Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
544 online now:
kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 540 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,044 Year: 5,156/6,534 Month: 576/794 Week: 67/135 Day: 7/6 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 61 of 263 (318361)
06-06-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ramoss
06-06-2006 2:00 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
The ekpyrotic universe is quite distinct from the "cyclic universe" theory and neither fits Mike's description. The Big Rip is about the end of our Universe, not the beginning so it isn't like Mike's idea either..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 2:00 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 4:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 62 of 263 (318386)
06-06-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
06-06-2006 2:11 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?

The ekpyrotic universe is quite distinct from the "cyclic universe" theory and neither fits Mike's description. The Big Rip is about the end of our Universe, not the beginning so it isn't like Mike's idea either..

From Paul Stienharts' web site... the pdf for 'Cosmic evoultion in a cyclic universe'.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclic2.pdf

The later versions is definately cyclical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 2:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 4:23 PM ramoss has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 63 of 263 (318387)
06-06-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ramoss
06-06-2006 4:19 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
And the .pdf you linked to clearly states that this proposal is distinct from the earlier "cyclic universe" scenarios. And it still isn't like Mike's idea..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 4:19 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 6:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 64 of 263 (318413)
06-06-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
06-06-2006 4:23 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
But, it is a cyclic universe model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 4:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 2:34 AM ramoss has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 65 of 263 (318582)
06-07-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ramoss
06-06-2006 6:21 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
Exactly. A cyclic universe model. Not The cyclic universe model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 6:21 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 9:11 AM PaulK has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3766 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 66 of 263 (318595)
06-07-2006 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 12:57 PM


Re: This isn't a "mike explain God" thread
Quote from Mike the wiz
"Time: An intention for events to unfold. (which then means that events are one of the intentions of the designer)

Gravity: the plan is that it should hold things down

Friction: so that things won't slide infinitely.

the vacuum of space: the plan is that a vacuum radiates heat, so that lifeforms won't be burnt so that planets can orbit at a correct path, so that water isn't boiled.

Light/star: The plan would be to give energy and heat to life.

Since time shows that it's only reason is for events to unfold, then it is reasonable to make the leap to say that these other laws will work for events to unfold. Even so, without making this leap anybody can see that these statements are true."

**********************************************************************
this is an example of reverse , im the center , thinking .. all of the above can exsist fine with out any purpose , it is you that assign's them one ..

friction is NOT there to stop things sliding , friction is there due to the nature of to the interacting matter ,

gravity is not to hold things down , who say things need to be held down .. if there was no gravity effect , then the universe who still be there .. but using different laws ..

vacum of space so that life can exsist .. ?? who said life should exsit , most of the universe is the vacum of space between the stars.. have not found must evidence of life .. therefore ist very unlikly that life is its reason .. evidence would favour its there to allow star to be seperate from each other

( side note ... given the evidence if life is the purpose of the universe it a very bad design .!!)

light /star to give energy for life .. hmm nope i think the more logical view would be life makes use of what ever it can find as an energy soruce ..eg light or thermail or chemical ... if fact most star are totally unsuitable for life as we know it ..

ok now time ... given that all the time we can observe is past time .. then clearly the reason for time is to stop things being changed .. i mean you go change the past hhmmm .. and is time not just a mapping tool to define something within the universe .

unless you assume you are the reason for the universe none of your points are valid .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 12:57 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 06-16-2006 10:02 AM ikabod has replied
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 06-16-2006 10:22 AM ikabod has taken no action

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3226
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 67 of 263 (318662)
06-07-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by PaulK
06-07-2006 2:34 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
The point is that yes, there are real scientists out there that speculate about a cyclic universe. That is not an unknown concept, and it has some basis.. although I don't know if these hypthosises are currently testable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 2:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 6:52 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3766 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 68 of 263 (318666)
06-07-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
05-31-2006 1:01 PM


back to the OP
if ,as you claim, chance does not exist outside the space / time universe , but a creator does , it must follow that such a creator has no free will , as they have no options

no chance ..means the creator cannot choose to create the universe as we know it or to create one that is more suitable for human life , there is no chance of them creating the universe 1 atom different .... thus the creator is reduced to a funtion of set laws .. hmm like a big bang ..

if creator has free will they can choose to do A or b , .. there is a chance they will pick A and a chance they will pick B .. thus chance exist outside .. which means your assumptions is incorrect .. this meaning no creator ..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 05-31-2006 1:01 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 263 (318887)
06-07-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ramoss
06-07-2006 9:11 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
Which is a complete irrelevance. All I said was that there were n ideas like Mikes that I knew of, making it very much a strawman and falsifying his claim that it was the only possiblity open to an atheist. To that I added that THE cyclic universe theory was distinct from the ekpyrotic version you mentioned. Both these points remain true.t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 9:11 AM ramoss has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 70 of 263 (322173)
06-16-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ikabod
06-07-2006 3:37 AM


Back to school boys
vacum of space so that life can exsist .. ?? who said life should exsit , most of the universe is the vacum of space between the stars

It's not that life should exist, it's that it is a fact that life does exist. A fact which should not be ignored.

side note ... given the evidence if life is the purpose of the universe it a very bad design

I don't believe in a physical design of lifeforms. I believe that a species in the image of God was an intention, but the universal laws are what dictate the design you get.

light /star to give energy for life .. hmm nope i think the more logical view would be life makes use of what ever it can find as an energy soruce

But I didn't argue against this logical observation. Infact, that life does this, doesn't prove that the light was not created for life. There is no disjunction; one could have both a universe made for life and a lifeform that makes itself around the universe.

If anything, I based my observation on a fact; that light is an energy which helps life. That it is there in the first place, is remarkable enough.

This is all I require. This is why atheists have put forward ideas that work from big numbers; because they know that the fine or coarse tuned nature of the universe, would be too remarkable as a one off. It therefore either was designed, or CHANCE allowed for big numberse. (Because it is proved that big numbers negate probability)

Example; the lottery. Impossible odds, YET someone wins.

unless you assume you are the reason for the universe none of your points are valid

What you don't understand is that I am not assigning a purpose to the universe, because anyone can check to see if these things happen.

If you can prove the light doesn't help life, that gravity doesn't hold us down, that the vacuum of space doesn't radiate heat, and that time doesn't allow events to unfold, then perhaps I would change my mind.

The specific circumstance doesn't negate the general circumstance, neither does the general circumstance negate the specific circumstance.

Example; I have 100 balls. 98 are red, and 2 are blue.

That there are 2 blue, doesn't mean that there aren't 98 red, and that there are 98 red doesn't mean that there aren't 2 blue. In this scenario, all I need is 1 blue because I only require a fact.

That the composition of the universe might be less than 0.5.% lifeforms, wouldn't matter. What would matter is that there are lifeforms. Chance allows for this (the situation atleast), but what allows for the universe?

So, I have to say that for thinking, you and Paul have earned a D+, but you have to go far deeper and adress the specific specifics behind this whole thing, like I have done.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ikabod, posted 06-07-2006 3:37 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 10:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 71 of 263 (322182)
06-16-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ikabod
06-07-2006 3:37 AM


The science agrees with mike
Now imagine a universe without time, space, water, gravity, friction, light. Would life be able to adapt itself to such a situation? How the hell could it potentially exist?

Even the scientists agree with me because they look for habitable places, in order to look for lifeforms.

You won't get a scientist looking into a chaotic system with two stars, or whatever, because they know as scientists, that life would be found in a habitable place.

An alien with the ability to withstand heat, might survive the desert, but an earthly lifeform without that trait, wouldn't survive. But neither of them would survive without the universal condition in place, that allow both to exist.

An important logical point!

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ikabod, posted 06-07-2006 3:37 AM ikabod has taken no action

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3766 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 72 of 263 (322202)
06-16-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by mike the wiz
06-16-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Back to school boys
Quote "This is all I require. This is why atheists have put forward ideas that work from big numbers; because they know that the fine or coarse tuned nature of the universe, would be too remarkable as a one off. It therefore either was designed, or CHANCE allowed for big numberse. (Because it is proved that big numbers negate probability)

Example; the lottery. Impossible odds, YET someone wins."

sorry but you miss understand the meaning of chance ..how many lottery ticket do you need to buy to win the lottery .. answer 1, the rest is a series of event that follow making your ticket the winning one , you do not need big numbers , now it may be that the result is one of many possibliities , but that does not mean you can not get it with a single go ..

if you wish to run back time you can where do you point to the bit that caused life .. ...

you only need to start one universe to get to have this one ..

quote "It's not that life should exist, it's that it is a fact that life does exist. A fact which should not be ignored."

well ,the stars seem to ignore it , so do the dust clouds ,the gamma rays , the atoms making up your head .

scientist look for life in planets that look like they could support life ....hmmm how odd where to they look for stars ? where do they look for sub atomic particals , where do they look for 5th 6th 7 th dimensions .. when you look for a taxi do you look on the street of in you ear ??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 06-16-2006 10:02 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 06-16-2006 11:42 AM ikabod has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 73 of 263 (322245)
06-16-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by ikabod
06-16-2006 10:53 AM


Re: Back to school boys
I apreciate your points. What I mean by the lottery, is an example of an extraordinary instance.

All of these universal laws and components that JUST HAPPEN to be perfect, need to be answered for.

One answer is multiple big bangs, because then, in huge numbers, you might get a universe that is like this. I see that as a fair speculation, but it depends on assuming that chance existed before the universe.

Thanks for your participation. I concede that any of us stand a chance of being correct, but I am hoping people look more into what I am saying about formal causes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 10:53 AM ikabod has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2006 12:18 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2006 12:48 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 06-16-2006 12:53 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 74 of 263 (322265)
06-16-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mike the wiz
06-16-2006 11:42 AM


Re: Back to school boys
So basically you weren't arguing that there has to be something on which chance can operate, you really were arguing that chance could only exist in this universe. Perhaps you can justify that claim, because you certainly haven't done it in this thread, to date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 06-16-2006 11:42 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 263 (322278)
06-16-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mike the wiz
06-16-2006 11:42 AM


another possibility
All of these universal laws and components that JUST HAPPEN to be perfect, need to be answered for.

You offer one explanation: Many, many attempts.

There is another (at least): only one possible outcome. If you lottery can only pick the number 42 then it is easy to explain why that is the one picked.

We don't know if any other universes are possible. Maybe, indeed, "there can be only one".

It maybe that the answer lies somewhere in between. There may be a small number of possible sets of physical laws and constants. It maybe that all of them can produce somesort of life (just not life that is exactly like us but so what?).

We can all conjecture all we want. What we have is an unanswered question. That is all if is. It doesn't tell us anything at all about the universe or it's cause. It is JUST an unanswered question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 06-16-2006 11:42 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 12:08 PM NosyNed has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022