 bya. The Earth cooled enough to try for life at 4.0 bya. So, life took 200-400 million years to get started. The point is you can't use the old approach of saying 'lots of time to do it'.-Welcome aboard 'whateverist' and join the debate!

7642 views

whateverist: What stretches the imagination is to imagine a designer with no beginning, no apprenticeship, no history of any kind.
Yet that is where we end up if we are skeptical about the powers of chance. Of course chance only enters into it once DNA, the machinery of evolution, is in place. From there adaptive/reproductive advantage of the rare chance mutation over eons of time makes perfect sense. But where'd that DNA come from?-May I join David in welcoming you to the forum. Your post sums up the agnostic dilemma. The quote with which you began ("something cannot have been designed if we cannot explain the existence of the designer") was my paraphrase of Dawkins' argument: "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." (p. 109 The God Delusion). Let me explain my objection to the Dawkins line. You will find that David Turell's posts in particular have drawn our attention to the immense complexity of DNA and the whole machinery that underlies evolution ... so complex that with our enormous intelligence we are still struggling to unravel it. And the more we discover, the more mysterious it all becomes. This is a problem in itself. Can you or can you not believe that this machinery assembled itself by accident? I can't. The alternative is, as you say, to believe in a designer who has been there for ever or who likewise assembled himself by accident. This too I find impossible to believe. The Dawkins line is to link the two problems as if the second automatically dealt with the first: if you can't believe in God, you can't believe in design. My line is that you can remain open-minded: you can acknowledge the unlikelihood of chance assembling these complexities, and you can acknowledge the unlikelihood of some supernatural, eternal intelligence. Dawkins' argument leads by extension to belief in chance. My line is that you are not compelled to believe in chance or in design ... hence agnosticism.-It appears from your post that you ARE prepared to believe in the chance assembly of the machinery. No-one can object to that, so long as you are aware that such belief is an act of faith akin to believing in a designer god. But you will not often find an atheist prepared to concede that his/her atheism is based on faith!-Once more, welcome to the group.

7687 views

It appears from your post that you ARE prepared to believe in the chance assembly of the machinery. No-one can object to that, so long as you are aware that such belief is an act of faith akin to believing in a designer god. But you will not often find an atheist prepared to concede that his/her atheism is based on faith!-
It will take lots of faith according to this new article using the Bayesian theorem to state that abiogenesis is rare in the universe:-http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1107.3835&qid=13118811238079a_nCnN_-1413568827&qs=Spiegel+and+Turner

7752 views

Dhw (to whateverist): It appears from your post that you ARE prepared to believe in the chance assembly of the machinery. No-one can object to that, so long as you are aware that such belief is an act of faith akin to believing in a designer god. But you will not often find an atheist prepared to concede that his/her atheism is based on faith!-DAVID: It will take lots of faith according to this new article using the Bayesian theorem to state that abiogenesis is rare in the universe:-http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1107.3835&qid=13118811238079a_nCnN_-141356...-If I were an atheist I would leap on this conclusion with a howl of delight. You don't need abiogenesis ... which I take to mean the hypothesis that life can emerge spontaneously from non-living materials ... to be common. If it is rare, it is believable. The only life we know of is life on Earth, and it is this very uniqueness which for me reduces the probability of abiogenesis to unbelievable odds. If life is found elsewhere ... particularly if it has evolved to advanced forms ... it still won't provide proof of abiogenesis, but it will certainly reduce those odds.

7716 views


> http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1107.3835&qid=13118811238079a_nCnN_-141356... 
> If I were an atheist I would leap on this conclusion with a howl of delight. You don't need abiogenesis ... which I take to mean the hypothesis that life can emerge spontaneously from non-living materials ... to be common. If it is rare, it is believable. The only life we know of is life on Earth, and it is this very uniqueness which for me reduces the probability of abiogenesis to unbelievable odds. If life is found elsewhere ... particularly if it has evolved to advanced forms ... it still won't provide proof of abiogenesis, but it will certainly reduce those odds.-It seems you are turning the rarity of life back on itself. With a 100 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in each, and with the knowledge that many stars have solar systems, the numbers of planets must be humongous. Therefore chance for life is enormous if the jump from inorganic to organic is common. The paper says it should not be common, but rare. If it is only on Earth then God is real. That is the import of the paper.

7696 views

David referred us to an article whose findings he summarized as "abiogenesis is rare in the universe". I argued that it didn't need to be common, as even rare examples would be welcome news to atheists.-DAVID: It seems you are turning the rarity of life back on itself. With a 100 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in each, and with the knowledge that many stars have solar systems, the numbers of planets must be humongous. Therefore chance for life is enormous if the jump from inorganic to organic is common. The paper says it should not be common, but rare. If it is only on Earth then God is real. That is the import of the paper.-Here is the paper:
Life arose on Earth sometime in the first few hundred million years after the young planet had cooled to the point that it could support water-based organisms on its surface. The early emergence of life on Earth has been taken as evidence that the probability of abiogenesis is high, if starting from young-Earth-like conditions. We revisit this argument quantitatively in a Bayesian statistical framework. By constructing a simple model of the probability of abiogenesis, we calculate a Bayesian estimate of its posterior probability, given the data that life emerged fairly early in Earth's history and that, billions of years later, sentient creatures noted this fact and considered its implications. We find that, given only this very limited empirical information, the choice of Bayesian prior for the abiogenesis probability parameter has a dominant influence on the computed posterior probability. Thus, although life began on this planet fairly soon after the Earth became habitable, this fact is consistent with an arbitrarily low intrinsic probability of abiogenesis for plausible uninformative priors, and therefore with life being arbitrarily rare in the Universe. -I may have misunderstood it, and I must confess I find it extremely hard to follow. Is he arguing that the process of abiogenesis itself (the spontaneous ... i.e. uncreated ... emergence of life from non-life) is improbable, or that given the information we have, there are likely to be far fewer instances of abiogenesis in the universe than some people have expected? You appeared to argue the latter ("abiogenesis is rare in the universe"), and my point is that you only need ONE instance of abiogenesis to give theism a nasty shock.-It's important that we all agree on what abiogenesis actually means. A Wikipedia article confirms my definition: "the study of how biological life arose from inorganic matter through natural processes." I have found an ID site that puts the argument against abiogenesis:- www.gotquestions.org/abiogenesis-definition-theory.html-This again confirms my definition, and I'm sure you will agree with every word, which is why I was surprised in the first place when you wrote abiogenesis was rare. All a big misunderstanding?

Tags:
ABIOGENESIS

7812 views

or that given the information we have, there are likely to be far fewer instances of abiogenesis in the universe than some people have expected? You appeared to argue the latter ("abiogenesis is rare in the universe"), and my point is that you only need ONE instance of abiogenesis to give theism a nasty shock.-Granted. And we are here. But by which method, abio, Godly work, witchcraft? 
> 
> It's important that we all agree on what abiogenesis actually means. A Wikipedia article confirms my definition: "the study of how biological life arose from inorganic matter through natural processes." I have found an ID site that puts the argument against abiogenesis:
> 
> www.gotquestions.org/abiogenesis-definition-theory.html
> 
> This again confirms my definition, and I'm sure you will agree with every word, which is why I was surprised in the first place when you wrote abiogenesis was rare. All a big misunderstanding?-No. The authors have concluded, from the knowledge we find on Earth that abio is likely to be very rare. Your definition is fine: Simply go from inert inorganic to living material by natural processes. Study of organic chemistry has to be part of the considerations. My conclusion, from my knowledge of biochemistry, that by definition abio is practically impossible. We only have the abstract to read, but I must conclude that authors considered biochemistry in their apriori reasoning in entering probabilities into their Baysian equations.

7700 views

I know that my grasp of chemistry is lacking but could we really be so far along in that field as to reasonably jump from "we don't yet understand the chemistry of abiogenesis" to "it just isn't impossible".-My grasp of mathematics is better but I don't see how it is possible to make any meaningful statistical analysis of a phenomenon for which we have exactly one data point, the earth.-I would like to know how we got here. It would be fascinating to find that out. But for me personally, not much rides on it. I can't think of any circumstance under which witch craft or a creator god would become appealing hypotheses for understanding the origins of life. Of course I can't demonstrate that but why worry? How hard should we work to rule out every origins myth we find? I'm content to assume there is a natural explanation for the natural world even before the details are completely understood.

7734 views

I know that my grasp of chemistry is lacking but could we really be so far along in that field as to reasonably jump from "we don't yet understand the chemistry of abiogenesis" to "it just isn't impossible".-There are 60+ years of research into abio so far, and all we know so far is how it doesn't work. As I keep repeating: to jump from inorganic to biochemistry is enormous and by chance probably impossible. Robert Shapiro has proposed a reasonable inorganic cyclical start. That was 4-5 years ago, and as 'reasonable' has not been actually confirmed. The field is pretty stagnant at this point, after such a glowing hopeful start in the 1950's.
> 
> My grasp of mathematics is better but I don't see how it is possible to make any meaningful statistical analysis of a phenomenon for which we have exactly one data point, the earth. -Well, we don't know if there are Earths elsewhere, but this universe is set up for carbon-based life, and that kind only. Therefore the parameters we recognize on Earth can be used for a statistical analysis for probabilities.
> 
> I would like to know how we got here. It would be fascinating to find that out. But for me personally, not much rides on it. I'm content to assume there is a natural explanation for the natural world even before the details are completely understood.-That assumption required oodles and oodles of pure faith. Just as faith in a diety requires oodles and oodles.

7710 views

[I'm still experimenting with ways of formatting quotes. Is there any standard protocol here?]-David's response: That assumption required oodles and oodles of pure faith. Just as faith in a diety requires oodles and oodles.-To my post: I would like to know how we got here. It would be fascinating to find that out. But for me personally, not much rides on it. I'm content to assume there is a natural explanation for the natural world even before the details are completely understood.-David, you may be right to say my assumption requires lots of faith but I don't think that is quite on par with the level of faith required to opt for a deity.-When my wife can't find her keys and I tell her they've got to be here somewhere I am asserting faith in a natural cause for their being missing. If you like you may assert that divine intervention cannot be ruled out. Holy hijinks is a possible explanation, it just isn't a tempting one and nor is it helpful.-There is an important difference in motivation between our two forms of faith when it comes to the origins of life. I'm motivated by curiosity but you have more at stake. You very much want for there to be a creator god, my opinion of course, because the idea of such a god has become fundamental to the way you conceive of meaning and purpose. So for deists generally (didn't mean to make it personal), faith really is something fervently wished for or expected. -It is also different because you MUST consider the possibility of a natural explanation. You must rule it out in order to turn to a deity. Even if I can't figure out exactly how the inorganic became the organic there is no logical necessity to considering the action of a deity. I frankly can't conceive of the circumstances that would make that a compelling hypothesis.

7666 views

[I'm still experimenting with ways of formatting quotes. Is there any standard protocol here?]-Set up 'quote message' and leave the quote you want and type in the your thoughts. Be sure to leave the '>' before line you are responding to, to make it italics. Delete what you wish.
> 
> David, you may be right to say my assumption requires lots of faith but I don't think that is quite on par with the level of faith required to opt for a deity.-I don't agree. I think they are equal.
> 
> It is also different because you MUST consider the possibility of a natural explanation. You must rule it out in order to turn to a deity. Even if I can't figure out exactly how the inorganic became the organic there is no logical necessity to considering the action of a deity. I frankly can't conceive of the circumstances that would make that a compelling hypothesis.-As folks here know I was agnostic after medical school. After 20 years of reading and studying cosmology, standard model, particle physics, and demolishing Darwin, I reached my own conclusion, universal intelligence, and wrote my book. It was published seven years ago, and I'm thinking about a revision based on scientific progress.

7659 views

Okay. Thanks for the summary of the earlier discussion. I do think that the transition from inorganic to organic should be almost expected given the necessary conditions, whatever exactly those may turn out to be. In this sense I think it would be common. -As a separate point, once the transition has been made at a location, I'm hypothesizing that the transition from the inorganic to the organic would cease. I'm guessing that once the double helix of DNA had achieved the ability to unzipper and rezipper to form new copies of itself, all the available material in the pre-organic soup would then become utilized as building blocks in that process .. thus cutting off the re-emergence of the organic from the inorganic.-Whether there is any other chemical structure or materials which could serve as a basis for life is unknown of course. It would not surprise me to learn that it is unique. There are other structures that seem to some degree to proliferate such as crystals but they just aren't what we would call life.-Thanks again for the clarification and the summary of the earlier discussion. I have to admit I find the article fairly technical and difficult to penetrate in places.

7727 views

Okay. Thanks for the summary of the earlier discussion. I do think that the transition from inorganic to organic should be almost expected given the necessary conditions, whatever exactly those may turn out to be. In this sense I think it would be common. -As a separate point, once the transition has been made at a location, I'm hypothesizing that the transition from the inorganic to the organic would cease. I'm guessing that once the double helix of DNA had achieved the ability to unzipper and rezipper to form new copies of itself, all the available material in the pre-organic soup would then become utilized as building blocks in that process .. thus cutting off the re-emergence of the organic from the inorganic.-Whether there is any other chemical structure or materials which could serve as a basis for life is unknown of course. It would not surprise me to learn that it is unique. There are other structures that seem to proliferate such as crystals but nothing we would call life.-Thanks again for the summary and explanation of the earlier discussion. I must admit I find the article fairly technical and difficult to follow in places too.

7673 views

Well drat. I was just nearing the end of a response to your previous response when your revision cast that into oblivion. Never had that happen before. Chance? -Oh well, most of my post simply listed what I suspected to be true about what you called abiogenesis. Since I have no expertise there, I'll let that go.-I do recall conceding that you may call what I suspect to be true a belief if you like so long as you understand it isn't a strongly held one. I would classify it as a hunch about something murky where proper conclusions are hard to come by. To say that I must admit that I "take my position on faith" however really goes too far. It isn't as though I hope fervently that abiogenesis is true. I can't see where I have anything more than curiosity riding on it.-At any rate, thank you for the welcome.

7705 views

Well drat. I was just nearing the end of a response to your previous response when your revision cast that into oblivion. Never had that happen before. Chance? 
> 
> Oh well, most of my post simply listed what I suspected to be true about what you called abiogenesis. Since I have no expertise there, I'll let that go.
> 
> I do recall conceding that you may call what I suspect to be true a belief if you like so long as you understand it isn't a strongly held one. I would classify it as a hunch about something murky where proper conclusions are hard to come by. To say that I must admit that I "take my position on faith" however really goes too far. It isn't as though I hope fervently that abiogenesis is true. I can't see where I have anything more than curiosity riding on it.
> 
> At any rate, thank you for the welcome.-Indeed, welcome!-I too have a similar predicament as yourself; abiogenesis or a creator, doesn't really matter to me in my daily life. Abiogenesis research hasn't really gotten off the ground yet, David spent alot of time researching it--it's in his book and a good source for his material is Robert Shapiro's "Origins."

--
\"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.\"

7687 views

Sometimes I think we worry too much about luckiness when it comes to abiogenesis. That the very sperm required to make me was the one out of millions to make it was 'lucky' but it had to be one of them. Some of the luster comes off when we realize we each of us won that race. So incredibly lucky as well as common as dirt.-Should we be just as amazed that water has three states and that we live on a planet where all three can be found? Or does the fact that we're here to tell the tale already settle the temperature range question?-That matter has the properties it does and that the laws of physics are likewise compatible with our existence .. still too lucky?-That earlier generations of stars made made heavier elements available .. lucky or just one more precondition which obviously got checked off or we would not be here to tell the tale?-Hate to be a wet blanket but lucky doesn't worry me.

7647 views

Sometimes I think we worry too much about luckiness when it comes to abiogenesis. That the very sperm required to make me was the one out of millions to make it was 'lucky' but it had to be one of them. Some of the luster comes off when we realize we each of us won that race. So incredibly lucky as well as common as dirt.
> -As a computer scientist I use probability all the time. It's tricky and slimy and your observation of sperm is a fine example of perspectivism in probability; by reversing the question we arrive at ultra-simple logic. (Similarly to the birthday paradox.) -> Should we be just as amazed that water has three states and that we live on a planet where all three can be found? Or does the fact that we're here to tell the tale already settle the temperature range question?
> 
> That matter has the properties it does and that the laws of physics are likewise compatible with our existence .. still too lucky?
> 
> That earlier generations of stars made made heavier elements available .. lucky or just one more precondition which obviously got checked off or we would not be here to tell the tale?
> 
> Hate to be a wet blanket but lucky doesn't worry me.-Luck doesn't bother me terribly much either, but the overall point of dhw's (site owner) is this: Believing that chance created all of this when combining all the statistics we're aware of--is an awful lot of faith. If you flatly deny any creator at all, you're automatically left with "got here by pure chance," and the key point of Shapiro/David is that there simply isn't enough time for all the contingent events to have come about by a purely random process. Of course we know that Evolution is not random (cells can "write-back" to their own genome and pass these traits on) but the workings of the simplest bacteria are far more than could be assembled by chance. Only 8 of the 20 amino acids needed for life existed on earth; where did the other 20 come from? Can we make a life-form on only 8 and evolve it? All compelling questions, none with a decent answer. -Gould stated that if the play of life were started over from the beginning that he thought it entirely unlikely that we would appear again. Maybe he's right, or maybe life is a common property of the cosmos wherever the conditions are right. (Your idea.) David's contention is that both ideas are wrong; but I'll leave him to defend his own ideas. -Myself, I'm an avid fence-sitter. I can't put faith in the nonmaterial (because I recognize that materialism is the only reliable method of gaining knowledge) but I also recognize that unfathomable faith that chance could *pop* make it all happen. I believe in faith less than in any other human notion, and thus my own trap is set and sealed...

--
\"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.\"

7651 views

At one time I would not have said so but I now find it just as compelling to understand my subjective experience as I do the external world. I needed to understand how it could be that I can seemingly adopt any stance I wish and yet find myself drawn to defend some positions over others. Where do my stongest held beliefs come from? The same applies to all preferences. Why do some books/movies move me and others not? Why do I find meaning in some activities but only alienation in others? All of these hint at a self that is not up to me because it is me. So where does that come from and how come there are such marked differences in how all this is expressed in various individuals?-Personally I find the question of our collective origins a fait de compli. We're here so there must be a story of how that came to be. I wouldn't expect it to be easy to track down but it is interesting. -I find the prospect of a creator god very suspect. Nothing points to that for me. No intuitive likelyhood whatsoever. Occam's razor says a mystery supported by another mystery itself shrouded in mystery is most likely much ado about nothing.-I do consider the question of deity to be a separate question from that of a creator. That there might be transpersonal 'entities' which vie with one another in our innermost beings seems much more plausible, though not something I think about a lot. Deity does not imply all knowing or all powerful or the fount of everything. That is a very extreme formulation and one I easily reject as too unlikely.

7673 views

At one time I would not have said so but I now find it just as compelling to understand my subjective experience as I do the external world. I needed to understand how it could be that I can seemingly adopt any stance I wish and yet find myself drawn to defend some positions over others. Where do my stongest held beliefs come from? The same applies to all preferences. Why do some books/movies move me and others not? Why do I find meaning in some activities but only alienation in others? All of these hint at a self that is not up to me because it is me. So where does that come from and how come there are such marked differences in how all this is expressed in various individuals?
> -We are in similar positions; I've found refuge in Buddhist teachings, Nietzsche, and recently--Dostoevsky. (Your mileage may vary...)-One thing I can agree with having studied something along the lines of 8 various religions at this stage in my life... there ARE commonalities. I'm currently reading "The Hero with 1,000 Faces" by Joseph Campbell, he does an earth-shattering analysis of MANY world myths and goes at great length to show the common thread that links them all--indeed, the subjective experience itself seems to give some tantalizing hints in regards to cross-cultural patterns of mythos...-If you don't care for reading technical books about Zen, you might enjoy "Siddharta" by Herman Hesse. In the last year I found it to be both a wonderful book of literature as well as an introduction of sorts to a different way of exploring the psyche.-> Personally I find the question of our collective origins a fait de compli. We're here so there must be a story of how that came to be. I wouldn't expect it to be easy to track down but it is interesting. 
> 
> I find the prospect of a creator god very suspect. Nothing points to that for me. No intuitive likelyhood whatsoever. Occam's razor says a mystery supported by another mystery itself shrouded in mystery is most likely much ado about nothing.
> -You and I are in stark agreement here. -> I do consider the question of deity to be a separate question from that of a creator. That there might be transpersonal 'entities' which vie with one another in our innermost beings seems much more plausible, though not something I think about a lot. Deity does not imply all knowing or all powerful or the fount of everything. That is a very extreme formulation and one I easily reject as too unlikely.-This is reminiscent of old paganism: Our various psychological states represented as Gods. No more unlikely than any other formulation...

--
\"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.\"

7672 views

Well good. It is gratifying to find some common experience out there. I have read some Hesse as well as something about Zen, the religions of the world, mythology, Jungian psychology (especially James Hillman) and lots of science (especially evolution and development theory). I studied philosophy in college and I'll be 60 before much longer. I teach math to the young since I wouldn't be comfortable exploiting my access to them to implant opinions. There is a usefulness about math that makes what I do conscionable. My hidden agenda is to teach critical thinking. Afterall, math is the easiest kind to do and builds a sense of validity and how to test for it. How about you?

7617 views

Well good. It is gratifying to find some common experience out there. I have read some Hesse as well as something about Zen, the religions of the world, mythology, Jungian psychology (especially James Hillman) and lots of science (especially evolution and development theory). I studied philosophy in college and I'll be 60 before much longer. I teach math to the young since I wouldn't be comfortable exploiting my access to them to implant opinions. There is a usefulness about math that makes what I do conscionable. My hidden agenda is to teach critical thinking. Afterall, math is the easiest kind to do and builds a sense of validity and how to test for it. How about you?-Another math guy! -The thing I love about math... the first time a proof "clicks," as in I understand it, and by understand I mean I can think through the problem forwards, sideways, and backwards... it is an experience that I can only define as "experiential." I think it directly compares with the old religious idea of "gnosis" or "sudden understanding." There is an "inhuman" shock here, and as you are aware there's a huge leap from being able to understand and manipulate some symbols to truly understanding their meaning. It is this... "mystical" experience that I think best represents that form of knowledge that simply isn't concrete. If you forgive me for poetry, Math really is a gateway to the divine. (No... I don't mean Platonism... )-First, my real name is Matt, so feel free to use that instead of my 'nym. I've found no need to hide myself on this board. (especially when compared to some others...)
To the more practical matter, myself I'm 31. I'm in my first year of my Master's in CS and my second year working as a programmer. I started out wanting to study pharmacy, was knocked onto the path of medical research after an interesting encounter with a Creationist teacher, and after 2 summers in a biochem lab decided on computers. (Fully nontraditional student... started university at 23...)-I was (sort of) raised Episcopalian, but as a single mom-household and an only child, I think I've only been to church maybe 100 times in my young life. What firmly knocked me into atheism in my youth was George Carlin, actually. His bit about abortion completely knocked me flat when I was 15. (As to why agnosticism, I am an extreme skeptic--beyond Agrippa.) I didn't start heavily studying religions however until I started writing a novel about 4 years ago. (fits and starts) Coupled with the forced introspection of Buddhist meditation it's opened up a broad avenue of exploration.

--
\"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.\"

7675 views

Nice to get the background. I'll probably stick to my 'nym as I'm ambivalent about making my religious feelings known at school. (I'm not on a mission to do in religion and I don't want for kids to have to confront my lack of religion in order to have a useful student/teacher relationship.)-You have such a different family back ground than I do. I'm the second oldest of 7 if you can imagine. My father was non-officer military so we moved every few years. My father was very religious and his grandfather had been a minister of a small church in a small town in Oregon. My mother was religious but for her that had much to do with good and bad as intuited at a gut level. I can't ever remember her asserting any religious dogma and I never saw her pick up a bible. My father was the one who was always pouring over the bible. He was the polar opposite of my mother in that he was all about dogma, with no empathy or critical reflection whatsoever. I believe he looked to the bible for his marching orders. For him the point of religion was to do whatever god damn well wanted you to do. -I barely remember going to church but we stopped sometime before I started going to school. Probably because he wasn't around and it would be a lot of bother for one woman alone to manage so many of us. Nonetheless I remember having a very vivid sense of god's presence. If you'd asked me then what I thought god was I would have said "the best", meaning one who would always know the best thing to do in any situation for the betterment of all. I envisioned god sitting around alone forever, always intending what was best for everyone without ever usurping their choices. -Early on it struck me as suspect that god would give a hoot about our 'praises' as my father would call it. It also struck me as lame that what god would most want from us is that we tow the line, following all the commandments at all cost. I decided that what god would want would be true companionship and that could only come if we were worthy. To be worthy, I decided meant doing what I felt was best for my own reasons. It meant holding myself accountable not for following simple rules but for figuring out what was best and then choosing that. When we met I wouldn't have to say, I was only following orders. Wrong or right, I'd be able to defend my actions.-This relationship with my 'imaginary friend' had a huge influence on who I am. I sometimes worry about how the young can develop without such an experience. That is part of why I'm in no hurry to disparage or dispose of religion. If only as a developmental tool perhaps it serves a purpose.-So in early elementary school I was a huge fan of god. I have an uncle who is an atheist and as much as I liked him, I could never get over what an ingrate he was. But in a few years I started having serious doubts. I remember in 5th grade thinking a lot about whether god as I had understood it could possibly be real. By middle school I reluctantly decided against it with a huge sense of loss. By then my values and disposition were pretty well set so I have to admit that culturally I am a christian even though I don't believe any of it.-Well that's got to be enough or too much.

7723 views

whateverist,
> Well that's got to be enough or too much.-No problem at all... you made me feel I hadn't shared enough!-After Carlin, I stopped being able to be ambivalent towards religion or a God at all, and fell down a completely opposite path from you, where I poured all of my youthful rage and frustration--into a God I didn't believe in... Ten years ago I wouldn't have given a theist the time of day. -I don't know if I was angry at myself for "being duped" or why I cared so much about religion... but there were enough religious a$$holes on the internet that I couldn't really take any of them seriously, and I got angry easily.-I began spending time in alt.atheism, and grew disenchanted over time... I realized that faith & dogmatism were the root of evil, and NOT religion itself. When I started analyzing the statement "God does not exist" I came upon the sudden realization that theists were right--it DOES take faith to make that claim. The only thing we can safely say that is that religious texts are poor guides when it comes to the material world. There are formulations of God (Deism, especially what I term "radical" deism.) that wouldn't be challenged by a natural explanation, though I don't see the need to resort to them. -The foundational moment for me in terms of taking the mystical/mythical seriously ironically came from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." My mother taught me novels, but Nietzsche taught me how to read. Breaking apart words into symbols, or exploring two seemingly contradictory statements in order to arrive at "reality," gave me the first insight into religious thinking that wasn't just following rules. Very shortly after that my Zen experiences began to take shape as well, so that I developed what I can only say is a powerful insight; knowing isn't something that can be contained in words; to know means you've transcended words. dhw here has described this as "internalization" and while that's not a bad word, it doesn't quite fit what I'm discussing. But I feel strongly that this subjective side of knowing is what sits at the root for most religious people.

--
\"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.\"

7708 views

"There are formulations of God (Deism, especially what I term "radical" deism.) that wouldn't be challenged by a natural explanation, though I don't see the need to resort to them."-I agree on both points. Theists need not worry so much about the natural world -and- while you can reasonably embrace both science and a deity, what do we need the deity for?-"I developed what I can only say is a powerful insight; knowing isn't something that can be contained in words"-Yep, you can say a lot of things but you can't convey in words what it is to realize a thing without words. I'm convinced it is possible to recognize what is significant, urgent or possible at any moment without the use of any language, internally or inter-personally. Dogs do this all the time as do many other creatures who cannot express what it is they recognize in language. Their kind of knowing is more immediate. We have this capacity too but we tend to let it atrophy by relying too much on language. Too often I suspect people don't know what they think until they sound it out in words. By then of course what they think is filtered, limited and twisted by the language itself into a weak facsimile of the wordless realization they don't even recognize having experienced. Language is a mixed blessing. -You make me curious to go back and re-read some Nietzsche. On the topic of books I'd have to say Pirzig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance" and Alan Watts' "The Wisdom of Insecurity" probably gave me the most to think about. But I also got a lot from reading e.e. cummings' "Six Non-lectures", James Hillman's "Re-visioning Psychology", and Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle".

7697 views

"There are formulations of God (Deism, especially what I term "radical" deism.) that wouldn't be challenged by a natural explanation, though I don't see the need to resort to them."
> 
> I agree on both points. Theists need not worry so much about the natural world -and- while you can reasonably embrace both science and a deity, what do we need the deity for?
> 
> "I developed what I can only say is a powerful insight; knowing isn't something that can be contained in words"
> 
> Yep, you can say a lot of things but you can't convey in words what it is to realize a thing without words. I'm convinced it is possible to recognize what is significant, urgent or possible at any moment without the use of any language, internally or inter-personally. Dogs do this all the time as do many other creatures who cannot express what it is they recognize in language. Their kind of knowing is more immediate. We have this capacity too but we tend to let it atrophy by relying too much on language. Too often I suspect people don't know what they think until they sound it out in words. By then of course what they think is filtered, limited and twisted by the language itself into a weak facsimile of the wordless realization they don't even recognize having experienced. Language is a mixed blessing. 
> -Buddhism centers so much on breaking the reliance of language. That short snipped from Hesse I have in my sig is repeated by every Zen teacher I have read or met. Reality comprehended is NOT comprehended by words, it's comprehended... perhaps at the level of the soul, whatever value that word still has in today's society. -The two books I recommend for anyone who asks me about Buddhism are "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind," by Suzuki, and "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" by Thich Nhat Hanh. The Suzuki book begins giving you meditation techniques, the same ones I've found useful for exploring my inner life. Hanh offers MANY other technical books on meditation. 
 -> You make me curious to go back and re-read some Nietzsche. On the topic of books I'd have to say Pirzig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance" and Alan Watts' "The Wisdom of Insecurity" probably gave me the most to think about. But I also got a lot from reading e.e. cummings' "Six Non-lectures", James Hillman's "Re-visioning Psychology", and Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle".-I consider myself quite fluent in Nietzsche. TSZ is his masterwork by his own admission. I don't get the impression at all that he was the angry atheist I learned about in my youth, and that he simply saw the great mystery for exactly what it was. -I haven't heard of Watts' book, from the reviews at Amazon it should have been on my reading list years ago. It sounds very much like EXACTLY what Buddhism teaches; security only exists in the here and now, attachment to possibilities creates unhappiness. Didn't know about Cummings either. I'll finish Jung and Campbell before I tread the road of Hillman. And Vonnegut... so many books, so little time!!!

--
\"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.\"

7603 views

"Cat's Cradle" is so much fun. If I were a deist I'd be a Bokonist. (I am truly grateful for getting to be "sitting up mud".) This would be the book to bring to the beach .. just hope no one drops any ice 9 in the water while you're in it.

7607 views

Addendum -On Wikipedia I found this under something like "Reception for the book":-"The New York Post stated in an editorial that Cat's Cradle was no more or less than the best novel by an American writer published in the 20th century.[citation needed] Politicians[who?] used Vonnegut's writing in Cat's Cradle as an example of the dangerous nature of science, which was then used to make a case against science classes in public schools. Vonnegut rejected these uses of his text by saying "If there is any real point in my writing it must be that humans are far too ignorant of science. Any argument otherwise is just a more vivid illustration of this fact."

7640 views

MATT: Luck doesn't bother me terribly much either, but the overall point of dhw's (site owner) is this: Believing that chance created all of this when combining all the statistics we're aware of is an awful lot of faith.-That is far from being my overall point! As you know, I am like yourself an "avid fence sitter", and belief in chance and belief in a conscious creator BOTH require an awful lot of faith, which I don't have. I do, however, have great respect for those who are able to take the plunge, provided they respect others who do not share their faith, and I find it an endless source of education and often wonderment at the insights provided both by believers and by sceptics. Yeah, I think that sums up my "overall point".

7697 views

MATT: Luck doesn't bother me terribly much either, but the overall point of dhw's (site owner) is this: Believing that chance created all of this when combining all the statistics we're aware of is an awful lot of faith.
> 
> That is far from being my overall point! As you know, I am like yourself an "avid fence sitter", and belief in chance and belief in a conscious creator BOTH require an awful lot of faith, which I don't have. I do, however, have great respect for those who are able to take the plunge, provided they respect others who do not share their faith, and I find it an endless source of education and often wonderment at the insights provided both by believers and by sceptics. Yeah, I think that sums up my "overall point".-And I keep gently kidding those on the picket fence. How do the buttocks feel today? To quote Matt: chance =s 'an awful lot of faith'. On the side of Diety we have Pascal's leap. I didn't find it difficult, when it seems to me to be logical. If chance can't do it, who or what can? It is much harder to believe in Stenger's always existing quanta than an everlasting intelligence. The quanta have to get by chance to the information that runs life. Now that expectation is a doozy!

7657 views

MATT: Luck doesn't bother me terribly much either, but the overall point of dhw's (site owner) is this: Believing that chance created all of this when combining all the statistics we're aware of is an awful lot of faith.
> 
> That is far from being my overall point! As you know, I am like yourself an "avid fence sitter", and belief in chance and belief in a conscious creator BOTH require an awful lot of faith, which I don't have. I do, however, have great respect for those who are able to take the plunge, provided they respect others who do not share their faith, and I find it an endless source of education and often wonderment at the insights provided both by believers and by sceptics. Yeah, I think that sums up my "overall point".-I'll amend that to "dhw's often argued point TO ME," lol. Acceptable?

--
\"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.\"

7743 views

Sometimes I think we worry too much about luckiness when it comes to abiogenesis. lucky or just one more precondition which obviously got checked off or we would not be here to tell the tale?
> 
> Hate to be a wet blanket but lucky doesn't worry me.-The Anthropic Principle, which I view as circular reasoning, really says what you have said, but slightly differently: we are here because we are here and it is all those conditions you stated and a whole bunch more, which we can identify, that show us all the pre-conditions that were met to allow us to be here. And we are smart enough to do all that science of identification. Are we talking about serendipity or purpose when we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and of the Earth, a tuning which allows life? -Each of us can look at the evidence and choose: chance or purpose? Take your choice, unless the evidence seems to you stronger on one side rather than the other. Then your choice is stronger than just a coin flip. For me, viewing all the evidence we have, purpose is the proper choice.

7659 views

I like the way you allow for a substrate with which a designer would have to work in order to have created the universe. So many people seem to think that the elements and the speed of light and everything else was god's arbitrary whim. If there must be a creator, let her be intelligent at least.-"Are we talking about serendipity or purpose when we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and of the Earth, a tuning which allows life?"-I lean the other way but after arguing fruitlessly with my religious brother your stance is refreshing. It makes it possible for you to embrace big bangs and evolution and absolutely anything else science may uncover as evidence of god's fine tuning. I've argued endlessly with him that none of this is something that he should take as evidence against the christian god.

7628 views


> "Are we talking about serendipity or purpose when we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and of the Earth, a tuning which allows life?"
> 
> I lean the other way but after arguing fruitlessly with my religious brother your stance is refreshing. It makes it possible for you to embrace big bangs and evolution and absolutely anything else science may uncover as evidence of god's fine tuning. -I don't buy the God of religion. I think the evidence from science is that there is a universal intelligence, that religions call God. All of my reasoning has started from science, not the Bible. But I do accept the statement in the Bible that we are made in God's image, in that we have intellect which is a tiny part of the universal intelligence. I believe that the universal intelligence is both within and without our universe, which makes me a panentheist. My reasoning here is that the Big Bang came from nothing, but there has to be a First Cause, and I am a strong Thomist in this regard.

7743 views

I like the way you allow for a substrate with which a designer would have to work in order to have created the universe. So many people seem to think that the elements and the speed of light and everything else was god's arbitrary whim. If there must be a creator, let her be intelligent at least.
> 
> "Are we talking about serendipity or purpose when we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and of the Earth, a tuning which allows life?"
> 
> I lean the other way but after arguing fruitlessly with my religious brother your stance is refreshing. It makes it possible for you to embrace big bangs and evolution and absolutely anything else science may uncover as evidence of god's fine tuning. I've argued endlessly with him that none of this is something that he should take as evidence against the christian god.-The best thing about David's book is that it has the possibility of bringing religious people like your brother back to the table. My mother just became interested in the book when she saw it here... she's a YEC (and yes I'm going to hell, lol.) I don't necessarily agree with David's thesis but so far it's incredibly well written, argued, and doesn't make claims to hocus-pocus.

--
\"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.\"

7695 views

The best thing about David's book is that it has the possibility of bringing religious people like your brother back to the table. My mother just became interested in the book when she saw it here... she's a YEC (and yes I'm going to hell, lol.) I don't necessarily agree with David's thesis but so far it's incredibly well written, argued, and doesn't make claims to hocus-pocus.-Matt: thank you. Finish it! ;-() And tell me what your Mother thinks when she has read it. I'll be going to hell also, and I don't believe in hell, as you know.

7750 views

Sorry, what's a "YEC"?

7611 views

Sorry, what's a "YEC"?-A young earth creationist

7684 views

Sometimes I think we worry too much about luckiness when it comes to abiogenesis. lucky or just one more precondition which obviously got checked off or we would not be here to tell the tale?
> > 
> > Hate to be a wet blanket but lucky doesn't worry me.
> 
> The Anthropic Principle, which I view as circular reasoning, really says what you have said, but slightly differently: we are here because we are here and it is all those conditions you stated and a whole bunch more, which we can identify, that show us all the pre-conditions that were met to allow us to be here. And we are smart enough to do all that science of identification. Are we talking about serendipity or purpose when we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and of the Earth, a tuning which allows life? 
> -I find the Anthropic principle as dangerous because it closes the door on exploring universes that couldn't support life. There's alot of good information that I think could inform us about our universe in all those cases.-> Each of us can look at the evidence and choose: chance or purpose? Take your choice, unless the evidence seems to you stronger on one side rather than the other. Then your choice is stronger than just a coin flip. For me, viewing all the evidence we have, purpose is the proper choice.-Or a different perspective: Insufficient data.

--
\"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.\"

7688 views


> 
> I find the Anthropic principle as dangerous because it closes the door on exploring universes that couldn't support life. There's alot of good information that I think could inform us about our universe in all those cases.-If we could leave our universe to study the others.
> 
> Or a different perspective: Insufficient data.-You may be the math guy, but there is plenty of data so far, according to math guys less stringent than you.

7662 views


> > 
> > I find the Anthropic principle as dangerous because it closes the door on exploring universes that couldn't support life. There's alot of good information that I think could inform us about our universe in all those cases.
> 
> If we could leave our universe to study the others.-That's not necessary: Our models are good. Fantastically good, even. We can explore them mathematically. -http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027-> > 
> > Or a different perspective: Insufficient data.
> 
> You may be the math guy, but there is plenty of data so far, according to math guys less stringent than you.-My problem here is only that the problem of life has really only had 60 years (by your own accord) of time. I'm not prepared to compute probabilities in regards to how life got here until we've really exhausted all of our options.

--
\"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.\"

7666 views


> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027
> 
> > > 
> > > Or a different perspective: Insufficient data.-I view the computer model as human input of known facts in this universe. There is then supposition for an electroweak universe. That is all the paper is, supposition. Supposition is NEVER proof that such a universe can ever exist. String Theory is theory, not proof of anything. And how do we learn about life's origin here by supposing differences elsewhere that may be just fairy tales?

7652 views


> > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Or a different perspective: Insufficient data.
> 
> I view the computer model as human input of known facts in this universe. There is then supposition for an electroweak universe. That is all the paper is, supposition. Supposition is NEVER proof that such a universe can ever exist. String Theory is theory, not proof of anything. And how do we learn about life's origin here by supposing differences elsewhere that may be just fairy tales?-You're missing my point... by ignoring the other universes that could possibly exist (such as one without the electroweak force) you're engaging in identical folly as the physicists invoking the anthropic principle. One of these "failed" universes could hold a theoretical key... one that could unlock deeper secrets pertaining to our own universe--within our own model. -It's the same flaw I've seen in abiogenesis research: Stop trying to recreate life "as it was" and just "get it done."

--
\"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.\"

7709 views


> You're missing my point... by ignoring the other universes that could possibly exist (such as one without the electroweak force) you're engaging in identical folly as the physicists invoking the anthropic principle. One of these "failed" universes could hold a theoretical key... one that could unlock deeper secrets pertaining to our own universe--within our own model. 
> 
> It's the same flaw I've seen in abiogenesis research: Stop trying to recreate life "as it was" and just "get it done."-If you are inventing a supposition you are dealing with pie in the sky. I realize you are a math guy and a computer guy, but computer simulations are as good as the guesses of the folks who write the program. Science is an attempt to find true facts. Having been raised in hard sciences, the computer stuff makes me shake my head in disbelief. -As for abiogenesis, at least the folks find RNAzymes to support their theory, but that step is a thousands steps beyond the beginning, but what is the beginning? It is all guesswork, as are the fake universes.

7705 views


> > You're missing my point... by ignoring the other universes that could possibly exist (such as one without the electroweak force) you're engaging in identical folly as the physicists invoking the anthropic principle. One of these "failed" universes could hold a theoretical key... one that could unlock deeper secrets pertaining to our own universe--within our own model. 
> > 
> > It's the same flaw I've seen in abiogenesis research: Stop trying to recreate life "as it was" and just "get it done."
> 
> If you are inventing a supposition you are dealing with pie in the sky. I realize you are a math guy and a computer guy, but computer simulations are as good as the guesses of the folks who write the program. Science is an attempt to find true facts. Having been raised in hard sciences, the computer stuff makes me shake my head in disbelief. 
> -True, all programs are only as good as their programmers and their input data. But if your computer model (like the ones they use for this kind of research) accurately creates a universe that models ours to the degree of precision that we have--remember that WMAP verified what we predicted with computer models--than there should be no problem running experiments while tweaking those models to our heart's content. Establishing theoretical upper and lower bounds such was what was done in the link I posted is very important, because it allows us to build a range of possible theoretical universes, and more importantly, allows us a much more accurate picture of exactly how unique our universe is. -That reads badly... -Another way of putting it is this: If you accept that the big bang model agrees with observation, then you implicitly accept the precision of the mathematics that describe it. The models run in experiments like in what I showed use the exact same equations used to study the Big Bang, they just subtracted a force and observed what happened to the universes. If you label these simulations as "guesses" than you really throw the entire Big Bang mathematical model into question--NOT just this particular experiment. -You can't accept that the model fits reality, and then reject experiments based on tweaking the same model. Their scientific validity cannot be refuted. If there's a flaw here, it exists everywhere in the math, not just in isolated cases.-> As for abiogenesis, at least the folks find RNAzymes to support their theory, but that step is a thousands steps beyond the beginning, but what is the beginning? It is all guesswork, as are the fake universes.-See above.-[EDITED] hopefully for more clarity...

--
\"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.\"

7669 views


> Another way of putting it is this: If you accept that the big bang model agrees with observation, then you implicitly accept the precision of the mathematics that describe it. The models run in experiments like in what I showed use the exact same equations used to study the Big Bang, they just subtracted a force and observed what happened to the universes. If you label these simulations as "guesses" than you really throw the entire Big Bang mathematical model into question--NOT just this particular experiment. 
> [EDITED] hopefully for more clarity...-Now very clear. you ARE a good teacher. But, if the laws were presented before the Big Bang only this universe exists, and that is all we can really know. I still can't accept dealing with a multiverse we cannot see or prove. See my entry in 'protocol' prevous.

7709 views


> > Another way of putting it is this: If you accept that the big bang model agrees with observation, then you implicitly accept the precision of the mathematics that describe it. The models run in experiments like in what I showed use the exact same equations used to study the Big Bang, they just subtracted a force and observed what happened to the universes. If you label these simulations as "guesses" than you really throw the entire Big Bang mathematical model into question--NOT just this particular experiment. 
> > [EDITED] hopefully for more clarity...
> 
> Now very clear. you ARE a good teacher. But, if the laws were presented before the Big Bang only this universe exists, and that is all we can really know. I still can't accept dealing with a multiverse we cannot see or prove. See my entry in 'protocol' prevous.-I think maybe you're getting hung up on my use of "universes." Each time you run one of these sims, it's a universe under experimental consideration. It has nothing to do with any multiuniverse theory, strings, etc. In fact I've said on multiple occasions that I don't like String Theory.-Why this experiment is significant, is that they were able to create stable universes missing an entire force. Now, could life REALLY exist there? That's a much harder question. Radioactive elements are required for life here-->our geology is just one of many factors assisting us. But these universes created the known elements of life, so the potential is at least there.

--
\"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.\"

7640 views


> Why this experiment is significant, is that they were able to create stable universes missing an entire force. Now, could life REALLY exist there? That's a much harder question. Radioactive elements are required for life here-->our geology is just one of many factors assisting us. But these universes created the known elements of life, so the potential is at least there.-In part that is my point. Even if there was a glimmer of hope that life might exist in a universe missing one of our forces, what does that prove? we still have lots to learn about this universe. How does working from the negative help?

7733 views


> > Another way of putting it is this: If you accept that the big bang model agrees with observation, then you implicitly accept the precision of the mathematics that describe it. The models run in experiments like in what I showed use the exact same equations used to study the Big Bang, they just subtracted a force and observed what happened to the universes. If you label these simulations as "guesses" than you really throw the entire Big Bang mathematical model into question--NOT just this particular experiment. 
> > [EDITED] hopefully for more clarity...
> 
> Now very clear. you ARE a good teacher. But, if the laws were presented before the Big Bang only this universe exists, and that is all we can really know. I still can't accept dealing with a multiverse we cannot see or prove. See my entry in 'protocol' prevous.-And I agree, we can only confirm things we have access to in this universe. (Forgot to mention that.) When I worked with the plant biochemist back in '07, he brought in a mutant henbit. (lamium Amplexicaule) In the shade, chlorophyll seemed to fade from its leaves. The important lesson from the prof was this: science is advanced by studying the outliers, the abnormal cases. By studying abnormal universes (even if we can't visit them) they may uncover anomalies that could give us the information we need to resolve quantum and classical mechanics without needing to resort to more outlandish theories.

--
\"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.\"

7666 views

The important lesson from the prof was this: science is advanced by studying the outliers, the abnormal cases. By studying abnormal universes (even if we can't visit them) they may uncover anomalies that could give us the information we need to resolve quantum and classical mechanics without needing to resort to more outlandish theories.-You have a point if what is obtained is valid information. To paraphrase you, so little time so many papers to publish to obtain tenure. What is more worthwhile a subject, the imaginary or the real? -In many ways I am as skeptical as you are. I don't like perpetual tenure, and I think peer review is a disaster. I know, I'm an old fart, who thinks the olden days were better.

7690 views

The important lesson from the prof was this: science is advanced by studying the outliers, the abnormal cases. By studying abnormal universes (even if we can't visit them) they may uncover anomalies that could give us the information we need to resolve quantum and classical mechanics without needing to resort to more outlandish theories.
> 
> You have a point if what is obtained is valid information. To paraphrase you, so little time so many papers to publish to obtain tenure. What is more worthwhile a subject, the imaginary or the real? 
> -If our models are so fantastic, they aren't so imaginary...-> In many ways I am as skeptical as you are. I don't like perpetual tenure, and I think peer review is a disaster. I know, I'm an old fart, who thinks the olden days were better.-You guys didn't have peer review? -I think things would be prompted to change more frequently if Tenure was always tenuous. But traditional peer review is unravelling... the internet allows anyone to publish papers, bypassing review, and allowing technical experts who aren't on the review panels to have access. It's already been happening in Computer Science for some time, there are very few journals for Computer Science.

--
\"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.\"

7614 views


> You guys didn't have peer review? -The current peer review is rather recent. I had some papers taken by reputable journals simple by sending them in and the editor liked them. Three while I was in the army over a two year period, only one with a co-author. My boss in my fellowship, Hellerstein, was internationally known. We submitted a few without any fighting.I published one while a fellow at Baylor, post-army, easily accepted by the J. Physiology. Of course, I wrote nothing but good papers with interesting results.

7685 views


> The Anthropic Principle, which I view as circular reasoning, really says what you have said, but slightly differently: we are here because we are here and it is all those conditions you stated and a whole bunch more, which we can identify, that show us all the pre-conditions that were met to allow us to be here. And we are smart enough to do all that science of identification. Are we talking about serendipity or purpose when we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and of the Earth, a tuning which allows life? -
Here is an incomplete review of fine tuning in the Universe, but it is a good beginnning to understand what is meant. There are about 20 very important very large or very small parameters, and about 80 less important ones. This article covers a few:-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.500-existence-why-is-the-universe-just-right-for-us.html?page=1

7708 views

Here is an incomplete review of fine tuning in the Universe, but it is a good beginnning to understand what is meant. There are about 20 very important very large or very small parameters, and about 80 less important ones. This article covers a few:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.500-existence-why-is-the-universe-just-r...

More fine tuning. Another characteristic of water that makes it ideal for life to occur:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.900-waters-quantum-weirdness-makes-life-...

7458 views

Faith has nothing to do with 'fervently hoping' something is true. It is the assured expectation of things to come, though not beheld. i.e. You have faith that it will be proven to be true, though you have no direct evidence.

7644 views

I'm happy to split that hair. It seems like incorrect use of the language to call my suspicions regarding the origins of life "faith". That word requires much more investment than I bring to it. I don't mind calling my suspicions a "belief" but "faith" feels wrong.-By contrast I readily admit to having faith that there are deeper levels of the self which are not up to me and which determine what I can find meaningful and fulfilling. I also have faith that I can discover these things although I also believe access can be denied if our attitude and conscious beliefs are too far out of whack. In these unsupportable beliefs I have faith, conviction and confidence.-I think those whose beliefs regarding origins edge closer to deism (rightfully) feel the decision is a momentous one. I lean the other way. The only reincarnation I expect is that which my compost pile produces every day in my garden.

7761 views

Whateverist: Well drat. I was just nearing the end of a response to your previous response when your revision cast that into oblivion. Never had that happen before. Chance?-That happens to me all the time, and this post is a good example. I am usually in bed when most of these exchanges take place. (I am British.) I drafted two replies last night, and woke up this morning to find a dozen new posts! Never mind, it helps the Americans to keep believing they are ahead of the rest of the world.-Whateverist: Oh well, most of my post simply listed what I suspected to be true about what you called abiogenesis. Since I have no expertise there, I'll let that go.-See my latest post to David.-whateverist: I do recall conceding that you may call what I suspect to be true a belief if you like so long as you understand it isn't a strongly held one. I would classify it as a hunch about something murky where proper conclusions are hard to come by. To say that I must admit that I "take my position on faith" however really goes too far. It isn't as though I hope fervently that abiogenesis is true. I can't see where I have anything more than curiosity riding on it.-"A hunch about something murky" is a great description, and I think curiosity is probably the healthiest motive of all. That's probably what drives most of us on this site, and it seems to me that the more we learn, the more aware we become of how little we know. That doesn't stop us from arguing, though!

7721 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum