Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 106 of 230 (654238)
02-28-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM


Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
JCH writes:
analysis and critical thinking should lead to a discussion of facts that are known and those that are unknown, which always risks broaching questions of "why are they not known?".
I think you are full of it. Do you think that only things that we know the answers to should be taught in school? What kind of school did you go to and how long ago was that?
No discussion is allowed, because things then can get "too creepy" in a class room.
So giving the students the actual answer (the technical reasons) is creepy?
analysis and critical thinking should lead to a discussion of facts that are known and those that are unknown,
If they are unknown they are not facts.
This whole thing is BS. I'm glad you have no say in my children's education.
-

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 107 of 230 (654247)
02-28-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM


Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
Then --- another "Why not." At which point the instructor simply ignores the question, moving on and puts the curious kid on his "list" of the troublesome.
The teacher adds that kid to the list of students who would make good scientists.
The kids who will not make good scientists are those who say "Well, God must have done it" and never feel a need to truly find out what really happened.
The problem with ID is that it discourages people from finding answers. How did the flagellum come about? God did it. No reason to do anymore scientific research at that point, right? Behe has certainly never felt the need to do any scientific research to figure out how the flagellum, or any IC system, came about. That is bad science.
Yes, there are many things that science has not figured out. THAT IS THE EXCITING PART. THAT IS THE BEST PART OF SCIENCE!!! ID wants to insert a designer into those gaps in our knowledge which stops all further inquiry. That is the worst kind of science possible, and really, really bad theology.
But what if he persists? What do we do then? Not allow discussion of what might have been? Or why? Or, why not? Or was their purpose to this?
If the student persists then you encourage them to learn more about science and become the scientist who figures it out. These are the best students possible.
In not allowing a free range of discussion and analysis, who are we protecting?
ID is not analysis. It is indoctrination of religious beliefs. By not allowing religious beliefs into science class we are protecting the constitutional rights of the students. Again, this is Science Class. This isn't Discussion Class. Teachers should teach Science, not religious beliefs. If there is currently no scientific explanation for a phenomenon then the teacher can simply tell students that it has not been figured out yet. That is a perfectly fine answer to a scientific question.
They discussed everything and anything the kids wanted to bring up who were bright enough to bring them up.
But not any longer. Too dangerous. Too uncomfortable. Too unsettling.
I guess you are unaware that creationists are trying to get evolution out of the science curriculum? You are projecting a bit on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM jchardy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 108 of 230 (654248)
02-28-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM


Discuss?
The problem is that Intelligent Design like Creationism does not want discussion; in particular Intelligent Design does not want to discuss what is behind the curtain, who the Oz really is and how the Oz does it.
We certainly understand Intelligent Design, it is the Great and Wonderful Oz.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 109 of 230 (654253)
02-28-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jchardy
02-26-2012 3:36 AM


Purpose Driven Life
Sounds like you're a secularist.
Strictly speaking, I am a Christian;
You can be a secularist and a Christian.
Secularism is a broad term which I assign mainly to governing institutions, agnostics and atheists.
Anyone who believes that faith should stay out of law or politics, is broadly speaking, a secularist. For obvious reasons, atheists and agnostics are often also secularist.
These are not my words, but I’ll comment as best I can.
No, they were my words - and you responded to them. Only, the point I was making was that your response did not address what I said.
The Designer has no intention of giving us clear-cut evidence of His existence.
Yes, and this is one of those stumbling blocks: If you aren't even able to demonstrate this Designer exists, how have you ascertained:
1. What its intentions are (or rather what he does not intend to do)?
2. That it is a male?
I believe He finds it unwise to confirm His role in anything overtly.
So we've established yet another belief you have that not only doesn't have any evidence, but which also appeals to entities for which you have no evidence of.
It’s up to us to develop the information we need and experiences to affirm in our hearts (i.e., our intuitive selves) His existence and role.
Gathering information and experiences is what science does. Empirical pretty much means 'experience' or 'of the senses'.
So what information and experiences have you gathered to 'intuit' the existence of this designer?
As to what purpose they are even giving. I would say what is their goal.
I would conclude that is Their business and beyond our ability to understand.
In which case, the conclusion that there is a purpose to life, the universe and everything may be a little premature.
Again, of course not! But it’s not necessary because it is intuitive and personal truth --- we call it (for want of a better word) Faith.
This is a key divergence between you and ID - that's my point. IDists have faith in who the designer is, but they believe the idea that there is a designer is scientifically verified. You do not.
But it becomes more than faith when a preponderance of evidence supports the PROBABILITY that this or that is so improbable without some kind of guidance.
I would accept that you have a preponderance of evidence. It is this preponderance that Paley once pointed out. And many people were happy to accept this, based on the preponderance of the evidence (and a spot of confirmation bias). However, science has given us a conclusion that is supported to a higher degree. To stick with the legal analogy, science has demonstrated that the 'this or that' can arise under the guidance of natural forces only...beyond all reasonable doubt.
The right doors open at the right time and we make the right decision to enter (or not enter). It’s all very personal and personal cannot really be objective.
I'm sure you know what you mean here, but it wasn't successfully communicated. Are you suggesting that fortuitous opportunities are some kind of support for an intelligent guidance? I have no idea why that necessarily follows.
In a world of limited resources, there is always going to be fortuitous opportunities that allow us to acquire said resources that happen to some people. Maybe even to everybody, if they live long enough. What need is there for a god to set things up?
The evidence we discern is difficult to analyze and we are rarely privileged to present it as proof of anything tangible. But as time and occurrences accumulate, we are observant and see that --- to us --- personally --- nothing else makes sense.
The problems with this kind of thinking have been made evident. It leads to superstitious belief. You might stumble by accident upon the truth here and there, but chances are you'll pick up lots of nonsense along the way.
For example, it is perfectly possible for a racist to justify their hatred of say, black people, in the same manner. "The evidence I discern is difficult to analyze and I am not privileged to present it as proof of anything tangible. But as time and occurrences accumulate, I have been observant and have seen that --- to me --- personally --- nothing else makes more sense than black people are inferior."
Personal interpretations of personal experiences are fine (as in they work well enough) for everyday experiences, but the universe is a complex place and if we are to seek deep answers we need a better system. A system that seeks to remove confirmation bias from normal human reasoning, indeed a system which allows to bypass all known human biases as best as we can possibly do so.
When trying to come to answers about life, the universe and everything using the 'intuitive'/'personal experience' model we can (and indeed have) come to some pretty strange results. Look at all the various religious answers that have been given as evidence of the possibilities of this method. Our intrinsic cultural biases and cognitive biases can work in daily social life quite successfully, but because the universe doesn't work like primate social structures it isn't really adequate to the task of understanding the real nature of the universe.


In conclusion,
You rely, to some extent, on faith. Faith is essentially believing something is true, with no supporting evidence beyond 'personal experience'. This is one of the problems of reasoning that science is built to evade.
If you are going to build a discourse with those of the scientific mindset, you'll need a strategy to deal with this that does not lead to ill feelings. Simply saying 'Oh, it's faith - my own personal experiences give me the sense, in my heart, that it's true' is not really going to sit well with some scientists; To them, it could be seen as a lazy or evasive answer.
But, I suppose as long as you are not pushing for it to be taught in science class, as long as you are not comparing scientists to genocidal fascists, and as long as you are not telling lies about scientific research - I'm sure you'll find no vitriol from most scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 3:36 AM jchardy has not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 110 of 230 (654320)
02-29-2012 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
02-27-2012 12:10 PM


Re: purpose in science
Then perhaps you should focus there
happy to continue the discussion there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2012 12:10 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 111 of 230 (654401)
03-01-2012 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by jchardy
02-26-2012 5:11 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
I initiated this thread as A Plea in favor of Purpose’ ‘ on 2/20. The discussion has periodically been interesting, but much of it has deteriorated into semantic arguments. so I would like very much to refocus it back to the original objective:
A clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science.
Teleologic adherents of Intelligent Design test their concepts by their compatibility with current scientific knowledge.
Many have developed their conviction that the universe -- improbable as it is without an incredible amount of fine tuning in the pathway to evolving human intelligence — SEEMS to be TOO fine-tuned not to have had some rather incredible engineering to realize what SEEMS to be an outcome that most of us would deem as pretty phenomenal.
Some of us have come to that conclusion only after we understand the concepts of Cosmology (including quantum Cosmology) from the Big Bang through the mysterious Quark epoch and into inflation leading to the final release of photons to carry information forward through time beginning at 440,000 years after the BB. At that point, we see the evolution of the microwave background BEYOND WHICH WE CANNOT SEE. On top of this self-evident limitation, there is the SCALE of the universe overall, beginning at a level of 10-33 Cm (the Planck length at the quantum level) where theoretical strings might reside and which MAY be the fundamental component making up Quarks, but which we can never hope to see or define. All of this sequence PRIOR to the CMB is informed speculation, done by mathematical projection --- which we accept as probable since it is based on everything we know from:
Newtonian physics; Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetism; Special and General Relativity; Chaos Theory and Quantum mechanics etc. etc. all well tested theories which have a few major holes in them. None-the-less, they are serving us very well indeed.
It’s as if BARRIERS or WALLS have been built into the universe from the very beginning making it impossible to actually SEE what actually took place, or HOW matter is really constructed --- so WE CAN NEVER KNOW!
So our concepts of seeing purpose and/or goals in the universe are fundamentally based in the concepts of its evolution. Very concrete overall.
The same can be said of the evolution of life and finally intelligent life. Darwin’s theory is not a law, but its concepts are reasonable and bear up to testing to a great extent, BUT THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS, and the questions really appear to emanate from inconsistencies.
FOR EXAMPLE:
GRADUALISM (The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes) is a major tenant of Darwinian evolution, but the history of many fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.' If a living thing survives in a flawless form down to the present day with all the features it displayed millions of years ago and having undergone no change whatsoever, then this evidence is very confusing if we are to consider the Darwinistic concept of evolutionary gradualism valid.
Moreover, far from there being just one example to demonstrate this, there are in fact millions. Countless organisms exhibit no differences from their original states, which first appeared millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. This is an embarrassing observation. Evolutionists look in the fossil record for the evidence they need to prove the process of evolution, but fossils provide few of the intermediate forms they seek. Furthermore, reveal that living things alleged to have undergone a process of change over time never underwent any evolution at all, even after hundreds of millions of years. Living forms are identical to how they appeared originally, and never underwent the gradual change predicted by Darwin.
(for reference see:
Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p. 14,
Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, [1995], phoenix: London, 1996, p. 95
"Evrimin Cikmaz Sokaklari: Yasayan Fosiller" (Cul de sac of evolution: Living Fossils), Focus, April 2003)
Then we have information from CHAOS THEORY which states that miniscule changes -- only one part in a million or a 0.0001% variation in the initial conditions of any process -- WILL change the outcome very significantly over TIME. And TIME is the one commodity the universe has had plenty of.
The Teleologic proponent of ID makes the point:
IF there is a creator or designer somehow initiating and then viewing events from afar (i.e., behind a curtain of His own design as well), He might direct evolution this way or that by minor nudges of our molecular DNA — once it came into being; OR, He may have implanted it early on. We would never really know.
MY Teleologic ID point is: Too much about the evolution of our universe and too much of the evolution of life and then intelligence on this planet (and perhaps others) SEEMS too well directed and too well organized to be by chance, and much of scientific study seems to support that concept.
Of course, then, there’s our PERSONAL experiences which, time and time again seem to show intersections with guidance --- such that we make the right decisions (or the wrong decisions) --- sometimes highly improbably. Then there’s the Near Death experiences some of us bear witness to.
So that’s it. My last shot. I will be off line for the next month or so.
.
JCH
Edited by Admin, : Remove quote codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 5:11 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Tangle, posted 03-01-2012 3:27 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 03-01-2012 8:13 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 11:40 AM jchardy has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 112 of 230 (654406)
03-01-2012 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jchardy
03-01-2012 12:13 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
JCHardy writes:
A clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science.
I've no idea why you think this latest collection of words adds anything new. I still have absolutely no idea what you expect us to do with them except nod and move on or give the standard responses and rebuttals to old arguments.
So that’s it. My last shot. I will be off line for the next month or so.
I see that as well as ignoring our many pleas to use the quote syntax correctly, that this new post of yours is quoting yourself again. Strangely, it's also a reply to yourself and as such, it is now marked as awaiting your next reply to yourself. I therefore suggest that you inform yourself of your pending absence so that you don't disapoint yourself on your return.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 12:13 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 113 of 230 (654412)
03-01-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jchardy
03-01-2012 12:13 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Hi John,
You seem to have a good handle on what's inside your head and have no problem letting that information out, but there does seem to be a bit of a problem when information tries to flow in the other direction.
One indication that you're learning anything from the responses would be to at least stop quoting yourself. It isn't like the markup codes should represent anything difficult for a USC medical school graduate, a US Naval captain, and a retired chief of immunological medicine. But the letters after your name aren't going to learn it for you - you're going to have to learn these things yourself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 12:13 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 114 of 230 (654424)
03-01-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jchardy
03-01-2012 12:13 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Teleologic adherents of Intelligent Design test their concepts by their compatibility with current scientific knowledge.
For this to be true, ID would need to be falsifiable. So the question to you, or ID supporters in general, is what observation, if made, would be incompatible with ID? Until the question is answered no one can claim that ID is compatible with current scientific knowledge.
Many have developed their conviction that the universe -- improbable as it is without an incredible amount of fine tuning in the pathway to evolving human intelligence — SEEMS to be TOO fine-tuned not to have had some rather incredible engineering to realize what SEEMS to be an outcome that most of us would deem as pretty phenomenal.
Yes, just like every lottery is fine tuned so that a specific person will win. This is known as confirmation bias.
It’s as if BARRIERS or WALLS have been built into the universe from the very beginning making it impossible to actually SEE what actually took place, or HOW matter is really constructed --- so WE CAN NEVER KNOW!
One should not base arguments on impossibilities. Negative arguments make for poor logic. Theoretical physicists are working on theories right now (e.g. M Theory) that may very well be testable and allow us to determine what happened on the other side of those barriers and walls. As the old saying goes, never say never. Just look at the amazing advancements that we have made in the last 100 years, from the Hubble Space Telescope to the LHC.
GRADUALISM (The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes) is a major tenant of Darwinian evolution . . .
Not really. Darwin's opinion was that evolution probably advanced at a gradual pace, but he was more than willing to admit that evolution was not forced to follow a set tempo. Gradualism was never a major tenant of the theory. The modern theory of evolution accepts both gradualism and punctuated equilibria as evidenced and supported mechanisms.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'
"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species."[Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
That problem has been solved for quite some time now.
IF there is a creator or designer somehow initiating and then viewing events from afar . . .
Perhaps you could start here and supply evidence for the existence of this creator and/or designer?
MY Teleologic ID point is: Too much about the evolution of our universe and too much of the evolution of life and then intelligence on this planet (and perhaps others) SEEMS too well directed and too well organized to be by chance, and much of scientific study seems to support that concept.
Which scientific studies are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 12:13 AM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 4:50 PM Taq has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 115 of 230 (654429)
03-01-2012 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:22 PM


Re: purpose in science
Ok so you're not talking about scientific investigation here? what sort of science do you do if you don't doexperimental verification? I'm a fan of Gedanken experiments as much as anyone but you cannot suggest that these generate scientific fact.
If you are doing qualitative research exactly which experimental design are you using?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:22 PM lbm111 has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 116 of 230 (654449)
03-01-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
03-01-2012 11:40 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
quote:
ONE SHOULD NOT BASE ARGUMENTS ON IMPOSSIBILITIES. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS MAKE FOR POOR LOGIC.
Uh--. Those who deny the existence of a Creator are doing exactly that! JCH
THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS ARE WORKING ON THEORIES RIGHT NOW (E.G. M THEORY) THAT MAY VERY WELL BE TESTABLE AND ALLOW US TO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE BARRIERS AND WALLS. AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, NEVER SAY NEVER. JUST LOOK AT THE AMAZING ADVANCEMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, FROM THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TO THE LHC.
I don’t really disagree, though testability will be the key and the word determine what happened on the other side of those barriers and walls is a really problematic word. That implies certitude, and certitude is a really difficult concept to affirm in Quantum physics (as you must know). JCH
species."[Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
THAT PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.
Please reference this assertion. JCH
IF THERE IS A CREATOR OR DESIGNER SOMEHOW INITIATING AND THEN VIEWING EVENTS FROM AFAR . . .
PERHAPS YOU COULD START HERE AND SUPPLY EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THIS CREATOR AND/OR DESIGNER?
There is none, obviously other than the probability/improbability argument. Faith is the belief in something. It is not evidence except in personal experiences which convince some that such a power exists. On the other hand, the impossibility of certitude in certain areas of science is also a big problem for science --- especially quantum mechanics. It all has value, but some small part is still based on faith in the validity of our tests and testing of concepts. JCH
WHICH SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Well, you're asking for a lot of dialog and I’m not a PhD Cosmologist, but those studies with confusing information emanating from the coincidence scandal (amongst others) should give anyone pause. For example:
How finely-tuned is it that we exist in the era when vacuum and matter are comparable?
Between the Planck time and now, the universe has expanded by a factor of approximately 1032.
To be fair, we should consider an interval of logarithmic expansion which is centered around the present time; this would describe a total expansion by a factor of 1064.
If we take the transitional period between matter and vacuum to include the time from / M = 0.1 to / M = 10, the universe expands by a factor of 1001/3 100.67.
Thus, there is an approximately 1% chance that an observer living in a randomly selected logarithmic expansion interval in the history of our universe would be lucky enough to have M and be the same order of magnitude!
Everyone will have their own favorite way of quantifying such unnaturalness, but the calculation here gives some idea of the fine-tuning involved; it is substantial, but not completely ridiculous.
Relative to the cosmologic constant:
There is room to imagine that we are actually not observing the effects of an ordinary cosmological constant, but perhaps a dark energy source that varies gradually as the universe expands, or even a breakdown of general relativity on large scales.
By itself, however, making dark energy dynamical does not offer a solution to the coincidence scandal; purely on the basis of observations, it seems clear that the universe has begun to accelerate recently, which implies a scale at which something new is kicking in.
In particular, it is fruitless to try to explain the matter/dark energy coincidence by invoking mechanisms which make the dark energy density time-dependent in such a way as to always be proportional to that in matter.
Such a scenario would either imply that the dark energy would redshift away as dark a-3, which from would lead to a non-accelerating universe, or require departures from conventional general relativity of the type which are excluded by other measurements. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 11:40 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 03-01-2012 7:02 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 03-01-2012 7:40 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:53 AM jchardy has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 117 of 230 (654458)
03-01-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jchardy
03-01-2012 4:50 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
jchardy writes:
How finely-tuned is it that we exist in the era when vacuum and matter are comparable?
Between the Planck time and now, the universe has expanded by a factor of approximately 1032.
To be fair, we should consider an interval of logarithmic expansion which is centered around the present time; this would describe a total expansion by a factor of 1064.
If we take the transitional period between matter and vacuum to include the time from / M = 0.1 to / M = 10, the universe expands by a factor of 1001/3 100.67.
Thus, there is an approximately 1% chance that an observer living in a randomly selected logarithmic expansion interval in the history of our universe would be lucky enough to have M and be the same order of magnitude!
Everyone will have their own favorite way of quantifying such unnaturalness, but the calculation here gives some idea of the fine-tuning involved; it is substantial, but not completely ridiculous.
Relative to the cosmologic constant:
There is room to imagine that we are actually not observing the effects of an ordinary cosmological constant, but perhaps a dark energy source that varies gradually as the universe expands, or even a breakdown of general relativity on large scales.
By itself, however, making dark energy dynamical does not offer a solution to the coincidence scandal; purely on the basis of observations, it seems clear that the universe has begun to accelerate recently, which implies a scale at which something new is kicking in.
In particular, it is fruitless to try to explain the matter/dark energy coincidence by invoking mechanisms which make the dark energy density time-dependent in such a way as to always be proportional to that in matter.
Such a scenario would either imply that the dark energy would redshift away as dark a-3, which from would lead to a non-accelerating universe, or require departures from conventional general relativity of the type which are excluded by other measurements. JCH
None of that is your own.
You stole that and pretended it was your own work.
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/...rch04/Carroll/Carroll2_3.html
Was plagiarism never explained to you while you were studying?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 4:50 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 03-01-2012 7:08 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 118 of 230 (654460)
03-01-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Panda
03-01-2012 7:02 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
And if you go back to the source one thing you don't find is an Intelligent Designer.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 03-01-2012 7:02 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 119 of 230 (654471)
03-01-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jchardy
03-01-2012 4:50 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
Hi John,
Your messages make it very difficult to tell which are your words, which belong to other participants, and which you cut-n-pasted from other web sites. And the problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse. I would prefer that this extremely sloppy style not continue, and because posting suggestions to you doesn't seem to help I'm removing your posting privileges. If you want them back you'll have to convince me through PM (Private Messaging) that you'll work at figuring out how to quote and how to indicate where your cut-n-pastes came from. Click on the "Send Private Message" link that you see directly to the left of this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 4:50 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Admin, posted 03-02-2012 3:22 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 127 by Panda, posted 03-03-2012 2:49 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 120 of 230 (654645)
03-02-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Admin
03-01-2012 7:40 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
Jchardy's posting privileges have been restored.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 03-01-2012 7:40 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024