10 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357I'm not sure if the universe itself couldn't be considered a "person" under pantheistic principles. Assuming it can choose, at least initially, the values of the physical constants I suppose it could be possible it would do so merely for its own amusement.
Well 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.
Can there be a designed universe that is not intelligently designed?
Once the minimal characteristics of a designed universe are ...[text shortened]... designed universe? How do we know our D is I?
Questions for the wee hours, or over a brandy.
I'm imagining a universe that lacks omnipotence and omniscience. And perhaps even a central consciousness while the universe is in a non-singular state. It can set the value of gravity or the strong force, for example, but it can neither do without them entirely nor alter them while the "experiment" is running (the "experiment" being the period between the Big Bang and Big Crunch/Big Rip).
I'm not sure what a "D" would like look without an "I"; having the former without the latter seems logically impossible.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have no idea what that is supposed to mean. One can calculate with certainty the probability of the results. And none of those results seem as anywhere near as improbable as a life possible universe arising from one draw at random.
Throw a die 5 times then get back to me on that.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI take it this way: The probability of rolling a given improbable number at least once, increases as the number of rolls increase.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. One can calculate with certainty the probability of the results. And none of those results seem as anywhere near as improbable as a life possible universe arising from one draw at random.
No matter how low the non-zero probability of an event is, given enough trials, the probability of that event occurring at least once approaches 100%.
Given the event in question here, at (some) universes this will be understood. At others, the life forms will marvel at how unlikely they are. Maybe they were not designed as intelligently. 🙂
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357I don't see TW claiming that there is a Multiverse or more than one trial. So essentially he is left with claiming a highly improbable event is more likely to have occurred than a probable event. I guess you or he will have to explain why an intelligent being would reach such a conclusion.
I take it this way: The probability of rolling a given improbable number at least once, increases as the number of rolls increase.
No matter how low the non-zero probability of an event is, given enough trials, the probability of that event occurring at least once approaches 100%.
Given the event in question here, at (some) universes this will be underst ...[text shortened]... fe forms will marvel at how unlikely they are. Maybe they were not designed as intelligently. 🙂
And, of course, the Multiverse concept is non-falsifiable if we are unable to detect other universes.
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is a bit of a hack's argument, but String Theories have extra dimensions, the current thinking concerns what are known as Calabi-Yau manifolds. Which is how the extra dimensions are wrapped up. They are six dimensional, (this is the hack bit) a flat six dimensional space is described by SO(6) (the rotation group in 6 dimensions) which is basically the same as SU(4) (up to some mathematical subtleties). SU(4) can be broken into SU(3) the symmetry of the strong force and U(1) (the circle group) which is the symmetry of electromagnetism. This leaves out the weak force, but never mind. So we have a hack's argument for the existence of the strong force and electromagnetism. However within SU(4) we can also find SU(2)×SU(2)×U(1) which gives us two copies of a weak-like force and an electromagnetic-like force. So even within what Soothfast described as 'twiddling dials' the fundamental forces can come out different.
Sorry, but I can't see any reason to imagine universes without gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear force or electromagnetism or the other basic forces mentioned. Nor have I heard any scientific reason to do so. These are not "physical constants"; they have "physical constants" but they themselves are forces and present models suggest that they are essential to the existence of a universe.
Problems with my argument include the way Calabi-Yau manifolds are not flat and that I've left out the weak force as we see it in this universe. But the point I'm trying to get across is that Soothfast is right, in that there is a lot more variation possibly possible than just 'twiddling parameters'.
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI have done a lot to refute it:
The probability claim is sufficient since you've done nothing to refute it nor brought forth any evidence to counter it.
1. The reason you suspect foul play in your analogy is not based solely on the probability. Therefore the probability claim is not good enough to use it as a valid analogy.
2. You have admitted that you would not draw the same conclusion for other scenarios with a similar probability.
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.
It is you and not me that is promoting a lottery fallacy. I am merely pointing out certain characteristics of lotteries, and flaws in your lottery fallacy. What I am countering is specifically your lottery fallacy.
Quite simply, more probable things are more probable than remotely probable things.
Yes, but thats a tautology and not even remotely interesting.
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).
Well when you have presented such evidence, I will listen. But for as long as you have not done so, your analogy does not fit.
11 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut would any of those results be more probable than 50%?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. One can calculate with certainty the probability of the results. And none of those results seem as anywhere near as improbable as a life possible universe arising from one draw at random.
Your claim is that:
I see no reason to believe that incredibly improbable things occur more often or just as often as very probable ones.
I am pointing out that when you throw a die 5 times, every single possible result will be incredibly improbable, and there will be exactly zero probable results. Hence when throwing a dies, you should have "reason to believe that incredibly improbable things occur more often or just as often as very probable ones."
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is a tricky sentence. You could interpret that sentence as meaning that given two possible events, one probable and one improbable, the more probable one will occur less often. I am not saying that as that would contradict the meaning of the word 'probable'.
So essentially he is left with claiming a highly improbable event is more likely to have occurred than a probable event.
What I am claiming is that virtually all events are improbable, ie they have a probability of less than 50% of eventuating. Here I am talking about exact states of a large system at the end of a series of events and not some thing as simple as a given number on one of a set of die rolls. I am for example talking about the exact sequence of numbers you will get after 5 rolls of a die, and not the probability of throwing a 6 on one roll of the die.
If you were to get 5,6,3,5,1 as your result, what is the probability of that occurring.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe multiverse (multiple instances of a BB followed by a big crunch/bit rip) is plausible and is a general case, of which your idea of a universe that somehow maintains its identity while cycling through a succession of mutually independent lifetimes, is a special case.
I don't see TW claiming that there is a Multiverse or more than one trial. So essentially he is left with claiming a highly improbable event is more likely to have occurred than a probable event. I guess you or he will have to explain why an intelligent being would reach such a conclusion.
And, of course, the Multiverse concept is non-falsifiable if we are unable to detect other universes.
So you have reached this conclusion yourself. Most of the time, your cyclic universe will yield life-hostile universes, but once in a while, the universe will be such that life can develop and last (a while). Of course those life-friendly universes will seem unlikely to their inhabitants, because they don't experience the unfriendly ones.
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by josephw
Well obviously, looking at the absence of evidence for a designer would not convince me that there was a designer. It doesn't rule out the existence of a designer, but before one believes something exists one has to have some reasons to think so other than being unable to rule it out.
Even if the universe does not appear designed, if there were independent reasons to think that it was designed, I would accept them if they were convincing.
Ok, but what if the designer designed the universe so that it could not be determined by what was created that it had a designer?
".., if there were independent reasons to think that it was designed, I would accept them if they were convincing."
Let's say that the "creator", if there is one, created the whole universe, but in such a way that "a cause" could not be determined by scientific means.
Would it not be by any other means except by "independent reasons" that the knowledge of the existence of a creator could be known?
I haven't seen the next pages of this thread yet, but I'm willing to bet my life on it that this debate in it's current form will not produce "evidence" for the existence of a creator God, or any other cause, the reason for the existence of all that exists in reality or in theory!
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357Yes. I take a drive in the country and see fields plowed, cultivated and planted with crops.
Question to anyone:
Imagine a universe that is, in fact, hostile to biological life, but that is not hostile to such things as crystal formation and other inorganic phenomena that exhibit orderliness and that can be studied and described mathematically. The mathematics of crystals is rather complex but involves orderly categories of symmetry which can be co ...[text shortened]... its "lifetime."
Would this non-life sustaining, order-displaying universe be evidence for ID?
I know a farmer did it.
I see an inexhaustibly infinite universe, and the world I live in teeming with life of every imaginable kind.
I know God did it.
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Everything has a cause. Life causes life. God is life.
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwI wouldn't bet my life on it, but I also do not expect to see any such evidence presented here.
I haven't seen the next pages of this thread yet, but I'm willing to bet my life on it that this debate in it's current form will not produce "evidence" for the existence of a creator God, or any other cause, the reason for the existence of all that exists in reality or in theory!
11 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357The fish must wonder at how the bowl so perfectly conforms to the shape of the water!
The multiverse (multiple instances of a BB followed by a big crunch/bit rip) is plausible and is a general case, of which your idea of a universe that somehow maintains its identity while cycling through a succession of mutually independent lifetimes, is a special case.
So you have reached this conclusion yourself. Most of the time, your cyclic universe wi ...[text shortened]... rses will seem unlikely to their inhabitants, because they don't experience the unfriendly ones.