I would estimate that we are all familiar with the fine tuning argument that is put forth by intelligent design proponents. I am attempting to understand this argument and I hope that someone can help me.
The argument is that if any one of many things had happened a slightly different way or were changed slightly then life would not exist, and somehow this proves that an intelligent designer had to have created the universe.
The big bang - If it had not occurred exactly the way it did then the universe would have collapsed in upon itself or expanded too fast for anything to form. First of all I don't really know how they arrive at this assumption...might things have unfolded differently but not catastrophically?
How can we even be sure that it could have happened any other way?
(I hate to say this and I don't adhere to it but if they are making ill founded assumptions I'll ). How can we know that the force applied by the big bang did not gradually build over time by collapsing in on itself then expanding by slightly larger degrees until it reached a point of relative stability and failed to collapse inward(Again I don't ascribe to this).
This argument also tackles other things like strong nuclear force and asserts that were it different the universe could not have formed in its current state. I agree with this assertion. Heinz Oberhummer covered this topic in depth and I won't reinvent the wheel here, but I will pose some questions.
Why should we assume that life as we know it is the only form in which life can exist? Why wouldn't life simply share in the alteration? Why would we assume that the strong force could be any different than it is?
I admit that I have not researched this argument in depth, and I apologize for that but I don't really see the need. I think that I an answer to at least one of my questions but I will wait for others to swing away at them.
final question: How does the amount of 'fine tuned' variables support the existence of an intelligent designer?
The fact that we exist is proof that these variables are tuned in favorable ways but it is not a license to assume that they had to be consciously 'set' in such a manner. I'm tired of absurd arguments, part of me hopes that I don't understand this one and that it raises some valid questions but right now I just don't see it. If I am seeing this issue clearly then I am insulted that it is raised during serious discussions. I could have gone much more in depth with the questions and I will do so if someone manages to grant legitimacy to this issue.
All very good questions. Keep asking them.
I've always found their arguments to be somewhat lacking. It's true, had things been different, then things would be different... (duh!) but, so what?
I've always found their arguments to be somewhat lacking. It's true, had things been different, then things would be different... (duh!) but, so what?
It's a version of the Anthropic Principle wherein instead of assuming that there are many universes and we inhabit one that had happened to have conditions favorable for evolving observers such as ourselves, one assumes that there are no other universes (or no other corners of ours with different physical laws) and therefore the favorable conditions are so unlikely that the only explanation is intentional creation.
Yeah, I glossed over a lot of nuances and variants (strong vs. weak, etc.).
Yeah, I glossed over a lot of nuances and variants (strong vs. weak, etc.).
QUOTE (barakn+Mar 18 2008, 08:45 PM)
It's a version of the Anthropic Principle wherein instead of assuming that there are many universes and we inhabit one that had happened to have conditions favorable for evolving observers such as ourselves, one assumes that there are no other universes (or no other corners of ours with different physical laws) and therefore the favorable conditions are so unlikely that the only explanation is intentional creation.
Yeah, I glossed over a lot of nuances and variants (strong vs. weak, etc.).
Ah, that makes sense. (From their point of view.)
It boils down to the "we are in the image of god" thingy. WE are the point of the universe; therefore, had things been different then WE would not be here.
Yeah, I glossed over a lot of nuances and variants (strong vs. weak, etc.).
Ah, that makes sense. (From their point of view.)
It boils down to the "we are in the image of god" thingy. WE are the point of the universe; therefore, had things been different then WE would not be here.
If we are going down the path that leads to us being the only option wouldn't we need to show that things could potentially have developed differently before we jump to something like ID?
Why is intelligent design even toyed with? What piece of evidence makes it a viable alternative? I don't know of anything that even remotely points to the existance of such an intelligence. I maintain that even if we some of this evidence did negate our theories it would not point towards an intelligent designer. Why even make suggestions that aren't based on or at least suggested by even partial evidence?
I'm just saying that it is not a safe alternative. If I hear a noise outside and theorize that I will see whatever made the noise on my surveilance system but the cameras catch nothing can I then assume that the pope made the noise?
Why is intelligent design even toyed with? What piece of evidence makes it a viable alternative? I don't know of anything that even remotely points to the existance of such an intelligence. I maintain that even if we some of this evidence did negate our theories it would not point towards an intelligent designer. Why even make suggestions that aren't based on or at least suggested by even partial evidence?
I'm just saying that it is not a safe alternative. If I hear a noise outside and theorize that I will see whatever made the noise on my surveilance system but the cameras catch nothing can I then assume that the pope made the noise?
Hi all,
Yes, very interesting questions.
In regards to the fine tuning argument, perhaps it's the other way around as in the Universe is the way it is and Life is fine tuned to exist within it.
This is Evolution.
There is a sometimes overwhelming idea that because everything appears so complex and ordered to us that it could not have happened by any other means than intentional creation from a thinking mind.
Humans are pattern seeking creatures. Our brain seems to reward us when we find a pattern or solve a problem or puzzle. Fellow Humans also offer praise when this is achieved, however we also have a habit of disregarding chaos in the pursuit of order. Why else would we create familiar pictures out of the positions of Stars?
Order is apparently easier for us to digest and more importantly, predict.
The fact that order is possible at all is strange, however perhaps with enough chaos, order is inevitable? or at least in our instance.
Well they're big questions, that I can only speculate, however I am always skeptical of those that claim to have all the answers figured out, maybe one day we will find evidence of ID, but not yesterday or today.
regards
Yes, very interesting questions.
In regards to the fine tuning argument, perhaps it's the other way around as in the Universe is the way it is and Life is fine tuned to exist within it.
This is Evolution.
There is a sometimes overwhelming idea that because everything appears so complex and ordered to us that it could not have happened by any other means than intentional creation from a thinking mind.
Humans are pattern seeking creatures. Our brain seems to reward us when we find a pattern or solve a problem or puzzle. Fellow Humans also offer praise when this is achieved, however we also have a habit of disregarding chaos in the pursuit of order. Why else would we create familiar pictures out of the positions of Stars?
Order is apparently easier for us to digest and more importantly, predict.
The fact that order is possible at all is strange, however perhaps with enough chaos, order is inevitable? or at least in our instance.
Well they're big questions, that I can only speculate, however I am always skeptical of those that claim to have all the answers figured out, maybe one day we will find evidence of ID, but not yesterday or today.
regards
That was very well said Sinister. I am not attempting to banish ID as a possibility I am simply trying to figure out how this kind of evidence is supposed to support it.
I have heard that the Anthropic Principle has a logical weakness, actually. Though I haven't yet followed the discussion in depth.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Mar 19 2008, 06:13 PM)
That was very well said Sinister. I am not attempting to banish ID as a possibility I am simply trying to figure out how this kind of evidence is supposed to support it.
Firstly, thank you,
Ah, sorry I didn't mean my post to be directed at you specifically, just throwing stuff up in the air, who knows some of it might land on 'Correct'
I have similar questions regarding ID and Creationism etc. The problem is the answer is the question. Intelligent design is more like a statement, a conclusion and so is Creationism. This (IMO) almost rules them out straight away before we get into the finer details.
I guess going back to the Fine tune argument, my way of visualizing analogy is similar to the way bacteria and fungi etc all thrive and develop within a supportive system, which might simply be some old bin bags or in the middle of a Land fill. We probably wouldn't consider the Land Fill as a 'fine tuned' environment.
Its just that the fungi and bacteria thrive in that particular environment, just as we thrive on Earth, so I guess my analogy means that the Cosmological Constant is analogous to a load of old bin bags
Regards
Firstly, thank you,
Ah, sorry I didn't mean my post to be directed at you specifically, just throwing stuff up in the air, who knows some of it might land on 'Correct'
I have similar questions regarding ID and Creationism etc. The problem is the answer is the question. Intelligent design is more like a statement, a conclusion and so is Creationism. This (IMO) almost rules them out straight away before we get into the finer details.
I guess going back to the Fine tune argument, my way of visualizing analogy is similar to the way bacteria and fungi etc all thrive and develop within a supportive system, which might simply be some old bin bags or in the middle of a Land fill. We probably wouldn't consider the Land Fill as a 'fine tuned' environment.
Its just that the fungi and bacteria thrive in that particular environment, just as we thrive on Earth, so I guess my analogy means that the Cosmological Constant is analogous to a load of old bin bags
Regards
The fine tuning argument always reminds me of Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" analogy.
One day a puddle of water wakes up and finds it has acquired sentience. It looks around and thinks. "Wow, this hole I am in fits me quite nicely. It's like this hole was designed especially for me. I am the reason this hole is here!"
One day a puddle of water wakes up and finds it has acquired sentience. It looks around and thinks. "Wow, this hole I am in fits me quite nicely. It's like this hole was designed especially for me. I am the reason this hole is here!"
It's a lot of fun thinking that this entire Universe was begun with me as a goal!
This human-centered idea is so popular because it gives us a blank check to plunder and generally destroy the world without having to think twice. There is no responsibility involved in any of our actions because the entire universe was created for us and us alone. Everyone has read about how angry the establishment was when it was proposed that the sun and the universe didn't revolve around the earth.
All else aside: even if the universe was created for us why shouldn't we handle it justly? This leads to a whole new discussion and a whole new school of thought. Perhaps I'll start a thread to get some ideas flowing on the topic....
All else aside: even if the universe was created for us why shouldn't we handle it justly? This leads to a whole new discussion and a whole new school of thought. Perhaps I'll start a thread to get some ideas flowing on the topic....
I like the term CRAP.
Gardner's input, I believe, for completely ridiculous.
Ahh yes, my notes from 2004 bear this out:
http://www.premier1.net/~raines/story.html
The Watchmaker revisited:
WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP
<SKIP>
The non-theist explanations were various versions of the Anthropic Principle. The original or Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), stated that we wouldn't be here to wonder about the "coincidences" or "fine-tuning" of the universe if it wasn't, in fact, fine-tuned. We shouldn't be surprised then, if it is fine-tuned-- if it wasn't we wouldn't be here. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) stated that for some unknown reason, the universe must take on the finely tuned characteristics for life to be possible. Perhaps there is some unknown "law[s]" of nature that governs this.
The Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) states that conscious observers such as ourselves are necessary to bring about the universe. In some sense, we "participate" in the creation of the universe as we go along by "observing" it into being, in accordance with certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.[12] The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) states that we are or will eventually become the creator. We will evolve to the point where we will be able to create events in the past, such as the creation of the universe.
However, even proponents of the original Anthropic Principle (WAP) admit that it "doesn't explain anything" in terms of why the universe is designed to such a "fine" degree to allow us to exist. Most Cosmologists use it to explain the "design" apparent in nature, but are not enthusiastic about it. The other Anthropic Principles have only a handful of supporters. Martin Gardner for example made the following famous swipe at FAP which I believed applied to them all to one degree or another:
What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle. [13]
He later again took up ridiculing Frank Tipler's FAP explanation (now called Omega Point Theology or OPT). He said he would leave it to the reader to determine if OPT was "a new scientific religion superior to scientology -- one destined to elevate Tipler to the rank of prophet greater than L. Ron Hubbard-- or opt for the view that OPT is a wild fantasy generated by too much reading of science fiction." [14]
To me, the various Anthropic principles sounded (and still do) like another Great Green Arkleseizure Theory. Explaining the creation of the universe from something outside of space and time as we know it and the design parameters of the universe to chance alone, or that we somehow create the universe as we go or will become Omnipotent and Omniscient enough [i.e., God enough] in the future to tweak all the necessary delicate parameters to bring about our existence in the past is beyond "ridiculous" or "CRAP." Douglas Adams, Monty Python, and the Jatravarteds, I believed, could come up with similarly plausible theories.
Gardner's input, I believe, for completely ridiculous.
Ahh yes, my notes from 2004 bear this out:
http://www.premier1.net/~raines/story.html
The Watchmaker revisited:
WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP
<SKIP>
The non-theist explanations were various versions of the Anthropic Principle. The original or Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), stated that we wouldn't be here to wonder about the "coincidences" or "fine-tuning" of the universe if it wasn't, in fact, fine-tuned. We shouldn't be surprised then, if it is fine-tuned-- if it wasn't we wouldn't be here. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) stated that for some unknown reason, the universe must take on the finely tuned characteristics for life to be possible. Perhaps there is some unknown "law[s]" of nature that governs this.
The Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) states that conscious observers such as ourselves are necessary to bring about the universe. In some sense, we "participate" in the creation of the universe as we go along by "observing" it into being, in accordance with certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.[12] The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) states that we are or will eventually become the creator. We will evolve to the point where we will be able to create events in the past, such as the creation of the universe.
However, even proponents of the original Anthropic Principle (WAP) admit that it "doesn't explain anything" in terms of why the universe is designed to such a "fine" degree to allow us to exist. Most Cosmologists use it to explain the "design" apparent in nature, but are not enthusiastic about it. The other Anthropic Principles have only a handful of supporters. Martin Gardner for example made the following famous swipe at FAP which I believed applied to them all to one degree or another:
What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle. [13]
He later again took up ridiculing Frank Tipler's FAP explanation (now called Omega Point Theology or OPT). He said he would leave it to the reader to determine if OPT was "a new scientific religion superior to scientology -- one destined to elevate Tipler to the rank of prophet greater than L. Ron Hubbard-- or opt for the view that OPT is a wild fantasy generated by too much reading of science fiction." [14]
To me, the various Anthropic principles sounded (and still do) like another Great Green Arkleseizure Theory. Explaining the creation of the universe from something outside of space and time as we know it and the design parameters of the universe to chance alone, or that we somehow create the universe as we go or will become Omnipotent and Omniscient enough [i.e., God enough] in the future to tweak all the necessary delicate parameters to bring about our existence in the past is beyond "ridiculous" or "CRAP." Douglas Adams, Monty Python, and the Jatravarteds, I believed, could come up with similarly plausible theories.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 21 2008, 02:04 PM)
It's a lot of fun thinking that this entire Universe was begun with me as a goal!
And all this time I thought it was all about me.
DOH
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Mar 21 2008, 06:43 PM)
And all this time I thought it was all about me.
DOH
No, it was all about ME! You're both wrong!
DOH
No, it was all about ME! You're both wrong!
That explains a lot !!!!
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 21 2008, 09:04 PM)
That explains a lot !!!!
Interestingly enough, it doesn't explain how you can be such astoundingly hypocritical idiot. I suppose that question is best left unanswered, though.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't explain how you can be such astoundingly hypocritical idiot. I suppose that question is best left unanswered, though.
QUOTE (barakn+Mar 19 2008, 02:45 AM)
It's a version of the Anthropic Principle wherein instead of assuming that there are many universes and we inhabit one that had happened to have conditions favorable for evolving observers such as ourselves, one assumes that there are no other universes (or no other corners of ours with different physical laws) and therefore the favorable conditions are so unlikely that the only explanation is intentional creation.
If the universe is infinite, then it can be assumed that there exist an infinite number of planets, and that it is possible for a planet to have conditions capable of supporting life (which happens to be the case). Therefore, the possibility of life eventually happening on at least one of those planets is 100%.
If the universe is infinite, then it can be assumed that there exist an infinite number of planets, and that it is possible for a planet to have conditions capable of supporting life (which happens to be the case). Therefore, the possibility of life eventually happening on at least one of those planets is 100%.
This argument , as with all teleological ones, begs the question that some divinity had us in mind when natural selection did not. Furthermore, it and the probability one only recognize one outcome when others are possible.The presumpt\tion of naturalism holds.
So, Shard is right!
"If the universe is infinite, ..."
However...
Hebrews 1:10-12
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
... the Creator ought to know, right?
MrB.
However...
Hebrews 1:10-12
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
... the Creator ought to know, right?
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 16 2008, 01:11 PM)
"If the universe is infinite, ..."
However...
Hebrews 1:10-12
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
... the Creator ought to know, right?
MrB.
I can recreate the penulum experiments.
Can you get a fresh copy of that quote direct from the Creator?
However...
Hebrews 1:10-12
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
... the Creator ought to know, right?
MrB.
I can recreate the penulum experiments.
Can you get a fresh copy of that quote direct from the Creator?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 16 2008, 01:11 PM)
"If the universe is infinite, ..."
However...
Hebrews 1:10-12
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
... the Creator ought to know, right?
MrB.
No, king james doesn't seem to know much, just repeats errors from the past...
g.
However...
Hebrews 1:10-12
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
... the Creator ought to know, right?
MrB.
No, king james doesn't seem to know much, just repeats errors from the past...
g.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but the fine tuning argument is the position that the universe seems to be fine tuned for the development of life.
Well, has anyone considered that the universe might be fine tuned for the purpose of supporting uranium, or plutonium, or for the development of solar systems or gas giant planets? All of those are equally valid variations...
Not that any of it is particularly valid. The question of why the various physical constants hold the values that they do is a philosophical one, not a scientific one at this point. Perhaps one day we will understand physics enough to expect an answer to that question.
Of course, it could also be opined that the physical constants were not always the same. Perhaps they fluctuated randomnly or increased slowly or even exponentially until they reached the point where they are now, at which time the big bang occured and they got "locked" into place...
Well, has anyone considered that the universe might be fine tuned for the purpose of supporting uranium, or plutonium, or for the development of solar systems or gas giant planets? All of those are equally valid variations...
Not that any of it is particularly valid. The question of why the various physical constants hold the values that they do is a philosophical one, not a scientific one at this point. Perhaps one day we will understand physics enough to expect an answer to that question.
Of course, it could also be opined that the physical constants were not always the same. Perhaps they fluctuated randomnly or increased slowly or even exponentially until they reached the point where they are now, at which time the big bang occured and they got "locked" into place...
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 16 2008, 05:57 PM)
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but the fine tuning argument is the position that the universe seems to be fine tuned for the development of life.
And usually not just life but more specifically life as we know it.
And even more specifically sometimes to life as it is.
And who says the constants are locked into place?
They might be changing so slightly we can't measure the change.
And usually not just life but more specifically life as we know it.
And even more specifically sometimes to life as it is.
And who says the constants are locked into place?
They might be changing so slightly we can't measure the change.
QUOTE
They might be changing so slightly we can't measure the change.
Nothing exists without motion. Motion is fundamental to existence.
g.
Bats
And you would know that how??? Do you hear voices???
Grumpy
QUOTE
... the Creator ought to know, right?
And you would know that how??? Do you hear voices???
Grumpy
Double Helix and the Essence of Life
Hebrews One
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
Revelation Six
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(KJV)
Acts Seventeen
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
(KJV)
See Strong's number(s) 1667 & 2795 for the New Testament.
Hebrews One
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(KJV)
Revelation Six
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(KJV)
Acts Seventeen
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
(KJV)
See Strong's number(s) 1667 & 2795 for the New Testament.
Bats
QUOTE
...Bible babble...
Meh,
ID is ridiculous in its most basic premise.
Since we cannot know anything about whether or not the Universe or anything was "Guided" by intelligence, (since the definition of the supposed entity "guiding" is so nebulous as to successfully evade even the most rigorous definition and is unfalsifiable). I also suspect this "presumption of naturalism", what exactly is that supposed to mean? I suspect it is on no firmer ground.
Just illustrate it does not conform to scientific method, as it makes an unfalsifiable and impossible to falsify assumption, that makes no difference to the real objective conclusion, therefore it should be eliminated as subjective.
Whether or not the Universe was "guided" makes no difference to the hard science and observations, so it should be excluded from the description. It should be labeled what it is, subjective philosophy, with no place in Hard Science.
ID is ridiculous in its most basic premise.
Since we cannot know anything about whether or not the Universe or anything was "Guided" by intelligence, (since the definition of the supposed entity "guiding" is so nebulous as to successfully evade even the most rigorous definition and is unfalsifiable). I also suspect this "presumption of naturalism", what exactly is that supposed to mean? I suspect it is on no firmer ground.
Just illustrate it does not conform to scientific method, as it makes an unfalsifiable and impossible to falsify assumption, that makes no difference to the real objective conclusion, therefore it should be eliminated as subjective.
Whether or not the Universe was "guided" makes no difference to the hard science and observations, so it should be excluded from the description. It should be labeled what it is, subjective philosophy, with no place in Hard Science.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 17 2008, 09:11 PM)
Bats
He's not even as amusing as that analysis that shows that the Song American Pie is about Bill Gates and Microsoft taking over the world.
He's not even as amusing as that analysis that shows that the Song American Pie is about Bill Gates and Microsoft taking over the world.
buttershug
Blind(and therefore stupid)
Grumpy
Blind(and therefore stupid)
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 18 2008, 10:05 AM)
Blind(and therefore stupid)
Grumpy
So, you are saying that the subset "blind" of the set of humans is contained in and limited to the subset "stupid?
come on Grumpy, you may THINK that but...really!
what a comment! ..even if it was a bad joke..
Bloy
Blind to reason, Blind faith, Blind to reality, Blind to their own hypocrisies.
"There is none so blind as he who WILL not see."
Grumpy
Blind to reason, Blind faith, Blind to reality, Blind to their own hypocrisies.
"There is none so blind as he who WILL not see."
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 18 2008, 10:23 AM)
Bloy
Blind to reason, Blind faith, Blind to reality, Blind to their own hypocrisies.
"There is none so blind as he who WILL not see."
Grumpy
A much better way to say it...you've restored my faith in you!
But we must consider that we too are blind:
Sure, all the factions that exist under the term "religion" often miss their mark when representing it. But we are blinded by the glare these misconceived ideologies represent. We reflect an "anti-religious" posture when denouncing that we very well might be moving forward into a future where we discover (through science) the target of our evolutionary process. Who knows? Not they, not you , certainly not me, can claim that we were not in the least an accident by an intelligence of unfathomable breadth when considering the infinities upon infinites of induced evolution. From where... to where?
Blind to reason, Blind faith, Blind to reality, Blind to their own hypocrisies.
"There is none so blind as he who WILL not see."
Grumpy
A much better way to say it...you've restored my faith in you!
But we must consider that we too are blind:
Sure, all the factions that exist under the term "religion" often miss their mark when representing it. But we are blinded by the glare these misconceived ideologies represent. We reflect an "anti-religious" posture when denouncing that we very well might be moving forward into a future where we discover (through science) the target of our evolutionary process. Who knows? Not they, not you , certainly not me, can claim that we were not in the least an accident by an intelligence of unfathomable breadth when considering the infinities upon infinites of induced evolution. From where... to where?
>>> impossible to falsify assumption, <<<
While I have generally agreed with you, Deadbeat, about ID and its half baked attempt to be called theory... that construction of words you used could be called an axiom, quite common in scientific arguments.
The science is in the eschatology.
Evolution proposes nonsense. Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics. Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model.
MrB.
Serious theories need serious competitor(s)! I would think ID could become serious when...(when and if more money is thrown at it?)
While I have generally agreed with you, Deadbeat, about ID and its half baked attempt to be called theory... that construction of words you used could be called an axiom, quite common in scientific arguments.
The science is in the eschatology.
Evolution proposes nonsense. Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics. Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model.
MrB.
Serious theories need serious competitor(s)! I would think ID could become serious when...(when and if more money is thrown at it?)
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 19 2008, 11:12 AM)
Evolution proposes nonsense.
Just cause you don't get it don't make it nonsense.
Devolution only happens when you reverse the arrow of time, and neither evolution or devolution has squat to do with thermodynamics.
Devolution only happens when you reverse the arrow of time, and neither evolution or devolution has squat to do with thermodynamics.
Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model.
That don't even make any sense.
Funding ain't what makes the difference between a scientific and a non-scientific theory.
Just cause you don't get it don't make it nonsense.QUOTE
Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics.
Devolution only happens when you reverse the arrow of time, and neither evolution or devolution has squat to do with thermodynamics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics. |
Devolution only happens when you reverse the arrow of time, and neither evolution or devolution has squat to do with thermodynamics.
Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model.
That don't even make any sense.
QUOTE
Serious theories need serious competitor(s)! I would think ID could become serious when...(when and if more money is thrown at it?)
Funding ain't what makes the difference between a scientific and a non-scientific theory.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 19 2008, 06:12 AM)
Serious theories need serious competitor(s)! I would think ID could become serious when...(when and if more money is thrown at it?)
I'm sure you could find "scientists" that are willing to prostitute their work for money. Who knows what they may come up with? They might even claim that cheese is evidence of intelligence and design.
I'm sure you could find "scientists" that are willing to prostitute their work for money. Who knows what they may come up with? They might even claim that cheese is evidence of intelligence and design.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 19 2008, 02:07 PM)
I'm sure you could find "scientists" that are willing to prostitute their work for money. Who knows what they may come up with? They might even claim that cheese is evidence of intelligence and design.
All they would need is some evidence that cheese grows between the ears of....wait a minute.....
Nothing can become serious unless there is some truth in it. 2000+ years of 'belief' without a drop of evidence is pretty convincing.
g.
All they would need is some evidence that cheese grows between the ears of....wait a minute.....
Nothing can become serious unless there is some truth in it. 2000+ years of 'belief' without a drop of evidence is pretty convincing.
g.
>>> Explaining the creation of the universe from something outside of space and time as we know it and the design parameters of the universe to chance alone, or that we somehow create the universe as we go or will become Omnipotent and Omniscient enough [i.e., God enough] in the future to tweak all the necessary delicate parameters to bring about our existence in the past is beyond "ridiculous" <<<
UPDATED, First posted by: MisterBelfry Mar 24 2008, 10:54 AM
MORE @
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20875&st=195 & the previous page or so.
ALSO See
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=21120&st=8 and start with El_Machinae April 3rd.
UPDATED, First posted by: MisterBelfry Mar 24 2008, 10:54 AM
MORE @
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20875&st=195 & the previous page or so.
ALSO See
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=21120&st=8 and start with El_Machinae April 3rd.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 16 2008, 10:57 AM)
Not that any of it is particularly valid. The question of why the various physical constants hold the values that they do is a philosophical one, not a scientific one at this point. Perhaps one day we will understand physics enough to expect an answer to that question.
I don't think that day is as far off as you may think. Already in some of the newer models being published, the number of arbitrary constants is decreasing, as some are found to be simply a different aspect of another (sort of like the speed of light depends on the permitivitty and permeability of free space). As we gain a more fundamental understanding of what is going on, we end up with fewer and fewer constants.
One can presume that this trend will continue (and even if it doesn't, the rest of the argument is not rendered completely invalid), until we have only one or a handful of fundamental constants, upon which the others depend. It could arise that it doesn't matter what these fundamental constants are 'chosen' to be, that any combination of them will result in all the forces 'working properly' to support our idea of life. Or it could arise (as is currently assumed) that only certain special values would be able to support our version of life.
What cannot be (or at least, has not yet been) shown, is that these different values couldn't lead to something else which could be called life (though not necessarily as we currently view it). Maybe a different set of fundamental parameters would give rise to a 'different kind of life', which could itself lead to sentience, and push it's own version of ID upon it's fellow entities, because clearly then the universe would have been designed for it.
The 'fine tuning' argument cannot hold any water unless it can be shown that nothing resembling any sort of sentience can arise from any different set of fundamental constants, and all the dependencies of each fundamental constant on the others are worked out (and even then it's just as weak as the weak anthropic principle, pun intended).
If it can be shown instead that something resembling sentience could arise from any set (or even many sets) of parameters, then the 'fine tuning' argument is completely nonsensical, and all we are left with is the anthropic principle (we are here, because we can be, if we couldn't, something else would be here instead to ask the question).
The real kicker about it all though, is that the reason the universe as we know it would not exist with different constants, is because of the conditions at the big bang billions of years ago, which the young-earth creationists (the ones most often using the fine tuning argument), do not believe occured at all. Surely an all powerful creator could set the constants governing physical forces to anything they want, but set the initial conditions in such a way that life can exist. For young-earth creationists therefore, the argument follows from 'axioms' which they choose not to adopt, and is therefore a non-sequitor.
PS. Yes I'm back, but I don't know how much time I'll have to post these days.
I don't think that day is as far off as you may think. Already in some of the newer models being published, the number of arbitrary constants is decreasing, as some are found to be simply a different aspect of another (sort of like the speed of light depends on the permitivitty and permeability of free space). As we gain a more fundamental understanding of what is going on, we end up with fewer and fewer constants.
One can presume that this trend will continue (and even if it doesn't, the rest of the argument is not rendered completely invalid), until we have only one or a handful of fundamental constants, upon which the others depend. It could arise that it doesn't matter what these fundamental constants are 'chosen' to be, that any combination of them will result in all the forces 'working properly' to support our idea of life. Or it could arise (as is currently assumed) that only certain special values would be able to support our version of life.
What cannot be (or at least, has not yet been) shown, is that these different values couldn't lead to something else which could be called life (though not necessarily as we currently view it). Maybe a different set of fundamental parameters would give rise to a 'different kind of life', which could itself lead to sentience, and push it's own version of ID upon it's fellow entities, because clearly then the universe would have been designed for it.
The 'fine tuning' argument cannot hold any water unless it can be shown that nothing resembling any sort of sentience can arise from any different set of fundamental constants, and all the dependencies of each fundamental constant on the others are worked out (and even then it's just as weak as the weak anthropic principle, pun intended).
If it can be shown instead that something resembling sentience could arise from any set (or even many sets) of parameters, then the 'fine tuning' argument is completely nonsensical, and all we are left with is the anthropic principle (we are here, because we can be, if we couldn't, something else would be here instead to ask the question).
The real kicker about it all though, is that the reason the universe as we know it would not exist with different constants, is because of the conditions at the big bang billions of years ago, which the young-earth creationists (the ones most often using the fine tuning argument), do not believe occured at all. Surely an all powerful creator could set the constants governing physical forces to anything they want, but set the initial conditions in such a way that life can exist. For young-earth creationists therefore, the argument follows from 'axioms' which they choose not to adopt, and is therefore a non-sequitor.
PS. Yes I'm back, but I don't know how much time I'll have to post these days.
Good point NeoDevin!
This irony of creationists using 'fine tuning' is that; as improbable as the constants may appear, to then assert that a deity must have constructed them is to introduce something even more improbable, something even more complex than the Universe itself (off the scale improbable).
Regardless of whether or not they were set up by a creative intelligence, the fine tuning argument only invalidates the claim.
This irony of creationists using 'fine tuning' is that; as improbable as the constants may appear, to then assert that a deity must have constructed them is to introduce something even more improbable, something even more complex than the Universe itself (off the scale improbable).
Regardless of whether or not they were set up by a creative intelligence, the fine tuning argument only invalidates the claim.
Also, consider that anything universally 'constant' must have always been so, and always continue to be so, otherwise no 'constant'! Thus, 'it' could not have been 'created', but instead is quite simply an eternal Cosmological Truth.
I see no reason why we cannot intuit such things, being that we are emerging parts of the same Cosmos. However, Humans have this propensity to 'run away' in our imaginations with our intuitions, and so we need to develop the more accurate tools of testing and subsequently upgraded deduction, to attain a correct understanding, and that is 'science' and its (almost) silent partner, 'philosophy of science'. Unfortunately, we have learned to use our imaginations to gain selfish advantage over others, and this deception has become commonplace within our 'societies'. Now, we are taught from the earliest age, how to 'deceive to survive' (the 'essence' of capitalism).
However, if we take Humans, as a whole, emerging species, gaining in 'sentience', we can clearly see that our initial intuitions began and flourished within our early 'civilisations', moving steadily from 'east' to 'west' over time, where it became obvious and necessary that we had to physically 'test' that which we were proposing about our surrounding universe.
We had no way of truly understanding 'quantum states', so our intuitions had to suffice. They were clearly not accurate enough, or at least, open to be abused and distorted for selfish reasons. But these early intuitions were quite accurate, as metaphors, because Humans were quite simply more honest in those times. With age, we have become more cynical and self-deceptive, more elusive and 'political', more abusive and contradictory. Thousands of years ago, we were closer to Nature, which is also closer to our true selves, emerging parts of the Cosmos, and thus our intuitions were more accurate, though blind and more superstitious.
The most accurate picture occurs when we are at our most honest, and necessarily so. This is why some of the oldest intuitions are proving to be so accurate, now that we have the means to physically test them.
But currently, in the 'west', we are also out of balance. Now, we see our 'physical testing' as somehow 'greater' than the understanding it brings, when the Reality is that the 'testing' and the 'understanding' are actually the same thing; the same wave of emerging sentience; the same 'path' that was only ever semi-consciously chosen as Man struck flint against flint to produce the first spark of another direction; a new means to the same, the only possible Realisation; the truth of how things necessarily exist.
g.
I see no reason why we cannot intuit such things, being that we are emerging parts of the same Cosmos. However, Humans have this propensity to 'run away' in our imaginations with our intuitions, and so we need to develop the more accurate tools of testing and subsequently upgraded deduction, to attain a correct understanding, and that is 'science' and its (almost) silent partner, 'philosophy of science'. Unfortunately, we have learned to use our imaginations to gain selfish advantage over others, and this deception has become commonplace within our 'societies'. Now, we are taught from the earliest age, how to 'deceive to survive' (the 'essence' of capitalism).
However, if we take Humans, as a whole, emerging species, gaining in 'sentience', we can clearly see that our initial intuitions began and flourished within our early 'civilisations', moving steadily from 'east' to 'west' over time, where it became obvious and necessary that we had to physically 'test' that which we were proposing about our surrounding universe.
We had no way of truly understanding 'quantum states', so our intuitions had to suffice. They were clearly not accurate enough, or at least, open to be abused and distorted for selfish reasons. But these early intuitions were quite accurate, as metaphors, because Humans were quite simply more honest in those times. With age, we have become more cynical and self-deceptive, more elusive and 'political', more abusive and contradictory. Thousands of years ago, we were closer to Nature, which is also closer to our true selves, emerging parts of the Cosmos, and thus our intuitions were more accurate, though blind and more superstitious.
The most accurate picture occurs when we are at our most honest, and necessarily so. This is why some of the oldest intuitions are proving to be so accurate, now that we have the means to physically test them.
But currently, in the 'west', we are also out of balance. Now, we see our 'physical testing' as somehow 'greater' than the understanding it brings, when the Reality is that the 'testing' and the 'understanding' are actually the same thing; the same wave of emerging sentience; the same 'path' that was only ever semi-consciously chosen as Man struck flint against flint to produce the first spark of another direction; a new means to the same, the only possible Realisation; the truth of how things necessarily exist.
g.
Posted in response to Buttershug by: MisterBelfry Today at 5:17 AM
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier.
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften. It was a curious precursor of Alan Sokal’s 1996 ‘hoax’ paper. In 1937 Herbert Dingle denounced in Nature the whole speculative approach: “This combination of paralysis of the reason with intoxication of the fancy is shown, if possible, even more strongly in Prof. Dirac's letter in Nature ... in which he, too, appears victim of the great ‘Universe’-mania ... Milne and Dirac ... plunge headlong into an ocean of ‘principles’ of their own making ... The criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense has to a large extent been lost...”
In 1961 Robert Dicke published in Nature a short paper entitled “Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle”. Dicke rejected Dirac's speculation about the change of G in time and found a simpler explanation in the selection effect (on possible values of the constants) of the fact that we humans are here. So the Hubble time T elapsed since the big bang (the age of the universe) “is not a ‘random choice’ from a wide range of possible choices, but is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists.” So the values of T are constrained by the requirement “that the universe, hence galaxy, shall have aged sufficiently for there to exist elements other than hydrogen. It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.” Dirac published a short reply to Dicke, saying that Dicke's analysis was sound, but that he (Dirac) preferred his own argument because it allowed for the possibility that planets “could exist indefinitely in the future and life need never end.”
QUOTE
Behe's argument is a God of the gaps argument. It is a lack of imagination argument. Because he personally cannot see how something could have arisen without all of what he considers to be necessary parts, he chalks it up to God.
No. The only gap, in his world, that needs filled is the start and the consequent Anthropic Principle. Rpenner said something about the "master cell"*. That sounds good but I think the Principle relies on Laws yet to be uncovered that would sufficiently bring sense to the odds in light of Hubble's Constant.
MrB.
*-------->Showtopic= 21405.
To wit:
"I read this story by Robert Matthews yesterday AFTER my two posts (the other ---->Showtopic= 20892** which also directs you to Showtopic= 20875).
I'll quote a portion of the last third of the article, right after Thomas Bayes is introduced as a mathematician and not a reverend (which I think was really his profession(but that is the normal New Scientist's bias for Evolutionists which has plenty of forum lapdogs)), "Unlike Popper's concept of science, the Bayesian view doesn't collapse the instant it comes into contact with real life." Otherwise {multiverse aside for Bayesian Bible readers}, this article (in the same issue as "Stuart Kauffman redefines god" which I haven't read yet (dare I say, in any universe?)), as far as I can tell, is extremely well balanced and not just for New Scientist's editorial board. Stuart Kauffman is my source for the "fourth law" that seems to have befuddled MjolnirPants** so. Those that have responded to my posts yesterday, prove themselves not well read. And I suppose you can double that number.
MrB."
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften. It was a curious precursor of Alan Sokal’s 1996 ‘hoax’ paper. In 1937 Herbert Dingle denounced in Nature the whole speculative approach: “This combination of paralysis of the reason with intoxication of the fancy is shown, if possible, even more strongly in Prof. Dirac's letter in Nature ... in which he, too, appears victim of the great ‘Universe’-mania ... Milne and Dirac ... plunge headlong into an ocean of ‘principles’ of their own making ... The criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense has to a large extent been lost...”
In 1961 Robert Dicke published in Nature a short paper entitled “Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle”. Dicke rejected Dirac's speculation about the change of G in time and found a simpler explanation in the selection effect (on possible values of the constants) of the fact that we humans are here. So the Hubble time T elapsed since the big bang (the age of the universe) “is not a ‘random choice’ from a wide range of possible choices, but is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists.” So the values of T are constrained by the requirement “that the universe, hence galaxy, shall have aged sufficiently for there to exist elements other than hydrogen. It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.” Dirac published a short reply to Dicke, saying that Dicke's analysis was sound, but that he (Dirac) preferred his own argument because it allowed for the possibility that planets “could exist indefinitely in the future and life need never end.”
QUOTE
Behe's argument is a God of the gaps argument. It is a lack of imagination argument. Because he personally cannot see how something could have arisen without all of what he considers to be necessary parts, he chalks it up to God.
No. The only gap, in his world, that needs filled is the start and the consequent Anthropic Principle. Rpenner said something about the "master cell"*. That sounds good but I think the Principle relies on Laws yet to be uncovered that would sufficiently bring sense to the odds in light of Hubble's Constant.
MrB.
*-------->Showtopic= 21405.
To wit:
"I read this story by Robert Matthews yesterday AFTER my two posts (the other ---->Showtopic= 20892** which also directs you to Showtopic= 20875).
I'll quote a portion of the last third of the article, right after Thomas Bayes is introduced as a mathematician and not a reverend (which I think was really his profession(but that is the normal New Scientist's bias for Evolutionists which has plenty of forum lapdogs)), "Unlike Popper's concept of science, the Bayesian view doesn't collapse the instant it comes into contact with real life." Otherwise {multiverse aside for Bayesian Bible readers}, this article (in the same issue as "Stuart Kauffman redefines god" which I haven't read yet (dare I say, in any universe?)), as far as I can tell, is extremely well balanced and not just for New Scientist's editorial board. Stuart Kauffman is my source for the "fourth law" that seems to have befuddled MjolnirPants** so. Those that have responded to my posts yesterday, prove themselves not well read. And I suppose you can double that number.
MrB."
Simploe chemistry and basic probability.
No. To quote that Kauffman piece, "The process of reinventing the sacred requires a fresh understanding of science that takes into account complexity theory...It will require a shift from reductionism,... The second transition in our view of science is based on Darwinian pre-adaptations. ...there seems to be no natural law sufficient to describe Darwinian pre-adaptations."
To quote myself again {Showtopic= 20892},
"The science is in the eschatology.
Evolution proposes nonsense. Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics. Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model."
In an ocean of principles, biogenesis swims ahead of the rest.
MrB.
G
Wow....sounds crystal clear this end!
g.
QUOTE
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier.
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften. It was a curious precursor of Alan Sokal’s 1996 ‘hoax’ paper. In 1937 Herbert Dingle denounced in Nature the whole speculative approach: “This combination of paralysis of the reason with intoxication of the fancy is shown, if possible, even more strongly in Prof. Dirac's letter in Nature ... in which he, too, appears victim of the great ‘Universe’-mania ... Milne and Dirac ... plunge headlong into an ocean of ‘principles’ of their own making ... The criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense has to a large extent been lost...”
In 1961 Robert Dicke published in Nature a short paper entitled “Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle”. Dicke rejected Dirac's speculation about the change of G in time and found a simpler explanation in the selection effect (on possible values of the constants) of the fact that we humans are here. So the Hubble time T elapsed since the big bang (the age of the universe) “is not a ‘random choice’ from a wide range of possible choices, but is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists.” So the values of T are constrained by the requirement “that the universe, hence galaxy, shall have aged sufficiently for there to exist elements other than hydrogen. It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.” Dirac published a short reply to Dicke, saying that Dicke's analysis was sound, but that he (Dirac) preferred his own argument because it allowed for the possibility that planets “could exist indefinitely in the future and life need never end.”
QUOTE
Behe's argument is a God of the gaps argument. It is a lack of imagination argument. Because he personally cannot see how something could have arisen without all of what he considers to be necessary parts, he chalks it up to God.
No. The only gap, in his world, that needs filled is the start and the consequent Anthropic Principle. Rpenner said something about the "master cell"*. That sounds good but I think the Principle relies on Laws yet to be uncovered that would sufficiently bring sense to the odds in light of Hubble's Constant.
MrB.
*-------->Showtopic= 21405.
To wit:
"I read this story by Robert Matthews yesterday AFTER my two posts (the other ---->Showtopic= 20892** which also directs you to Showtopic= 20875).
I'll quote a portion of the last third of the article, right after Thomas Bayes is introduced as a mathematician and not a reverend (which I think was really his profession(but that is the normal New Scientist's bias for Evolutionists which has plenty of forum lapdogs)), "Unlike Popper's concept of science, the Bayesian view doesn't collapse the instant it comes into contact with real life." Otherwise {multiverse aside for Bayesian Bible readers}, this article (in the same issue as "Stuart Kauffman redefines god" which I haven't read yet (dare I say, in any universe?)), as far as I can tell, is extremely well balanced and not just for New Scientist's editorial board. Stuart Kauffman is my source for the "fourth law" that seems to have befuddled MjolnirPants** so. Those that have responded to my posts yesterday, prove themselves not well read. And I suppose you can double that number.
MrB."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I still think you don't understand what I was getting at about the lottery earlier. |
Jesús Mosterín
The scientific community soon became sick of these speculations. Already in 1931 Beck, Hans Bethe and Riezler spoofed Eddigton’s numerology in a parody they managed to get published in Naturwissenschaften. It was a curious precursor of Alan Sokal’s 1996 ‘hoax’ paper. In 1937 Herbert Dingle denounced in Nature the whole speculative approach: “This combination of paralysis of the reason with intoxication of the fancy is shown, if possible, even more strongly in Prof. Dirac's letter in Nature ... in which he, too, appears victim of the great ‘Universe’-mania ... Milne and Dirac ... plunge headlong into an ocean of ‘principles’ of their own making ... The criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense has to a large extent been lost...”
In 1961 Robert Dicke published in Nature a short paper entitled “Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle”. Dicke rejected Dirac's speculation about the change of G in time and found a simpler explanation in the selection effect (on possible values of the constants) of the fact that we humans are here. So the Hubble time T elapsed since the big bang (the age of the universe) “is not a ‘random choice’ from a wide range of possible choices, but is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists.” So the values of T are constrained by the requirement “that the universe, hence galaxy, shall have aged sufficiently for there to exist elements other than hydrogen. It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.” Dirac published a short reply to Dicke, saying that Dicke's analysis was sound, but that he (Dirac) preferred his own argument because it allowed for the possibility that planets “could exist indefinitely in the future and life need never end.”
QUOTE
Behe's argument is a God of the gaps argument. It is a lack of imagination argument. Because he personally cannot see how something could have arisen without all of what he considers to be necessary parts, he chalks it up to God.
No. The only gap, in his world, that needs filled is the start and the consequent Anthropic Principle. Rpenner said something about the "master cell"*. That sounds good but I think the Principle relies on Laws yet to be uncovered that would sufficiently bring sense to the odds in light of Hubble's Constant.
MrB.
*-------->Showtopic= 21405.
To wit:
"I read this story by Robert Matthews yesterday AFTER my two posts (the other ---->Showtopic= 20892** which also directs you to Showtopic= 20875).
I'll quote a portion of the last third of the article, right after Thomas Bayes is introduced as a mathematician and not a reverend (which I think was really his profession(but that is the normal New Scientist's bias for Evolutionists which has plenty of forum lapdogs)), "Unlike Popper's concept of science, the Bayesian view doesn't collapse the instant it comes into contact with real life." Otherwise {multiverse aside for Bayesian Bible readers}, this article (in the same issue as "Stuart Kauffman redefines god" which I haven't read yet (dare I say, in any universe?)), as far as I can tell, is extremely well balanced and not just for New Scientist's editorial board. Stuart Kauffman is my source for the "fourth law" that seems to have befuddled MjolnirPants** so. Those that have responded to my posts yesterday, prove themselves not well read. And I suppose you can double that number.
MrB."
Simploe chemistry and basic probability.
No. To quote that Kauffman piece, "The process of reinventing the sacred requires a fresh understanding of science that takes into account complexity theory...It will require a shift from reductionism,... The second transition in our view of science is based on Darwinian pre-adaptations. ...there seems to be no natural law sufficient to describe Darwinian pre-adaptations."
To quote myself again {Showtopic= 20892},
"The science is in the eschatology.
Evolution proposes nonsense. Devolution is the reality of thermodynamics. Now Evolutionists will try to respond with a fourth law or something, but that just helps prove Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection as a working model."
In an ocean of principles, biogenesis swims ahead of the rest.
MrB.
Everybody is an 'evolutionist' by default of existing.
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 29 2008, 09:05 AM)
Everybody is an 'evolutionist' by default of existing.
g.
...And the most accomplished Biologist, it's just that we are trying to figure out how we are.
g.
...And the most accomplished Biologist, it's just that we are trying to figure out how we are.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 31 2008, 05:17 AM)
...And the most accomplished Biologist, it's just that we are trying to figure out how we are.
Well, how are you?
g.
Well, how are you?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 31 2008, 11:10 PM)
Well, how are you?
g.
Finely tuned
g.
Finely tuned
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 31 2008, 11:41 PM)
Finely tuned
Glad to hear it... Give us a 'G'!
g.
Glad to hear it... Give us a 'G'!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 31 2008, 11:45 PM)
Glad to hear it... Give us a 'G'!
g.
G
g.
G
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 31 2008, 11:55 PM)
G
Wow....sounds crystal clear this end!
g.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.