10 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're moving the goalposts yet again; "randomness" does not equal "improbability".
I never said I wasn't curious. Nor did I say "S**t happens". I believe you came up with that phrase. I said I didn't know.
And the current scientific standpoint from quantum mechanics is that either s**t happens rather a lot, or there is no easy way to know that it doesn't. Quantum mechanics strongly suggests true randomness. Besides, even a completely causal system must necessarily have some brute facts that we can put down as s**t happens.
TW: My argument consists of the assertion that anything that happens is necessarily incredible improbable. That is a basic fact of things happening.
That something is "random" doesn't necessarily make it "incredibl[Y] improbable".
You are content to not know. The point of the Rick's analogy (which flew completely over your head) is that coming up with a possible explanation even one that at first glance accords with the observed facts is insufficient if those observed facts and other evidence indicate that another explanation is more probable.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderIt isn't a personal attack. Its an attack on your claim that knowing the probability of something is equivalent to knowing exactly what will happen. And I threw it in because you made an unwarranted claim that if I didn't agree with you then I must think physicists are fools.
Personal attacks are the usual last resort on these forums.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo such claim was made so you are coupling a Strawman argument with a personal attack.
It isn't a personal attack. Its an attack on your claim that knowing the probability of something is equivalent to knowing exactly what will happen. And I threw it in because you made an unwarranted claim that if I didn't agree with you then I must think physicists are fools.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderWhere did I say it did? And once again, I am not making goal posts, I am merely stating facts.
You're moving the goalposts yet again; "randomness" does not equal "improbability".
That something is "random" doesn't necessarily make it "incredibl[Y] improbable".
Agreed. I stated that if something happens, it is necessarily improbable. My claim is true whether it is random or not. It is true for completely deterministic universes as well as non-deterministic universes. (assuming we consider events that wont happen in a deterministic universe 'possible'😉. Its just an obvious fact. If there are a number of possible outcomes, and only one eventuates, then that one was improbable - when evaluated using normal probability theory. I realize you would like to throw in probabilities for the given out comes, but that doesn't really change the equation all that much. It remains the case that given enough events, the final result will always be incredibly improbable.
You are content to not know. The point of the Rick's analogy (which flew completely over your head) is that coming up with a possible explanation even one that at first glance accords with the observed facts is insufficient if those observed facts and other evidence indicate that another explanation is more probable.
It didn't fly over my head. But you are yet to present the supposed 'other evidence' or even show that the 'observed facts' indicate another explanation.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357I haven't forgotten this post; I'm mulling it over and will get back to it.
If that universe was a consciousness (or if there were a separate consciousness) that set up the physics including the symmetry rules and the energy transfer rules and so forth, so that it could witness and contemplate the resulting physical patterns, would that consciousness not be a (somewhat🙂) intelligent designer?
What I am getting at is whether any un ...[text shortened]... inimal characteristics of a universe that an ID adherent would be justified in calling designed?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadSee the post on page 2 for evidence. The chances that a "one draw" universe would come up with a group of constants in such a small range as to be life possible is vanishingly small.The same principle applies as I explained several times regarding the Rick's analogy; the "22" could have come up twice in a row as a result of random chance but the probability of it doing so are low. There is a better explanation that accords with the facts in both cases i.e. Rick made the husband win and the universe was designed to be life possible.
Where did I say it did? And once again, I am not making goal posts, I am merely stating facts.
[b]That something is "random" doesn't necessarily make it "incredibl[Y] improbable".
Agreed. I stated that if something happens, it is necessarily improbable. My claim is true whether it is random or not. It is true for completely deterministic universes ...[text shortened]... e supposed 'other evidence' or even show that the 'observed facts' indicate another explanation.[/b]
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see no reason to believe that incredibly improbable things occur more often or just as often as very probable ones.
Where did I say it did? And once again, I am not making goal posts, I am merely stating facts.
[b]That something is "random" doesn't necessarily make it "incredibl[Y] improbable".
Agreed. I stated that if something happens, it is necessarily improbable. My claim is true whether it is random or not. It is true for completely deterministic universes ...[text shortened]... e supposed 'other evidence' or even show that the 'observed facts' indicate another explanation.[/b]
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, but the analogy simply doesn't apply. The key reasons why we suspect Rick of cheating simply aren't there in the universe. Instead, you are using something else they have in common - the low probability of a given outcome - and using that to make the analogy match. But the low probability property applies to even a single lottery or to anyone winning money on roulette, yet you fail to apply the same argument to them.
See the post on page 2 for evidence. The chances that a "one draw" universe would come up with a group of constants in such a small range as to be life possible is vanishingly small.The same principle applies as I explained several times regarding the Rick's analogy; the "22" could have come up twice in a row as a result of random chance but the probabil ...[text shortened]... in both cases i.e. Rick made the husband win and the universe was designed to be life possible.
So, please explain where the actual extra evidence is with regards to the universe other than a simple probability claim.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Dec 14
2 edits
If there are chance arguments for atheism that means it is possible that there is God. If atheism can be possible or even probable by chance, then so can theism be possible or probable by chance.
It is possible that intelligent design occurred and the world did not happen by chance. Beware of any chance argument purporting to prove atheism.
Some atheists see that the probability of the known universe argues for design. (I said some). To counter this implication they pile on immensity to the problem by proposing many and even infinite number of unknown universes. The multiverse is a tool for some to add immensity to the immensity of the known universe when the probability of the known universe argues for Intelligent Design.
It is stated by some that the mere possibilities within unknown universes does not outweigh the probability in the one known universe. In fact when all is said it may be that the characteristics of the known universe plus the imagined characteristics of umpteen million unknown or imaginary universes all together still argue for intelligent design.
Adding unknown universes to the one known one to concoct a multiverse could backfire on the atheist.
Some argue that the argument for atheism from chance is self-defeating as it presupposes design. They say that there is no meaningful way to speak of a completely random universe. Chance makes sense only on a backdrop of design, as meaninglessness can be understood only in the overall context of meaning. There is no way to express complete randomness without a backround of order, design and relatibility.
Intelligibility has to be the backdrop upon which complete randomness is discussed. Non-theist Julian Huxley calculated the odds against a purely chance evolution of life at 1 to 1,000 to the millionth power. That's a one followed by 3 million zeros.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell you seemed to exclude a universe at that lacks any being that could be called a person, then I suggested that the sole such person could be the ID-er, setting up physical systems more or less for its own amusement.
I haven't forgotten this post; I'm mulling it over and will get back to it.
Can there be a designed universe that is not intelligently designed?
Once the minimal characteristics of a designed universe are defined, what are the minimal characteristics of an intelligently designed universe? How do we know our D is I?
Questions for the wee hours, or over a brandy.
10 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe probability claim is sufficient since you've done nothing to refute it nor brought forth any evidence to counter it. The Lottery Fallacy has been discussed and show to be inadequate as a counter but you are still relying on it even though it shows absolutely nothing. Quite simply, more probable things are more probable than remotely probable things.
Sorry, but the analogy simply doesn't apply. The key reasons why we suspect Rick of cheating simply aren't there in the universe. Instead, you are using something else they have in common - the low probability of a given outcome - and using that to make the analogy match. But the low probability property applies to even a single lottery or to anyone winni ...[text shortened]... the actual extra evidence is with regards to the universe other than a simple probability claim.
There's also some interesting properties of the universe itself such as nonlocality which implies superluminal connections to support the idea of a pantheistic universe but I doubt you're willing to get past your "hold your breath until you turn blue" insistence that the Lottery Fallacy proves something (or perhaps your stubborn insistence that it can be used to disprove something).