natural v. designed Re: Ray Martinez and denial in the face of plain

[pnyikos]

On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no>  wrote:

> > You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> > with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> > doubt that you know.
[...]
> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
> differentiate it from human selection.

Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
[I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".

> > In short
> > natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
> > or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>
> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.

Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.

>   You are the one who gets
> "Biblical Theology" all wrong.   Dawkins simply rejects it.

Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?

The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
even unicellular organisms. It only insists that the human soul is of
divine creation.

A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
plants by God.

>You, on the
> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.

Is this a reference to Jesus? Are you one of those people who denies
that anyone named Yehoshua, son of a carpenter, became an itinerant
preacher and was crucified under Pontius Pilate due to public
pressure?

Never mind the miraculous details. Is he "false" in the sense of
never existing, or in the sense of not being what he is cracked up to
be, in your opinion?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>> doubt that you know.
> [...]
>> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
>> differentiate it from human selection.
>
> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".

True in what context, to what people? Ray's idea of "natural", for
example, is of something he thinks doesn't exist: pure randomness.

>>> In short
>>> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
>>> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
>> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>
> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.

Good enough for most purposes. Would you care to critique their views?

>> You are the one who gets
>> "Biblical Theology" all wrong. Dawkins simply rejects it.
>
> Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
> readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?

Either.

> The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
> happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
> even unicellular organisms. It only insists that the human soul is of
> divine creation.

It also appears to insist that Adam and Eve were real people and were
the progenitors of all living people. Further, while the church doesn't
require a literal Genesis, it doesn't forbid it either. You can be both
a biblical literalist and a Catholic.

> A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
> evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
> when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
> plants by God.

It is not, however, compatible with human evolution.

>> You, on the
>> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
>> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.
>
> Is this a reference to Jesus?

No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
name.

[remainder snipped as irrelevant given the answer to the question.]

[*Hemidactylus*]

Dana already provided it...Gene Scott.

Peter had been absent from t.o. for much of the time Ray was blossoming.
I myself was amazed by the "eels of Atlantis", since I wasn't paying
much attention to the various goings on here for a while either, when
Ray was carving out his niche on t.o.

[John Harshman]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

>> No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
>> name.
>
> Dana already provided it...Gene Scott.

Yeah. I kept coming up with Gene Hunt. But he's a fictional character.
Come to think of it, wouldn't a fictional character be more appropriate
for Ray?

[*Hemidactylus*]

One who punishes people by cloaking himself from non-believers who
cannot "make it" with Him and avenges the "rape room" atrocities
committed upon His book?

The Cloaked Avenger? Or maybe the Watchmaker (not to be confused with
the Watchmen)?

Maybe Ray's long delayed book will be a graphic novel replete with
superheros and villains. Given his love of the f-bomb it will at least
be graphic.

[pnyikos]

Not at present. Besides, I don't think you'd be interested in what I
have to say, judging from your wet-blanket reaction to my comments
about in-your-face atheistic <ahem> holiday season displays.

> >>    You are the one who gets
> >> "Biblical Theology" all wrong.   Dawkins simply rejects it.
>
> > Based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, or the more loose
> > readings that e.g., the Roman Catholic Church employs?
>
> Either.
>
> > The RCC does not take Genesis literally, and the Vatican is perfectly
> > happy with the evolution of our bodies from those of lower animals or
> > even unicellular organisms.  It only insists that the human soul is of
> > divine creation.
>
> It also appears to insist that Adam and Eve were real people

No. It says that they represent an unknown group of people who were
given an unknown test, upon which hinged many benefits that they lost
through failing the test.

The RCC has some ideas on what those benefits may have been, but I
haven't made a detailed study of them.

>and were
> the progenitors of all living people.

Yes, but perhaps not the only progenitors. "And Cain knew his wife"
has had a great deal of lively discussion and debate among Christians
as to where she came from. Also the distinction between "the sons of
God" and "the daughters of men" is an impenetrable mystery to
Christians, AFAIK. Both are from early in the book of Genesis.

> Further, while the church doesn't
> require a literal Genesis, it doesn't forbid it either. You can be both
> a biblical literalist and a Catholic.
>

The RCC is amazingly liberal about what Catholics HAVE to believe.
But ever since JPII said evolution is "more than just a theory" there
is little doubt as to what views it favors.

> > A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
> > evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
> > when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
> > plants by God.
>
> It is not, however, compatible with human evolution.

True. But the RCC goes all but the last of the whole nine yards; see
above.

> >> You, on the
> >> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
> >> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.
>
> > Is this a reference to Jesus?
>
> No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
> name.

I hope he isn't as wacky as the false prophets [gods] of Wretch
Fossil.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no>  wrote:
> > > You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
> > > with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
> > > doubt that you know.
> [...]
> > Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
> > differentiate it from human selection.
>
> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
> the word "natural".  See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".
>
> > > In short
> > > natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
> > > or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>
> > Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
> > about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>
> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.
>

I have yet to see ANY Darwinist here at Talk.Origins show even a
Sunday school understanding of Biblical Theology, Peter.

I have been studying Theology under the brightest Biblical scholars
for most of my adult life. Dawkins, in "The God Delusion" asks why did
Christ die, who was he trying to impress? Even retarded persons know
the answer to this question, Peter. And Lenny Flank thinks his pizza
delivery boy is qualified to explicate Theology. And Dana Tweedy is my
sworn enemy. His ultimate goal is slander.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/09/2012 10:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>> doubt that you know.
>> [...]
>>> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
>>> differentiate it from human selection.
>>
>> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
>> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
>> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
>> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
>> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".
>>
>>>> In short
>>>> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
>>>> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>>
>>> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
>>> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>>
>> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.
>>
>
> I have yet to see ANY Darwinist here at Talk.Origins show even a
> Sunday school understanding of Biblical Theology, Peter.

What about atheists?

Here we go again:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5f0b5cdda9533df0

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other Ray!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Genesis 1:

[quote]24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according
to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God
made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according
to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our
likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.” [/quote]

So Ray in Genesis 1 animals and livestock are created before humans.

Genesis 2:

[quote] 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had
yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there
was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth
and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed
a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and
there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of
trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and
good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was
separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon;
it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12
(The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also
there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through
the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the
Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is
the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are
free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you
will certainly die.”

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals
and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he
would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that
was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds
in the sky and all the wild animals. [/quote]

So Ray in Genesis 2 man (Adam) comes first then animals and livestock.

Which Genesis (1 or 2) is correct in your view?

And now let's look closer at the special creation on humans shall we?

Genesis 1:

[quote] 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our
likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. [/quote]

This looks like males and females were created together in God's image
after the animals.

Genesis 2:

[quote] But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD
God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping,
he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with
flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken
out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Here Eve is created from a body part of Adam separately from Adam being
formed from dust and God-breath. Eve came after even the animals.

So Ray how do you account for the biblical contradictions above vis a
vis "creations"? If the bible is the inspired word of God, then God has
some serious inconsistencies in his account and the bible is errant.

And apparently God (in Genesis 1) created photosynthesizing plants
BEFORE he created the sun they would need to sustain themselves for
however long a creation day is.

[quote Genesis 1 again] 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit
with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their
kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was
morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault
of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to
govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault
of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the
night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was
good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
[/quote]

It makes more sense that photosynthesizing plants evolved long after the
sun came into being. The theory of evolution blasts your creation
account out of the water.

[crickets and theme song]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY

[John Harshman]

This is at variance with what I've heard before. Can you cite something
authoritative?

> The RCC has some ideas on what those benefits may have been, but I
> haven't made a detailed study of them.
>
>> and were
>> the progenitors of all living people.
>
> Yes, but perhaps not the only progenitors.

I believe that much may be the case. But this seems to assume that Adam
and Eve were real people, which you previously claimed was not dogma.

> "And Cain knew his wife"
> has had a great deal of lively discussion and debate among Christians
> as to where she came from. Also the distinction between "the sons of
> God" and "the daughters of men" is an impenetrable mystery to
> Christians, AFAIK. Both are from early in the book of Genesis.
>
>> Further, while the church doesn't
>> require a literal Genesis, it doesn't forbid it either. You can be both
>> a biblical literalist and a Catholic.
>
> The RCC is amazingly liberal about what Catholics HAVE to believe.
> But ever since JPII said evolution is "more than just a theory" there
> is little doubt as to what views it favors.

Not at issue. Some of the Pope's opinions are not required for communicants.

>>> A much more literal reading of Genesis is also compatible with natural
>>> evolution on a grand scale, as in the phrase "the earth brought forth"
>>> when referring to what fundies inconsistentlly call the creation of
>>> plants by God.
>> It is not, however, compatible with human evolution.
>
> True. But the RCC goes all but the last of the whole nine yards; see
> above.

It *allows* individuals to go all bu the last.

>>>> You, on the
>>>> other hand have it all twisted up with your own irrational and hate
>>>> filled beliefs, and your sad hero worship of a false prophet.
>>> Is this a reference to Jesus?
>> No. Ray's prophet is much more recent. I have momentarily forgotten his
>> name.
>
> I hope he isn't as wacky as the false prophets [gods] of Wretch
> Fossil.

6 of one...

[Rolf]

So that's how you got your total ignorance. What a wasted life.

[John S. Wilkins]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> And Dana Tweedy is my
> > sworn enemy.

Wil Wheaton!

[Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/10/12 4:32 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> And Dana Tweedy is my
>>> sworn enemy.
>
> Wil Wheaton!
>
> [Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]

It's kinda sad that Ray considers me his "sworn enemy". I have nothing
but good wishes for Ray, and I hope he will someday be able to cast off
his bad influences that have warped his life.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/9/12 8:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/7/12 1:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 4:01 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>> You haven't even scratched the surface. It would be better to start
>>>> with the word "natural." Why is it there, Rolf? I know the answer, I
>>>> doubt that you know.
>> [...]
>>> Ray, the word "natural" in natural selection was intended to
>>> differentiate it from human selection.
>>
>> Maybe that was the original intent, but this is talk.origins and Ray
>> is a creationist, so you are not coming to grips with the full role of
>> the word "natural". See my reply to Ray, a talk.origins exclusive
>> [I'm crossposting this to alt.agnosticism.] where I point out that the
>> true antonym of "natural" is "due to intelligent agents".
>>
>>>> In short
>>>> natural selection is to me as Biblical Theology is to Richard Dawkins
>>>> or Lenny Flank. Its simply incomprehensible.
>>
>>> Both Richard Dawkins and Lenny Flank seem to know a great deal more
>>> about Biblical Theology than you do, Ray.
>>
>> Be that as it may, they are hardly experts on it.
>>
>
> I have yet to see ANY Darwinist here at Talk.Origins show even a
> Sunday school understanding of Biblical Theology, Peter.

Ray, please keep in mind that your own understanding of Biblical
Theology would be rejected in every Sunday School in the land.

>
> I have been studying Theology under the brightest Biblical scholars
> for most of my adult life.

He means Gene Scott. Take that for what it's worth.....

> Dawkins, in "The God Delusion" asks why did
> Christ die, who was he trying to impress? Even retarded persons know
> the answer to this question, Peter.

Theologians have been discussing this idea for centuries. You cite
yourself as knowing the answer, but you don't really have a clue.

> And Lenny Flank thinks his pizza
> delivery boy is qualified to explicate Theology.

Actually, Lenny's point was that he isn't required to consider anyone's
opinion on theological matters valid, any more than he's required to
consider his pizza boy's opinion. Not quite the same thing as Ray
claimed.

> And Dana Tweedy is my
> sworn enemy. His ultimate goal is slander.

As for me, I don't consider Ray to be my enemy at all. I've never sworn
any type of enmity toward Ray. He's badly confused, highly ignorant,
and in need of help.

If my "goal" was 'slander' as Ray claims, (Ray has a problem with
understanding the difference between slander and libel) I would be using
"slander", not just telling the truth about Ray. Of course, for Ray
someone telling the truth is probably more damaging than someone
engaging in defamation.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

This particular reply is meant answer 6 or 7 preceding messages that
you have posted upthread.

These replies are all naysaying evasions mixed with angry slanderous
comments. Nobody would waste a minute of their time answering.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> And Dana Tweedy is my
>>> sworn enemy.
>
> Wil Wheaton!

Bazinga!

> [Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]

At least Dr. Sheldon Cooper has no truck with religion and Wil Wheaton
did pull a fast one on Sheldon about his grandma to gain his sympathies.

Didn't realize Aussies were aware of The Big Bang Theory. Just started
watching it too myself.

[John S. Wilkins]

Aware of it? I have memorised much of it, and quoted it in print.

Note that Wheaton made up with Sheldon by giving him an unopened Wesley
Crusher doll^H figurine, which Brent Spiner then opened, earning *him*
the "nemesis" tag, occasioning Wheaton's comment quoted above...

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/10/2012 09:09 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Dana Tweedy is my
>>>>> sworn enemy.
>>>
>>> Wil Wheaton!
>>
>> Bazinga!
>>
>>> [Don't worry. It doesn't take up much of your time.]
>>
>> At least Dr. Sheldon Cooper has no truck with religion and Wil Wheaton
>> did pull a fast one on Sheldon about his grandma to gain his sympathies.
>>
>> Didn't realize Aussies were aware of The Big Bang Theory. Just started
>> watching it too myself.
>
> Aware of it? I have memorised much of it, and quoted it in print.
>
> Note that Wheaton made up with Sheldon by giving him an unopened Wesley
> Crusher doll^H figurine, which Brent Spiner then opened, earning *him*
> the "nemesis" tag, occasioning Wheaton's comment quoted above...

Ahh.. I'm still catching up on BBT. I find Howard Wolowitz amusing
especially when he has Sulu and Starbuck coaching him from the back seat
of his car. And Leonard starred in the cult classic "Suicide Kings" with
Walken and Leary.

Has "Person of Interest" made it to your shore yet? It stars Gibson's
Christ, but is really good. It also stars Ben Linus from "Lost". If not
yet, keep an eye out for it.

[Dana Tweedy]

So, why not offer any reply to the actual posts? What are you afraid
of?

>
> These replies are all naysaying evasions mixed with angry slanderous
> comments.

Actually, my replies were all cogent points which you keep avoiding. I
don't see where you get the idea I was "angry" or "slanderous". Would
you please indicate what replies s were "slanderous", and how you
determined they were not true.

> Nobody would waste a minute of their time answering.

which sounds exactly like you are running away from my points you are
too afraid to answer.

Do you really imagine you are fooling anyone?


DJT

[John S. Wilkins]

I wacthed three episodes and found it uninteresting. De gustibus...

[*Hemidactylus*]

I kinda like it. Since Jack Bauer went on walkabout, the Passion Christ
guy is about the only show in town for over the top action.

[pnyikos]

Note to people in alt.agnosticism: this is a fascinating (for me at
least) discussion of the evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence
of a creator of our universe. In some strands of the discussion I
also spoke of my hopes, which correspond closely to C.S. Lewis's view
of the supernatural, but as I repeatedly point out, a sober assessment
of the evidence available to me suggests that the probability of my
hopes being realized is < 1%.

On Feb 23, 11:23 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:

> > On Feb 17, 11:09 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:

> >>> On Feb 16, 1:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:

> >>>>> On Feb 15, 8:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Harshman's first question sets the theme for this post:

> >>>>>> Would you agree that there is
> >>>>>> no good evidence for the existence of god?

And my answer begins to set the parameters:

> >>>>> No, there is lots of good evidence, but extraordinary claims require
> >>>>> extraordinary evidence, and so my standards for what constitutes
> >>>>> *strong* evidence in this matter are astronomical.
> >>>> Could you give me an example of the good evidence, just so I can see the
> >>>> sort of thing you mean?
> >>> One example is the  incredible fine-tuning of the physical constants,
> >>> about which I've told you at least once.  But, like Ray Martinez, you
> >>> refuse to acknowledge amazing coincidences as being any kind of
> >>> evidence at all.
> >> Agreed, and I have good reasons.

[...]
> >> 1) we have no idea what the
> >> distribution of possible physical constants is,
>
> > As long as it isn't self-contradictory, I see no barriers.

You made no response to this. I paraphrase it below.

> >> and so can't say that
> >> any particular values are unlikely, despite your claims;
>
> > The range of values compatible with life is very restrictive.
>
> You can't say that unless you know what range you are comparing them to.

As I suggested above, the range seems to have no bounds. Do you have
ANY reason for thinking there are any?

To refresh your memory, six of those constants and their significance
are mentioned here:

http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf

> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's very
> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.

And neither do you. But if it is the former, or if the range has no
bounds at all, then I'd like an explanation of why you think the fine-
tuning is no evidence at all for a creator. And please frame it with
due consideration of alternatives 1 through 3 below, near the end of
this post.

> > The
> > trouble is, you are so close to nihilism, you see nothing special
> > about life being possible, and seem to think it would have been just
> > as well if there had never been anyone in the whole of reality able to
> > experience any of it consciously.
>
> I have never said or thought anything of the sort.

Sorry--I may have misremembered which person fits the above
description.

So, then, please tell me whether you think (I) below is much better
than (II).

(I) a universe in which an intelligent species such as ours is able to
understand and appreciate so much of it.

(II) a universe in which there is not and never will be any being able
to experience it consciously.

[...]

> >> 2) the range of
> >> parameters over which life (really, most often, stars) is possible is
> >> much greater than commonly imagined, because the usual scenario involves
> >> tweaking just one constant, when tweaking two at once shows additional
> >> favorable values. What is your response?
>
> > If you tweak one, the range of life-affirming values for the other is
> > moved over, but you have an uphill battle to show that it is
> > enlarged.
>
> I don't understand this either. What I'm saying is that the claim has
> been that the life-friendly region of parameter space is a single point,

...on a line. But really, it is a very small interval of the line.
See the url above.

As to your cryptic words "the claim":
I don't give a fig for what the *explicit* claims of others have
been. Anyway, I'd be very surprised if Cambridge University Professor
Martin Rees, who wrote the statements excerpted in the website whose
url I gave above, didn't ever write an analysis like the one I do
below, only much more detailed.

> based on any deviation in a single parameter being fatal. But instead
> (to consider only two parameters) it could be a line.

...in a plane. But really, it is more like a narrow ribbon in the
plane. Still a negligible part of the whole plane, probabilistically
speaking. I'll explain this another time, if you wish; I need to get
a good night's sleep because I'm due to give a seminar talk in
Charlotte tomorrow.

[...]
> > To put it another way: you go from a one-dimensional setting to a two-
> > dimensional setting, but the range of pairs of values is like a narrow
> > ribbon now, in a plane that stretches infinitely far in all
> > directions.
>
> Again, we don't know how far the plane stretches. but you will agree
> that there are suddenly a lot more points, right?

Not in a sense relevant to the probabilities involved.

> If you would look into
> the literature, you will find that for some estimates of parameter
> space, a high proportion of points allow life.

Not the literature I am familiar with. I've recently read a book
which purports to refute the fine-tuning arguments [it's even in the
title of the book, whose wording escapes me at the moment], and the
estimates given are purely speculative as to what proportion allows
life.

> > And if you go to higher dimensions, corresponding to all the factors
> > that the fine-tuning enthusiasts talk about, the range of values is
> > like a hyper-rope (an ordinary rope with three factors) that soon gets
> > to look like a curve with no thickness as you move away from it.  In 3-
> > D, you could move forever and never encounter it.
>
> Let's not take the analogy too far.

Three factors, half the number that Rees talks about, is what the 3-D
picture analyzes.

> You don't know that the space is
> infinite. So are you acknowledging my point?

I stand by what I've written here.

And here are the three alternatives I mentioned above:

> > 1.  Our young, small [compared with what it will eventually become--I
> > left that part out] universe is all there is (or was, or will ever
> > be).
>
> > 2.  There is a supernatural creator of our universe.
>
> > 3. There is, for all practical purposes, an infinity of universes.

With minor variations, these are the main alternatives a serious
searcher of truth about a creator (or lack thereof) is confronted
with.

[...]
> > I predict atheism
> > will inexorably gravitate towards 3, because 1 makes 2 seem like an
> > uncomfortably possible alternative.

[...]
> Fine-tuning is by no means established, as I have
> tried to argue. If the universe were fine-tuned, we would look for an
> explanation, and I suppose 1 would not be a good explanation. If.

Well, let's see where this discussion takes us next.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[John Harshman]

I don't know what it means. Let's see if the paraphrase is better.

>>>> and so can't say that
>>>> any particular values are unlikely, despite your claims;
>>> The range of values compatible with life is very restrictive.
>> You can't say that unless you know what range you are comparing them to.
>
> As I suggested above, the range seems to have no bounds. Do you have
> ANY reason for thinking there are any?

Do you have any reason to think the range has no bounds? What is your
evidence for this interesting assertion?

> To refresh your memory, six of those constants and their significance
> are mentioned here:
>
> http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
>
>> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's very
>> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
>> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.
>
> And neither do you.

That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do know.

> But if it is the former, or if the range has no
> bounds at all, then I'd like an explanation of why you think the fine-
> tuning is no evidence at all for a creator. And please frame it with
> due consideration of alternatives 1 through 3 below, near the end of
> this post.

So far we haven't seen any evidence that there is fine-tuning, so it's a
bit premature to decide that it's evidence for anything.

>>> The
>>> trouble is, you are so close to nihilism, you see nothing special
>>> about life being possible, and seem to think it would have been just
>>> as well if there had never been anyone in the whole of reality able to
>>> experience any of it consciously.
>> I have never said or thought anything of the sort.
>
> Sorry--I may have misremembered which person fits the above
> description.
>
> So, then, please tell me whether you think (I) below is much better
> than (II).
>
> (I) a universe in which an intelligent species such as ours is able to
> understand and appreciate so much of it.
>
> (II) a universe in which there is not and never will be any being able
> to experience it consciously.

I prefer I, because it involves my existence, and I like existing. By
that standard, it's better. But what does this have to do with anything?
Surely we aren't judging the truth of any proposition on the basis that
things would be better if it were true.

> [...]
>
>>>> 2) the range of
>>>> parameters over which life (really, most often, stars) is possible is
>>>> much greater than commonly imagined, because the usual scenario involves
>>>> tweaking just one constant, when tweaking two at once shows additional
>>>> favorable values. What is your response?
>>> If you tweak one, the range of life-affirming values for the other is
>>> moved over, but you have an uphill battle to show that it is
>>> enlarged.
>> I don't understand this either. What I'm saying is that the claim has
>> been that the life-friendly region of parameter space is a single point,
>
> ...on a line. But really, it is a very small interval of the line.
> See the url above.

Consider that line. Suppose it has a slope of 1. Any change in x or y
puts you off the line. But change both x and y and you're on the line.
This is the argument.

> As to your cryptic words "the claim":
> I don't give a fig for what the *explicit* claims of others have
> been. Anyway, I'd be very surprised if Cambridge University Professor
> Martin Rees, who wrote the statements excerpted in the website whose
> url I gave above, didn't ever write an analysis like the one I do
> below, only much more detailed.

Don't know, but you have been surprised before, and I don't have any
great confidence in your ability to pull estimates from nowhere.

>> based on any deviation in a single parameter being fatal. But instead
>> (to consider only two parameters) it could be a line.
>
> ...in a plane. But really, it is more like a narrow ribbon in the
> plane. Still a negligible part of the whole plane, probabilistically
> speaking. I'll explain this another time, if you wish; I need to get
> a good night's sleep because I'm due to give a seminar talk in
> Charlotte tomorrow.

You will agree, however, that it's a lot bigger part of the plane than
would be suggested by the claim that you can't change any single
parameter. And that's only a hypothetical example. The point is that the
region of parameter space in which life is possible is not necessarily
tiny just because a small change (ang again, we don't know what "small"
means) in one parameter takes us out of that region.

> [...]
>>> To put it another way: you go from a one-dimensional setting to a two-
>>> dimensional setting, but the range of pairs of values is like a narrow
>>> ribbon now, in a plane that stretches infinitely far in all
>>> directions.
>> Again, we don't know how far the plane stretches. but you will agree
>> that there are suddenly a lot more points, right?
>
> Not in a sense relevant to the probabilities involved.

Why is this not relevant? I don't understand.

>> If you would look into
>> the literature, you will find that for some estimates of parameter
>> space, a high proportion of points allow life.
>
> Not the literature I am familiar with. I've recently read a book
> which purports to refute the fine-tuning arguments [it's even in the
> title of the book, whose wording escapes me at the moment], and the
> estimates given are purely speculative as to what proportion allows
> life.

I'm talking about the physics literature. Not books. I don't know about
your book. Many of these papers have been referenced in TO before.

>>> And if you go to higher dimensions, corresponding to all the factors
>>> that the fine-tuning enthusiasts talk about, the range of values is
>>> like a hyper-rope (an ordinary rope with three factors) that soon gets
>>> to look like a curve with no thickness as you move away from it. In 3-
>>> D, you could move forever and never encounter it.
>> Let's not take the analogy too far.
>
> Three factors, half the number that Rees talks about, is what the 3-D
> picture analyzes.

Why does changing the number of dimensions affect either of my points?

>> You don't know that the space is
>> infinite. So are you acknowledging my point?
>
> I stand by what I've written here.

Then why is my point not valid?

> And here are the three alternatives I mentioned above:
>
>>> 1. Our young, small [compared with what it will eventually become--I
>>> left that part out] universe is all there is (or was, or will ever
>>> be).
>>> 2. There is a supernatural creator of our universe.
>>> 3. There is, for all practical purposes, an infinity of universes.
>
> With minor variations, these are the main alternatives a serious
> searcher of truth about a creator (or lack thereof) is confronted
> with.

So how do you choose among them?

[Craig Franck]

On 2/25/2012 9:22 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
>> Note to people in alt.agnosticism: this is a fascinating (for me at
>> least) discussion of the evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence
>> of a creator of our universe. In some strands of the discussion I
>> also spoke of my hopes, which correspond closely to C.S. Lewis's view
>> of the supernatural, but as I repeatedly point out, a sober assessment
>> of the evidence available to me suggests that the probability of my
>> hopes being realized is < 1%.
>>
>> On Feb 23, 11:23 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 11:09 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[...]

>>>>> and so can't say that
>>>>> any particular values are unlikely, despite your claims;
>>>> The range of values compatible with life is very restrictive.
>>> You can't say that unless you know what range you are comparing them to.
>>
>> As I suggested above, the range seems to have no bounds. Do you have
>> ANY reason for thinking there are any?
>
> Do you have any reason to think the range has no bounds? What is your
> evidence for this interesting assertion?

If the total range of possible values was bounded, then the
question would arise as to whether this itself was an instance of
fine tuning.

Imagine a universe with this property: Any change in a physical
constant automatically causes other physical constants to change
or emerge so as to continue to make life possible for the being
making the changes. Which side of the fine tuning argument would
this favor?

Any set of physical constants must support life in this case
because they all so tightly coupled, but then it looks like there
is some kind of cosmic law against life itself committing suicide,
which looks like design.

>>> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's very
>>> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
>>> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.
>>
>> And neither do you.
>
> That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do know.

It's based on the cosmic weather analogy. If the laws of physics
are considered part of the physical environment of an organism,
and most environments in this universe are unfriendly to life,
then you are most justified in assuming this average holds across
all possible universes.

This is related to the sort of reasoning that holds if we exist in
a random universe, it should just barely support life and should
definitely not be highly optimized for creatures such as ourselves
(say, a heavenly paradise).

>> [...]
>>>> To put it another way: you go from a one-dimensional setting to a two-
>>>> dimensional setting, but the range of pairs of values is like a narrow
>>>> ribbon now, in a plane that stretches infinitely far in all
>>>> directions.
>>> Again, we don't know how far the plane stretches. but you will agree
>>> that there are suddenly a lot more points, right?
>>
>> Not in a sense relevant to the probabilities involved.
>
> Why is this not relevant? I don't understand.

IIUC, it means something like if the universe is infinitely large
there may be an infinite number of earths, but then there are an
infinite number of uninhabitable non-earth-like planets.

Craig

[John Harshman]

I suppose it might. But would that question make any sense?

> Imagine a universe with this property: Any change in a physical
> constant automatically causes other physical constants to change
> or emerge so as to continue to make life possible for the being
> making the changes. Which side of the fine tuning argument would
> this favor?
>
> Any set of physical constants must support life in this case
> because they all so tightly coupled, but then it looks like there
> is some kind of cosmic law against life itself committing suicide,
> which looks like design.

That depends on whether there were any alternative possibilities,
doesn't it? It's a sort of higher-level range. Maybe all it would mean
is that there's only one constant, and we were mistaken in assuming them
to be independent.

>>>> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's
>>>> very
>>>> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
>>>> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.
>>>
>>> And neither do you.
>>
>> That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do
>> know.
>
> It's based on the cosmic weather analogy. If the laws of physics
> are considered part of the physical environment of an organism,
> and most environments in this universe are unfriendly to life,
> then you are most justified in assuming this average holds across
> all possible universes.

You are not justified in any such assumption. Why would you be?

> This is related to the sort of reasoning that holds if we exist in
> a random universe, it should just barely support life and should
> definitely not be highly optimized for creatures such as ourselves
> (say, a heavenly paradise).

That assumes again that we know the distribution of possible universes.

>>> [...]
>>>>> To put it another way: you go from a one-dimensional setting to a two-
>>>>> dimensional setting, but the range of pairs of values is like a narrow
>>>>> ribbon now, in a plane that stretches infinitely far in all
>>>>> directions.
>>>> Again, we don't know how far the plane stretches. but you will agree
>>>> that there are suddenly a lot more points, right?
>>>
>>> Not in a sense relevant to the probabilities involved.
>>
>> Why is this not relevant? I don't understand.
>
> IIUC, it means something like if the universe is infinitely large
> there may be an infinite number of earths, but then there are an
> infinite number of uninhabitable non-earth-like planets.

I think it means nothing like that, but I could be wrong.

[Craig Franck]

It's based on a certain style of reasoning. If one is sympathetic
to the idea that universe creation is some future technology we
may ourselves develop, then I believe the question has its own
internal logic.

For example, if we can design universes, the odds of us existing
in a designed universe goes way up, because otherwise we would be
special. One could deny this and say we *are* special, but this
response often comes from theists who already agree that the
universe looks designed.

>> Imagine a universe with this property: Any change in a physical
>> constant automatically causes other physical constants to change
>> or emerge so as to continue to make life possible for the being
>> making the changes. Which side of the fine tuning argument would
>> this favor?
>>
>> Any set of physical constants must support life in this case
>> because they all so tightly coupled, but then it looks like there
>> is some kind of cosmic law against life itself committing suicide,
>> which looks like design.
>
> That depends on whether there were any alternative possibilities,
> doesn't it? It's a sort of higher-level range. Maybe all it would mean
> is that there's only one constant, and we were mistaken in assuming them
> to be independent.

From a non-design perspective, that would be a straightforward
interpretation. Naturally occurring universes should be the ones
with the most bang for the simplest buck. Universes designed by
beings who want to communicate this fact to anyone inside need to
do something to make this message stand out from any background
noise of natural universe creation.

A set of physical laws in which other universes are internally
constructable fits this criteria. But (again) this could be
interpreted simply as an artifact of naturally occurring-ness.

>>>>> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's
>>>>> very
>>>>> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
>>>>> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.
>>>>
>>>> And neither do you.
>>>
>>> That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do
>>> know.
>>
>> It's based on the cosmic weather analogy. If the laws of physics
>> are considered part of the physical environment of an organism,
>> and most environments in this universe are unfriendly to life,
>> then you are most justified in assuming this average holds across
>> all possible universes.
>
> You are not justified in any such assumption. Why would you be?

Because if it's not true, then the multiverse (say) is a more
life-friendly or a less life-friendly place than our universe, and
it's difficult to know which alternative is more likely.

>> This is related to the sort of reasoning that holds if we exist in
>> a random universe, it should just barely support life and should
>> definitely not be highly optimized for creatures such as ourselves
>> (say, a heavenly paradise).
>
> That assumes again that we know the distribution of possible universes.

That's true, which is why this is all so speculative.

But this type of argument looks sound in other instances. The fact
earth has (at least for the current era) perfect solar eclipses
increases the odds for the existence of exoplanets, since otherwise
over 10% of all planets would have this property, which is
statistically unlikely.

Craig

[John Harshman]

Do you really believe this "reasoning" or are you just having fun with
random thoughts? It's so hard to tell with Usenet.

[Craig Franck]

On 2/26/2012 12:45 AM, John Harshman wrote:

> Do you really believe this "reasoning" or are you just having fun with
> random thoughts? It's so hard to tell with Usenet.

There is no consensus as to whether these types of arguments are
serious science or speculative metaphysics, or something else
altogether. My own opinion is weird problems often require weird
solutions.

Craig

[John Harshman]

I can't tell whether that was the first or the second option, or a third
one.

[Craig Franck]

I'd say the third. Robert Nozick addressed this in his "Philosophical
Explanations."

Craig

[John Harshman]

Wouldn't know. I there something you would like to tell me about it?

[pnyikos]

CC: Craig Franck, with apologies for being so late in returning to
this thread.

On Feb 25, 9:23 pm, Craig Franck <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2012 4:45 PM, JohnHarshmanwrote:
>
>
>
> > Craig Franck wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2012 9:22 AM, JohnHarshmanwrote:
> >>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>> Note to people in alt.agnosticism: this is a fascinating (for me at
> >>>> least) discussion of the evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence
> >>>> of a creator of our universe. In some strands of the discussion I
> >>>> also spoke of my hopes, which correspond closely to C.S. Lewis's view
> >>>> of the supernatural, but as I repeatedly point out, a sober assessment
> >>>> of the evidence available to me suggests that the probability of my
> >>>> hopes being realized is < 1%.
>

> >>>> On Feb 23, 11:23 am, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>> pnyikos wrote:

> >>>>>> On Feb 17, 11:09 am, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>>>> and so can't say that
> >>>>>>> any particular values are unlikely, despite your claims;
> >>>>>> The range of values compatible with life is very restrictive.
> >>>>> You can't say that unless you know what range you are comparing
> >>>>> them to.
>
> >>>> As I suggested above, the range seems to have no bounds. Do you have
> >>>> ANY reason for thinking there are any?
>
> >>> Do you have any reason to think the range has no bounds? What is your
> >>> evidence for this interesting assertion?
>
> >> If the total range of possible values was bounded, then the
> >> question would arise as to whether this itself was an instance of
> >> fine tuning.
>
> > I suppose it might. But would that question make any sense?
>
> It's based on a certain style of reasoning. If one is sympathetic
> to the idea that universe creation is some future technology we
> may ourselves develop, then I believe the question has its own
> internal logic.

Yes, but I don't think that technology will be developed in this
universe, despite some speculation by Freeman Dyson along those
lines. Richard Dawkins talks about it at the end of the following
article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all

> For example, if we can design universes, the odds of us existing
> in a designed universe goes way up, because otherwise we would be
> special. One could deny this and say we *are* special, but this
> response often comes from theists who already agree that the
> universe looks designed.
>
> >> Imagine a universe with this property: Any change in a physical
> >> constant automatically causes other physical constants to change
> >> or emerge so as to continue to make life possible for the being
> >> making the changes. Which side of the fine tuning argument would
> >> this favor?
>
> >> Any set of physical constants must support life in this case
> >> because they all so tightly coupled, but then it looks like there
> >> is some kind of cosmic law against life itself committing suicide,
> >> which looks like design.
>
> > That depends on whether there were any alternative possibilities,
> > doesn't it? It's a sort of higher-level range. Maybe all it would mean
> > is that there's only one constant, and we were mistaken in assuming them
> > to be independent.

Believing that "there's only one constant" takes as much faith IMHO as
believing that our universe was designed by an intelligent creator.

>  From a non-design perspective, that would be a straightforward
> interpretation. Naturally occurring universes should be the ones
> with the most bang for the simplest buck. Universes designed by
> beings who want to communicate this fact to anyone inside need to
> do something to make this message stand out from any background
> noise of natural universe creation.
>
> A set of physical laws in which other universes are internally
> constructable fits this criteria. But (again) this could be
> interpreted simply as an artifact of naturally occurring-ness.

This could apply either to a purely physical "multiverse" theory or
one which hypothesizes a universe in which a supernatural universe-
creator can evolve.

Concluded in next post.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 25, 9:23 pm, Craig Franck <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/25/2012 4:45 PM, JohnHarshmanwrote:
>
>
>
> > Craig Franck wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2012 9:22 AM, JohnHarshmanwrote:
> >>> pnyikos wrote:

> >>>> Note to people in alt.agnosticism: this is afascinating(for me at

> >>>> least) discussion of the evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence
> >>>> of a creator of our universe. In some strands of the discussion I
> >>>> also spoke of my hopes, which correspond closely to C.S. Lewis's view
> >>>> of the supernatural, but as I repeatedly point out, a sober assessment
> >>>> of the evidence available to me suggests that the probability of my
> >>>> hopes being realized is < 1%.
>

> >>>> On Feb 23, 11:23 am, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>> pnyikos wrote:

> >>>>>> On Feb 17, 11:09 am, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>>>> and so can't say that
> >>>>>>> any particular values are unlikely, despite your claims;
> >>>>>> The range of values compatible with life is very restrictive.
> >>>>> You can't say that unless you know what range you are comparing
> >>>>> them to.
>
> >>>> As I suggested above, the range seems to have no bounds. Do you have
> >>>> ANY reason for thinking there are any?

John reflected the question back at me:

> >>> Do you have any reason to think the range has no bounds? What is your
> >>> evidence for this interesting assertion?

[deletia of things dealt with in my first reply to this same post]

> >>>>> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's
> >>>>> very
> >>>>> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
> >>>>> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.

Here is an example of a constant which is probably easier for all of
us to understand than the ones Rees wrote about:

the ratio between the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron.

It is something like 1800 to one. There's quite a lot of latitude
there as far as life is concerned, but if the constant were close to
1, or less than one, no solid matter could form because the inertia in
the nucleus of an atom would be insufficient for the nucleus to stay
in essentially the same place with respect to other nuclei while the
electron orbits it.

But if anyone thinks that there is something logically impossible in
such a setup, or some bit of metaphysics that rules out even the
possibility of a universe where the ratio is close to 1 or lower, I'd
like to see anyone try to explain why.

> >>>> And neither do you.
>
> >>> That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do
> >>> know.
>
> >> It's based on the cosmic weather analogy. If the laws of physics
> >> are considered part of the physical environment of an organism,
> >> and most environments in this universe are unfriendly to life,
> >> then you are most justified in assuming this average holds across
> >> all possible universes.

In fact, with all the evident fine-tuning in the universe, I would
consider ours to be a highly privileged one. There is nothing wrong
in thinking this -- it's the basis for the anthropic principle.

> > You are not justified in any such assumption. Why would you be?

Philosophers of science love the principle of mediocrity. I wonder
whether Harshman dislikes it.

> Because if it's not true, then the multiverse (say) is a more
> life-friendly or a less life-friendly place than our universe, and
> it's difficult to know which alternative is more likely.

Less, by a wide margin, again because of the anthropic principle.

> >> This is related to the sort of reasoning that holds if we exist in
> >> a random universe, it should just barely support life

In fact, life would be essentially impossible in a random universe.
To deny this is to show great faith in a metaphysical principle that
seems almost as unjustified as the Ontological (Anselmic) argument for
the existence of God.

> >> and should
> >> definitely not be highly optimized for creatures such as ourselves
> >> (say, a heavenly paradise).
>
> > That assumes again that we know the distribution of possible universes.

We don't have to know it to any degree of exactitude to make comments
like the ones I have just made.

> That's true, which is why this is all so speculative.
>
> But this type of argument looks sound in other instances. The fact
> earth has (at least for the current era) perfect solar eclipses
> increases the odds for the existence of exoplanets, since otherwise
> over 10% of all planets would have this property, which is
> statistically unlikely.
>
> Craig

John had a hard time understanding the logic behind what you wrote,
but I as a mathematician can appreciate it.

For some reason, I am reminded of an article by Martin Gardner in his
long-running feature "Mathematical Games" in _Scientific American_.

Talking about inductive (as opposed to deductive) reasoning, he said
that most people would agree that each observation of a black crow
tends to confirm the hypothesis that

"All crows are black"

But then he went on to say that this hypothesis is also confirmed by
observing a white sheep, inasmuch as it is a "confirmation" of the
logically equivalent hypothesis,

"All non-black things are non-crows."

[John Harshman]

What part of "maybe" is unclear here? I don't believe it. But is there
any reason to disbelieve it? If so, what?

[John Harshman]

Logical impossibility isn't the issue. It's physics that's the issue. If
you have some information on what ratios would have been possible,
please provide it. Otherwise we have no way of ruling out universes
where the ratio could fall below 1, but we likewise have no way of
ruling them in. You can't use ignorance as support for your position.

>>>>>> And neither do you.
>>>>> That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do
>>>>> know.
>>>> It's based on the cosmic weather analogy. If the laws of physics
>>>> are considered part of the physical environment of an organism,
>>>> and most environments in this universe are unfriendly to life,
>>>> then you are most justified in assuming this average holds across
>>>> all possible universes.
>
> In fact, with all the evident fine-tuning in the universe, I would
> consider ours to be a highly privileged one. There is nothing wrong
> in thinking this -- it's the basis for the anthropic principle.

Again, I ask how you know it's fine-tuning unless you know the range of
possibilities.

>>> You are not justified in any such assumption. Why would you be?
>
> Philosophers of science love the principle of mediocrity. I wonder
> whether Harshman dislikes it.

It's a weak principle at best. And of course the principle would tell us
that there are lots of planets on which life arose, so I imagine you
don't think it's a very strong argument either.

>> Because if it's not true, then the multiverse (say) is a more
>> life-friendly or a less life-friendly place than our universe, and
>> it's difficult to know which alternative is more likely.
>
> Less, by a wide margin, again because of the anthropic principle.

How so? Again, wouldn't you have to know the distribution of possible
universes in order to say that?

>>>> This is related to the sort of reasoning that holds if we exist in
>>>> a random universe, it should just barely support life
>
> In fact, life would be essentially impossible in a random universe.
> To deny this is to show great faith in a metaphysical principle that
> seems almost as unjustified as the Ontological (Anselmic) argument for
> the existence of God.

Once more. Where are the numbers coming from that let you calculate
these probabilities enough to know what's essentially impossible?

>>>> and should
>>>> definitely not be highly optimized for creatures such as ourselves
>>>> (say, a heavenly paradise).
>>> That assumes again that we know the distribution of possible universes.
>
> We don't have to know it to any degree of exactitude to make comments
> like the ones I have just made.

Indeed. You can make any sort of comments you want. But what would make
those comments rational? That's the question. So tell me again how you
can say our universe is unlikely without knowing the distribution of
possible universes.

>> That's true, which is why this is all so speculative.
>>
>> But this type of argument looks sound in other instances. The fact
>> earth has (at least for the current era) perfect solar eclipses
>> increases the odds for the existence of exoplanets, since otherwise
>> over 10% of all planets would have this property, which is
>> statistically unlikely.
>>
>> Craig
>
> John had a hard time understanding the logic behind what you wrote,
> but I as a mathematician can appreciate it.

Explain it to me. It seems nonsensical.

> For some reason, I am reminded of an article by Martin Gardner in his
> long-running feature "Mathematical Games" in _Scientific American_.
>
> Talking about inductive (as opposed to deductive) reasoning, he said
> that most people would agree that each observation of a black crow
> tends to confirm the hypothesis that
>
> "All crows are black"
>
> But then he went on to say that this hypothesis is also confirmed by
> observing a white sheep, inasmuch as it is a "confirmation" of the
> logically equivalent hypothesis,
>
> "All non-black things are non-crows."

Would you agree?

By the way, something odd has occurred to me. Your claim is that the
universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life seems to run counter to your
other idea that life is extraordinarily unlikely to arise in this
universe. Are you indeed saying that the best of all possible worlds is
a really poor world?

[pnyikos]

Short on time, I go for the new theme and leave the earlier discussion
for next week.

On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> By the way, something odd has occurred to me. Your claim is that the
> universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life seems to run counter to your
> other idea that life is extraordinarily unlikely to arise in this
> universe. Are you indeed saying that the best of all possible worlds is

> a really poor world.

It isn't the best of all possible worlds. Much better, as far as
suitability for life goes, would be a steady-state universe like the
one Hoyle imagined, where life has infinitely many chances to exist.

However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
anything much better. Perhaps having more elements like carbon where
forming long chains is concerned, or more substances like water, would
make it marginally better, but my imagination is limited.

Thus, although I can talk about the possibility of a universe where
intelligent beings capable of reaching into black holes to produce the
kind of spinoff universe one wants, I haven't the foggiest idea what
sorts of basic constituents their bodies might have.

Anyway, back to the "really poor world" theme. For most of my life I
shared the general opinion among non-fundies that abiogenesis is very
likely on a planet as richly endowed as ours. Then at the age of 50 I
read two books that completely turned my thinking around. As I wrote
on the Panda's Thumb blog that you've also participated on:

______________________________________________

Paradoxically, one was _Vital Dust_ by Christian deDuve, Nobel
Laureate biochemist. He was firmly convinced that life arises
naturally and easily in the cosmos, on any planet where conditions are
as good as they were on early earth.

But I noticed something very strange about that book. For several
chapters he painstakingly took us to the development of something on
the lines of an aminoacyl-tRNA. Then, as if it were the most natural
thing in the world, he jumped to a description of the protein
translation mechanism, with its ribosomes, its mRNA, tRNA, and
aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. I had never read the details of protein
translation before and I saw some very key vulnerabilities in the
process which de Duve completely glossed over.

That, coupled with the colossal jump, made me highly receptive to the
other book, _Life Itself_, by another Nobel Laureate biochemist,
Francis Crick, in which he emphasized that no one knows how likely or
unlikely life is to arise. Therefore, he took seriously the
possiblility that it was sent to earth (by a technological
civilization that arose ca. 4 billion years ago) in the form of
prokaryotes. He also considered the possibility that they sent
primitive eukaryotes, but wrote that this was less likely because
“prokaryotes travel farther.”

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-panels
See Panel 4, most of the way down.
============================================

By the way, John Kwok picked up your "hijacked" comment on that blog
and ran with it today--straight into a pit. You need to be careful in
your choice of words around him.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> Short on time, I go for the new theme and leave the earlier discussion
> for next week.
>
> On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> By the way, something odd has occurred to me. Your claim is that the
>> universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life seems to run counter to your
>> other idea that life is extraordinarily unlikely to arise in this
>> universe. Are you indeed saying that the best of all possible worlds is
>> a really poor world.
>
> It isn't the best of all possible worlds. Much better, as far as
> suitability for life goes, would be a steady-state universe like the
> one Hoyle imagined, where life has infinitely many chances to exist.

So why didn't the creator, whose goal you say was to create a nice
universe for life, make such a universe? Was he unable to do so?

> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
> anything much better.

How good are you at conceiving such things? On what basis can you make
such claims?

> Perhaps having more elements like carbon where
> forming long chains is concerned, or more substances like water, would
> make it marginally better, but my imagination is limited.

It seems in fact to be limited to whatever there already is. But the
important question is this: if this isn't the best of all possible
universes, why did the designer make it this way instead of a better way?

> Thus, although I can talk about the possibility of a universe where
> intelligent beings capable of reaching into black holes to produce the
> kind of spinoff universe one wants, I haven't the foggiest idea what
> sorts of basic constituents their bodies might have.

At least in this one thing you agree that we don't know enough to make
statements.

> Anyway, back to the "really poor world" theme. For most of my life I
> shared the general opinion among non-fundies that abiogenesis is very
> likely on a planet as richly endowed as ours. Then at the age of 50 I
> read two books that completely turned my thinking around. As I wrote
> on the Panda's Thumb blog that you've also participated on:
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Paradoxically, one was _Vital Dust_ by Christian deDuve, Nobel
> Laureate biochemist. He was firmly convinced that life arises
> naturally and easily in the cosmos, on any planet where conditions are
> as good as they were on early earth.
>
> But I noticed something very strange about that book. For several
> chapters he painstakingly took us to the development of something on
> the lines of an aminoacyl-tRNA. Then, as if it were the most natural
> thing in the world, he jumped to a description of the protein
> translation mechanism, with its ribosomes, its mRNA, tRNA, and
> aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. I had never read the details of protein
> translation before and I saw some very key vulnerabilities in the
> process which de Duve completely glossed over.

So because there is no explanation that you know of, you are convinced
that there can be no explanation? It appears that all this relies purely
on the limits of your imagination.

> That, coupled with the colossal jump, made me highly receptive to the
> other book, _Life Itself_, by another Nobel Laureate biochemist,
> Francis Crick, in which he emphasized that no one knows how likely or
> unlikely life is to arise.

How sad that you didn't believe that part, and are instead convinced
that life is likely to arise at most once in a galaxy during the
lifetime of the universe.

> Therefore, he took seriously the
> possiblility that it was sent to earth (by a technological
> civilization that arose ca. 4 billion years ago) in the form of
> prokaryotes. He also considered the possibility that they sent
> primitive eukaryotes, but wrote that this was less likely because
> “prokaryotes travel farther.”

So. Did he believe his speculation, the way you do? Or did he merely
entertain the notion?

> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-panels
> See Panel 4, most of the way down.
> ============================================
>
> By the way, John Kwok picked up your "hijacked" comment on that blog
> and ran with it today--straight into a pit. You need to be careful in
> your choice of words around him.

He is indeed a piece of work. His main faults are arrogance and a
possibly linked tendency not to actually read what you write, being
convinced that he already knows what you're going to say. Enjoy your
argument.

[pnyikos]

On Mar 9, 10:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > Short on time, I go for the new theme and leave the earlier discussion
> > for next week.

Well, next week at the latest. I'm still short on time.

> > On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> By the way, something odd has occurred to me. Your claim is that the
> >> universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life seems to run counter to your
> >> other idea that life is extraordinarily unlikely to arise in this
> >> universe. Are you indeed saying that the best of all possible worlds is
> >> a really poor world.
>
> > It isn't the best of all possible worlds.  Much better, as far as
> > suitability for life goes, would be a steady-state universe like the
> > one Hoyle imagined, where life has infinitely many chances to exist.
>
> So why didn't the creator, whose goal you say was to create a nice
> universe for life, make such a universe? Was he unable to do so?

Possibly. And possibly he sprang from such a universe.

But it is also possible that what Christianity calls "heaven" is part
of such a grand universe, and if Christianity is right, you and I may
even find our selves there after we die. And a corollary of that
would be that there is no need to make our own universe extra special,
because it is far from being everything God has planned.

There is even a saying attributed to Jesus: "This life is like a
bridge. You are to cross it, not build your homes on it." [Quoted
from memory, from a book which went on to hypothesize that if Jesus
said this, he probably did it when visiting Tyre, which had been an
island until Alexander the Great built a huge connection to the
mainland so he could conquer it. According to the book, there were no
bridges in Palestine itself in Jesus's day.]

> > However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
> > the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
> > anything much better.
>
> How good are you at conceiving such things?

I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
it.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy" -- Hamlet

> On what basis can you make such claims?

On knowledge of my own limitations. "It's hard for me" is a
confession of limitations, not of bragging rights.

> > Perhaps having more elements like carbon where
> > forming long chains is concerned, or more substances like water, would
> > make it marginally better, but my imagination is limited.

[...]

Nope. I've incorporated it into my directed panspermia hypothesis,
and anyone is welcome to produce a scenario for overcoming the
difficulties, especially a scenario for "the protein takeover," where
some of the biggest difficulties lie.

In case you've forgotten, I made this challenge back in the 1990's and
again in 2010 when "el cid" seemed game to take me on. Unfortunately,
he died before I could meet his counter-challenge for pinpointing just
why I think the difficulties of abiogenesis are so titanic. Since
then, I have not encountered anyone on the Internet with his knowledge
of biochemistry and who seems receptive to such an extended
discussion.

> > That, coupled with the colossal jump, made me highly receptive to the
> > other book, _Life Itself_, by another Nobel Laureate biochemist,
> > Francis Crick, in which he emphasized that no one knows how likely or
> > unlikely life is to arise.
>
> How sad that you didn't believe that part, and are instead convinced
> that life is likely to arise at most once in a galaxy during the
> lifetime of the universe.

Hey, it's my opinion. People have had years and years to sway that
opinion, but nobody seems to want to take the effort. Even "el cid"
mainly tried to draw me out instead of trying to outline a scenario --
or to find one on the Internet.

>
> > Therefore, he took seriously the
> > possiblility that it was sent to earth (by a technological
> > civilization that arose ca. 4 billion years ago) in the form of
> > prokaryotes. He also considered the possibility that they sent
> > primitive eukaryotes, but wrote that this was less likely because
> > “prokaryotes travel farther.”
>
> So. Did he believe his speculation, the way you do? Or did he merely
> entertain the notion?

He didn't claim to believe it, but neither did he claim to believe in
"Mother Earth did it" in what I've read from him.

> >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...

> >   See Panel 4, most of the way down.
> > ============================================
>
> > By the way, John Kwok picked up your "hijacked" comment on that blog
> > and ran with it today--straight into a pit.  You need to be careful in
> > your choice of words around him.
>
> He is indeed a piece of work. His main faults are arrogance and a
> possibly linked tendency not to actually read what you write, being
> convinced that he already knows what you're going to say. Enjoy your
> argument.

He continues to display these faults. I've replied to him today,
after not visiting that blog all week. It'll be interesting to see
whether he's still checking up on it.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> Short on time, I go for the new theme and leave the earlier discussion
>>> for next week.
>
> Well, next week at the latest. I'm still short on time.
>
>>> On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> By the way, something odd has occurred to me. Your claim is that the
>>>> universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life seems to run counter to your
>>>> other idea that life is extraordinarily unlikely to arise in this
>>>> universe. Are you indeed saying that the best of all possible worlds is
>>>> a really poor world.
>>> It isn't the best of all possible worlds. Much better, as far as
>>> suitability for life goes, would be a steady-state universe like the
>>> one Hoyle imagined, where life has infinitely many chances to exist.
>> So why didn't the creator, whose goal you say was to create a nice
>> universe for life, make such a universe? Was he unable to do so?
>
> Possibly. And possibly he sprang from such a universe.
>
> But it is also possible that what Christianity calls "heaven" is part
> of such a grand universe, and if Christianity is right, you and I may
> even find our selves there after we die. And a corollary of that
> would be that there is no need to make our own universe extra special,
> because it is far from being everything God has planned.

That unfortunately leads to bad consequences in this world if you
believe it. It makes the this existence trivial. Your best course is to
get through it as fast as possible, and not to care much about it. It
would in fact be advantageous to die in infancy, just to get that
annoying part out of the way. If you really believed this, that is.

Anyway, that doesn't explain the contradiction. We still want to know
why this universe, which is the preliminary, is not more hospitable to
life if the goal was to make a universe hospitable to life. Adding
heaven does nothing to resolve that contradiction.

> There is even a saying attributed to Jesus: "This life is like a
> bridge. You are to cross it, not build your homes on it." [Quoted
> from memory, from a book which went on to hypothesize that if Jesus
> said this, he probably did it when visiting Tyre, which had been an
> island until Alexander the Great built a huge connection to the
> mainland so he could conquer it. According to the book, there were no
> bridges in Palestine itself in Jesus's day.]
>
>>> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
>>> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
>>> anything much better.
>> How good are you at conceiving such things?
>
> I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
> it.

Many are better than you are. I can imagine a much better universe for
life. What if, for example, the interstellar medium were thick enough to
support life?

> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
> of in your philosophy" -- Hamlet

Exactly.

>> On what basis can you make such claims?
>
> On knowledge of my own limitations. "It's hard for me" is a
> confession of limitations, not of bragging rights.

Sorry, I thought it sounded like an argument. So you have no argument?

What if there's a perfectly valid pathway in reality, but we aren't
clever enough to think of it? Why should your imagination, or even
someone else's imagination, give you a valid estimate of probabilities?
Remember that you are claiming that the probability of abiogenesis is
very, very low. What's your basis for that claim? If you have no basis,
you should also have no claim.

>>> That, coupled with the colossal jump, made me highly receptive to the
>>> other book, _Life Itself_, by another Nobel Laureate biochemist,
>>> Francis Crick, in which he emphasized that no one knows how likely or
>>> unlikely life is to arise.
>> How sad that you didn't believe that part, and are instead convinced
>> that life is likely to arise at most once in a galaxy during the
>> lifetime of the universe.
>
> Hey, it's my opinion. People have had years and years to sway that
> opinion, but nobody seems to want to take the effort. Even "el cid"
> mainly tried to draw me out instead of trying to outline a scenario --
> or to find one on the Internet.

But what is your opinion based on? If it's purely based on nobody being
able to set forth a scenario you find plausible, is that a valid basis?

>>> Therefore, he took seriously the
>>> possiblility that it was sent to earth (by a technological
>>> civilization that arose ca. 4 billion years ago) in the form of
>>> prokaryotes. He also considered the possibility that they sent
>>> primitive eukaryotes, but wrote that this was less likely because
>>> “prokaryotes travel farther.”
>> So. Did he believe his speculation, the way you do? Or did he merely
>> entertain the notion?
>
> He didn't claim to believe it, but neither did he claim to believe in
> "Mother Earth did it" in what I've read from him.

So he is, at most, agnostic on the whole thing. You, however, seem to
have managed to come up with a high probability of panspermia. The
question is how you did this and whether it's a reasonable conclusion.
So far this question isn't being answered.

>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...
>>> See Panel 4, most of the way down.
>>> ============================================
>>> By the way, John Kwok picked up your "hijacked" comment on that blog
>>> and ran with it today--straight into a pit. You need to be careful in
>>> your choice of words around him.
>> He is indeed a piece of work. His main faults are arrogance and a
>> possibly linked tendency not to actually read what you write, being
>> convinced that he already knows what you're going to say. Enjoy your
>> argument.
>
> He continues to display these faults. I've replied to him today,
> after not visiting that blog all week. It'll be interesting to see
> whether he's still checking up on it.

Not all that interesting.

[pnyikos]

On Mar 16, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:

> > On Mar 9, 10:39 pm, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> Short on time, I go for the new theme and leave the earlier discussion
> >>> for next week.
>
> > Well, next week at the latest.  I'm still short on time.
>

> >>> On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> By the way, something odd has occurred to me. Your claim is that the
> >>>> universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life seems to run counter to your
> >>>> other idea that life is extraordinarily unlikely to arise in this
> >>>> universe. Are you indeed saying that the best of all possible worlds is
> >>>> a really poor world.
> >>> It isn't the best of all possible worlds.  Much better, as far as
> >>> suitability for life goes, would be a steady-state universe like the
> >>> one Hoyle imagined, where life has infinitely many chances to exist.
> >> So why didn't the creator, whose goal you say was to create a nice
> >> universe for life, make such a universe? Was he unable to do so?
>
> > Possibly.  And possibly he sprang from such a universe.
>
> > But it is also possible that what Christianity calls "heaven" is part
> > of such a grand universe, and if Christianity is right, you and I may
> > even find our selves there after we die.  And a corollary of that
> > would be that there is no need to make our own universe extra special,
> > because it is far from being everything God has planned.
>
> That unfortunately leads to bad consequences in this world if you
> believe it. It makes the this existence trivial.

Not if your assignment in the next life is based on what you do in
this one. This is something almost every major religion that believes
in an afterlife endorses, although the idea of what leads to what
varies quite a lot.

Personally, I like the setup C.S. Lewis has in _The Great Divorce_, in
which people's negative behaviors on earth have to be given up before
entry into heaven; but you can take as long as you want with getting
rid of them. Though not in accord with a literal reading of
scripture, it is considered to be an orthodox Christian hypothesis.

> Anyway, that doesn't explain the contradiction. We still want to know
> why this universe, which is the preliminary, is not more hospitable to
> life if the goal was to make a universe hospitable to life.

To put this in perspective, let me remind you that my sober assessment
is that there is no such goal on the part of any supernatural creator,
but also that our universe is simply far more favorable to life than
the average universe would be. And so alternative 3 is a no-brainer
if compared only to alternative 1:

1. Our young, small [compared with what it will eventually become]

universe is all there is (or was, or will ever be).

2. There is a supernatural creator of our universe.

3. There is, for all practical purposes, an infinity of universes.

In the last couple of posts, I have been assessing the possiblility
that 2. is true as an offshoot of 3. and so I have no qualms about
hypothesizing limitations.

[...]

> >>> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
> >>> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
> >>> anything much better.
> >> How good are you at conceiving such things?
>
> > I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
> > it.
>
> Many are better than you are. I can imagine a much better universe for
> life. What if, for example, the interstellar medium were thick enough to
> support life?

In that case, the creator might have had far too many living things at
a time to cope with. This way, with only a few planets supporting
life (by my hypothesis) and those starting several billion years after
creation, the creator could have had plenty of time to prepare things
in addition to having a manageable number of things to cope with.
[...]

Well, then I get to keep my opinion.

> Remember that you are claiming that the probability of abiogenesis is
> very, very low. What's your basis for that claim? If you have no basis,
> you should also have no claim.

My basis goes back to something you wrote a short while ago in Panda's
Thumb. Since you didn't seem to like my talking about abiogenesis
there in the first place, I didn't reply to your naive (IMO) claim
that the protein takeover was an example of Darwinian evolution.

Were you assuming that there was a genetic code in place, except that
instead of protein enzymes connecting amino acids to tRNA (as
aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases do) there were ribozymes doing the job? If
so, just what do you imagine the evolutionary precursors to those
synthetases might have been? A synthetase that does a poor job of
connecting the right amino acid to the right tRNA is worse than
useless--it messes up the job the ribozyme is currently doing.

For the benefit of other readers: this is a description of part of
what goes on when a cell produces proteins, including enzymes. My
first question has to do with proteins already being cranked out
assembly-line fashion as they are today, except that the enzymes
responsible are made of RNA instead of amino acids. And what could
get the "computer tape" consisting of mRNA to be coding for really
sophisticated proteins?

As Karl Popper put it before the "RNA world" hypothesis that I am
working with was formulated:

“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing
riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function
unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of
the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the
machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is
the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty
macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus
the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its
translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious
circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the
genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility
that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an
impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to
reduce biology to chemistry and physics.”

Karl Popper, 1974. “Scientific Reduction and the Essential
Incompleteness of All Science,” in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T.,
eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California
Press, Berkeley, p. 270.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

That makes it even worse. Your eternity depends on a short and trivial
interlude?

> Personally, I like the setup C.S. Lewis has in _The Great Divorce_, in
> which people's negative behaviors on earth have to be given up before
> entry into heaven; but you can take as long as you want with getting
> rid of them. Though not in accord with a literal reading of
> scripture, it is considered to be an orthodox Christian hypothesis.

Really? Considered by whom? Is there a Pope of Protestants that I don't
know about?

>> Anyway, that doesn't explain the contradiction. We still want to know
>> why this universe, which is the preliminary, is not more hospitable to
>> life if the goal was to make a universe hospitable to life.
>
> To put this in perspective, let me remind you that my sober assessment
> is that there is no such goal on the part of any supernatural creator,
> but also that our universe is simply far more favorable to life than
> the average universe would be. And so alternative 3 is a no-brainer
> if compared only to alternative 1:

Only if your sober assessment is correct. You have yet to make any sort
of argument in its favor.

> 1. Our young, small [compared with what it will eventually become]
> universe is all there is (or was, or will ever be).
>
> 2. There is a supernatural creator of our universe.
>
> 3. There is, for all practical purposes, an infinity of universes.
>
> In the last couple of posts, I have been assessing the possiblility
> that 2. is true as an offshoot of 3. and so I have no qualms about
> hypothesizing limitations.

So what's your assessment? Missed it.

> [...]
>>>>> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
>>>>> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
>>>>> anything much better.
>>>> How good are you at conceiving such things?
>>> I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
>>> it.
>> Many are better than you are. I can imagine a much better universe for
>> life. What if, for example, the interstellar medium were thick enough to
>> support life?
>
> In that case, the creator might have had far too many living things at
> a time to cope with.

I thought you said he had really good powers of coping. It seems he has
whatever powers you find convenient whenever you either want to accept
or dismiss a hypothesis.

> This way, with only a few planets supporting
> life (by my hypothesis) and those starting several billion years after
> creation, the creator could have had plenty of time to prepare things
> in addition to having a manageable number of things to cope with.

Can we agree that all this speculation about the hypothetical
characteristics of a hypothetical and unevidenced entity is very silly?
Even so, it would be better if your speculations were internally
consistent, and I don't think they are. You are forced to jump through a
great many very conveniently placed hoops in an effort to keep your
performance going.

You can keep your opinion all you like. But do you have any
justification for it? That's the question.

>> Remember that you are claiming that the probability of abiogenesis is
>> very, very low. What's your basis for that claim? If you have no basis,
>> you should also have no claim.
>
> My basis goes back to something you wrote a short while ago in Panda's
> Thumb. Since you didn't seem to like my talking about abiogenesis
> there in the first place, I didn't reply to your naive (IMO) claim
> that the protein takeover was an example of Darwinian evolution.

Don't think I said that.

> Were you assuming that there was a genetic code in place, except that
> instead of protein enzymes connecting amino acids to tRNA (as
> aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases do) there were ribozymes doing the job? If
> so, just what do you imagine the evolutionary precursors to those
> synthetases might have been? A synthetase that does a poor job of
> connecting the right amino acid to the right tRNA is worse than
> useless--it messes up the job the ribozyme is currently doing.

A simpler scenario would be that the tRNAs originally had binding sites
for specific amino acids, since lost as redundant.

> For the benefit of other readers: this is a description of part of
> what goes on when a cell produces proteins, including enzymes. My
> first question has to do with proteins already being cranked out
> assembly-line fashion as they are today, except that the enzymes
> responsible are made of RNA instead of amino acids.

Let me point out that some of those enzymes are still RNA.

> And what could
> get the "computer tape" consisting of mRNA to be coding for really
> sophisticated proteins?

I don't understand that question.

> As Karl Popper put it before the "RNA world" hypothesis that I am
> working with was formulated:
>
> “What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing
> riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function
> unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of
> the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the
> machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is
> the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty
> macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus
> the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its
> translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious
> circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the
> genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility
> that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an
> impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to
> reduce biology to chemistry and physics.”

As I have pointed out, Popper is wrong. Smart guy, limited understanding
even of the science of his time.

[pnyikos]

If you really think your life here is trivial, then you deserve a
remark I made a while back on another thread,
"You got no soul, bro'."
[I purposely used African-American argot so you would know I was NOT
referring to the meaning of "soul" that Ron Okimoto is so keen on.
More about that meaning below.]

> > Personally, I like the setup C.S. Lewis has in _The Great Divorce_, in
> > which people's negative behaviors on earth have to be given up before
> > entry into heaven; but you can take as long as you want with getting
> > rid of them.  Though not in accord with a literal reading of
> > scripture, it is considered to be an orthodox Christian hypothesis.
>
> Really? Considered by whom? Is there a Pope of Protestants that I don't
> know about?

Considering the immense popularity of C.S. Lewis among Christians of
all kinds, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to find an article
written by a Christian where he is considered to be heterodox. I
haven't seen a hint of one, let alone one that focuses on _The Great
Divorce_.

> >> Anyway, that doesn't explain the contradiction. We still want to know
> >> why this universe, which is the preliminary, is not more hospitable to
> >> life if the goal was to make a universe hospitable to life.
>
> > To put this in perspective, let me remind you that my sober assessment
> > is that there is no such goal on the part of any supernatural creator,
> > but also that our universe is simply far more favorable to life than
> > the average universe would be.  And so alternative 3 is a no-brainer
> > if compared only to alternative 1:
>
> Only if your sober assessment is correct. You have yet to make any sort
> of argument in its favor.

I don't have to: you are the one who keeps insisting there is NO
evidence for a supernatural creator at all; I merely put a low
probability to it.

> > 1.  Our young, small [compared with what it will eventually become]
> > universe is all there is (or was, or will ever be).
>
> > 2.  There is a supernatural creator of our universe.
>
> > 3. There is, for all practical purposes, an infinity of universes.
>
> > In the last couple of posts, I have been assessing the possiblility
> > that 2. is true as an offshoot of 3. and so I have no qualms about
> > hypothesizing limitations.
>
> So what's your assessment? Missed it.

You mean you've really forgotten all the times I put a <1% probability
to it, including on this very thread?

I recalled it for you on another thread, in talk.origins, in
connection with the question of the existence of souls of the kind Ron
O was interested in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/788962f6e713bebf

This was done in direct follow-up to you, and I can readily understand
why you may be afraid to touch it with a ten foot pole. Ditto the
other post I did in direct reply to you that was also chock full of
corrections of things Ron O had said to you:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3d5c54b77a0150dc?dmode=source

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

No, I don't think my life is trivial. But if it were just the initial
test to determine my fate in eternity, then in comparison, yes, it would
be trivial. You really aren't grappling with this issue.

>>> Personally, I like the setup C.S. Lewis has in _The Great Divorce_, in
>>> which people's negative behaviors on earth have to be given up before
>>> entry into heaven; but you can take as long as you want with getting
>>> rid of them. Though not in accord with a literal reading of
>>> scripture, it is considered to be an orthodox Christian hypothesis.
>> Really? Considered by whom? Is there a Pope of Protestants that I don't
>> know about?
>
> Considering the immense popularity of C.S. Lewis among Christians of
> all kinds, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to find an article
> written by a Christian where he is considered to be heterodox. I
> haven't seen a hint of one, let alone one that focuses on _The Great
> Divorce_.

You are good at burden-transferal, but that's about it. There is no
orthodox (small l) Christianity, there being a host of sects, all with
different tenets. Lewis had an opinion. That's all. Note that his
opinion was based on nothing other than what he would have liked to be
true. I see no reason to put any credence on it. Nor does his popularity
provide any evidence for the acceptance of that one particular idea
among all his writings.

>>>> Anyway, that doesn't explain the contradiction. We still want to know
>>>> why this universe, which is the preliminary, is not more hospitable to
>>>> life if the goal was to make a universe hospitable to life.
>>> To put this in perspective, let me remind you that my sober assessment
>>> is that there is no such goal on the part of any supernatural creator,
>>> but also that our universe is simply far more favorable to life than
>>> the average universe would be. And so alternative 3 is a no-brainer
>>> if compared only to alternative 1:
>> Only if your sober assessment is correct. You have yet to make any sort
>> of argument in its favor.
>
> I don't have to: you are the one who keeps insisting there is NO
> evidence for a supernatural creator at all; I merely put a low
> probability to it.

I can't prove there is no evidence. There may indeed be evidence I don't
know of. Only you can advance the argument by presenting such evidence.
Again, your only argument seems to be an attempt to transfer the burden.
I must suppose that's all you have, and I am not disabused of my notion
that there is no evidence.

>>> 1. Our young, small [compared with what it will eventually become]
>>> universe is all there is (or was, or will ever be).
>>> 2. There is a supernatural creator of our universe.
>>> 3. There is, for all practical purposes, an infinity of universes.
>>> In the last couple of posts, I have been assessing the possiblility
>>> that 2. is true as an offshoot of 3. and so I have no qualms about
>>> hypothesizing limitations.
>> So what's your assessment? Missed it.
>
> You mean you've really forgotten all the times I put a <1% probability
> to it, including on this very thread?

Oh, so that's what you meant. OK, never mind. If it has such a low
probability, is it worth a lot of time?

> I recalled it for you on another thread, in talk.origins, in
> connection with the question of the existence of souls of the kind Ron
> O was interested in:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/788962f6e713bebf
>
> This was done in direct follow-up to you, and I can readily understand
> why you may be afraid to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Why would you think I was afraid? I didn't see anything that demanded a
reply.

> Ditto the
> other post I did in direct reply to you that was also chock full of
> corrections of things Ron O had said to you:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3d5c54b77a0150dc?dmode=source

Again, that didn't seem to call for a response.

[pnyikos]

On Mar 16, 5:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Mar 9, 10:39 pm, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> >>>>> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
> >>>>> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
> >>>>> anything much better.
> >>>> How good are you at conceiving such things?
> >>> I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
> >>> it.
> >> Many are better than you are. I can imagine a much better universe for
> >> life. What if, for example, the interstellar medium were thick enough to
> >> support life?

In that case, how could planets have orbits lasting for billions of
years? The friction would probably cause a planet the size of earth
to spiral into the sun much sooner. Not to mention the tremedous heat
the friction would generate, nor the inability to keep an intact
atmosphere.

Last time, I didn't think the physical implications through, but now
I've had time to reflect on the disadvantages of your speculation.

> > In that case, the creator might have had far too many living things at
> > a time to cope with.
>
> I thought you said he had really good powers of coping.

Still vastly greater than ours. It's enough trouble just keeping up
with my wife and four daughters, and a small circle of acquaintances.

>It seems he has
> whatever powers you find convenient whenever you either want to accept
> or dismiss a hypothesis.

On the contrary, I have to deal with the hand we've been dealt, a
universe with various characteristics.

Anyway, thanks for helping me to see why I didn't go above 1%.

> > This way, with only a few planets supporting
> > life (by my hypothesis) and those starting several billion years after
> > creation, the creator could have had plenty of time to prepare things
> > in addition to having a manageable number of things to cope with.
>
> Can we agree that all this speculation about the hypothetical
> characteristics of a hypothetical and unevidenced entity is very silly?

No. See above.

> Even so, it would be better if your speculations were internally
> consistent, and I don't think they are.

I think they are. Care to try to demonstrate otherwise?

>You are forced to jump through a
> great many very conveniently placed hoops in an effort to keep your
> performance going.

As are all scientists in every field: they are forced to jump through
the hoops that our universe has inconveniently placed for them.
Articles about hypothetical universes seldom help in getting grant
money.

Remainder deleted, to be addressed on a thread I set up in
talk.origins:

Subject: The protein takeover -- a challenge for abiogenesis
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b7969d55ebf5d18b#

The first post to that thread was:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e6c521b83b315961
Message-ID: <86e7b9cd-33c0-4771-
a178-820...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 10:39 pm, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>
> Picking up where I left off in my first reply:
>
>>>>>>> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
>>>>>>> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
>>>>>>> anything much better.
>>>>>> How good are you at conceiving such things?
>>>>> I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
>>>>> it.
>>>> Many are better than you are. I can imagine a much better universe for
>>>> life. What if, for example, the interstellar medium were thick enough to
>>>> support life?
>
> In that case, how could planets have orbits lasting for billions of
> years? The friction would probably cause a planet the size of earth
> to spiral into the sun much sooner. Not to mention the tremedous heat
> the friction would generate, nor the inability to keep an intact
> atmosphere.

You don't need planets if the interstellar medium supports life. Think.

> Last time, I didn't think the physical implications through, but now
> I've had time to reflect on the disadvantages of your speculation.

Not enough time, apparently.

>>> In that case, the creator might have had far too many living things at
>>> a time to cope with.
>> I thought you said he had really good powers of coping.
>
> Still vastly greater than ours. It's enough trouble just keeping up
> with my wife and four daughters, and a small circle of acquaintances.

>> It seems he has
>> whatever powers you find convenient whenever you either want to accept
>> or dismiss a hypothesis.
>
> On the contrary, I have to deal with the hand we've been dealt, a
> universe with various characteristics.

So you're postulating a creator to fit the universe, then. Just smart
enough, but not too smart. Just capable enough, but not too capable. Why
not just postulate that he wanted a universe just like this one for
mysterious reasons we don't understand? That would be simpler.

> Anyway, thanks for helping me to see why I didn't go above 1%.

Now we can work on that 1%

>>> This way, with only a few planets supporting
>>> life (by my hypothesis) and those starting several billion years after
>>> creation, the creator could have had plenty of time to prepare things
>>> in addition to having a manageable number of things to cope with.
>> Can we agree that all this speculation about the hypothetical
>> characteristics of a hypothetical and unevidenced entity is very silly?
>
> No. See above.

I didn't see the part where it turned out not to be silly. You mean that
it's useful because we can see that it's unlikely?

>> Even so, it would be better if your speculations were internally
>> consistent, and I don't think they are.
>
> I think they are. Care to try to demonstrate otherwise?

I have, but you keep moving the speculations around. He can find us in
this universe because he's really good at keeping track of things, but
he couldn't deal with a universe where life isn't so rare because he
isn't that good at keeping track of things. And so on.

>> You are forced to jump through a
>> great many very conveniently placed hoops in an effort to keep your
>> performance going.
>
> As are all scientists in every field: they are forced to jump through
> the hoops that our universe has inconveniently placed for them.
> Articles about hypothetical universes seldom help in getting grant
> money.

Are you really comparing your fantasy stories to what scientists do? Be
serious.

[pnyikos]

On Mar 19, 3:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 5:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Mar 16, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 9, 10:39 pm, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>
> > Picking up where I left off in my first reply:
>
> >>>>>>> However, as far as the physical make-up goes -- the six constants plus
> >>>>>>> the seventh I talked about today -- it's hard for me to conceive of
> >>>>>>> anything much better.
> >>>>>> How good are you at conceiving such things?
> >>>>> I'm not very good, admittedly, but I doubt that anyone is very good at
> >>>>> it.
> >>>> Many are better than you are. I can imagine a much better universe for
> >>>> life. What if, for example, the interstellar medium were thick enough to
> >>>> support life?
>
> > In that case, how could planets have orbits lasting for billions of
> > years?  The friction would probably cause a planet the size of earth
> > to spiral into the sun much sooner.  Not to mention the tremedous heat
> > the friction would generate, nor the inability to keep an intact
> > atmosphere.
>
> You don't need planets if the interstellar medium supports life. Think.

I did. Did you?

When using the word "interstellar," did you stop to think about WHERE
this life is supposed to be, and where the energy it utilizes is
supposed to come from?

All but the nearest star would have a hard time getting any energy
through the near-opaque medium to the creatures involved, while the
nearest star could fry them if they get close enough to it. And how
would they evolve fast enough to have the kind of sophisticated
behavior AND propulsive means that keeps them at the right distance?

Not to mention that gravity would pull the interstellar medium into
any star so fast, it would soon go supernova. To avoid that, you
would have to hypothesize all kinds of changes to the basic make-up of
the universe, to a point where your postulated "life-rich interstellar
medium" becomes something close to supernatural.

On a planet with a stable orbit, in a near-vacuum, in a universe such
as ours, life can take its time to evolve.

Also, if one wants intelligent life, one needs a stable environment,
with lots of things that make the evolution of intelligence
advantageous. Even as it is, with intelligece being a big plus
starting no later than the first mammals, it took a long time for
*Homo* to evolve.

And once a potentially intelligent life form comes into being, there
are lots of features our planet has that are conducive to the
advancement of science.

Earth's atmosphere is transparent to the cosmos, making it easy for
intelligent beings to advance in astronomy. Its geology is somewhat
inducive to the preservation of fossils, making it easy to advance in
the study of evolution.

Your "rich interstellar medium" seems as impoverished to me as your
other universe made of chocolate.

> > Last time, I didn't think the physical implications through, but now
> > I've had time to reflect on the disadvantages of your speculation.
>
> Not enough time, apparently.

Such snappy comebacks come easily to you; justifying them is a
different matter.

> >>> In that case, the creator might have had far too many living things at
> >>> a time to cope with.
> >> I thought you said he had really good powers of coping.
>
> > Still vastly greater than ours.  It's enough trouble just keeping up
> > with my wife and four daughters, and a small circle of acquaintances.
> >> It seems he has
> >> whatever powers you find convenient whenever you either want to accept
> >> or dismiss a hypothesis.
>
> > On the contrary, I have to deal with the hand we've been dealt, a
> > universe with various characteristics.
>
> So you're postulating a creator to fit the universe, then.

Would you rather have me assessing the probability that a creator
exists that did NOT fit the universe?

Talk about stacking the deck in favor of atheism!

> Just smart
> enough, but not too smart. Just capable enough, but not too capable. Why
> not just postulate that he wanted a universe just like this one for
> mysterious reasons we don't understand? That would be simpler.

If you were a fox, one of your favorite hobbies would be to tell
farmers how to design henhouses. ;-)

> > Anyway, thanks for helping me to see why I didn't go above 1%.
>
> Now we can work on that 1%
>
> >>> This way, with only a few planets supporting
> >>> life (by my hypothesis) and those starting several billion years after
> >>> creation, the creator could have had plenty of time to prepare things
> >>> in addition to having a manageable number of things to cope with.
> >> Can we agree that all this speculation about the hypothetical
> >> characteristics of a hypothetical and unevidenced entity is very silly?
>
> > No. See above.
>
> I didn't see the part where it turned out not to be silly.

I didn't see the part where it turned out to be silly. What IS silly
is you using the term "unevidenced" just because you refuse to count
the witness of the NT writers as any kind of evidence at all, or the
fine tuning of physical constants as any kind of evidence at all.

I use the word "evidence" to denote a huge range of data, from near-
proofs to data that only makes things a little bit more plausible than
pure fantasy.

> >> Even so, it would be better if your speculations were internally
> >> consistent, and I don't think they are.
>
> > I think they are.  Care to try to demonstrate otherwise?
>
> I have, but you keep moving the speculations around. He can find us in
> this universe because he's really good at keeping track of things,

I said that, given 4 billion years, finding our planet is no big
deal. And I said that, it might have chosen our planet early on for
some close observation and manipulation. Those are alternative
hypotheses. There's a difference between that and inconsistencies.

> but
> he couldn't deal with a universe where life isn't so rare because he
> isn't that good at keeping track of things.

That's perfectly consistent with both of those alternative hypotheses.

> >> You are forced to jump through a
> >> great many very conveniently placed hoops in an effort to keep your
> >> performance going.
>
> > As are all scientists in every field: they are forced to jump through
> > the hoops that our universe has inconveniently placed for them.
> > Articles about hypothetical universes seldom help in getting grant
> > money.
>
> Are you really comparing your fantasy stories to what scientists do? Be
> serious.

They have that one feature in common. Both work with the hands that
they have been dealt--our world as it is, not as we might like it to
be.

And pejorative terms like "fantasy stories" don't address that point.
Not to mention that your "life-rich interstellar medium" is hoist with
the same pejorative petard.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Mar 9, 4:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 9:23 pm, Craig Franck <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2012 4:45 PM, JohnHarshmanwrote:
>
> >>> Craig Franck wrote:
> >>>> On 2/25/2012 9:22 AM, JohnHarshmanwrote:
> >>>>> pnyikos wrote:

I've added talk.philosophy.misc in the hope of bringing new people
into this discussion.

Note to people in talk.philosophy.misc: this is a fascinating (for me

at
least) discussion of the evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence
of a creator of our universe. In some strands of the discussion I
also spoke of my hopes, which correspond closely to C.S. Lewis's view
of the supernatural, but as I repeatedly point out, a sober assessment
of the evidence available to me suggests that the probability of my
hopes being realized is < 1%.

I should point out before getting down to new business that I started
a thread today in talk.origins on the protein takeover and the
problems it poses for the beginning of life as we know it. It is
shaping up quickly, and I place a higher priority on it than I do on
this one. But I'll try to check in on this one at least every
weekday.

> >>>>>> On Feb 23, 11:23 am, JohnHarshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The range of values compatible with life is very restrictive.
>
> >>>>>>> You can't say that unless you know what range you are comparing
> >>>>>>> them to.
>
> >>>>>> As I suggested above, the range seems to have no bounds. Do you have
> >>>>>> ANY reason for thinking there are any?
>
> > John reflected the question back at me:
>
> >>>>> Do you have any reason to think the range has no bounds? What is your
> >>>>> evidence for this interesting assertion?
>

> > [deletia of things dealt with in my first reply to this same post, on alt.agnosticism and talk.origins]

>
> >>>>>>> If the life-compatible range of constant X is from 1 to 1.1, that's
> >>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>> restrictive if the constant could vary from 0 to 10^6. But it's pretty
> >>>>>>> broad if the constant could vary from 1 to 1.5. You don't know.

> > Here is an example of a constant which is probably easier for all of
> > us to understand than the ones Rees wrote about:

Rees is the Astronomer Royal, and a Cambridge University Professor.
Here is a short description of six basic constants and the negative
implications for life that even small perturbations in them would
have:

http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf

> > the ratio between the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron.
>
> > It is something like 1800 to one.  There's quite a lot of latitude
> > there as far as life is concerned, but if the constant were close to
> > 1, or less than one, no solid matter could form because the inertia in
> > the nucleus of an atom would be insufficient for the nucleus to stay
> > in essentially the same place with respect to other nuclei while the
> > electron orbits it.
>
> > But if anyone thinks that there is something logically impossible in
> > such a setup, or some bit of metaphysics that rules out even the
> > possibility of a universe where the ratio is close to 1 or lower, I'd
> > like to see anyone try to explain why.
>
> Logical impossibility isn't the issue. It's physics that's the issue.

Yes, but not the physics of our world -- the inconceivably varied
physics of all possible worlds.

I've written before about what may be the most ultimate question of
all: why is there ANYTHING rather than nothing? We are the incredibly
lucky beneficiaries of the fact that there IS something rather than
nothing. And not just something -- a universe far more conducive
towards life than just about any other we could imagine.

If there is no real explanation behind the existence of ANYTHING --
and an atheist might gravitate naturally towards such a conclusion --
then the right approach is to ignore the "why" in the question and to
flatly say: there could just as easily never have been anything at
all.

But since there is something rather than nothing, it behooves us to
ask: is there no reason why the physical constants are what they are?
Why could they not have taken on any value at all?

> If
> you have some information on what ratios would have been possible,
> please provide it. Otherwise we have no way of ruling out universes
> where the ratio could fall below 1, but we likewise have no way of
> ruling them in.

There is good reason for ruling them in: our universe need not have
ever existed, nothing need have existed, and even though something
does exist, there is no reason why existing things should take on the
shape our universe took, or indeed anything remotely resembling it.
You seem to think there is a reason:

> >>>>>> And neither do you.
> >>>>> That's my point. Nobody knows. But your argument assumes that you do
> >>>>> know.

At this point, Craig Franck picked up the ball for me while I was
absent longer than I should have been -- he left before I returned:

> >>>> It's based on the cosmic weather analogy. If the laws of physics
> >>>> are considered part of the physical environment of an organism,
> >>>> and most environments in this universe are unfriendly to life,
> >>>> then you are most justified in assuming this average holds across
> >>>> all possible universes.
>
> > In fact, with all the evident fine-tuning in the universe, I would
> > consider ours to be a highly privileged one.  There is nothing wrong
> > in thinking this -- it's the basis for the anthropic principle.
>
> Again, I ask how you know it's fine-tuning unless you know the range of
> possibilities.

I leave it to other readers to give their own opinions on this matter,
after they have read what I wrote above and what I write about the
anthropic principle below.

> >>> You are not justified in any such assumption. Why would you be?
>
> > Philosophers of science love the principle of mediocrity.  I wonder
> > whether Harshman dislikes it.
>
> It's a weak principle at best. And of course the principle would tell us
> that there are lots of planets on which life arose, so I imagine you
> don't think it's a very strong argument either.

That begs the question of whether it arose on this planet earth, or
was sent here by panspermists a la Crick and Orgel. "panspermists"
refers to an intelligent species that arose in another

This topic is an important sidelight in that new talk.origins thread,
and I brought it up in my second post to that thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d829171ca3149dc6

Richard Norman had some very common attitudes towards that hypothesis,
and I tried to clarify matters with:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/235b0066a20cd0b6

> >> Because if it's not true, then the multiverse (say) is a more
> >> life-friendly or a less life-friendly place than our universe, and
> >> it's difficult to know which alternative is more likely.
>
> > Less, by a wide margin, again because of the anthropic principle.
>
> How so? Again, wouldn't you have to know the distribution of possible
> universes in order to say that?

The anthropic principle works like this: the universe in which we find
ourselves is, of necessity, of a certain sort, otherwise we wouldn't
be here because no intelligent being would be here.

There is a lot of literature on the anthropic principle, and I would
be surprised if there were anyone with a published article or book
about it who is as relentlessly skeptical of there being a colossal
range of alternatives to this universe as you are. Now that Craig
Franck doesn't seem to be returning to this thread, I hope someone in
talk.philosophy.misc will find it worthwhile to participate.

[Syamsu]

On 20 mrt, 03:51, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> If there is no real explanation behind the existence of ANYTHING --
> and an atheist might gravitate naturally towards such a conclusion --
> then the right approach is to ignore the "why" in the question and to
> flatly say: there could just as easily never have been anything at
> all.
>
> But since there is something rather than nothing, it behooves us to
> ask: is there no reason why the physical constants are what they are?
> Why could they not have taken on any value at all?

Quite obviously your argument is contradictory. You talk about all
possible physics, and then you talk about how the physics couldn't
have been anything else.

[John Harshman]

Let me point out that these are all new objections, having nothing to do
with your original objection.

> When using the word "interstellar," did you stop to think about WHERE
> this life is supposed to be, and where the energy it utilizes is
> supposed to come from?
>
> All but the nearest star would have a hard time getting any energy
> through the near-opaque medium to the creatures involved, while the
> nearest star could fry them if they get close enough to it.

Not true. The energy would transfer, just more slowly. Not by radiation
with a long free path, but by absorption and re-transmission, and also
by conduction.

> And how
> would they evolve fast enough to have the kind of sophisticated
> behavior AND propulsive means that keeps them at the right distance?

How does anything evolve fast enough to remain in a proper environment?

> Not to mention that gravity would pull the interstellar medium into
> any star so fast, it would soon go supernova. To avoid that, you
> would have to hypothesize all kinds of changes to the basic make-up of
> the universe, to a point where your postulated "life-rich interstellar
> medium" becomes something close to supernatural.

I agree it would be good if gravity were weaker, or perhaps if there
were a repulsive force like dark energy that worked over closer
distances than dark energy does.

> On a planet with a stable orbit, in a near-vacuum, in a universe such
> as ours, life can take its time to evolve.
>
> Also, if one wants intelligent life, one needs a stable environment,
> with lots of things that make the evolution of intelligence
> advantageous. Even as it is, with intelligece being a big plus
> starting no later than the first mammals, it took a long time for
> *Homo* to evolve.

How does this require planets, exactly?

> And once a potentially intelligent life form comes into being, there
> are lots of features our planet has that are conducive to the
> advancement of science.
>
> Earth's atmosphere is transparent to the cosmos, making it easy for
> intelligent beings to advance in astronomy. Its geology is somewhat
> inducive to the preservation of fossils, making it easy to advance in
> the study of evolution.

Now you're really reaching; you're approaching creationists in your need
to make our noses made to hold spectacles. And let me point out that you
have segued from a fine-tuned universe to a fine-tuned planet. Are you
now contending that the creator is mucking about with individual
planets, rather than just setting up the big bang? This would be a quite
different creator from your previous version.

> Your "rich interstellar medium" seems as impoverished to me as your
> other universe made of chocolate.

So again, this is the best of all possible worlds.

>>> Last time, I didn't think the physical implications through, but now
>>> I've had time to reflect on the disadvantages of your speculation.
>> Not enough time, apparently.
>
> Such snappy comebacks come easily to you; justifying them is a
> different matter.

Back atcha.

>>>>> In that case, the creator might have had far too many living things at
>>>>> a time to cope with.
>>>> I thought you said he had really good powers of coping.
>>> Still vastly greater than ours. It's enough trouble just keeping up
>>> with my wife and four daughters, and a small circle of acquaintances.
>>>> It seems he has
>>>> whatever powers you find convenient whenever you either want to accept
>>>> or dismiss a hypothesis.
>>> On the contrary, I have to deal with the hand we've been dealt, a
>>> universe with various characteristics.
>> So you're postulating a creator to fit the universe, then.
>
> Would you rather have me assessing the probability that a creator
> exists that did NOT fit the universe?

No, but you're in the position of a puddle agog that the hole he's in
fits him so exactly.

> Talk about stacking the deck in favor of atheism!

There is no need to stack any decks.

>> Just smart
>> enough, but not too smart. Just capable enough, but not too capable. Why
>> not just postulate that he wanted a universe just like this one for
>> mysterious reasons we don't understand? That would be simpler.
>
> If you were a fox, one of your favorite hobbies would be to tell
> farmers how to design henhouses. ;-)

The farmer appears to need a lot of help.

>>> Anyway, thanks for helping me to see why I didn't go above 1%.
>> Now we can work on that 1%
>>
>>>>> This way, with only a few planets supporting
>>>>> life (by my hypothesis) and those starting several billion years after
>>>>> creation, the creator could have had plenty of time to prepare things
>>>>> in addition to having a manageable number of things to cope with.
>>>> Can we agree that all this speculation about the hypothetical
>>>> characteristics of a hypothetical and unevidenced entity is very silly?
>>> No. See above.
>> I didn't see the part where it turned out not to be silly.
>
> I didn't see the part where it turned out to be silly. What IS silly
> is you using the term "unevidenced" just because you refuse to count
> the witness of the NT writers as any kind of evidence at all, or the
> fine tuning of physical constants as any kind of evidence at all.

Would you agree that there's just as much evidence for Zeus as for YHWH?
No, I don't count it as evidence. If that's evidence, there's evidence
for astrology, homeopathy, theosophy, or any of the thousands of
crackpot beliefs around the world. To make that claim is to distort the
language beyond usefulness.

> I use the word "evidence" to denote a huge range of data, from near-
> proofs to data that only makes things a little bit more plausible than
> pure fantasy.

Perhaps you are too generous with "a little bit more plausible". There
is in fact, under your scheme, evidence in favor of just about any bit
of pure fantasy.

>>>> Even so, it would be better if your speculations were internally
>>>> consistent, and I don't think they are.
>>> I think they are. Care to try to demonstrate otherwise?
>> I have, but you keep moving the speculations around. He can find us in
>> this universe because he's really good at keeping track of things,
>
> I said that, given 4 billion years, finding our planet is no big
> deal. And I said that, it might have chosen our planet early on for
> some close observation and manipulation. Those are alternative
> hypotheses. There's a difference between that and inconsistencies.

If hypotheses are mutually inconsistent, which they are, and you don't
note when you're changing hypotheses, which you don't, that can cause
the impression that you're being inconsistent.

>> but
>> he couldn't deal with a universe where life isn't so rare because he
>> isn't that good at keeping track of things.
>
> That's perfectly consistent with both of those alternative hypotheses.

Sorry, I'm not sure which "both" would be. It does seem as if your
"close observation and manipulation" is contradicting your panspermia
ideas. Would you agree?

>>>> You are forced to jump through a
>>>> great many very conveniently placed hoops in an effort to keep your
>>>> performance going.
>>> As are all scientists in every field: they are forced to jump through
>>> the hoops that our universe has inconveniently placed for them.
>>> Articles about hypothetical universes seldom help in getting grant
>>> money.
>> Are you really comparing your fantasy stories to what scientists do? Be
>> serious.
>
> They have that one feature in common. Both work with the hands that
> they have been dealt--our world as it is, not as we might like it to
> be.
>
> And pejorative terms like "fantasy stories" don't address that point.
> Not to mention that your "life-rich interstellar medium" is hoist with
> the same pejorative petard.

I make no claim to science. My point is that you do. And what you have
are indeed fantasy stories: you're just making them up. You could have
made up anything you liked, as long as it fit what we see, by whatever
contortions.

[pnyikos]

Welcome to this thread, Nando. I might remark that Alan Kleinman,
whom you seem to admire a lot, has weighed in on that thread that I
was inspired to start in talk.origins by some things Harshman and I
have been discussing on this thread.

Here is the url for his post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f57a20b0325d2712

"Prof. Weird" gave him a hard time in reply, but Steven L. mentioned
the silver lining: "Prof. Weird" might never have posted a lot of
nifty stuff if Kleinman hadn't goaded him into it.

You mistake a challenge to John for my opinion. I am the one arguing
how the physics could have been very different, mostly in bad ways at
that, and he's been digging in his heels.

If there is a creator of the universe, it stands to reason that he
[I'm using this pronoun in the generic sense to denote any kind of
intelligent being] did have a free choice in the design of our
universe. He could have made fewer stable elements, or more; he could
have made lots of different kinds of electrons and/or protons, but
settled on one kind of each; he could have made stars to shine much
longer, or less long, than he did.

The possibilities for variation are endless, but a free will choice
seems to be indicated.

Does that please you?

Peter Nyikos