The Universe - Yet Another Search for the Creator
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Muhlenberg,
And such hostility is fine but that is still different from asserting that particular fantasy characters do not exist. I find it sufficient to show that theistic ideas are imaginative fantasies and then request theists to show they are more – something that hasn’t occurred yet. If you read Secular Nation or accept news from AA then you’ll find that is the preferred approach.
I’m not familiar with that particular perversion of atheism – it would seem unrecognisable to the modern atheist.
And such hostility is fine but that is still different from asserting that particular fantasy characters do not exist. I find it sufficient to show that theistic ideas are imaginative fantasies and then request theists to show they are more – something that hasn’t occurred yet. If you read Secular Nation or accept news from AA then you’ll find that is the preferred approach.
I’m not familiar with that particular perversion of atheism – it would seem unrecognisable to the modern atheist.
In fact, i meant by 'current life forms' all the known and unknown but probably/possibly existing life forms. From your points, it is not difficult to argue that the 'creator' designed the universe so effeciently that it supports not only earthlings, and 'life' itself is exceptional when considering other zillions of possible states of universe without life.sideshowbob said:
I was just joking.
Find any polytheist, most probably he would be an IDist.
Inferrence based on other possibilities may not be a strong evidence but that will suffice to suspect a hand.Cris said:
New light on dark energy
24 June 2004
Cosmologists in the US have made the most accurate measurements ever of how dark energy varies with time -- and found that it remains constant. Yun Wang at the University of Oklahoma and Max Tegmark at the University of Pennsylvania performed numerical simulations on observational data from supernovae, the cosmic microwave background and galaxy clusters. The results lend further support to the existence of dark energy (Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 241302).
The acceleration of the universe is driven by a force that has repulsive rather than attractive gravitational interactions. But although this so-called "dark energy" is thought to account for around two-thirds of the universe, no one knows what it is made of. The first evidence for dark energy came from supernovae observations in 1998. Further evidence arrived in 2002 from a survey of 250,000 galaxies and later from observations of gravitational lensing.
Some explanations for dark energy -- such as quintessence, modified gravitational theories that include extra dimensions, or string physics -- suggest that dark energy could change with time. If dark energy became progressively weaker, the universe would eventually collapse in on itself in a "big crunch". If it became stronger, on the other hand, the universe would tear itself apart in a "big rip".
Tegmark and Wang used a novel model-independent approach to measuring the dark-energy density. They analysed data from type 1a supernovae, recorded with the Hubble Space Telescope; the cosmic microwave background (CMB) taken with the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (WMAP) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS); and from large-scale galaxy cluster observations.
The results agree with recent observations on supernovae that suggested that dark energy remains constant with time. Moreover, the physicists calculated that if the dark energy density were to change with time, a big crunch or big rip could not occur for at least 50 billion years for models that allow such events. "I'm struck by the fact that the dark energy seems so 'vanilla'," Tegmark told PhysicsWeb. "Theorists have invented scores of elegant models where it increases or decreases its density over time, yet even with this new improved measurement, it remains perfectly consistent with Einstein's Lambda model where its density is a mere constant."
- http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/6/14
Details about dark energy is still incomplete. But it has repulsive rather than attractive gravitaional interactions and is a driving force in expansion of the universe. Till now it is thought to be constant, means no big crunch.
Come on Cris, don't assess life with anthropic pessimism.
Athelwulf said:
Next time it's snowing, go outside and watch the snowflakes fall. Every time you focus in on one snowflake and track it as it comes from the murk of the sky and falls to the blinding background of snow on the ground, consider the odds.
There are billions, perhaps trillions of snowflakes falling, and out of all of them, you're looking at this one. In all the Universe, despite all else, at that moment there is you and this snowflake. The odds against seeing that snowflake in specific are enormous, and yet seeing a single snowflake is hardly significant.
It works best as an illustration of why we shouldn't be impressed by certain statistical results.
In terms of Raithere's point, the snowflake issue becomes even fuzzier. Given the nature of dice, however, witnessing that snowflake is actually more rare an occasion than rolling 32. Unless, of course, X and N preclude that result (e.g. two six-sided dice equals 12 as a maximum possible outcome).
Statistical accidents of crushing improbability happen every day.
Additionally, given the nature of general relativity and other factors combined with the sheer size of the Universe, an arrangement of matter and energy that equals life becomes nearly a statistical inevitability.
Either way, the improbability of the occurrence of life in the Universe, and also the occurrence of human intelligence, are not nearly so mind-boggling as the creationist would have you believe.
This snowflake. This space. This moment.
The Universe is. We can find out what we can about it, or just presume its nature and say, "Good enough".
One of those options defies the history of the human endeavor.
I think this James Gardner theory is piffle.
As an atheist, I say "If the only way to explain life is to postulate superintelligent aliens, how then did they come about?"
If I were a theist, I would say, "Come on, you wuss! If you have a scientific theory postulating a Creator, don't hide behind 'Superintelligent aliens', call it God and be done with it!"
I'm a believer in the weak anthropic principle. There are many possible Universes, possibly co-existing, possibly sequential, possibly both. Life appears in those in which the various values for objects work to create the kind of Universe we see and which is conducive to life. We are life, therefore we can only exist in those Universes in which those laws apply (or possibly - we can exist in that part of the one Universe in which those laws apply, if the laws are not constant across all spacetime). Therefore we should not be surprised to find those conditions apply here.
The Strong Anthropic Principle has always struck me as being too mystical.
As an atheist, I say "If the only way to explain life is to postulate superintelligent aliens, how then did they come about?"
If I were a theist, I would say, "Come on, you wuss! If you have a scientific theory postulating a Creator, don't hide behind 'Superintelligent aliens', call it God and be done with it!"
I'm a believer in the weak anthropic principle. There are many possible Universes, possibly co-existing, possibly sequential, possibly both. Life appears in those in which the various values for objects work to create the kind of Universe we see and which is conducive to life. We are life, therefore we can only exist in those Universes in which those laws apply (or possibly - we can exist in that part of the one Universe in which those laws apply, if the laws are not constant across all spacetime). Therefore we should not be surprised to find those conditions apply here.
The Strong Anthropic Principle has always struck me as being too mystical.
For the purpose of the analogy, 32 would mean the existence of life. This is exactly my point. We do not and perhaps cannot know what N and X are regarding the occurrence of the Universe. Any speculation remains unfounded thus far. To assert the probability (or improbability) of a particular outcome remains nothing but speculative fantasy.everneo said:
~Raithere
All we know is N & X are too big. If significant number (or all) of outcomes have a statistical inevitability of having life/intelligence somewhere then it is a differnt matter (in the sense, in that case too, i wonder how just matter/energy has the ability to form life by mere combinations of constituents, may be it has something to do with how you and me are taking 'life' - an emergent property of matter/process or an entity that has purpose). But, when taking into account of the observable density distribution of life forming conditions in an outcome (which would not vary too much for other outcomes), say like the present state of universe, is it not that its is very rare? OR is there any such outcome where life could easily popup just as the existance of 'dead' rocks moving around in the space we know of alot. My point is, such statistical inevitability, to have life somewhere among the 'dead' matters in universe's vast expanse, in any outcome itself could be suspected, whether it is just part of natural process/laws or an intelligence is behind the whole thing.Raithere said:
Tiassa, you do not understand statistics at all.tiassa said:
Let's take your snow storm. When you look at a particular snowflake, you are assuming that any old snowflake will do. The chance that you are looking a snowflake is 100% - no surprise at all. However, when confronted with the complexities of life, you aren't looking for just any configuration. For life you need one particular configuration (or in the case of DNA, you need one of several million configurations out of trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions...). Now, if you want to make this a true statistical test then start by assuming that all snowflakes have a different shape, calculate one possible shape and then look for that particular snowflake. If you can find one particular snowflake, then you are beginning to understand the complexity of the statistical problems confronting life.
Your example is just silly and shows an utter lack of statistical understanding.
Yes - the chances against life occuring randomly in the universe are utterly mind-boggling, and statistically utterly impossible.
The two ways to look at it is to be the frog-thing... then be the created thing.tiassa said:
Hairy one.
Relativity seems to prevail... but it then depends on how much control that frog-thing has on the creation (how will the creation [sentients] ever know that?).
For Christians, control is not absolute, and so relativity seems to prevail (believe what you want).
Hairy one.
The only sane way out is through faith. Through faith you can declare (the spectrum from atheist to theist... and alienist somewhere in there). In the end you'll either find out if your faith was/is of substance... or not.
That is what the teachings of Jesus, and the Bible as a whole advocate - faith [in God and yourself].
No other way out (whichever frequency you occupy).
Last edited:
In this case I think the parameters (N,X) are based somewhere in the hypotheses. But parameters are placed, thus N,X. N can have a range of values possible, X can have a range of possible values; from the result of 32 of the Ns and Xs from theory you get a probability. What's wrong with that? I think this error is subjectively biased.Raithere said:
But isn't that what String Theory appears (attempts) to dictate? As far as I can see it, science has advanced much on conjecture and serendipity, and speculation (hypotheses). You speculate based on what you see then you search for evidence of your speculation. How is this diifferent from the situation above? You have to start somewhere.
Regardless, hence the function of faith. Too bad we wouldn't all just put our faith in God.
That is faith. But if faith is foolishness then we are all foolish in our own way then. Or maybe one is not foolish.Cris said:
Faith must be from God (as sure as God exists), and through faith in God (and in ourselves) we will discover the truth in God.
Faith + God = Truth.
My conjecture. Take it or leave it.
No. We have no way to really determine N and X are... We can hypothesize and imagine what the boundaries might be but we simply do not know. There could be an infinite number of Universes or there could be just this one. The parameters may be infinite or they may be constrained in such a way that any possible Universe necessarily has conditions which would allow life and/or intelligence to occur. For that matter, can we define life in such a way that it makes any sense under differing laws of physics and chemistry? We just do not know. We are speculating upon what the conditions are beyond the Universe, an iffy proposition at best.everneo said:
Cris and Tiassa have already touched upon this. You're calculating for a specific target as if it were a necessary outcome but there is nothing that indicates it was a necessary outcome. The calculation, while interesting, is essentially meaningless.
Another analogy would be to lay out a deck of cards in series. As with Tiassa's snowflake, any specific outcome is extremely improbable (1 in 8.06581751709439e+67), yet you get such an improbable result every time. If you could logically reason 'therefore god' based upon improbability, the conclusion would be the same for every result whether life were possible or not because every possible specific outcome is equally improbable.
"Alive" and "Dead" are categories, the real world is not so distinctly defined. Upon examining life we find there are no real mysteries, there is no magical life force, just the workings of natural laws that we see everywhere.
Actually, Tiassa's analogy is quite apt, it is your reasoning that is wrong. There is no reason to assume there is or can be only one particular configuration for life. In fact, we find many different configurations. Just because things are does not mean they must have been.David F. said:
Here's the problem. Let's assume that we can determine that this particular Universe was incredibly improbable. This doesn't mean that anything peculiar is going on. People tend to assign significance to things simply because they're improbable but unless you know how something happened there's no reason to do so.MarcAC said:
Getting hit by lighting, winning the lottery, and being dealt a royal flush are all very improbable events but when they happen it does not indicate that something fishy is going on or that god must be involved.
Similarly, even if this Universe only had a probability of 1 in 10^100 of occurring that it occurred doesn't indicate any special significance. Because if you think about it for a moment you'll realize that every possible Universe was equally unlikely. Add all these improbabilities up and you get a 1 in 1. Of course we can then add to the fun by asking, "What are the odds that no Universe would exist?"
~Raithere
I honestly don't see the formation of DNA from simple amino acids interracting with each other such an unbelievable thing.
Then again, I'm a reductionist.
People seem to think that one day there was 20 proteins floating around in a pool, then the pool gets struck by lightening and >poof< there's a single celled life form.
I tend to think that this one protein interracted with that one.
The two of them interracted for perhaps a very long time.
Then they happened to interract with another one.
It could have been many millions (billions, even) of years of simple chemical interractions before anything even resembling DNA began to develop.
Millions of years after that still then we may have had our first bacterium.
Why this seems so impossible to people I simply don't understand.
Please explain to me what you think I am missing.
Then again, I'm a reductionist.
People seem to think that one day there was 20 proteins floating around in a pool, then the pool gets struck by lightening and >poof< there's a single celled life form.
I tend to think that this one protein interracted with that one.
The two of them interracted for perhaps a very long time.
Then they happened to interract with another one.
It could have been many millions (billions, even) of years of simple chemical interractions before anything even resembling DNA began to develop.
Millions of years after that still then we may have had our first bacterium.
Why this seems so impossible to people I simply don't understand.
Please explain to me what you think I am missing.
Raithere said:
Speaking of fishy ... it occurs to me that theistic creationists might be looking in the wrong place.
Humanity is not the evidence of God.
Marijuana is.
At least, by the Babel fish argument.
Of course, that's only if you find it kind.
Presuppositions, presuppositions.
(The answer to the question unwrit, of course, is "No, not nearly enough".)
OK, life forming conditions might not be varying much in possible universes. But in any given universe, are the life forming conditions simple as formation of helium / rocks or other things that are majority but without a sign of life?. My point is those conditions are, in any state of any universe, not as common as formation of things that have no support for life. But i understand what you say that there could be a chance, as a statistic inevitabilty, for formation of life/intelligence.Raithere said:
Yes we don't know. There could be (or not) different life forms if the laws of physics&chemistry differ.
No, it is the occurence of 'a chain of events' (that result in formation of life/intelligence within the universe that might be naturally constrained to include the possibilty of life forming conditions) that fascinates me. Such a possibility could remain 'unhappened' for eternity considering the rest of the universe that is seemingly 'dead' otherwise. Since it has happned we are talkiing about that as an unavoidable possibility to happen anyway. Would you agree that it need not happen at all (though there is a possibility) in all these 13.5 billion years after big bang or 50 billion years or till the big-rip off of the universe if it happens?
I think it is you who is arguing life as necessary outcome, well atleast an unavoidable outcome.
Cris was telling that, as i understand, focusing on the sepecific outcome itself is an anthropic view.
Tiassa's snowflake example is confusing. I can determine which flake i should concentrate thereby nullifying all the statistical odds against that specific snowflake. Would this be comparable with events that has already occured such as life formation?
As with deck, probablity of occuring ANY one of all the possible series is 1. Probabilty of occuring a specific series is 1/(8e+67) as you said. If that series is necessary for me for some reason then i would wonder whether it is a freak accident or providence.