Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universal Perfection
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 117 (63806)
11-01-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
11-01-2003 8:23 AM


quote:
Mike the whiz: I also do not think you can get order from some sort of big bang, which I think would make a big mess. Did any bomb you have heard of create order.lol
/*DNAunion*/ Order arises in the Universe, by undirected and non-biological processes alone, on a regular basis. The molecules in a cloud of gas are less ordered than they are in a spherical star: gravity "pulls" on the gas molecules and imposes order on them.
Simple order is not the key here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 11-01-2003 8:23 AM mike the wiz has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 117 (63807)
11-01-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
11-01-2003 11:52 AM


quote:
Nosy ned: What if the conditions here were not "just right"? The answer is easy: we would not be here. The question doesn't mean very much since if we can ask it the conditions are "just right". There isn't any other possible answer.
/*DNAunion*/ I disagree. The fact that we exist is in need of an explanation and so the question is meaningful. Here's a snippet from my personal notes.
*********************************
However, those who suggest that our existence itself is reason for us to not be surprised at the fine tuning we observe - and that our existence itself is enough for us to not question the probability of the events and conditions that led to our existence - are very much mistaken. To say that Were the conditions different than they were, then we would not be here to question them may be sound logic, but it is not an explanation at all for the origin of the fine-tuning for life that we observe in the universe. It is merely a self-evident observation; one that lacks any explanatory power.
quote:
Since the Generic Chance Elimination Argument is explicated just as well by an example as in abstract, let us consider an illustration due to Richard Swinburne. Swinburne (1979, p. 138), in critiquing the anthropic principle, relates the following story about a mad kidnapper:
Suppose that a madman kidnaps a victim and shuts him in a room with a cardshuffling machine. The machine shuffles ten packs of cards simultaneously and then draws a card from each pack and exhibits simultaneously the ten cards. The kidnapper tells the victim that he will shortly set the machine to work and will exhibit its first draw, but that unless the draw consists of an ace of hearts from each pack, the machine will simultaneously set off an explosion which will kill the victim, in consequence of which he will not see which cards the machine drew. The machine is then set to work, and to the amazement and relief of the victim the machine exhibits an ace of hearts drawn from each pack. The victim thinks that this extraordinary fact needs an explanation in terms of the machine having been rigged in some way. But the kidnapper, who now reappears, casts doubt on this suggestion. It is hardly surprising, he says, that the machine [drew] only aces of hearts. You could not possibly see anything else. For you would not be here to see anything at all, if any other cards had been drawn. But of course the victim is right and the kidnapper is wrong. There is indeed something extraordinary in need of explanation in ten aces of hearts being drawn. The fact that this peculiar order is a necessary condition of the draw being perceived at all makes what is perceived no less extraordinary and in need of explanation. [Richard Swinburne, 1979, p. 138] (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p185-186)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 11:52 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rei, posted 11-01-2003 1:17 PM DNAunion has replied
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 1:37 PM DNAunion has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 48 of 117 (63811)
11-01-2003 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DNAunion
11-01-2003 12:43 PM


The analogy is faulty. That would be the equivalent analogy of taking a lifeform from a random universe and placing it in a random, different universe and seing if it survived. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether life can develop in a random universe to begin with, not whether current life can survive in a random universe.
As I referenced in my earlier post, random universes will at the very least survive long enough for complexity - however different - to arise.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 12:43 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 1:47 PM Rei has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 117 (63813)
11-01-2003 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DNAunion
11-01-2003 12:43 PM


As Rei notes, you card shuffling analogy is off base. For one thing, in the analogy we are told that the machine ARE able to draw any cards at random. As I pointed out we don't yet know if any other possible universe can exist. We don't know how much room there is to wiggle the physical constants.
Secondly, we have forgotten someones comment that the universe isn't fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned to it! There is a difference there. This is about what Rei is saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 12:43 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 2:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 117 (63814)
11-01-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rei
11-01-2003 1:17 PM


quote:
Rei: The analogy is faulty. That would be the equivalent analogy of taking a lifeform from a random universe and placing it in a random, different universe and seing if it survived.
/*DNAunion*/ What?????? Where'd you come up with that???
quote:
Rei: That's not what we're talking about here.
/*DNAunion*/ And that's not what the analogy is talking about either.
quote:
Rei: As I referenced in my earlier post, random universes will at the very least survive long enough for complexity - however different - to arise.
/*DNAunion*/ Yes, you stated that unsupported and untestable presumption previously. So what? Are you claiming that it is indisputable fact...that we are all forced to accept it as true?
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rei, posted 11-01-2003 1:17 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 11-01-2003 2:00 PM DNAunion has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 51 of 117 (63818)
11-01-2003 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by DNAunion
11-01-2003 1:47 PM


quote:
quote:
Rei: The analogy is faulty. That would be the equivalent analogy of taking a lifeform from a random universe and placing it in a random, different universe and seing if it survived.
/*DNAunion*/ What?????? Where'd you come up with that???
Because your analogy only works if this is the only type of universe that can contain life; it assumes its conclusion, by having the person killed in every other scenario. This may be the only type of universe that can contain LAWKI, but to claim that it's the only type of universe that can contain life is quite unsupported by you.
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Yes, you stated that unsupported and untestable presumption previously. So what? Are you claiming that it is indisputable fact...that we are all forced to accept it as true?
Apparently you didn't even bother to check the article that I referenced. Figures.
P.S. - Why the pretentious code comments around your name? We know its you writing, you don't need to clarify. /*Rei*/
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 1:47 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 2:20 PM Rei has replied
 Message 54 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 2:31 PM Rei has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 117 (63819)
11-01-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
11-01-2003 1:37 PM


quote:
NosyNed: As Rei notes, you card shuffling analogy is off base. For one thing, in the analogy we are told that the machine ARE able to draw any cards at random. As I pointed out we don't yet know if any other possible universe can exist. We don't know how much room there is to wiggle the physical constants.
/*DNAunion*/ So you both agree and disagree with Rei.
I agree that the analogy is based on the assumption that the values for the constants of nature could take on a vast variety of combinations. But that is a working assumption that mainstream scientists use: it's not a "Creationist" position.
(Besides, if the constants of nature had to take on only those values that are compatible with life, then some would argue that to be an even greater "predestined coincidence" and a stronger argument for design).
quote:
NosyNed: Secondly, we have forgotten someones comment that the universe isn't fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned to it!
/*DNAunion*/ I haven't forgotten about it - I simply don't accept it as any kind of explanation for the "problem" being discussed. For example, it is based on the unsupported assumption that life could exist without oxygen, carbon, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 1:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 117 (63820)
11-01-2003 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rei
11-01-2003 2:00 PM


quote:
Rei: Because your analogy only works if this is the only type of universe that can contain life; it assumes its conclusion, by having the person killed in every other scenario.
/*DNAunion*/ Wrong, the analogy does NOT assume its conclusion. The analogy is not meant to conclude that only one universe can support life. That is a premise the analogy is based on, not its conclusion (there is a difference between a premise and a conclusion).
quote:
Rei: This may be the only type of universe that can contain LAWKI, but to claim that it's the only type of universe that can contain life is quite unsupported by you.
/*DNAunion*/ You've got it backwards.
All empirical observations (which are restricted the one observed universe) to date show that all life is life as we know it, and requires carbon and oxygen (which in turn require fairly specific values for certain constant of nature).
Your position - that life not as we know it does exist or even could exist (in some hypothetical universe that cannot be examined or tested) - is the one without any empirical observations whatsoever.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 11-01-2003 2:00 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 12:42 AM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 117 (63821)
11-01-2003 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rei
11-01-2003 2:00 PM


quote:
Rei: P.S. - Why the pretentious code comments around your name? We know its you writing, you don't need to clarify. /*Rei*/
/*DNAunion*/ They aren't pretentious: they're explicit labels used for clarity's sake.
Since in the past a few others have wanted me to omit my handle, I started putting it in multi-line C-style comments (the /* ... */). That way, whoever wants to can act like a compiler and ignore it.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 11-01-2003 2:00 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Jack, posted 11-03-2003 5:26 AM DNAunion has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 55 of 117 (63826)
11-01-2003 4:44 PM


quote:
Besides, if the constants of nature had to take on only those values that are compatible with life, then some would argue that to be an even greater "predestined coincidence" and a stronger argument for design
What would be an argument against design? If the universe were different, it would produce different things. It would be fine tuned for those things. Would that require design?
JustinC

TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 117 (63881)
11-01-2003 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by DNAunion
11-01-2003 12:20 PM


Beliving in bat-people on the moon does seem more plausable than beliving in a invisible, all-powerful, non interacting god, that creates beeings beliving in bat-people living on the moon.
Doesen't it?
I just rather skip the god part of it, and keep the bat-people.
-quote-
Now why don't you actually support your position - instead of simply stating it - by showing us a system (other than biological life as we know it) that would classify as life, and that arose by undirected, non-biological processes alone?
---
Sorry, cant find any such systems here on earth. Guess they must have evolved into something else. Haven't been able to visit any other starsystems lately.
The last part of life definition cant be proven.
Since neither you nor I knows what the awareness part of life is, in its essence, and it can't be proven that another lifeform/beeing actually has self-awareness. (It could be simulating)
As for self-replicating enteties, all i need to do is to construct my own universe in a computer. Why dont you take a look at the "game of life"?
To make something logically self-replicating all that is needed are two different logical rules. By combining these in different ways you can construct every other convievable information-construct, like multiplication, a computer game, an artificial intelligence, or a self-replicating system. This selfreplicating system can be infinitly complex. The same can obviously be done with metal and springs, thogh it would be a really slow version. Or atoms of your choice. A self replicating system can be made out of of any sets of atoms. Some sets are just harder to use, but it doesent matter. We have enogh rules to play with.
Of course the starting-conditions for almost all matter-combinations will never be met. Trying to make a self-replicating system of hydrogen might force you to make it in galaxy scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 12:20 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 2:45 PM TechnoCore has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 57 of 117 (63888)
11-02-2003 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by DNAunion
11-01-2003 2:20 PM


quote:
Your position - that life not as we know it does exist or even could exist (in some hypothetical universe that cannot be examined or tested) - is the one without any empirical observations whatsoever.
Nor are there any observations to contradict it. Of course all life discovered so far is similar - it's all in the same universe, and we've only looked at the tiniest fraction of it. So? We're not discussing this universe. Back to the basics here: You need to evidence that it is only realistic that any form of life would exist only in this universe.
Carbon and oxygen don't allow life. The properties of carbon and oxygen allow life. While this may seem like a trivial distinction (such as "Guns don't kill people, bullets fired from guns kill people"), it is critical to this discussion: carbon and oxygen themselves need not even exist in any form - only the types of complex interactions that we see in organic chemistry, which in our universe are partially due to the interactions of carbon and oxygen.
What is the basic subset of "capabilities" in nature required for life to occur? That's a good question, and is currently a subject of much debate. Certainly, it would seem that turing compatability of the universe is the basic requirement, but not every turing-compatable universe will create life. Looking at some alternatives - such as Conway's Game of Life - you quickly learn that complexity requires a mix of randomness and order. There need to be stable states, as well as unpredictability, to get interesting behavior that lasts for a reasonable length of time. And, of course, the larger your universe (regardless of its composition), and the more processing time it has, the more interesting results you can get.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 2:20 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 2:59 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 61 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 3:02 PM Rei has replied
 Message 62 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 3:10 PM Rei has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 58 of 117 (63964)
11-02-2003 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-31-2003 8:36 AM


Sorry I am ariving late.
Do you think that the nose and ears where perfectly designed to hold spectacles? If not, why do you apply this logic to the universe?
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-31-2003 8:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 117 (63970)
11-02-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by TechnoCore
11-01-2003 11:22 PM


quote:
Technocore: As for self-replicating enteties, all i need to do is to construct my own universe in a computer. Why dont you take a look at the "game of life"?
/*DNAunion*/ I already have. It is an unimpressive computer game that uses a two-dimensional array to represent the positions of organisms with some rules for the creation and deletion of organisms based on neighboring cells in the matrix; once the correct rules were found and a correct starting setup used, some figures would amazingly reappear throughout a run of the program. The organisms don’t self-replicate: they are poofed into existence with a single line of code. It’s not even the organisms that amazingly reappear, but shapes. Finally, there’s not even any self-replication of shapes: in fact, there’s no self-replication in the system at all.
quote:
Technocore: To make something logically self-replicating all that is needed are two different logical rules.
/*DNAunion*/ First, I don’t necessarily want to move from discussing actual life to discussing life as you define it and that exists in your imagination. Second, you made another unsupported assertion.
quote:
Technocore: By combining these in different ways you can construct every other convievable information-construct, like multiplication, a computer game, an artificial intelligence, or a self-replicating system.
/*DNAunion*/ Another unsupported assertion.
quote:
Technocore: The same can obviously be done with metal and springs, thogh it would be a really slow version. Or atoms of your choice. A self replicating system can be made out of of any sets of atoms.
/*DNAunion*/ Another unsupported assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by TechnoCore, posted 11-01-2003 11:22 PM TechnoCore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 4:20 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 117 (63974)
11-02-2003 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rei
11-02-2003 12:42 AM


quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Your position - that life not as we know it does exist or even could exist (in some hypothetical universe that cannot be examined or tested) - is the one without any empirical observations whatsoever.
quote:
Rei: Nor are there any observations to contradict it.
/*DNAunion*/ Nor are there any observations to contradict Clingons, Vulcans, or Jedi Knights with their minichlorines (or whatever) that provide them with "The Force". Will you start using these hypothetical life forms to support your argument next?
quote:
Rei: Of course all life discovered so far is similar - it's all in the same universe, and we've only looked at the tiniest fraction of it. So?
/*DNAunion*/ So....all empirical evidence to date shows only one form of life, based on organic molecules such as nucleic acids, proteins, etc., which in turn require carbon and oxygen (as well as other things).
An opposing position — that life unlike that we know — does or could exist is an unsupported presumption.
quote:
Rei: We're not discussing this universe.
/*DNAunion*/ What? Of course we are discussing this universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 12:42 AM Rei 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