15 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadStamping your feet isn't an intellectual exercise. I fully responded to the "dice problem" several times.
You don't have an answer do you, just as you can't answer the dice question.
Perhaps you'd like to respond to the Penrose argument above. Or respond meaningfully to DT pointing out that the present state of string theory yields a likelihood of a life habitable universe as being even lower than Penrose's fantastic number. I'm fairly certain you won't.
If we lived in a universe where all flowers were red, it might be useful to compute the probability of said universe arising by random chance. But we do not. We do, however, exist in a life habitable universe and physicists have attempted to compute the odds of an LHU occurring by random chance. They are pretty much in agreement that it is fantastically small and regard it as a theoretical problem that needs to be solved (Smolin lists it as one of the five great problems in contemporary physics). Your "s**t happens" thesis doesn't seem to be very popular among them.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderYou 'responded', but you never answered. Dodging questions isn't an intellectual exercise.
Stamping your feet isn't an intellectual exercise. I fully responded to the "dice problem" several times.
Perhaps you'd like to respond to the Penrose argument above. Or respond meaningfully to DT pointing out that the present state of string theory yields a likelihood of a life habitable universe as being even lower than Penrose's fantastic number. I'm fairly certain you won't.
I have responded to the Penrose argument, with the question:
Why isn't it a universe in which flowers are red?
To which you have no answer. So I take it the Penrose argument is successfully debunked.
If we lived in a universe where all flowers were red, it might be useful to compute the probability of said universe arising by random chance. But we do not.
You have never seen a red flower? Ouch. Or maybe you thought I meant 'all flowers must be red'. Maybe I could have phrased it better. I meant 'a universe in which red flowers can exist'.
We do, however, exist in a life habitable universe and physicists have attempted to compute the odds of an LHU occurring by random chance.
And the question is why? Why did they not compute the odds of a universe in which I live? Why did they not compute the odd of a universe in which my cat lives? Why did they not compute the odds of a universe in which there are red flowers?
They are pretty much in agreement that it is fantastically small and regard it as a theoretical problem that needs to be solved (Smolin lists it as one of the five great problems in contemporary physics). Your "s**t happens" thesis doesn't seem to be very popular among them.
I honestly don't care how many backers you think you have. If you don't have logic on your side, then who cares? Defend your case with actual argument not with references to people that you think support you. Otherwise, I think the Muslims will win every argument.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI think cosmic inflation can sort this problem out. Penrose's argument is from taking the number of Baryons in the universe and producing an entropy estimate. This is a problem of initial conditions rather than the parameter space of the theory. The potential weakness with it is that the inflationary phase provides a mechanism for reducing the entropy density of the observable universe. The resultant homogenous universe has low entropy density. With entropy arguments something to realise is that including gravity changes the rules, so that the highest entropy per volume configurations are black holes. Gravitational configurations with homogenous matter distributions are low entropy. This is the other way round from when gravity is weak, but at cosmological scales gravity dominates. Because cosmic inflation flattens everything out it tends to reduce entropy density. This means that we have an explanation for the low entropy density of the observable universe if inflation is true, which there is some evidence for.
From Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind:
Let us try to understand just how much of a constraint a condition such as WEYL
= 0 at the big bang was. For simplicity (as with the above discussion) we shall
suppose that the universe is closed. In order to be able to work out some clear-cut
figures, we shall assume, furthermore, that the number ...[text shortened]... , biography showing his scientific bonafides is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
I don't think inflation can be invoked to help with the parameter space problem, except possibly to justify some sort of multiverse argument. Possibilities that need to be recognised are that a future theory of everything may have a small space of free parameters, so our universe would represent a typical outcome. Also possible is that our theory of everything makes the universe atypical and unlikely so that in the absence of any empirical method of separating them the various explanations in terms of God, multiverses, and blind luck are all equally likely to be true. What then needs explaining is the discrepancy between the a priori and a posteriori probabilities. We can't assign either probability to the idea that it was just blind luck so we can't rule that out, it's just not particularly satisfying. The advantage with the multiverse idea is that it may have testable consequences, but also can't be ruled out. The God hypothesis is only testable after death or the apocalypse and so is outside science, but that is also no reason to rule it out.
I don't think there's a problem with speculating about the possible consequences of the observable universe potentially being ridiculously unlikely, but we haven't clearly established it is yet.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is the basis of the argument. There is a parameter space for the theory. The universe contains observers (i.e. us) and we should be typical. The share of parameter space that allows life and therefore observers which aren't Bolzmann Brains appears to be too small. This makes the outcome atypical and so the outcome is a priori wildly improbable. The a posteriori probability is 1. The simplest explanation is that the theory is wrong or incomplete, and with a partially understood theory that is even more likely. Once that possibility is ruled out contenders are many universes, God and a very lucky one shot universe. I don't think there is a good way of assigning probabilities to those possibilities. But the scientific approach is to be sceptical of the theory first, rather than insist on something that is a priori wildly improbable.
OK, stop right there. Who are 'we' and how do you define 'we'? Does it include me? Exactly as I am, with every atom where it is? Does it include my memory of the fact that no1marauder won't tell us the probability of throwing a given combination with 5 rolls of a die? If not, why not?
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessSo what makes something "appear" to be designed? What are the rules that
Everything that appears to be designed has a designer.
The universe appears to have been designed.
Therefore, the universe has a designer.
This is essentially the argument from design (as I've understood it), and it is a rock-solid argument if the premises are true. So, are they?
We'll assume that by "designer" we mean an intelligent being capa ...[text shortened]... ybe, perhaps have a designer, or not.[/i]
That's the proper conclusion for now, me thinks. 😏
everyone agrees to go by?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderIf we stipulate for the sake of argument that the likelihood of a habitable universe with a probabilistic origin is vanishingly small, what conclusions about origins does this warrant, other than that the likelihood is vanishingly small? Is some other, non-probabilistic origin thereby proven to be more likely?
From Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind:
Let us try to understand just how much of a constraint a condition such as WEYL
= 0 at the big bang was. For simplicity (as with the above discussion) we shall
suppose that the universe is closed. In order to be able to work out some clear-cut
figures, we shall assume, furthermore, that the number ...[text shortened]... , biography showing his scientific bonafides is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhy? And who gets to define what you mean by 'typical'? It has such a wide range of possible meaning that it is practically meaningless without first specifying a bit more what you mean, but then you must also demonstrate that your specification is not arbitrary.
....and we should be typical.
The share of parameter space that allows life ...
There you go again. What do you mean by 'life'? If you are not specific about that, then you can't hope to estimate what parameters are required.
The simplest explanation is that the theory is wrong or incomplete,
What theory is wrong or incomplete? The theory that you need a theory? The simplest explanation is that no explanation is required.
....contenders are many universes, God and a very lucky one shot universe.
All one shot universes are 'very lucky' by definition. Hence the lottery analogy. So there really is no need to call it 'lucky' just say 'one shot universe', or 'multiverse'. The God option is a sub set of 'lucky one shot universe', and doesn't explain either the luck nor the reason why it is one shot. (I guess there may also be a God with multiverse option too, but I took it that you were ignoring that one.)
15 Dec 14
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will waste one more post on you though you seem to have reached the point of hilarity when you start claiming that arguments from theoretical physics made by eminent scientists regarding the necessary entropy states that existed at the time of the Big Bang are easily "debunked" by posters on an internet forum merely restating a peculiar form of the "s**t happens" argument. Perhaps you should share your insight "debunking" Penrose in a peer reviewed scientific journal though I guess that would be beneath you as your last paragraph says that the views of scientists in this matter based on observation and experiment should be ignored in favor of the "logic" of internet blusterers.
You 'responded', but you never answered. Dodging questions isn't an intellectual exercise.
[b]Perhaps you'd like to respond to the Penrose argument above. Or respond meaningfully to DT pointing out that the present state of string theory yields a likelihood of a life habitable universe as being even lower than Penrose's fantastic number. I'm fairly cer ...[text shortened]... es to people that you think support you. Otherwise, I think the Muslims will win every argument.
JS 357 pointed out that what you were getting at was the probability of each sequence of the dice which is normally not considered the "result" (if you are playing craps in Vegas or Monopoly in your living room and roll two dice you don't normally announce the result as "2-5" you say "7". Pardon my confusion because of your non-standard use). In a six sided dice, that is 1 divided by 6 to nth power with n being the number of separate rolls as all sequences are equally possible. In my response to JS 357, I labelled that result "trivial" and explained why it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Put simply, the issue at hand is either A or B as already defined. Both possibilities cannot be "improbable" as you have defined it. So the dice example you have given says nothing about the issue of the probability of a life habitable universe as opposed to a life hostile one.
OK. We live in a universe where red flowers exist. Change the parameters of the universe even slightly and red flowers couldn't exist. You are aware that red (or any color) flowers are alive, aren't you? So we need a life habitable universe for red flowers to exist.
Do you still think that you have powerfully debunked Penrose's argument regarding possible entropy states at the time of the Big Bang?
Actually they really weren't interested in calculating any of those. Instead they are calculating what are the probability of the basic physical forces being within the ranges we see in this universe. The link I provided on page 2 explains this. However, the results of even small changes in most universal forces is catastrophic to life. That has also been explained to you.
Logic must accord with physical reality or it is worthless wordplay. The observations and experiments done by physicists confirm that there is a "fine tuning problem" as they have defined it. Your cavalier dismissal of reasoned arguments by experts in the field basing their conclusions on well-established scientific facts (though as DT points out other explanations consistent with those facts may be possible) makes you sound like one of the Fundies here.
I have no idea what the last sentence means.
15 Dec 14
God, is ultimately nothing more than a process as far as this discussion is concerned. Given gravity, a universe with the same laws of physics as our own, will more likely than not, form clumpy structures. This is dues to the process we call gravity, which is non random.
Similarly, a universe that has a God, may have certain features that differ from a purely random configuration of particles. Again, we can look at this as a process.
So if we see definite patterns in the structure of matter, we may attribute this to God, or to gravity, or to some other unknown process. But ultimately, unless we have some information about the patterns in the matter that indicates a particular process was involved, we cannot attribute the pattern to a particular process purely on the probability of the pattern arising by chance. All we can say is that the pattern indicates a process, nothing more.
If however we don't even have a pattern, and merely base our argument on the fact that the particles in the universe are in a particular state, as opposed to all other possible states, then I am afraid such an argument leads nowhere, and doesn't even indicate a process. The only way such an argument can have any validity whatsoever, is if you deny the possibility of randomness. ie you must claim that if a photon is emitted from an electron in a certain direction, then there has to be a specific reason for that particular direction. But even then, you cannot deduce what the reason was merely based on probability, and in addition, you will run into an infinite chain of causes as you have denied the possibility of brute facts.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357If the probability of A is vanishingly small and there only B is an alternative possibility, then Yes. That seems to be by definition.
If we stipulate for the sake of argument that the likelihood of a habitable universe with a probabilistic origin is vanishingly small, what conclusions about origins does this warrant, other than that the likelihood is vanishingly small? Is some other, non-probabilistic origin thereby proven to be more likely?
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadLife is normally defined as something with a cell membrane. Something like a Bolzmann Brain which comes about as a random collision is just too unlike us. It doesn't matter too much where you put the dividing line. Somewhere around universes where there is nothing to prevent creatures from evolving on a planet and being capable of doing something recognisably like science.
Why? And who gets to define what you mean by 'typical'? It has such a wide range of possible meaning that it is practically meaningless without first specifying a bit more what you mean, but then you must also demonstrate that your specification is not arbitrary.
[b]The share of parameter space that allows life ...
There you go again. What do you ...[text shortened]... re may also be a God with multiverse option too, but I took it that you were ignoring that one.)[/b]
A lot of the standard model parameter space is used up with universes where the nuclear force is a different strength and stars can't generate fusion past helium (which relies on an excited state of Carbon in the right place for the triple alpha process to work), this is the kind of thing that rules out planetary observers. There is a parameter space problem for the Standard Model. That there is a problem with the theory in the era that's important to this question isn't controversial, we expect new physics to apply at energies above 10^11 GeV (i.e. for times before 10^{-36} of a second after the start of time.). As a heuristic we assume that theories with a parameter space problem are incorrect while there's no better empirical evidence to go on.
That a specific outcome had to come about does not prevent a wildly atypical outcome being in need of explanation. To use your dice example suppose life required a score of 5,900 or more for a single roll of 1,000 dice. If that happened then while it's possible the lottery was fair you might want to examine the dice.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderSo if the least improbable explanation of the existence of a habitable universe is to be accepted as true, how do we estimate the probability of a designed habitable universe? Wouldn't this require estimating the probability of the existence of a design-possessing and a design-executing entity of some sort? What parameter-space is involved, or is its existence to be chalked up to s**t happens?
If the probability of A is vanishingly small and there only B is an alternative possibility, then Yes. That seems to be by definition.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357In my tentative model, all you need is a universe which exhibits physical properties that are wildly inconsistent with a life habitable universe occurring by random chance. I don't need to estimate the possible existence of a separate entity; my model doesn't require one. Nor do I feel required to speculate on things that occurred "prior" to the existence of the universe as that goes into the realm of the supernatural.
So if the least improbable explanation of the existence of a habitable universe is to be accepted as true, how do we estimate the probability of a designed habitable universe? Wouldn't this require estimating the probability of the existence of a design-possessing and a design-executing entity of some sort? What parameter-space is involved, or is its existence to be chalked up to s**t happens?
Where there is a problem where we have some data which points to the a probable answer, I don't feel any qualms about deeming that answer probable. That is what human beings do every day. Where there is no data and perhaps no possibility of obtaining data, I'm willing to say I don't know.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderOK I'll stop asking questions at least for a while, to avoid rehashing things that have been covered. I'm human too, but by my training as a scientist, I have to consider whether the alternative to what you call random force is in-principle falsifiable. It seems that there can't possibly be any observable data that can't be attributed to the design. If so, IMO this is a weakness. It's not fatal to the design hypothesis, but it will keep the idea outside of science.
In my tentative model, all you need is a universe which exhibits physical properties that are wildly inconsistent with a life habitable universe occurring by random chance. I don't need to estimate the possible existence of a separate entity; my model doesn't require one. Nor do I feel required to speculate on things that occurred "prior" to the existenc ...[text shortened]... there is no data and perhaps no possibility of obtaining data, I'm willing to say I don't know.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThe conversation is with you, not with eminent scientists. Yes, I know you claim they are on your side, but I could equally gather some eminent scientists on my side. I just see no point in the game of claiming eminent scientist supporters, especially when they are not here to participate.
I will waste one more post on you though you seem to have reached the point of hilarity when you start claiming that arguments from theoretical physics made by eminent scientists ...
Pardon my confusion because of your non-standard use).
I explicitly stated what I was asking for from the very beginning, and restated it a number of times. And even after both I and JS357 corrected your mistake, you still failed to give an answer.
In my response to JS 357, I labelled that result "trivial" and explained why it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
But you were wrong to do so, given that you do not seem to know what the issue at hand is. It is I that asked the question, therefore it is I that gets to decide whether it is relevant. And if the result is so trivial, why did you repeatedly deny the result earlier in the thread?
Put simply, the issue at hand is either A or B as already defined. Both possibilities cannot be "improbable" as you have defined it.
I never said anything about the probabilities of A or B, and never intended the dice to be an analogy for that. That is something you brought up after the whole dice question in an attempt to not answer it.
OK. We live in a universe where red flowers exist. Change the parameters of the universe even slightly and red flowers couldn't exist. You are aware that red (or any color) flowers are alive, aren't you? So we need a life habitable universe for red flowers to exist.
So which is more probable, a universe in which red flowers exist, or a universe in which life exists?
The observations and experiments done by physicists confirm that there is a "fine tuning problem" as they have defined it.
Not true in the slightest.