Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 193 of 220 (694381)
03-24-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by designtheorist
03-23-2013 8:50 PM


Re: Interesting argument
quote:
At any rate, naturalistic causes for the Big Bang can be, and have been, mathematically ruled out. That is to say, it is impossible for nature to be the cause of a low entropy Big Bang.
That isn't true. Penrose doesn't says ANYTHING about natural causes in the clip you posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by designtheorist, posted 03-23-2013 8:50 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 201 of 220 (694435)
03-24-2013 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:54 PM


Re: Improbability and time
You do realise that with infinite attempts, anything with a finite probability is expected to happen an infinite number of times ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:54 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 206 of 220 (694467)
03-25-2013 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:25 PM


Re: Penrose has rejected a naturalistic Big Bang
quote:
Penrose is talking about the odds of this special condition coming about by chance. Chance is another term for "naturalistic."
Chance has two distinct meanings. The more common one - which Penrose is using refers to the absence of any constraining regularities. For instance if you let go of a rock and it falls to the ground it is not chance that the atoms making up the rock all happen to follow a quite similar path downwards after you release it. Gravity and the chemical bonds holding the rock together constrain it.
Granted that chance is sometimes used to refer to the absence of intelligent guidance but clearly Penrose is not using that meaning - because to do so he would have to deal with the issue of natural constraints - and he does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:25 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 220 (694468)
03-25-2013 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:27 PM


Re: Improbability and time
quote:
That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false.
No, it's the result of mathematics.
For any probability p the number of expected successes given t trials is p.t (i.e. p multiplied by t).
Do you disagree with that ?
If not, can you give a finitely low p, where p > 0 and given infinite t p.t < 1 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:27 PM designtheorist has 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