Intelligent Design?
Rolf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the process of
embryonal development.
While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could possibly fit in
with any of the different "Intelligent Design" scenarios. The compatibility
with evolutionary theory is obvious, but I find it hard to fit the method to
any "designer."
What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that design, how
would he have acquired the required knowledge? What experience, tools and
equipment would he need?
To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God with
unbelievable powers.
Anybody care to dig into it? I have a problem articulating my thoughts on
this in English. I probably would give up doing it even in Norwegian.
pnyikos
> At
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>
> we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the process of
> embryonal development.
>
> While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could possibly fit in
> with any of the different "Intelligent Design" scenarios. The compatibility
> with evolutionary theory is obvious, but I find it hard to fit the method to
> any "designer."
>
> What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that design, how
> would he have acquired the required knowledge? What experience, tools and
> equipment would he need?
>
> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God with
> unbelievable powers.
Not necessarily unbelievable. After all, embryonic development is
governed by natural laws of biochemistry, which a creator much more
knowledgeable and mind-bogglingly powerful than ourselves might easily
figure out and even design and bring into being.
And if you find such a creator unbelievable, do you think our finite
universe, which evidently began ca. 13 billion years ago, is all there
is? I find that far harder to believe, given how finely tuned it is
for life. See here, for example:
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
But the most believable alternative is that there is a mind-bogglingly
large, perhaps infinite number of universes, and that we are in one
of the best. But then, might there not also be much more grand
universes, giving rise to gods capable of designing and creating
universes like ours?
> Anybody care to dig into it? I have a problem articulating my thoughts on
> this in English. I probably would give up doing it even in Norwegian.
Were you able to follow what I wrote? If not, I'll be glad to
explain.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Rolf
> On Aug 23, 9:36 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> At
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>>
>> we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the
>> process of embryonal development.
>>
>> While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could
>> possibly fit in with any of the different "Intelligent Design"
>> scenarios. The compatibility with evolutionary theory is obvious,
>> but I find it hard to fit the method to any "designer."
>>
>> What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that
>> design, how would he have acquired the required knowledge? What
>> experience, tools and equipment would he need?
>>
>> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God
>> with unbelievable powers.
>
> Not necessarily unbelievable. After all, embryonic development is
> governed by natural laws of biochemistry, which a creator much more
> knowledgeable and mind-bogglingly powerful than ourselves might easily
> figure out and even design and bring into being.
>
> And if you find such a creator unbelievable, do you think our finite
> universe, which evidently began ca. 13 billion years ago, is all there
> is? I find that far harder to believe, given how finely tuned it is
> for life. See here, for example:
>
I don't believe in creationism and that impose certain limits on what I
consider possible.
But wrt to cosmology. I am open to all possibilities as long as teleology is
put aside.
I don't see any reason why there could not be an infinite number of
universes, with different 'design' parameters. One of which ours may be a
random sample that happens to be the one in which we find ourselves.
When drawing a random number from an infinite number of numbers, any number
may happen to be the first one drawn. Maybe that's what happened, there is
one and only one universe, and our number came up first.
So the fine-tuning argument finds no resonance in my mind, and I consider it
more like an attempt to make space for a ghost in the machine.
Until we know, we may only speculate.
> http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
>
> But the most believable alternative is that there is a mind-bogglingly
> large, perhaps infinite number of universes, and that we are in one
> of the best. But then, might there not also be much more grand
> universes, giving rise to gods capable of designing and creating
> universes like ours?
>
>> Anybody care to dig into it? I have a problem articulating my
>> thoughts on this in English. I probably would give up doing it even
>> in Norwegian.
>
> Were you able to follow what I wrote? If not, I'll be glad to
> explain.
>
Understanding is no problem, it is just that I am too critical about how I
write.
prawnster
> At
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>
> we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the process of
> embryonal development.
>
> While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could possibly fit in
> with any of the different "Intelligent Design" scenarios. The compatibility
> with evolutionary theory is obvious, but I find it hard to fit the method to
> any "designer."
>
> What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that design, how
> would he have acquired the required knowledge? What experience, tools and
> equipment would he need?
>
> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God with
> unbelievable powers.
>
On this particular topic described in the article you linked to, the
designer would need to have all the knowledge, experience, tools, and
equipment that the scientists doing this experiment had. I don't see
how this requires a God with unbelievable powers: If people working
in a lab can understand this aspect of reproduction, I'm pretty sure
whoever designed us can understand it, too.
And I'm not sure how this experiment confirms evolution in any way.
Our ever-increasing knowledge of how extraordinarily complex even
"simple" organisms are should convince people that evolution is
probably not true and that evolution is probably false. Darwin and
other folks alive in the 19th century thought organisms were simple
(because the innards of cells were unknown then; they looked like
empty cells, thus their name), but we don't have that luxury. We know
that life is very complex.
Robert Camp
Why?
>�Darwin and
> other folks alive in the 19th century thought organisms were simple
> (because the innards of cells were unknown then; they looked like
> empty cells, thus their name), but we don't have that luxury. �We know
> that life is very complex.
Yes, and...?
RLC
Rolf
> On Aug 23, 5:36 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> At
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>>
>> we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the
>> process of embryonal development.
>>
>> While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could
>> possibly fit in with any of the different "Intelligent Design"
>> scenarios. The compatibility with evolutionary theory is obvious,
>> but I find it hard to fit the method to any "designer."
>>
>> What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that
>> design, how would he have acquired the required knowledge? What
>> experience, tools and equipment would he need?
>>
>> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God
>> with unbelievable powers.
>>
>
> On this particular topic described in the article you linked to, the
> designer would need to have all the knowledge, experience, tools, and
> equipment that the scientists doing this experiment had. I don't see
> how this requires a God with unbelievable powers: If people working
> in a lab can understand this aspect of reproduction, I'm pretty sure
> whoever designed us can understand it, too.
>
My point was not about understanding aspects of reproduction after the fact;
it was about creating that intricate method of organizing a process for a
specific purpose.
I can describe, in general terms, how to make a nuclear bomb. Who could 150
years ago?.
Reverse engineering usually is much easier than original design.
pnyikos
> On Aug 23, 5:36 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > At
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>
> > we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the process of
> > embryonal development.
>
> > While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could possibly fit in
> > with any of the different "Intelligent Design" scenarios. The compatibility
> > with evolutionary theory is obvious, but I find it hard to fit the method to
> > any "designer."
>
> > What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that design, how
> > would he have acquired the required knowledge? What experience, tools and
> > equipment would he need?
>
> > To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God with
> > unbelievable powers.
>
> On this particular topic described in the article you linked to, the
> designer would need to have all the knowledge, experience, tools, and
> equipment that the scientists doing this experiment had. I don't see
> how this requires a God with unbelievable powers: If people working
> in a lab can understand this aspect of reproduction, I'm pretty sure
> whoever designed us can understand it, too.
The first part of my reply to Rolf was very much along those lines.
> And I'm not sure how this experiment confirms evolution in any way.
> Our ever-increasing knowledge of how extraordinarily complex even
> "simple" organisms are should convince people that evolution is
> probably not true and that evolution is probably false. Darwin and
> other folks alive in the 19th century thought organisms were simple
> (because the innards of cells were unknown then; they looked like
> empty cells, thus their name), but we don't have that luxury. We know
> that life is very complex.
That's more of an argument against abiogenesis. And by that I mean
the rise of organisms on the order of complexity of prokaryotes
(bacteria and archae--to use an old-fashioned word, monerans). Once
that is given, I think at least 99.9999% of the difficulty of coming
up with intelligent beings like ourselves is licked.
Not that it is trivial. On another thread, we are discussing the
probability that a planet will go from being a "P planet" to a "Tc
planet" in ca. 3.5 billion years.
P organism: an organism on the general level of organization shown by
prokaryotes
P planet: a planet where the most advanced life forms are P organisms
Tc planet: a planet where there is a technological civilization
capable of interstellar communication.
Sagan thought a planet with P had a 1% chance of going to Tc; I think
it is more along the lines of .005%; see:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/58de17cc2dd0480a
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
On Aug 24, 7:12 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 9:36 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> >> At
>
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>
> >> we find some very intersting info about how genes work during the
> >> process of embryonal development.
>
> >> While reading I am tempted to speculate about how this could
> >> possibly fit in with any of the different "Intelligent Design"
> >> scenarios. The compatibility with evolutionary theory is obvious,
> >> but I find it hard to fit the method to any "designer."
>
> >> What knowledge would a designer need to have before making that
> >> design, how would he have acquired the required knowledge? What
> >> experience, tools and equipment would he need?
>
> >> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a God
> >> with unbelievable powers.
>
> > Not necessarily unbelievable. After all, embryonic development is
> > governed by natural laws of biochemistry, which a creator much more
> > knowledgeable and mind-bogglingly powerful than ourselves might easily
> > figure out and even design and bring into being.
>
> > And if you find such a creator unbelievable, do you think our finite
> > universe, which evidently began ca. 13 billion years ago, is all there
> > is? I find that far harder to believe, given how finely tuned it is
> > for life. See here, for example:
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
> I don't believe in creationism and that impose certain limits on what I
> consider possible.
"creationism" carries connotations of a denial of earth's organisms
being the result of common descent. I take it you also use it to
include deism.
> But wrt to cosmology. I am open to all possibilities as long as teleology is
> put aside.
The kind of teleology that has fallen out of favor in science is that
which attributes goal-seeking to unconscious processes. We humans,
being conscious purposive agents, have plenty of teleology in our
lives.
And the theory of directed panspermia makes no sense without the
panspermists being teleological.
> I don't see any reason why there could not be an infinite number of
> universes, with different 'design' parameters.
Cool. But you should try to draw more conclusions from this than you
have been drawing so far.
> One of which ours may be a
> random sample that happens to be the one in which we find ourselves.
And there are plenty of possible "samples" which suit our everyday
concept of "random" vastly better than our own finely tuned universe.
That is one of the main ideas behind that url I reposted up there, and
you preserved below. It features the words of Martin Rees, Astronomer
Royal of England and Professor at Cambridge University, where
"Professor" means even more than "endowed Chair" means here in the
USA.
> When drawing a random number from an infinite number of numbers, any number
> may happen to be the first one drawn.
But you don't believe in anyone drawing anything. And "first one"
assumes a common time frame which is naive when talking about
universes in the plural.
> Maybe that's what happened, there is
> one and only one universe, and our number came up first.
Even if that mind-bogglingly remote chance is true, there is no reason
for infintely many other universes NOT to come into existence as well.
> So the fine-tuning argument finds no resonance in my mind, and I consider it
> more like an attempt to make space for a ghost in the machine.
You sound like an "atheism of the gaps" person, one who refuses to
look the evidence for ours being an incredibly un-random universe in
the eye.
And your "ghost in the machine"--does that refer to the idea of us
having immaterial souls, as it originally did? That is a completely
irrelevant issue at this point. Even if everything in a universe were
unconscious, one would still needs incrediby fine tuning to make
possible complex organisms, of the kind that evolved on our planet.
> Until we know, we may only speculate.
>
> >http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
>
> > But the most believable alternative is that there is a mind-bogglingly
> > large, perhaps infinite number of universes, and that we are in one
> > of the best. But then, might there not also be much more grand
> > universes, giving rise to gods capable of designing and creating
> > universes like ours?
If you are as cool about the possibility of infinitely many universes
as you seemed to be up there, you should do some speculating along
these lines.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Why should a creator know everything "he" needs to know right off the
bat? The idea that the only alternative to no god is an infinitely
perfect God is a false dichotomy.
> Reverse engineering usually is much easier than original design.
Yes. So what?
> > And I'm not sure how this experiment confirms evolution in any way.
> > Our ever-increasing knowledge of how extraordinarily complex even
> > "simple" organisms are should convince people that evolution is
> > probably not true and that evolution is probably false.
As I said to prawnster in a post done only to talk.origins, this is
actually an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f9b5d1e5c555398
For more on the distinction, which even John Harshman seems to have a
few subtle difficulties with,
see:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6d210bae544fe31c
beginning with:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/58de17cc2dd0480a
Peter Nyikos
Rolf
In the meantime:
What I got out of the article I linked to in my OP was confirmation of an
idea I have had for a long time, namely that before a designer may design
anyhing he needs knowledge.
Unless the designer is an omniscient and omnipotent god, how could he
possibl design entirely new and unknown stuff from scratch?
Human designers mimic nature.
How was Velcro invented?
An office building designed with imitation of the ventilation system of
termite mounds.
Learning from woodpeckers how to design helmets for use by hockey players.
The steam engine.
The telephone.
There must be a lot more examples of how we have found inspiration for
design and inventions by studying or learning from nature.
What would we have known about nature if we had not studied nature?
We weren't even able to design the paper clip from scratch, it evolved from
more primitve and less efficient designs.
Rolf
discussing intervention in the manifest universe by an outside omnipresent,
omnipotent and omniscient force that per definition is capable of creating
atoms and molecules out of nothing, that not only can manipulate matter at
will but also knows beforehand exactly what he is making and how it will
work. Or, a designer not too different from a human being, maybe more
realistic a huge scientific enterprise capable of making the most intricate
biological designs, with a level of expertise and intuitive design
capability far exceeding anything we could ever match.
In the case of the example I used in my OP, I referred to
QUOTE
The scientists knew that patterning relies on morphogens -- substances that
are secreted by a small number of cells in the center of the developing
embryo, and from there, diffuse outward. As morphogens disperse, the levels
drop off in the cells further from the center, and thus the concentration
relays a signal to the developing cells about their place and function in
the growing organism. But such a morphogen diffuses from the center at the
same rate in a small organism as in a larger one, and thus would not effect
scaling on its own
UNQUOTE
The scientists already had something to work on; they didn't have to design
from scratch the genetic mechanism(s) for scaling.
But without that knowledge, based on the way we think, how would we have
done it? Do we have any clues about how and when scaling became an issue in
evolution? I presume it must have been rather early in the evolution of
multicellular life. That would also have been a time when conditions on our
planet would not have been very agreeable for ET to work here.
I also find the idea that ET should have sprinkled the solar system with
biological building blocks rather farfetched; an idea we do not need. I use
Ockhams razor as often as I can.
There was even more to work from:
QUOTE
Several years ago, the researchers found a molecule in frog embryos that is
synthesized at the edges and diffuses inward. This second molecule also
functions as a morphogen, and it is the redistribution of this molecule that
finally determines the morphogen signal each developing cell receives, in a
way that takes embryo size into consideration.
UNQUOTE
Finishing with
QUOTE
The beauty of this research lies in the way it seamlessly weaves a
theoretical model into experimental biology. With this fresh, new approach
to investigating scaling, rather than searching for complex molecular
mechanisms, we can begin by looking for this relatively simple and universal
paradigm.
UNQUOTE
I just wonder, who would have thought of that if he didn't already know
something about it? Isn't our whole world of technology a demonstration of
how our designs evolve?
Nature is the great designer. Intelligent?
Rolf
I appreciate your arguments, but I also think that we are a bit on the
speculative side. Which means arguments may, or may not have survival
quality. Hopefully, time will solve soem of the mysteries.
My 'ghost in the machine' is more like an immanent spirit in the universe.
Divine is a word that is difficult to use in a context other than the
traditional.
...
Right, I don't believe in anyone drawing anything. I am also of course aware
that
"first one" is a somewhat inaccurate word to us in the context. But if a
creator creates universes, he may of course create any number of universes.
What we know is that the one in which we find ourselves have the 'right'
parameters but we do not know why.
I checked Royal Astronomer, good to see Fred Hoyle wasn't ;-)
Rolf
> Peter Nyikos
Burkhard
> I have not hat time to read the latest responses yet.
>
> In the meantime:
>
> What I got out of the article I linked to in my OP was confirmation of an
> idea I have had for a long time, namely that before a designer may design
> anyhing he needs knowledge.
>
> Unless the designer is an omniscient and omnipotent god, how could he
> possibl design entirely new and unknown stuff from scratch?
>
> Human designers mimic nature.
>
> How was Velcro invented?
>
> An office building designed with imitation of the ventilation system of
> termite mounds.
>
> Learning from woodpeckers how to design helmets for use by hockey players.
>
> The steam engine.
>
> The telephone.
>
> There must be a lot more examples of how we have found inspiration for
> design and inventions by studying or learning from nature.
There is a journal, and a small-ish research community, that tries to
d this transfer more systematically. I thought I had bookmarked them,
but can't find them.
here are ten v interesting examples:
http://scienceray.com/technology/information/10-product-designs-that-are-inspired-by-nature/
Rolf
Depends of what kind of creator wer are talking about. As far as I can tell,
the Genesis version is supposed to know all and be capable of anything.
ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that far
beyond
what we might imagine.
>> Reverse engineering usually is much easier than original design.
>
> Yes. So what?
>
Only that what we are able to learn from nature is not evidence
that a designer could have designed it before it existed.
pnyikos
Not as described in Genesis. There, God sounded like he needed a rest
after six days work; worried lest Adam and Eve eat of the tree of life
and live forever; repented of his creation and caused a flood to drown
out practically all terrestrial animals and men; and seemed not to
know whether the allegations about Sodom and Gomorrah were true, and
needed to do some investigation before ascertaining whether there were
50, or 45, or 40, or 30, or 20, or 10 just men there.
This sounds very much like the kind of God who might have arisen by a
process of evolution far longer and more successful than the one that
produced us, but still fallible and not aware of everything that is or
was or will be.
> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that far
> beyond
> what we might imagine.
In our universe, yes. But as I suggested in another reply I did to
you yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving
rise to a God as described in Genesis.
But your comment is very apropos of the theory of directed panspermia;
I have been very careful, in my version, not to assume that the
panspermists can do anything that we are not capable of.
> >> Reverse engineering usually is much easier than original design.
>
> > Yes. So what?
>
> Only that what we are able to learn from nature is not evidence
> that a designer could have designed it before it existed.
But the designer could have learned a vast amount of things it his own
universe before creating this one.
By the way, not that this is meant as an argument for what I've said
up to now...
Such grander universes are found here and there in science fiction,
including comic books. Back in the 1980's, Marvel Comics had a
character called The Beyonder that came from a much grander universe
and had powers approaching that of someone who could be a creator of a
universe such as ours. The existence of someone like the Beyonder
even caused one of the most religious Christian characters, the X-man
Nightcrawler, to doubt the existence of the Christian God.
Peter Nyikos
Kleuskes & Moos
Ah... A god who has arisen by evolution, is fallible and does not know
everything. That sounds suspiciously like any everyday person to me. In
that sense i'm better than that god of yours. I've worked fr more than 6
day on a stretch, as have many others.
>> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that
>> far beyond
>> what we might imagine.
>
> In our universe, yes. But as I suggested in another reply I did to you
> yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving rise to
> a God as described in Genesis.
Pray describe the alternate universe and your method of knowing about it.
If you can't this is idle speculation.
> But your comment is very apropos of the theory of directed panspermia; I
> have been very careful, in my version, not to assume that the
> panspermists can do anything that we are not capable of.
That's the first time i've seen 'a propos' used as an adjective, but that
might just be me.
>> >> Reverse engineering usually is much easier than original design.
>>
>> > Yes. So what?
>>
>> Only that what we are able to learn from nature is not evidence that a
>> designer could have designed it before it existed.
>
> But the designer could have learned a vast amount of things it his own
> universe before creating this one.
Have you _any_ evidence of such a creator and this universe you speak of?
If not, how do i distinguish between that creator of yours and a
Invisible Pink Unicorn?
> By the way, not that this is meant as an argument for what I've said up
> to now...
>
> Such grander universes are found here and there in science fiction,
> including comic books. Back in the 1980's, Marvel Comics had a
> character called The Beyonder that came from a much grander universe and
> had powers approaching that of someone who could be a creator of a
> universe such as ours. The existence of someone like the Beyonder even
> caused one of the most religious Christian characters, the X-man
> Nightcrawler, to doubt the existence of the Christian God.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" to
quote A.C. Clarke. Is that the point you try to make?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ I always have fun because I'm out of my \
\ mind!!! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pnyikos
wrote:
Except that, to have the power of constructing a universe like our
own, it would have to come from a far grander one.
You don't really think any inhabitant of our galaxy will ever have
such powers, do you?
The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
mentioned is the most likely.
1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
Notes:
[1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
[2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
[3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO,
although the smart money is on Alternative 3.
Minor variations on Alternative 1, such as the existence of a mere
10^500 universes, don't appreciably alter this assessment.
> >> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that
> >> far beyond
> >> what we might imagine.
>
> > In our universe, yes. But as I suggested in another reply I did to you
> > yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving rise to
> > a God as described in Genesis.
>
> Pray describe the alternate universe and your method of knowing about it.
Missing the point.
> If you can't this is idle speculation.
So is any decision as to which of the three alternatives above is
most likely. The playing field is level.
> > But your comment is very apropos of the theory of directed panspermia; I
> > have been very careful, in my version, not to assume that the
> > panspermists can do anything that we are not capable of.
>
> That's the first time i've seen 'a propos' used as an adjective, but that
> might just be me.
I hear it from time to time. It may just be a colloquialism.
> >> >> Reverse engineering usually is much easier than original design.
>
> >> > Yes. So what?
>
> >> Only that what we are able to learn from nature is not evidence that a
> >> designer could have designed it before it existed.
>
> > But the designer could have learned a vast amount of things it his own
> > universe before creating this one.
>
> Have you _any_ evidence of such a creator and this universe you speak of?
Yes, the fine-tuning of the constants, which affects the assessment of
three alternatives above.
> If not, how do i distinguish between that creator of yours and a
> Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Irrelevant question. If our universe had a creator, its physical
attributes are of no importance when compared to the monumental feat
of designing and creating our universe.
Peter Nyikos
Kleuskes & Moos
So? How is this better than "The Great Green Arkleseizure Sneezed"?
> You don't really think any inhabitant of our galaxy will ever have such
> powers, do you?
I don't really think that postulating some super-galactic, nay super-
universal, entity as creator is very useful. Besides, since my knowledge
of lifeforms is limited to this planet, i really can't say anything on
what inhabitants of other parts of the galaxy are capable of.
> The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
> mentioned is the most likely.
>
> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>
> [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>
> [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
Unless you are proposing _any_ method of falsifying any of the three
alternatives mentioned (and i think i can come up with a fourth, fifth
and even a sixth one), the question is utterly futile.
> The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
> makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO, although
> the smart money is on Alternative 3.
Maybe. I still think the whole "fine-tuning" business may be no more than
an illusion which may be explained by a better physical theory. But, as i
said above, the question is futile unless you can propose some method of
distinguishing between the three alternatives you mention.
> Minor variations on Alternative 1, such as the existence of a mere
> 10^500 universes, don't appreciably alter this assessment.
>> >> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all
>> >> that far beyond
>> >> what we might imagine.
>>
>> > In our universe, yes. But as I suggested in another reply I did to
>> > you yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving
>> > rise to a God as described in Genesis.
>>
>> Pray describe the alternate universe and your method of knowing about
>> it.
>
> Missing the point.
Perhaps. Pray describe "The Point"
>> If you can't this is idle speculation.
>
> So is any decision as to which of the three alternatives above is most
> likely. The playing field is level.
There is no playing field. Since you have no way of knowing, you can
postulate anything. This isn't a playing field. At best it's a sandbox.
<snip>
>> > But the designer could have learned a vast amount of things it his
>> > own universe before creating this one.
>>
>> Have you _any_ evidence of such a creator and this universe you speak
>> of?
>
> Yes, the fine-tuning of the constants, which affects the assessment of
> three alternatives above.
That's only an argument out of incredulity. Physics may still eliminate
the problem by showing the assumed "fine-tuning" to arise necessarily
from an underlying theory.
Equating a lack of explanation for fact X to evidence that some sort of
Deity must have created the universe is utterly naive.
>> If not, how do i distinguish between that creator of yours and a
>> Invisible Pink Unicorn?
>
> Irrelevant question. If our universe had a creator, its physical
> attributes are of no importance when compared to the monumental feat of
> designing and creating our universe.
If you postulate a creator, I can postulate it's in fact the Invisible
Pink Unicorn, the Great White Bunny Rabbit or Gaston Lagaffe Himself. You
still have not provided a single shred of evidence some sort of creator
of any alternate universe actually exists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
/ M'Enfin?! \
\ /
Drafterman
The key here is: "Most likely"
To determine what is most likely, you need a way to compare the
probabilities of each cause. Even if we accept a conclusion that this
universe was fine-tuned (it wasn't), why is that, alone, enough to
conclude that it is the least likely option? What's the logic here?
Our universe exists.
Ergo it has to exist in some way.
If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
arrangement versus another? No.
The fine-tuning argument A) erroneously places significance on there
being life and B) erroneously places constraints on under what
conditions life can occur.
The fundamental flaw is that it takes life, which has evolved and,
therefore, has fine-tuned itself to survive in the universe it finds
itself in, and interprets that as the universe being fine-tuned to
support life. It is a bit like a puddle marveling at how well the hole
its in fits its shape.
I'm more than prepared to compare your three scenarios. But if you
want me to compare proabilities, I'd like to see some specifics. That
is, numbers.
Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark Isaak
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:44:49 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>> The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
>> mentioned is the most likely.
>>
>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>>
>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>>
>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>>
>
> Unless you are proposing _any_ method of falsifying any of the three
> alternatives mentioned (and i think i can come up with a fourth, fifth
> and even a sixth one), the question is utterly futile.
>
>> The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
>> makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO, although
>> the smart money is on Alternative 3.
>
> Maybe. I still think the whole "fine-tuning" business may be no more than
> an illusion which may be explained by a better physical theory. But, as i
> said above, the question is futile unless you can propose some method of
> distinguishing between the three alternatives you mention.
A recent book of possible interest:
Victor Stenger, _The Fallacy of Fine Tuning_ (Prometheus, 2011).
I just heard about it today and have not read it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
pnyikos
> On Aug 30, 4:44�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 8:57�am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:47:52 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> > > > On Aug 26, 10:37�am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > >> pnyikos wrote:
> > > >> > On Aug 24, 1:10 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > >> >> prawnster wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Aug 23, 5:36 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > >> >>>> At
>
> > > >> >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>
> > > >> >>>> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a
What's your take on what transpires above, Drafterman?
> > The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
> > mentioned �is the most likely.
>
> > 1. �Our young �[1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> > 2. �A super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> > 3. �There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
> > Notes:
>
> > [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>
> > [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> > of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>
> > [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
>
> > The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
> > makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO,
> > although the smart money is on Alternative 3.
>
> > Minor variations on Alternative 1, such as the existence of a mere
> > 10^500 universes, don't appreciably alter this assessment.
>
> The key here is: "Most likely"
>
> To determine what is most likely, you need a way to compare the
> probabilities of each cause. Even if we accept a conclusion that this
> universe was fine-tuned (it wasn't), why is that, alone, enough to
> conclude that it is the least likely option? What's the logic here?
>
> Our universe exists.
> Ergo it has to exist in some way.
And why is it so admirably fine-tuned, not just for life, but
intelligent life to which it is intelligible?
Was it Einstein who said, "The most incomprehensible thing about our
universe is that it is comprehensible."?
> If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> arrangement versus another? No.
If if each person in a bridge game gets one of the four suits and
nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
arranged?
No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? :-)
> The fine-tuning argument A) erroneously places significance on there
> being life and B) erroneously places constraints on under what
> conditions life can occur.
I'd like to see you argue for those two uses of "erroneously" without
invoking the Nathaniel Branden Forensic Fallacy, after having read
what Cambridge Professor Martin Rees wrote here:
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
> The fundamental flaw is that it takes life, which has evolved and,
> therefore, has fine-tuned itself to survive in the universe it finds
> itself in,
This square hole fits the square peg of the usual creationist
Intelligent Design arguments, which focus on some features of the
earth's orbit, axial tilt, etc. instead on the universe as a whole.
But it won't fit the context I am arguing in.
> and interprets that as the universe being fine-tuned to
> support life. It is a bit like a puddle marveling at how well the hole
> its in fits its shape.
And you are marveling at how well the round peg of my arguments, and
those of Martin Rees, fit the square hole of your regurgitated
generalities. That's because you are easily impressed by your own
sophomoric erudition. :-)
> I'm more than prepared to compare your three scenarios.
Your other statements here suggest otherwise.
> But if you
> want me to compare proabilities, I'd like to see some specifics. That
> is, numbers.
More even than comparing numbers, I'd like for you to think deeply
about the fundamental question of which of the three alternatives
seems most plausible to you. Because it affects questions that seem
paramount to billions of people: "Is there a life after death? And if
there is, what's in it for me?"
> Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
fundamental particles, each of the three showing NO variation in
charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
And that's just ONE of the grounds on which I reject alternative 1. as
being wildly implausible, while for an atheist, that makes 3. a no-
brainer.
On the other hand, we see the effects of evolution in producing very
complicated organisms, some of them remarkably intellligent and able
to comprehend the fundamental constants of physics [see that Martin
Rees website]. So it seems at least possible, granted [3], that
besides universes like ours, there are far grander ones where creators
of paltry little universes like ours might arise through evolution.
Here begins the part where you stopped responding to earlier text.
Note how my first response has to do with this possibility:
> > > >> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that
> > > >> far beyond
> > > >> what we might imagine.
>
> > > > In our universe, yes. �But as I suggested in another reply I did to you
> > > > yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving rise to
> > > > a God as described in Genesis.
And so, I would rate the combination 2.&3.] higher than 1., even
though I cannot assign probabilities; this is a personal opinion, and
others are quite free to hold other opinions.
But if you play the coy Humean and say "I don't care to think deeply
about any of the above" then you might as well join your simian
relatives in swinging through the treetops; that would be time better
spent than continuing to respond on this thread.
pnyikos
wrote:
> On 9/1/11 8:17 AM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:44:49 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> > [...]
> >> The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
>
> >> 1. 嚙瞌ur young 嚙稼1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> >> 2. 嚙璀 super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> >> 3. 嚙確here is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
> >> Notes: [snipped; see earlier in thread]
>
> > Unless you are proposing _any_ method of falsifying any of the three
> > alternatives mentioned (and i think i can come up with a fourth, fifth
> > and even a sixth one), the question is utterly futile.
Back on September 1, I did a reply in which I challenged "Kleuskes &
Moos" to go ahead and come up with another alternative, but Google
Groups seems to have fumbled it, so I reposted it again a few minutes
ago, adding alt.atheism to the newsgroups. I did not add it this
time, though.
> >> The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
> >> makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO, although
> >> the smart money is on Alternative 3.
>
> > Maybe. I still think the whole "fine-tuning" business may be no more than
> > an illusion which may be explained by a better physical theory. But, as i
> > said above, the question is futile unless you can propose some method of
> > distinguishing between the three alternatives you mention.
>
> A recent book of possible interest:
> Victor Stenger, _The Fallacy of Fine Tuning_ (Prometheus, 2011).
>
> I just heard about it today and have not read it.
Thanks for the reference. I'll look it up.
Peter Nyikos
Drafterman
I'm not sure how to interpret it. The statement: "[T]o have the power
of constructing a universe like our own, it would have to come from a
far grander one." I don't know what is meant by "grander." It has no
semantic content for me, so I can't evaluate it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
> > > mentioned is the most likely.
>
> > > 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> > > 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> > > 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
> > > Notes:
>
> > > [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>
> > > [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> > > of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>
> > > [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
>
> > > The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
> > > makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO,
> > > although the smart money is on Alternative 3.
>
> > > Minor variations on Alternative 1, such as the existence of a mere
> > > 10^500 universes, don't appreciably alter this assessment.
>
> > The key here is: "Most likely"
>
> > To determine what is most likely, you need a way to compare the
> > probabilities of each cause. Even if we accept a conclusion that this
> > universe was fine-tuned (it wasn't), why is that, alone, enough to
> > conclude that it is the least likely option? What's the logic here?
>
> > Our universe exists.
> > Ergo it has to exist in some way.
>
> And why is it so admirably fine-tuned, not just for life, but
> intelligent life to which it is intelligible?
I don't believe our universe is fine-tuned.
>
> Was it Einstein who said, "The most incomprehensible thing about our
> universe is that it is comprehensible."?
Perhaps. Einstein said a lot of things. For example, he vehemently
denied quantum mechanics... modern physics most successful and
accurate theoretical model to date.
>
> > If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> > arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> > arrangement versus another? No.
>
> If if each person in a bridge game gets �one of the four suits and
> nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
> suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
> arranged?
>
> No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
> result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
> thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? � :-)
You prove my point. When shuffling a deck (barring trivial biases
natural to shuffling) ANY configuration is as likely as any other. Yet
you would only marvel at a configuration that has some meaning to you,
such as some ordering of the deck by numbers and/or suits. Why would
you marvel at this configuration and one in which there is no
ordering? Because of the value WE HUMANS extrinsically place on such
ordering.
Take a much simpler example, if I were to randomly choose ten numbers
between 1-10, here are some possible outcomes:
9 9 6 1 8 3 7 3 6 7
1 9 9 4 5 9 4 9 9 9
3 9 1 2 5 10 9 4 6 6
3 2 5 9 5 7 9 5 10 9
9 6 6 9 10 3 3 9 8 8
7 7 2 3 4 8 10 5 5 1
5 3 5 2 9 3 1 7 4 6
4 7 9 6 1 6 9 4 4 10
9 6 4 3 9 8 4 9 3 9
2 5 4 1 1 1 1 7 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You would only balk at the last, because it is in numerical order. If
asked why, you would probable cite the improbability of a random
number algorithm coming up with that exact sequence. But the
probability of coming up with that last sequence is EXACTLY THE SAME
as coming up with any other of those sequences and yet you don't balk
at them.
You only balk when confronted with a pattern that has some sort of
extrinsic meaning to you, the rest you just dismiss as noise. But this
is a bias on your part, not on nature's.
Furthermore, even if we accepted an ordered sequence as special and
somehow less probable than any specific unordered sequence, that
wouldn't remove it from the realm of natural probability.
>
> > The fine-tuning argument A) erroneously places significance on there
> > being life and B) erroneously places constraints on under what
> > conditions life can occur.
>
> I'd like to see you argue for those two uses of "erroneously" without
> invoking the Nathaniel Branden Forensic Fallacy, after having read
> what Cambridge Professor Martin Rees wrote here:
>
> http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
Sure.
It's easy to look at life as it exists, determine what is required for
life to exist, and then say, without those requirements life (as we
know it) wouldn't exist. This is extremely trivial.
What is not shown in these musings is why it would necessarily be
impossible for life to arise through other paths.
>
> > The fundamental flaw is that it takes life, which has evolved and,
> > therefore, has fine-tuned itself to survive in the universe it finds
> > itself in,
>
> This square hole fits the square peg of the usual creationist
> Intelligent Design arguments, which focus on some features of the
> earth's orbit, axial tilt, etc. instead on the universe as a whole.
>
> But it won't fit the context I am arguing in.
It fits perfectly.
>
> > and interprets that as the universe being fine-tuned to
> > support life. It is a bit like a puddle marveling at how well the hole
> > its in fits its shape.
>
> And you are marveling at how well the round peg of my arguments, and
> those of Martin Rees, fit the square hole of your regurgitated
> generalities. � That's because you are easily impressed by your own
> sophomoric erudition. �:-)
You are not in a position to comment on my emotional state or internal
thoughts.
>
> > I'm more than prepared to compare your three scenarios.
>
> Your other statements here suggest otherwise.
How can a statement which explicits states one thing somehow suggest
the opposite?
>
> > But if you
> > want me to compare proabilities, I'd like to see some specifics. That
> > is, numbers.
>
> More even than comparing numbers, I'd �like for you to think deeply
> about the fundamental question of which of the three alternatives
> seems most plausible to you. �Because it affects questions that seem
> paramount to billions of people: "Is there a life after death? �And if
> there is, what's in it for me?"
In otherwise, you have no numbers.
>
> > Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
>
> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
> fundamental particles, each of the three showing NO variation in
> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
Reference, please.
>
> And that's just ONE of the grounds on which I reject alternative 1. as
> being wildly implausible, while for an atheist, that makes 3. a no-
> brainer.
Except unless you can articulate the probabilities of the other two
scenarios, there is no basis for comparison.
>
> On the other hand, we see the effects of evolution in producing very
> complicated organisms, some of them remarkably intellligent and able
> to comprehend the fundamental constants of physics [see that Martin
> Rees website]. �So it seems at least possible, granted [3], that
> besides universes like ours, there are far grander ones where creators
> of paltry little universes like ours might arise through evolution.
I don't know what a "grander" universe would be.
>
> Here begins the part where you stopped responding to earlier text.
> Note how my first response has to do with this possibility:
>
> > > > >> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that
> > > > >> far beyond
> > > > >> what we might imagine.
>
> > > > > In our universe, yes. But as I suggested in another reply I did to you
> > > > > yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving rise to
> > > > > a God as described in Genesis.
>
> And so, I would rate the combination 2.&3.] higher than 1., even
> though I cannot assign probabilities; this is a personal opinion, and
> others are quite free to hold other opinions.
I'm not swayed by your opinion.
>
> But if you play the coy Humean and say "I don't care to think deeply
> about any of the above" then you might as well join your simian
> relatives in swinging through the treetops; that would be time better
> spent than continuing to respond on this thread.
Interesting. So I ask for numbers to back up your options, which is a
request to think more deeply about your options, you decline, and then
you imply that I'm not thinking too deeply? Odd.
You, apparently, are a Professor of Mathematics. So I provide you with
three variables, A, B, C. I tell you that A = 4, but I don't tell you
what B or C are equal to. And then I ask you to compare them. If you
can explain to me how that can be done, then I will order your
scenarios in accordance to their probability.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics � � � -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
> fundamental particles, each of the three showing NO variation in
> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
I would like to see this calculation in a bit more detail.
John Stockwell
Nobody has established that the universe is "tuned", any more
than they have established that the value of PI is tuned.
>
> Was it Einstein who said, "The most incomprehensible thing about our
> universe is that it is comprehensible."?
There certainly is an aspect of our experience that is comprehensible.
Yet, I
have argued that "comprehensibility" (along with "communicability" and
"apprehensibility")
that form part of the necessary conditions for our being able to do
science in the
first place.
>
> > If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> > arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> > arrangement versus another? No.
>
> If if each person in a bridge game gets one of the four suits and
> nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
> suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
> arranged?
>
> No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
> result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
> thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? :-)
Perhaps it is more along the lines of "would you be surprised that you
had cards"
in your hand, instead of say, jellyfish.
>
> > The fine-tuning argument A) erroneously places significance on there
> > being life and B) erroneously places constraints on under what
> > conditions life can occur.
>
> I'd like to see you argue for those two uses of "erroneously" without
> invoking the Nathaniel Branden Forensic Fallacy, after having read
> what Cambridge Professor Martin Rees wrote here:
>
> http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
Sure, that's easy. You have prove that those alleged tunable
parameters are tunable.
That will require a theory of the universe we do not have.
>
> > The fundamental flaw is that it takes life, which has evolved and,
> > therefore, has fine-tuned itself to survive in the universe it finds
> > itself in,
>
> This square hole fits the square peg of the usual creationist
> Intelligent Design arguments, which focus on some features of the
> earth's orbit, axial tilt, etc. instead on the universe as a whole.
>
> But it won't fit the context I am arguing in.
It's the same issue. We understand orbital mechanics and the
statistics of a large
universe well enough not to consider the earth to be a "privileged
planet".
We don't understand the process of the origin of the universe at all,
so it is
easy to get superstitious there, particularly if you believe that you
are holding
conversations with the "Creator" from time to time.
>
> > and interprets that as the universe being fine-tuned to
> > support life. It is a bit like a puddle marveling at how well the hole
> > its in fits its shape.
>
> And you are marveling at how well the round peg of my arguments, and
> those of Martin Rees, fit the square hole of your regurgitated
> generalities. That's because you are easily impressed by your own
> sophomoric erudition. :-)
>
> > I'm more than prepared to compare your three scenarios.
>
> Your other statements here suggest otherwise.
>
> > But if you
> > want me to compare proabilities, I'd like to see some specifics. That
> > is, numbers.
>
> More even than comparing numbers, I'd like for you to think deeply
> about the fundamental question of which of the three alternatives
> seems most plausible to you. Because it affects questions that seem
> paramount to billions of people: "Is there a life after death? And if
> there is, what's in it for me?"
Well, there you go, the Nyikos the Religious Apologeticist comes out.
>
> > Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
>
> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
> fundamental particles, each of the three showing NO variation in
> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
>
> And that's just ONE of the grounds on which I reject alternative 1. as
> being wildly implausible, while for an atheist, that makes 3. a no-
> brainer.
>
> On the other hand, we see the effects of evolution in producing very
> complicated organisms, some of them remarkably intellligent and able
> to comprehend the fundamental constants of physics [see that Martin
> Rees website]. So it seems at least possible, granted [3], that
> besides universes like ours, there are far grander ones where creators
> of paltry little universes like ours might arise through evolution.
... but are you going to pray to one of those, Nyikos?
>
> Here begins the part where you stopped responding to earlier text.
> Note how my first response has to do with this possibility:
>
> > > > >> ET's are of course very limited and cannot be expected to go all that
> > > > >> far beyond
> > > > >> what we might imagine.
>
> > > > > In our universe, yes. But as I suggested in another reply I did to you
> > > > > yesterday, there may be far grander universes capable of giving rise to
> > > > > a God as described in Genesis.
>
> And so, I would rate the combination 2.&3.] higher than 1., even
> though I cannot assign probabilities; this is a personal opinion, and
> others are quite free to hold other opinions.
>
> But if you play the coy Humean and say "I don't care to think deeply
> about any of the above" then you might as well join your simian
> relatives in swinging through the treetops; that would be time better
> spent than continuing to respond on this thread.
The real question is whether or not we have a reason to believe in
such stuff
as goes with religion. I would say "no". Belief in the supernatural
is a kind of
courage from the bottle sort of conviction. We are best rid of it.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
-John
Vincent Maycock
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f8e31fd1-69a8-40b0...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 1, 11:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>> Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
>
> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
> fundamental particles,
What about mesons, which are made of two quarks?
>each of the three showing NO variation in
> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
The six quarks have different masses. So do the various leptons.
Ernest Major
Maycock <vam...@aol.com> writes
>
>"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:f8e31fd1-69a8-40b0...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 1, 11:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>> Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
>>
>> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
>> fundamental particles,
>
>What about mesons, which are made of two quarks?
He probably means protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than up-quarks
(in 3 colors), down-quarks (in 3-colors) and electrons.
He doesn't count mesons as ordinary matter. That is a defensible
definition.
>
>>each of the three showing NO variation in
>> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
>> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
>
>The six quarks have different masses. So do the various leptons.
>
He probably means that in each class all members of the class have the
same charge, mass, etc. In the case of mass this is disputable -
neutrons are unstable, and hence have a mass spectrum of non-zero width.
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert
> > Back in the 1980's, Marvel Comics had a
> > character called The Beyonder that came from a much grander universe and
> > had powers approaching that of someone who could be a creator of a
> > universe such as ours.
http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/b/beyonder.htm
Just goes to show that you can buy creationist powers and omnipotence but you can'y buy class...He looks like a cross between Elvis and Erik Estrada, wears white trainers and a white shellsuit! So bad he's probably cool!
pnyikos
> In message <OPCdnSiNrIWzRvvTnZ2dnUVZ_vWdn...@giganews.com>, Vincent
> Maycock <vam...@aol.com> writes
>
>
>
> >"pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:f8e31fd1-69a8-40b0...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Sep 1, 11:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >snip
>
> >>> Can you quantify the probabilities in each of those cases?
>
> >> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
> >> fundamental particles,
>
> >What about mesons, which are made of two quarks?
>
> He probably means protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than up-quarks
> (in 3 colors), down-quarks (in 3-colors) and electrons.
>
> He doesn't count mesons as ordinary matter. That is a defensible
> definition.
Right.
> >>each of the three showing NO variation in
> >> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
> >> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
>
> >The six quarks have different masses. �So do the various leptons.
>
> He probably means that in each class all members of the class have the
> same charge, mass, etc.
What's more, there are only three classes, barring [purely
hypothetical] galaxies where ordinary matter is made of positrons,
anti-protons, and anti-neutrons.
>In the case of mass this is disputable -
> neutrons are unstable, and hence have a mass spectrum of non-zero width.
Mere wordplay. When they are there, they have the same mass; when
they decay, it is into protons and electrons.
You might as well get into a verbal tangle based on the fact that in
the stars, hydrogen gets converted into helium with two protons being
replaced by two neutrons. [I've forgotten what else goes into this
conversion.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Irrelevant wordplay, inasmuch as 1. and 3. are fully compatible with
atheism.
>
>
> > Was it Einstein who said, "The most incomprehensible thing about our
> > universe is that it is comprehensible."?
>
> There certainly is an aspect of our experience that is comprehensible.
> Yet, I
> have argued that "comprehensibility" (along with "communicability" and
> "apprehensibility")
> that form part of the necessary conditions for our being able to do
> science in the
> first place.
Yeah, and the mysterious thing is that these necessary conditions
exist in any universe at all.
Given infinitely many universes, much of the mystery disappears; given
only one, it is mind-boggling.
> > > If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> > > arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> > > arrangement versus another? No.
>
> > If if each person in a bridge game gets �one of the four suits and
> > nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
> > suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
> > arranged?
>
> > No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
> > result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
> > thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? � :-)
>
> Perhaps it is more along the lines of "would you be surprised that you
> had cards"
> in your hand, instead of say, jellyfish.
Yeah, I have barely started to get into the subject of what a
"mediocre" universe could possibly look like--especially since it
would, almost by definition, be completely incomprehensible even to us
living in this comprehensible universe.
Cards spontaneously turning into jellyfish could be one of the few
comprehensible things in it. :-)
Continued in next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
The only way to do that rigorously would be to accept some upper and
lower bounds for the masses and charges of the various particles;
otherwise the very concept of probability, as established by
Kolmogoroff, no longer applies since we would need infinitesimal
numbers. You might say the odds are "infinity to one," but that's not
especially helpful.
It's hard to come up with plausible upper and lower bounds, but I'm
willing to do a purely intellectual exercise choosing some numbers.
One thing I can guarantee: any reasonable choice WILL make that
10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Sep 6, 3:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
>>> fundamental particles, each of the three showing NO variation in
>>> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
>>> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
>> I would like to see this calculation in a bit more detail.
>
> The only way to do that rigorously would be to accept some upper and
> lower bounds for the masses and charges of the various particles;
> otherwise the very concept of probability, as established by
> Kolmogoroff, no longer applies since we would need infinitesimal
> numbers. You might say the odds are "infinity to one," but that's not
> especially helpful.
>
> It's hard to come up with plausible upper and lower bounds, but I'm
> willing to do a purely intellectual exercise choosing some numbers.
> One thing I can guarantee: any reasonable choice WILL make that
> 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
sure they will come out so as to agree with your estimate. Thanks. That
clarifies much.
Michael Siemon
electrons, protons & neutrons showing "NO variation in charge, mass,
or other features" [assuming these are the "three fundamental particles
Nyikos has in mind, though they are not fundamental in fact... :-)]
is essentially 1.
Nyikos is a topologist. Not a physicist. But even as such, his
"probability calculation" (which he admits he can't do) is not worth
shit. [As a topologist myself, _I_ certainly can't do the probability
calculation; his prejudice as to the result is fundamentally worthless,
as you note.]
Ernest Major
<97c6cbc6-d717-46d8...@k9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
A distinction between particles having different masses ("a mass
spectrum of non-zero width") and having the same mass is hardly "mere
wordplay".
>
>You might as well get into a verbal tangle based on the fact that in
>the stars, hydrogen gets converted into helium with two protons being
>replaced by two neutrons. [I've forgotten what else goes into this
>conversion.]
That isn't the same. I omitted this point because of the ambiguity of
meaning of the mass of a bound neutron.
You are aware that the sum of the masses of two free protons and two
free neutrons is greater than the mass of an alpha particle?
>
>Peter Nyikos
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Vincent Maycock
snip
Ernest Major
>
>snip
>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Paul J Gans
quantity found to be quantized was matter -- and that by chemistry,
not physics (nyah nyah).
WHY this is so is, as you know, not a question science can answer.
All it can do is push the "cause" deeper into the foundations.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Vincent Maycock
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zIYTEZcC...@meden.invalid...
Vincent
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
when free and undecayed, and when they decay, the protons and
electrons have mass specta of non-zero width?
This is counter to everything I've read; what is your reference for
it?
> >You might as well get into a verbal tangle based on the fact that in
> >the stars, hydrogen gets converted into helium with two protons being
> >replaced by two neutrons. [I've forgotten what else goes into this
> >conversion.]
>
> That isn't the same. I omitted this point because of the ambiguity of
> meaning of the mass of a bound neutron.
>
> You are aware that the sum of the masses of two free protons and two
> free neutrons is greater than the mass of an alpha particle?
anthropomorphism) on the neutron?
I agree I oversimplified, but the truth as I've understood it up to
now is even more remarkable: neutrons are not only of identical masses
when free and yet undecayed; they also assimilate to protons in
exactly the same way, producing identical alpha particles, etc.
Now are you saying that this is incorrect, that there is a nonzero
mass spectrum here too?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:zIYTEZcC...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <hI6dncrTOdDCU_XTnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@giganews.com>, Vincent
which, as far as we have ever been able to measure, all members have
identical properties.
And does anyone believe that a random universe would have these
characteristics?
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
What do you mean by "random universe"? And why is it improbable that
particles should fall into distinct and invariant types? It sounds to me
that you're suffering from "argument from personal incredulity".
Rolf
I don't know about any evidence for whether the universe is random or not.
Just that we live in a universe and that the universe is the way that it is
and that nobody can tell us whether it it the way that it is because that's
the way that it is or that there are identifiable causes.
To me it seems speculation is all we have got.
> Peter Nyikos
Ernest Major
<36d88f26-b8ab-48a7...@y21g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
particle classes, more conserved quantities and more physical laws.
Ernest Major
<4880dfc6-38c4-4484...@r17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
and kinetic energy.
>This is counter to everything I've read; what is your reference for
>it?
principle (delta E x delta t ~ h).
>> >You might as well get into a verbal tangle based on the fact that in
>> >the stars, hydrogen gets converted into helium with two protons being
>> >replaced by two neutrons. [I've forgotten what else goes into this
>> >conversion.]
>>
>> That isn't the same. I omitted this point because of the ambiguity of
>> meaning of the mass of a bound neutron.
>>
>> You are aware that the sum of the masses of two free protons and two
>> free neutrons is greater than the mass of an alpha particle?
>
>Yes; but why put all the blame (if you don't mind that
>anthropomorphism) on the neutron?
>
>I agree I oversimplified, but the truth as I've understood it up to
>now is even more remarkable: neutrons are not only of identical masses
>when free and yet undecayed; they also assimilate to protons in
>exactly the same way, producing identical alpha particles, etc.
>
>Now are you saying that this is incorrect, that there is a nonzero
>mass spectrum here too?
Vincent Maycock
have only
one member each (namely, the neutron, proton, and electron)? The reason I
say
they must have one representative each is you said all the members of each
class have the
same properties, whch would make them indistinguishable from each other.
> And does anyone believe that a random universe would have these
> characteristics?
pnyikos
>The reason I say
> they must have one representative each is you said all the members of each
> class have the
> same properties, whch would make them indistinguishable from each other.
> > And does anyone believe that a random universe would have these
> > characteristics?
>
> Not in a random universe, but certainly a universe with physical laws.
electron class can go into "orbits" around objects in the proton class
under such-and-such circumstances. And those orbits might be like the
ones in our universe or the kind of orbits that are still pictured now
and then, similar to planetary orbits. And they may depend greatly on
whether the charges of the proton class object are exactly equal to
those of the electron class objects, or different.
You really need to give wings to your imagination.
By the way, I've just now remarked on another "coincidence" which
seems to depend on neutrons having zero charge, so the charge gets
evenly distributed, so to speak, with the proton charge and electron
charge resulting in hydrogen atoms without any net charge, either
positive or negative.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> >This is counter to everything I've read; what is your reference for
> >it?
>
> I understand it to be a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty
> principle (delta E x delta t ~ h).
believe, have to do with the wave function which does not require
accurate measurement of these factors. And AFAIK these agree to
within the limits of our ability to measure mass, which is very fine.
>
>
> >> >You might as well get into a verbal tangle based on the fact that in
> >> >the stars, hydrogen gets converted into helium with two protons being
> >> >replaced by two neutrons. [I've forgotten what else goes into this
> >> >conversion.]
>
> >> That isn't the same. I omitted this point because of the ambiguity of
> >> meaning of the mass of a bound neutron.
>
> >> You are aware that the sum of the masses of two free protons and two
> >> free neutrons is greater than the mass of an alpha particle?
>
> >Yes; but why put all the blame (if you don't mind that
> >anthropomorphism) on the neutron?
>
> Replace neutron by nucleon.
> >I agree I oversimplified, but the truth as I've understood it up to
> >now is even more remarkable: neutrons are not only of identical masses
> >when free and yet undecayed; they also assimilate to protons in
> >exactly the same way, producing identical alpha particles, etc.
>
> >Now are you saying that this is incorrect, that there is a nonzero
> >mass spectrum here too?
>
> Only for unstable nuclei.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 3:28 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> He's already confirmed that he means protons, neutrons and electrons.
> >> Those are not classes; they're particles.
>
> >> Vincent
>
> > A huge number of them, and all of them fall into three classes in
> > which, as far as we have ever been able to measure, all members have
> > identical properties.
>
> > And does anyone believe that a random universe would have these
> > characteristics?
>
> What do you mean by "random universe"?
> And why is it improbable that
> particles should fall into distinct and invariant types? It sounds to me
> that you're suffering from "argument from personal incredulity".
"argument from personal credulity."
In an attempt to break this stalemate, I offer a very crude analogy:
it is said that "no two snowflakes are alike"; and indeed, once we
leave the realm of covalently bonded molecules, it's a rare occurrence
when two things are exactly alike.
Why should a universe which comes into being with total spontaneity
have so few unlike indivisible quanta, or whatever you want to call
them? How do you rule out universes with, say, a trillion different
such entities, and no more of them altogether than our own universe
has?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article <yNydnU1qO6vh1PXTRVn_...@giganews.com>,
leave out all that window dressing of "current basic physics" and just
use very elementary probability theory.
But the issue is whether this is the sort of thing one can reasonably
expect in every universe, or even the majority of them. IMHO, it is
most unreasonable.
> Nyikos is a topologist. Not a physicist. But even as such, his
> "probability calculation" (which he admits he can't do) is not worth
> shit.
reader considers to be plausible, and reasonable.
By the way, you just trolled by the standards of "jillery" for the
word "trolling." [My standards are different: "jillery" does not
assume insincerity as part of it, whereas I do.]
> [As a topologist myself, _I_ certainly can't do the probability
> calculation; his prejudice as to the result is fundamentally worthless,
> as you note.]
thought into this very issue since the age of 19. With minor
modifications, the results have stood the test of time--and of
objections from people much more in tune with basic physics than
either of us.
Peter Nyikos
Ernest Major
<f2cee0cd-f007-45ff...@h6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
don't know of a third (etc) pair of observables with this property, but
I wouldn't be surprised if they existed.
> Mass measurements, I
>believe, have to do with the wave function which does not require
>accurate measurement of these factors. And AFAIK these agree to
>within the limits of our ability to measure mass, which is very fine.
delta m x delta t ~ h/c^2.
from which I infer a longer lived particle has a narrower mass spectrum
(my physics is 30 years rusty, but googling has reminded me that the
technical term is resonance width). By particle physics standards a
neutron has a very long lifetime and a very narrow resonance width.
>>
>>
>> >> >You might as well get into a verbal tangle based on the fact that in
>> >> >the stars, hydrogen gets converted into helium with two protons being
>> >> >replaced by two neutrons. [I've forgotten what else goes into this
>> >> >conversion.]
>>
>> >> That isn't the same. I omitted this point because of the ambiguity of
>> >> meaning of the mass of a bound neutron.
>>
>> >> You are aware that the sum of the masses of two free protons and two
>> >> free neutrons is greater than the mass of an alpha particle?
>>
>> >Yes; but why put all the blame (if you don't mind that
>> >anthropomorphism) on the neutron?
>>
>> Replace neutron by nucleon.
>
>> >I agree I oversimplified, but the truth as I've understood it up to
>> >now is even more remarkable: neutrons are not only of identical masses
>> >when free and yet undecayed; they also assimilate to protons in
>> >exactly the same way, producing identical alpha particles, etc.
>>
>> >Now are you saying that this is incorrect, that there is a nonzero
>> >mass spectrum here too?
>>
>> Only for unstable nuclei.
>
>Alpha particles (Helum-4 nuclei) are as stable as they come.
>
>>
>>
>> >Peter Nyikos
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>
alias Ernest Major
pnyikos
> Thanks. That clarifies much.
You have very low standards for "much," I see.
First purely intellectual exercise begins below. Further installments
if you show any interest.
Let's take a very crude estimate. Suppose that we set upper and lower
bounds to be in proportion of 10 to 1, meaning that we ignore all
masses falling outside this range. And suppose all our measurements
fall within one tenth of that range, so that we never had to ignore
any masses. Measuring a mere 501 subatomic particles already puts the
probability around 10^-500.
I would estimate we've measured many more masses of protons, neutrons
and electrons to an error range of .0001 of the actual measured
masses.
Would you venture to say that we have an incredibly biased sample and
that our universe has a much broader "mass spectrum" than that?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> > On Sep 1, 11:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Aug 28, 8:57 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:47:52 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:37 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > > > >> pnyikos wrote:
> > > > > >> >> prawnster wrote:
> > > > > >> >>> On Aug 23, 5:36 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>> At
>
> > > > > >> >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822092305.htm
>
> > > > > >> >>>> To me it looks like the only possible alternative to nature is a
> > > > > >> >>>> God with unbelievable powers.
>
> > > > > >> >>> On this particular topic described in the article you linked to,
> > > > > >> >>> the designer would need to have all the knowledge, experience,
> > > > > >> >>> tools, and equipment that the scientists doing this experiment had.
> > > > > >> >>> I don't see how this requires a God with unbelievable powers: If
> > > > > >> >>> people working in a lab can understand this aspect of reproduction,
> > > > > >> >>> I'm pretty sure whoever designed us can understand it, too.
>
> > > > > >> >> My point was not about understanding aspects of reproduction after
> > > > > >> >> the fact; it was about creating that intricate method of organizing
> > > > > >> >> a process for a specific purpose.
>
> > > > > >> >> I can describe, in general terms, how to make a nuclear bomb. Who
> > > > > >> >> could 150 years ago?.
> > > > > >> > Why should a creator know everything "he" needs to know right off the
> > > > > >> > bat? The idea that the only alternative to no god is an infinitely
> > > > > >> > perfect God is a false dichotomy.
>
> > > > > >> Depends of what kind of creator wer are talking about. As far as I can
> > > > > >> tell, the Genesis version is supposed to know all and be capable of
> > > > > >> anything.
>
> > > > > > Not as described in Genesis. There, God sounded like he needed a rest
> > > > > > after six days work; worried lest Adam and Eve eat of the tree of life
> > > > > > and live forever; repented of his creation and caused a flood to drown
> > > > > > out practically all terrestrial animals and men; and seemed not to know
> > > > > > whether the allegations about Sodom and Gomorrah were true, and needed
> > > > > > to do some investigation before ascertaining whether there were 50, or
> > > > > > 45, or 40, or 30, or 20, or 10 just men there.
>
> > > > > > This sounds very much like the kind of God who might have arisen by a
> > > > > > process of evolution far longer and more successful than the one that
> > > > > > produced us, but still fallible and not aware of everything that is or
> > > > > > was or will be.
>
> > > > > Ah... A god who has arisen by evolution, is fallible and does not know
> > > > > everything. That sounds suspiciously like any everyday person to me.
>
> > > > Except that, to have the power of constructing a universe like our
> > > > own, it would have to come from a far grander one.
>
> > > > You don't really think any inhabitant of our galaxy will ever have
> > > > such powers, do you?
>
> > What's your take on what transpires above, Drafterman?
>
> semantic content for me, so I can't evaluate it.
You aren't Socrates. Stop and think for a minute rather than putting
all the burden of explanation on me.
If you want to claim that our universe has the potential to produce a
being capable of creating a universe as beautiful as ours, go right
ahead.
>
>
> > > > The real issue before us is which of the following three alternatives
> > > > mentioned is the most likely.
>
> > > > 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> > > > 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> > > > 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
> > > > Notes:
>
> > > > [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>
> > > > [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> > > > of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>
> > > > [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
>
> > > > The fine-tuning of various constants such as those mentioned by Rees
> > > > makes Alternative 1 vastly less likely than Alternative 2 IMHO,
> > > > although the smart money is on Alternative 3.
>
> > > > Minor variations on Alternative 1, such as the existence of a mere
> > > > 10^500 universes, don't appreciably alter this assessment.
>
> > > The key here is: "Most likely"
>
> > > To determine what is most likely, you need a way to compare the
> > > probabilities of each cause. Even if we accept a conclusion that this
> > > universe was fine-tuned (it wasn't), why is that, alone, enough to
> > > conclude that it is the least likely option? What's the logic here?
>
> > > Our universe exists.
> > > Ergo it has to exist in some way.
>
> > And why is it so admirably fine-tuned, not just for life, but
> > intelligent life to which it is intelligible?
>
We can haggle about that later. I'm more interested in pursuing the
following line of thought:
> > Was it Einstein who said, "The most incomprehensible thing about our
> > universe is that it is comprehensible."?
>
> denied quantum mechanics... modern physics most successful and
> accurate theoretical model to date.
I see you are very coy about telling us whether you agree or disagree
with Einstein.
> > > If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> > > arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> > > arrangement versus another? No.
>
> > If if each person in a bridge game gets one of the four suits and
> > nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
> > suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
> > arranged?
>
> > No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
> > result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
> > thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? :-)
>
> natural to shuffling) ANY configuration is as likely as any other. Yet
> you would only marvel at a configuration that has some meaning to you,
> such as some ordering of the deck by numbers and/or suits. Why would
> you marvel at this configuration and one in which there is no
> ordering? Because of the value WE HUMANS extrinsically place on such
> ordering.
Yes, and we place "extrinsically" an incredibly high value on
conscious life.
What good is a universe if there is no conscious entity to appreciate
it?
[variation on card shuffling theme deleted]
> > > The fine-tuning argument A) erroneously places significance on there
> > > being life and B) erroneously places constraints on under what
> > > conditions life can occur.
>
> > I'd like to see you argue for those two uses of "erroneously" without
> > invoking the Nathaniel Branden Forensic Fallacy, after having read
> > what Cambridge Professor Martin Rees wrote here:
>
> >http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
>
> Sure.
You do not argue below for the "erroneously," you are merely trying to
shift the burden of proof onto me. That is the Nathaniel Branden
Forensic Fallacy, which I've explained in response to someone else who
tried the same stunt in reply to the same post to which you are
replying.
However, to shoulder my fair share of the burden of proof, I have
decided to invoke much more layman-accessible concepts below than the
ones Rees is writing about.
> It's easy to look at life as it exists, determine what is required for
> life to exist, and then say, without those requirements life (as we
> know it) wouldn't exist. This is extremely trivial.
>
> What is not shown in these musings is why it would necessarily be
> impossible for life to arise through other paths.
Consicious, intelligent life, here on earth, is the product of
trillions of generations of millions of varieties of organisms
reproducing almost but not quite faithfully from one generation to the
next. Would you venture to claim that the "reproducing..." part can
be done away with elsewhere?
Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Sep 9, 1:17 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 3:28 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> He's already confirmed that he means protons, neutrons and electrons.
>>>> Those are not classes; they're particles.
>>>> Vincent
>>> A huge number of them, and all of them fall into three classes in
>>> which, as far as we have ever been able to measure, all members have
>>> identical properties.
>>> And does anyone believe that a random universe would have these
>>> characteristics?
>> What do you mean by "random universe"?
>
> One whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself.
more usual definitions. But OK. So what reasons are there to believe
that a universe whose existence doesn't depend on anything outside
itself would produce particles with non-identical properties?
>> And why is it improbable that
>> particles should fall into distinct and invariant types? It sounds to me
>> that you're suffering from "argument from personal incredulity".
>
> One could turn that around, and say you are suffering from an
> "argument from personal credulity."
reasons for believing that something would not happen. I have no basis
for believing that it either would or would not happen. I'm questioning
whether you can know what you think you know, not whether your
proposition might be true.
> In an attempt to break this stalemate, I offer a very crude analogy:
> it is said that "no two snowflakes are alike"; and indeed, once we
> leave the realm of covalently bonded molecules, it's a rare occurrence
> when two things are exactly alike.
>
> Why should a universe which comes into being with total spontaneity
> have so few unlike indivisible quanta, or whatever you want to call
> them? How do you rule out universes with, say, a trillion different
> such entities, and no more of them altogether than our own universe
> has?
possible or not possible. That's the problem with all fine-tuning
arguments: we don't know the distribution from which properties would be
chosen, so we can't know the probability of any particular choice. Are
particle classes like snowflakes? I don't know. Neither do you.
Drafterman
you. If you want to make a claim involving "grander" universes, you'll
have to explain what you mean. Do you want to make a logically
coherent argument, or write a poem? If it's the former, then I'm going
to insist that you define your terms, if it's the latter, then I'm
afraid I'm not interested.
>
> If you want to claim that our universe has the potential to produce a
> being capable of creating a universe as beautiful as ours, go right
> ahead.
can mean: all of reality. So the universe can't have a creator because
if it had a creator, then the creator would be real and, therefore,
part of the universe.
Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But that's all irrelevant, if you want to claim that our universe
necessarily had a creator, then you're going to have to do better than
claiming that the unquantified probabilities of cherry picked
scenarios somehow implies it.
asked if he said that. I don't know if he said it. I don't
particularly see the relevance in what he said, except perhaps a vague
allusion to an argument from authority, which is why I responded how I
did.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> > > > arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> > > > arrangement versus another? No.
>
> > > If if each person in a bridge game gets one of the four suits and
> > > nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
> > > suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
> > > arranged?
>
> > > No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
> > > result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
> > > thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? :-)
>
> > You prove my point. When shuffling a deck (barring trivial biases
> > natural to shuffling) ANY configuration is as likely as any other. Yet
> > you would only marvel at a configuration that has some meaning to you,
> > such as some ordering of the deck by numbers and/or suits. Why would
> > you marvel at this configuration and one in which there is no
> > ordering? Because of the value WE HUMANS extrinsically place on such
> > ordering.
>
> Yes, and we place "extrinsically" an incredibly high value on
> conscious life.
shouldn't treat universes with life any differently than universes
without it (hypothetically).
>
> What good is a universe if there is no conscious entity to appreciate
> it?
>
> [variation on card shuffling theme deleted]
>
> > > > The fine-tuning argument A) erroneously places significance on there
> > > > being life and B) erroneously places constraints on under what
> > > > conditions life can occur.
>
> > > I'd like to see you argue for those two uses of "erroneously" without
> > > invoking the Nathaniel Branden Forensic Fallacy, after having read
> > > what Cambridge Professor Martin Rees wrote here:
>
> > >http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
>
> > Sure.
>
> You do not argue below for the "erroneously," you are merely trying to
> shift the burden of proof onto me.
> That is the Nathaniel Branden
> Forensic Fallacy, which I've explained in response to someone else who
> tried the same stunt in reply to the same post to which you are
> replying.
>
> However, to shoulder my fair share of the burden of proof, I have
> decided to invoke much more layman-accessible concepts below than the
> ones Rees is writing about.
>
> > It's easy to look at life as it exists, determine what is required for
> > life to exist, and then say, without those requirements life (as we
> > know it) wouldn't exist. This is extremely trivial.
>
> > What is not shown in these musings is why it would necessarily be
> > impossible for life to arise through other paths.
>
> Consicious, intelligent life, here on earth, is the product of
> trillions of generations of millions of varieties of organisms
> reproducing almost but not quite faithfully from one generation to the
> next. Would you venture to claim that the "reproducing..." part can
> be done away with elsewhere?
suggesting that any component of what defines something as life
(homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptaion, response,
reproduction*) be removed, just that we can't rule out other ways of
achieving these things.
* - there is no universally agreed upon definition of life, nor is the
provided list necessarily conclusively or absolute, but it's a good
starting point.
>
> Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Stockwell
functions
"fine tuned"? There seem to be a lot of fortuitous properties that
make
stuff work out just right.
>
>
>
> > > Was it Einstein who said, "The most incomprehensible thing about our
> > > universe is that it is comprehensible."?
>
> > There certainly is an aspect of our experience that is comprehensible.
> > Yet, I
> > have argued that "comprehensibility" (along with "communicability" and
> > "apprehensibility")
> > that form part of the necessary conditions for our being able to do
> > science in the
> > first place.
>
> Yeah, and the mysterious thing is that these necessary conditions
> exist in any universe at all.
>
> Given infinitely many universes, much of the mystery disappears; given
> only one, it is mind-boggling.
theorems that pertain to analytic functions be any different?
>
>
>
> > > > If I shuffle a deck of cards, it will end up in *some* specific
> > > > arrangement. Should we then marvel as to why it is one specific
> > > > arrangement versus another? No.
>
> > > If if each person in a bridge game gets one of the four suits and
> > > nothing else in his hand, after you shuffled them yourself, would you
> > > suspect the dealer of having switched decks to one that was carefully
> > > arranged?
>
> > > No, you would say exactly what you said just now, and accept the
> > > result, even though it is the dealer who has all thirteen spades, and
> > > thus made a grand slam, wouldn't you? :-)
>
> > Perhaps it is more along the lines of "would you be surprised that you
> > had cards"
> > in your hand, instead of say, jellyfish.
>
> Yeah, I have barely started to get into the subject of what a
> "mediocre" universe could possibly look like--especially since it
> would, almost by definition, be completely incomprehensible even to us
> living in this comprehensible universe.
>
> Cards spontaneously turning into jellyfish could be one of the few
> comprehensible things in it. :-)
>
> Continued in next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Sep 8, 12:50 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 3:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> Well, the probability of ordinary matter being made of just three
>>>>> fundamental particles, each of the three showing NO variation in
>>>>> charge, mass, or other features, is so close to being zero that it
>>>>> makes even 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
>>>> I would like to see this calculation in a bit more detail.
>>> The only way to do that rigorously would be to accept some upper and
>>> lower bounds for the masses and charges of the various particles;
>>> otherwise the very concept of probability, as established by
>>> Kolmogoroff, no longer applies since we would need infinitesimal
>>> numbers. You might say the odds are "infinity to one," but that's not
>>> especially helpful.
>>> It's hard to come up with plausible upper and lower bounds, but I'm
>>> willing to do a purely intellectual exercise choosing some numbers.
>>> One thing I can guarantee: any reasonable choice WILL make that
>>> 10^{-500} seem huge in comparison.
>> So you're saying we have no way to determine limits but you know for
>> sure they will come out so as to agree with your estimate.
>
> "determine" is a loaded word. I can estimate with the best of them.
to have nothing at all.
>> Thanks. That clarifies much.
>
> You have very low standards for "much," I see.
>
> First purely intellectual exercise begins below. Further installments
> if you show any interest.
>
> Let's take a very crude estimate. Suppose that we set upper and lower
> bounds to be in proportion of 10 to 1, meaning that we ignore all
> masses falling outside this range.
> And suppose all our measurements
> fall within one tenth of that range, so that we never had to ignore
> any masses.
> Measuring a mere 501 subatomic particles already puts the
> probability around 10^-500.
> I would estimate we've measured many more masses of protons, neutrons
> and electrons to an error range of .0001 of the actual measured
> masses.
> Would you venture to say that we have an incredibly biased sample and
> that our universe has a much broader "mass spectrum" than that?
estimating what you're claiming to estimate. Remember, you're trying to
figure out the probability of matter being composed (mostly) of protons,
neutrons, and electrons, each of which is of more or less constant mass.
I presume you're talking about the probability of a universe existing in
which that's true, rather than the probability that our universe is like
that. So measuring the masses of protons in this universe has nothing to
do with your estimate. And you have nothing on which to base that estimate.
pnyikos
he'll just try to shift the burden onto me.
> > > > > Our universe exists.
> > > > > Ergo it has to exist in some way.
>
> > > > And why is it so admirably fine-tuned, not just for life, but
> > > > intelligent life to which it is intelligible?
>
> > > Nobody has established that the universe is "tuned", any more
> > > than they have established that the value of PI is tuned.
>
> > Irrelevant wordplay, inasmuch as 1. and 3. are fully compatible with
> > atheism.
>
> Is that part of complex variables theory that deals with analytic
> functions
> "fine tuned"? There seem to be a lot of fortuitous properties that
> make
> stuff work out just right.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 1:17 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 8, 3:28 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> He's already confirmed that he means protons, neutrons and electrons.
> >>>> Those are not classes; they're particles.
> >>>> Vincent
> >>> A huge number of them, and all of them fall into three classes in
> >>> which, as far as we have ever been able to measure, all members have
> >>> identical properties.
> >>> And does anyone believe that a random universe would have these
> >>> characteristics?
> >> What do you mean by "random universe"?
>
> > One whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself.
>
> That's an odd definition of "random".
itself, its characteristics would be dependent on those of that
"something." So if "random" offends your probability-theory
sensibilities, try "independent", as in "independent events."
> I am unable to connect this with
> more usual definitions.
they lead to lots of publishable papers. The complexity theory based
definition [the amount of symbols it takes to describe it] is the
closest one in widespread current use for the concept I have in mind.
And our universe is highly un-random by that criterion, because
physicists are describing it using fewer and fewer parameters, and
hope to reduce the parameters still more.
> But OK. So what reasons are there to believe
> that a universe whose existence doesn't depend on anything outside
> itself would produce particles with non-identical properties?
kinds of identical-in-each-kind elementary particles? THAT is the
really counterintuitive speculation: see below.
> >> And why is it improbable that
> >> particles should fall into distinct and invariant types? It sounds to me
> >> that you're suffering from "argument from personal incredulity".
>
> > One could turn that around, and say you are suffering from an
> > "argument from personal credulity."
>
> Not unless I am credulous about something.
avoiding any favoritism towards any speculation including the
"...THREE..." speculation.
Except for one thing: you used a loaded term, "argument from personal
incredulity," which suggests you DO favor some brands of speculation
over others.
[...]
> > it is said that "no two snowflakes are alike"; and indeed, once we
> > leave the realm of covalently bonded molecules, it's a rare occurrence
> > when two things are exactly alike.
>
> > Why should a universe which comes into being with total spontaneity
> > have so few unlike indivisible quanta, or whatever you want to call
> > them? How do you rule out universes with, say, a trillion different
> > such entities, and no more of them altogether than our own universe
> > has?
>
> I can't rule out anything, since we have no idea of what would be
> possible or not possible. That's the problem with all fine-tuning
> arguments:
writes cannot take on values very different from the ones they have,
then you need to give some reasons for your suspicion.
On the other hand, if you have no such suspicions, then you are really
going out on a limb with your pontificating about "the problem with
all fine-tuning arguments."
Here is the url for a summary by Rees of the constants and their
significance:
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
> we don't know the distribution from which properties would be
> chosen,
critics of fine tuning as Victor Stenger have no problem with Rees's
constants varying all over the place in hypothetical universes.
[That's an allusion to a whole book, _The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning_,
which came out this year. My thanks to Mark Isaak for calling it to my
attention.]
> so we can't know the probability of any particular choice.
defining randomness.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
missed the point of the first baby step.
> >> Thanks. That clarifies much.
>
> > You have very low standards for "much," I see.
>
> > First purely intellectual exercise begins below. Further installments
> > if you show any interest.
>
> > Let's take a very crude estimate. Suppose that we set upper and lower
> > bounds to be in proportion of 10 to 1, meaning that we ignore all
> > masses falling outside this range.
>
> Why?
comparison" statement that you seem to misunderstand ("determine")...
> > And suppose all our measurements
> > fall within one tenth of that range, so that we never had to ignore
> > any masses.
>
> Why?
probabilities to there being 3, or 1000, or a trillion diffferent
kinds of elementary particles in a given universe.
You see, in any case, the number of indistinguishable elementary
particles in a universe with any chance of harboring life is far, far
greater than 501:
> > Measuring a mere 501 subatomic particles already puts the
> > probability around 10^-500.
> > I would estimate we've measured many more masses of protons, neutrons
> > and electrons to an error range of .0001 of the actual measured
> > masses.
> > Would you venture to say that we have an incredibly biased sample and
> > that our universe has a much broader "mass spectrum" than that?
> No.
Would you venture to say that other universes are likely to have the
very narrow mass spectrum that ours evidently has, for three (or even
a thousand) different elementary particles?
> I would venture to say that the sample has nothing to do with
> estimating what you're claiming to estimate.
question.
I was covering a base in this second baby step, anticipating possible
future grousing about how we cannot be sure that all the protons in
the universe have identical properties, etc.
> Remember, you're trying to
> figure out the probability of matter being composed (mostly) of protons,
> neutrons, and electrons, each of which is of more or less constant mass.
> I presume you're talking about the probability of a universe existing in
> which that's true, rather than the probability that our universe is like
> that. So measuring the masses of protons in this universe has nothing to
> do with your estimate. And you have nothing on which to base that estimate.
assuming that "three, or at least very few particles" is as likely as
the whole range of 1000 to trillion and beyond?
Or do you just want to go on in your ivory tower, not giving out any
opinions of your own? In that case, I'd like the answer to one
question.
Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
likely?
1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
Notes:
[1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
[2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
[3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
John Stockwell
mathematical
results. Take, for example, Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle. As
stated by
Heisenberg, the idea that you can't specify the position and momentum
of a particle
at a given time comes off sounding philosophical. If we look at it
from the Copenhagen
interpretation of QM, it comes off looking like a measurement
problem. If we look
at it mathematically, we find that solutions to the Schroedinger
equation have an
exp( i p/h_bar x ) where h_bar is Planck's constant, p is momentum, x
is position.
In this formulation x and p are Fourier dual variables, so of course
x and p cannot
be specified to arbitrary precision, because if we introduce a narrow
window in one
of the variables, this defines a broader object in the dual domain.
Now, consider the issue of path integrals. Almost the moment that
Fermat proposed
the minimum time (or later as Hamilton would propose a "least action")
principle, philosophers
dove on this to ask "how is it that the like knows to go down the
minimum time path?", causing
teleological discussions. Yet, if we study wave propagation as
integral equations, then
it makes perfect sense that there is a constructive interference
condition that selects over
all of the possible paths and yields the "minimum" path. Feynman path
integral results are
similar.
So, as far as those multiverse notions are concerned, there don't
really need to be actually
physical multiverses out there, they need only exist the way Fourier
basis functions exist.
I would fully expect that something like a stationarity condition
exists in something like
a path integral that sorts over all of those virtual probability
universes to give us the
universe we have.
>
> Peter Nyikos
-John
John Harshman
Apparently I did. Could you state it more clearly?
>>>> Thanks. That clarifies much.
>>> You have very low standards for "much," I see.
>>> First purely intellectual exercise begins below. Further installments
>>> if you show any interest.
>>> Let's take a very crude estimate. Suppose that we set upper and lower
>>> bounds to be in proportion of 10 to 1, meaning that we ignore all
>>> masses falling outside this range.
>> Why?
>
> Because that makes it HARDER for me to justify that "huge in
> comparison" statement that you seem to misunderstand ("determine")...
>
>>> And suppose all our measurements
>>> fall within one tenth of that range, so that we never had to ignore
>>> any masses.
>> Why?
>
> ...but only a wee bit harder, if you allow roughly equal
> probabilities to there being 3, or 1000, or a trillion diffferent
> kinds of elementary particles in a given universe.
But why should you allow such probabilities? On what could you possibly
base it?
> You see, in any case, the number of indistinguishable elementary
> particles in a universe with any chance of harboring life is far, far
> greater than 501:
>
>>> Measuring a mere 501 subatomic particles already puts the
>>> probability around 10^-500.
>>> I would estimate we've measured many more masses of protons, neutrons
>>> and electrons to an error range of .0001 of the actual measured
>>> masses.
>>> Would you venture to say that we have an incredibly biased sample and
>>> that our universe has a much broader "mass spectrum" than that?
>
>> No.
>
> And now that you've answered this first question, on to the second:
>
> Would you venture to say that other universes are likely to have the
> very narrow mass spectrum that ours evidently has, for three (or even
> a thousand) different elementary particles?
>
I don't know any way to decide such a thing, or even to estimate a
probability.
>> I would venture to say that the sample has nothing to do with
>> estimating what you're claiming to estimate.
>
> The first baby step tells you plenty about that, as does my second
> question.
Could you possibly try the technique of saying exactly what you're
trying to get at, clearly, the first time? That might work better than
all these little hints.
> I was covering a base in this second baby step, anticipating possible
> future grousing about how we cannot be sure that all the protons in
> the universe have identical properties, etc.
I'm willing to stipulate that a proton is a proton is a proton.
>> Remember, you're trying to
>> figure out the probability of matter being composed (mostly) of protons,
>> neutrons, and electrons, each of which is of more or less constant mass.
>> I presume you're talking about the probability of a universe existing in
>> which that's true, rather than the probability that our universe is like
>> that. So measuring the masses of protons in this universe has nothing to
>> do with your estimate. And you have nothing on which to base that estimate.
>
> This "nothing" shtick of yours is getting tiresome. Are you tacitly
> assuming that "three, or at least very few particles" is as likely as
> the whole range of 1000 to trillion and beyond?
I'm assuming that I have no way of judging such a thing. Do you? If so,
tell me what it is.
> Or do you just want to go on in your ivory tower, not giving out any
> opinions of your own? In that case, I'd like the answer to one
> question.
>
> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
> likely?
>
> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we would
probably see some evidence of its existence. But perhaps I'm wrong, in
which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
> Notes:
>
> [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>
> [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>
> [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
Tiny and young compared to what? And you can't say "Orson Welles"; he's
dead.
John Harshman
I don't understand. How does the internal nature of the universe bear on
whether its original parameters are dependent on something outside itself?
>> But OK. So what reasons are there to believe
>> that a universe whose existence doesn't depend on anything outside
>> itself would produce particles with non-identical properties?
>
> What reasons are there to believe that it would produce only THREE
> kinds of identical-in-each-kind elementary particles? THAT is the
> really counterintuitive speculation: see below.
What reasons are there to believe anything would or would not be the
case? It seems to me that in order to do so you would have to know
something about the probability distribution of universes of different
sorts. What do you have in that line?
>>>> And why is it improbable that
>>>> particles should fall into distinct and invariant types? It sounds to me
>>>> that you're suffering from "argument from personal incredulity".
>>> One could turn that around, and say you are suffering from an
>>> "argument from personal credulity."
>> Not unless I am credulous about something.
>
> OK, so you are maintaining a lofty ivory tower approach, resolutely
> avoiding any favoritism towards any speculation including the
> "...THREE..." speculation.
Until there is some reason to do otherwise, sure. You make it sound like
a bad thing.
> Except for one thing: you used a loaded term, "argument from personal
> incredulity," which suggests you DO favor some brands of speculation
> over others.
It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't to me. I'm saying that the
null hypothesis here is that we have no way to make such judgments.
> [...]
>>> In an attempt to break this stalemate, I offer a very crude analogy:
>>> it is said that "no two snowflakes are alike"; and indeed, once we
>>> leave the realm of covalently bonded molecules, it's a rare occurrence
>>> when two things are exactly alike.
>>> Why should a universe which comes into being with total spontaneity
>>> have so few unlike indivisible quanta, or whatever you want to call
>>> them? How do you rule out universes with, say, a trillion different
>>> such entities, and no more of them altogether than our own universe
>>> has?
>> I can't rule out anything, since we have no idea of what would be
>> possible or not possible. That's the problem with all fine-tuning
>> arguments:
>
> If you even *suspect* that the six constants of which Martin Rees
> writes cannot take on values very different from the ones they have,
> then you need to give some reasons for your suspicion.
I don't suspect anything. I don't not suspect anything. What evidence do
you have that they can take on very different values? Why should I think
they can in the absence of evidence?
> On the other hand, if you have no such suspicions, then you are really
> going out on a limb with your pontificating about "the problem with
> all fine-tuning arguments."
Why?
> Here is the url for a summary by Rees of the constants and their
> significance:
>
> http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
Says nothing about any distribution from which they were chosen, and so
is useless for our purposes.
>> we don't know the distribution from which properties would be
>> chosen,
>
> "chosen" is needlessly anthropomorphic.
Think of it as my litle gift to you and otherwise ignore any supposed
teleological implications.
> Anyway, even such outspoken
> critics of fine tuning as Victor Stenger have no problem with Rees's
> constants varying all over the place in hypothetical universes.
I don't care who does or doesn't have a problem. If you can't present an
argument there is no point to this.
> [That's an allusion to a whole book, _The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning_,
> which came out this year. My thanks to Mark Isaak for calling it to my
> attention.]
>
>> so we can't know the probability of any particular choice.
>
> Like I said, "probability" betokens a bias towards measure theory in
> defining randomness.
I don't actually know what that means. Is it bad? Is there a better way
to say we don't know what the possibilities are?
Drafterman
doesn't eliminate your burden, even if it creates one for me.
Diversionary tactics, nothing more.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Our universe exists.
> > > > > > Ergo it has to exist in some way.
>
> > > > > And why is it so admirably fine-tuned, not just for life, but
> > > > > intelligent life to which it is intelligible?
>
> > > > Nobody has established that the universe is "tuned", any more
> > > > than they have established that the value of PI is tuned.
>
> > > Irrelevant wordplay, inasmuch as 1. and 3. are fully compatible with
> > > atheism.
>
> > Is that part of complex variables theory that deals with analytic
> > functions
> > "fine tuned"? There seem to be a lot of fortuitous properties that
> > make
> > stuff work out just right.
>
> You are off on a hobbyhorse all your own. Bon voyage!
>
pnyikos
> > Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
> > likely?
>
> > 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>
> > 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>
> > 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we would
> probably see some evidence of its existence.
15, where he says that there were upwards of 500 people who saw Jesus
after he rose from the dead.
[Note: the word "says" applies to everything you read after it in the
same sentence.]
> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
> > Notes:
>
> > [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>
> > [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> > of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>
> > [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
>
> Tiny and young compared to what?
Jeans thought was the age of our universe: a thousand times what it
actually is, and he gave three independent lines of argument for it.
Tiny compared to how large a universe could conceivably be and still
have galaxies substantially like ours, given a drastic enough
hyperinflationary period.
Wait, the best is yet to come.
Absolutely ("infinitesimally") young AND tiny compared to a Steady
State Universe like Hoyle thought ours was.
Hoyle thought our universe has existed for infinitely many years and
is infinitely large and will go on existing for infinitely many years,
with young stars continuously created out of hydrogen (or neutrons
decaying into protons and electrons and a kind of neutrino) which
continuously comes spontaneously into being.
Hoyle's theory was long thought of by physicists and cosmologists to
be a VERY good contender as to what our universe is actually like.
The debate between it and the theory we now have went on for decades,
and it took a very detailed map of the cosmic background to tip the
scales against it.
John Harshman
> On Sep 14, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>
> [long, apparently fruitless discussion deleted]
>
>>> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
>>> likely?
>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we would
>> probably see some evidence of its existence.
>
> And many have claimed to have it, including St. Paul in I Corinthians
> 15, where he says that there were upwards of 500 people who saw Jesus
> after he rose from the dead.
>
> [Note: the word "says" applies to everything you read after it in the
> same sentence.]
I don't count that as evidence. Do you? But if not, why bother to bring
it up?
>> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
>> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
>
> Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
> like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
> existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
> deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
I'm sure you intended some kind of point there, but I'm tired of you
hinting at what you mean. I would prefer clear statements.
>>> Notes:
>>> [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>>> [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
>>> of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>>> [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
>> Tiny and young compared to what?
>
> Young compared, for instance, to what the famous astronomer Sir James
> Jeans thought was the age of our universe: a thousand times what it
> actually is, and he gave three independent lines of argument for it.
Yes, and young compared to a number I just thought up. So what?
> Tiny compared to how large a universe could conceivably be and still
> have galaxies substantially like ours, given a drastic enough
> hyperinflationary period.
Again, so what?
> Wait, the best is yet to come.
>
> Absolutely ("infinitesimally") young AND tiny compared to a Steady
> State Universe like Hoyle thought ours was.
>
> Hoyle thought our universe has existed for infinitely many years and
> is infinitely large and will go on existing for infinitely many years,
> with young stars continuously created out of hydrogen (or neutrons
> decaying into protons and electrons and a kind of neutrino) which
> continuously comes spontaneously into being.
>
> Hoyle's theory was long thought of by physicists and cosmologists to
> be a VERY good contender as to what our universe is actually like.
> The debate between it and the theory we now have went on for decades,
> and it took a very detailed map of the cosmic background to tip the
> scales against it.
If you have a point, I'm really, really tired of waiting for it. An
elephant is really tiny compared to Big Bonzo, my imaginary friend who's
as big as a zillion gazillion galaxies.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
>
> > [long, apparently fruitless discussion deleted]
>
> >>> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
> >>> likely?
> >>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
> >>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
> >>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
> >> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we would
> >> probably see some evidence of its existence.
>
> > And many have claimed to have it, including St. Paul in I Corinthians
> > 15, where he says that there were upwards of 500 people who saw Jesus
> > after he rose from the dead.
>
> > [Note: the word "says" applies to everything you read after it in the
> > same sentence.]
>
> I don't count that as evidence. Do you?
I count it as evidence especially because St. Paul went to his death
for his Christianity. If he hadn't been convinced by the testimony of
those who said they were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, he could
easily have repudiated his claims.
> >> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
> >> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
>
> > Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
> > like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
> > existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
> > deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
>
> I'm sure you intended some kind of point there,
> but I'm tired of you
> hinting at what you mean. I would prefer clear statements.
> >>> Notes:
> >>> [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
> >>> [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> >>> of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
> >>> [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
> >> Tiny and young compared to what?
>
> > Young compared, for instance, to what the famous astronomer Sir James
> > Jeans thought was the age of our universe: a thousand times what it
> > actually is, and he gave three independent lines of argument for it.
>
> Yes, and young compared to a number I just thought up. So what?
> > Tiny compared to how large a universe could conceivably be and still
> > have galaxies substantially like ours, given a drastic enough
> > hyperinflationary period.
>
> Again, so what?
> > Wait, the best is yet to come.
>
> > Absolutely ("infinitesimally") young AND tiny compared to a Steady
> > State Universe like Hoyle thought ours was.
>
> > Hoyle thought our universe has existed for infinitely many years and
> > is infinitely large and will go on existing for infinitely many years,
> > with young stars continuously created out of hydrogen (or neutrons
> > decaying into protons and electrons and a kind of neutrino) which
> > continuously comes spontaneously into being.
>
> > Hoyle's theory was long thought of by physicists and cosmologists to
> > be a VERY good contender as to what our universe is actually like.
> > The debate between it and the theory we now have went on for decades,
> > and it took a very detailed map of the cosmic background to tip the
> > scales against it.
>
> If you have a point, I'm really, really tired of waiting for it. An
> elephant is really tiny compared to Big Bonzo, my imaginary friend who's
> as big as a zillion gazillion galaxies.
You want more, I'll give you more later, but I just got a call from my
daughter who is a student here, asking me to pick her up.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Sep 14, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> [long, apparently fruitless discussion deleted]
>>>>> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
>>>>> likely?
>>>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>>>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>>>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>>>> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we would
>>>> probably see some evidence of its existence.
>>> And many have claimed to have it, including St. Paul in I Corinthians
>>> 15, where he says that there were upwards of 500 people who saw Jesus
>>> after he rose from the dead.
>>> [Note: the word "says" applies to everything you read after it in the
>>> same sentence.]
>> I don't count that as evidence. Do you?
>
> Yes, but not convincing evidence.
>
> I count it as evidence especially because St. Paul went to his death
> for his Christianity. If he hadn't been convinced by the testimony of
> those who said they were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, he could
> easily have repudiated his claims.
you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
bringing it up.
>>>> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
>>>> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
>>> Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
>>> like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
>>> existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
>>> deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
>> I'm sure you intended some kind of point there,
>
> Doesn't "incredible stroke of luck" tell you anything?
What's so unlikely about our universe? Of course in order to know that,
you have to know how likely various sorts of universes are. What do you
have on that?
>> but I'm tired of you
>> hinting at what you mean. I would prefer clear statements.
>
> There's one of your own mantras. [Allusion to Kleinman.]
response. Kleinman's mantras are repeated even when irrelevant to
anything under discussion.
>>>>> Notes:
>>>>> [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
>>>>> [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
>>>>> of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
>>>>> [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
>>>> Tiny and young compared to what?
>>> Young compared, for instance, to what the famous astronomer Sir James
>>> Jeans thought was the age of our universe: a thousand times what it
>>> actually is, and he gave three independent lines of argument for it.
>> Yes, and young compared to a number I just thought up. So what?
>
> You asked, I answered.
>>> Tiny compared to how large a universe could conceivably be and still
>>> have galaxies substantially like ours, given a drastic enough
>>> hyperinflationary period.
>> Again, so what?
>
> There's another one of your mantras.
explanation or defense, which has not been forthcoming.
>>> Wait, the best is yet to come.
>>> Absolutely ("infinitesimally") young AND tiny compared to a Steady
>>> State Universe like Hoyle thought ours was.
>>> Hoyle thought our universe has existed for infinitely many years and
>>> is infinitely large and will go on existing for infinitely many years,
>>> with young stars continuously created out of hydrogen (or neutrons
>>> decaying into protons and electrons and a kind of neutrino) which
>>> continuously comes spontaneously into being.
>>> Hoyle's theory was long thought of by physicists and cosmologists to
>>> be a VERY good contender as to what our universe is actually like.
>>> The debate between it and the theory we now have went on for decades,
>>> and it took a very detailed map of the cosmic background to tip the
>>> scales against it.
>> If you have a point, I'm really, really tired of waiting for it. An
>> elephant is really tiny compared to Big Bonzo, my imaginary friend who's
>> as big as a zillion gazillion galaxies.
>
> You ask a question, I give a straight answer.
something meaningful about the comparison. You apparently meant "young"
and "tiny" to convey some idea of probability. I'm really asking what
the point was of bringing those terms up. Perhaps I wasn't clear about
that the first time.
Beyond these trivialities, the main question remains: what is your major
point, and what is your argument for or against any of your three
choices or for fine-tuning?
> You want more, I'll give you more later, but I just got a call from my
> daughter who is a student here, asking me to pick her up.
Rolf
> On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Sep 14, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> [long, apparently fruitless discussion deleted]
>>
>>>>> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is
>>>>> most likely?
>>>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>>>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>>>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>>>> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we
>>>> would probably see some evidence of its existence.
>>
>>> And many have claimed to have it, including St. Paul in I
>>> Corinthians 15, where he says that there were upwards of 500 people
>>> who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.
>>
>>> [Note: the word "says" applies to everything you read after it in
>>> the same sentence.]
>>
>> I don't count that as evidence. Do you?
>
> Yes, but not convincing evidence.
>
> I count it as evidence especially because St. Paul went to his death
> for his Christianity. If he hadn't been convinced by the testimony of
> those who said they were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, he could
> easily have repudiated his claims.
>
do.
Hardly eligible as evidence for anything else.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 14, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> [long, apparently fruitless discussion deleted]
>
> >>>>> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is
> >>>>> most likely?
> >>>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
> >>>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
> >>>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
> >>>> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we
> >>>> would probably see some evidence of its existence.
>
> >>> And many have claimed to have it, including St. Paul in I
> >>> Corinthians 15, where he says that there were upwards of 500 people
> >>> who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.
>
> >>> [Note: the word "says" applies to everything you read after it in
> >>> the same sentence.]
>
> >> I don't count that as evidence. Do you?
>
> > Yes, but not convincing evidence.
According to John.
> > I count it as evidence especially because St. Paul went to his death
> > for his Christianity. If he hadn't been convinced by the testimony of
> > those who said they were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, he could
> > easily have repudiated his claims.
>
> What? History is studded with martyrs, any religious obsession or faith will
> do.
Jesus before his crucifixion. And many testified to him that they saw
him afterwards. How many martyrs are so close to miraculous (alleged)
events on which they base their faith?
Also, have you ever read I Corinthians 15? Paul was staking his whole
reputation and that of his fellow disciples on the Resurrection of
Jesus:
___________ begin excerpt [verses numbered]
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been
raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless
and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false
witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised
Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are
not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not
been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith
is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have
fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have
hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
=========== end of excerpt, New International Version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2015&version=NIV
Let's see you find anything similar to the above passage in the lives
of martyrs who claim to be close to the events about which they
preached.
> Hardly eligible as evidence for anything else.
two? What basis do you have for your opinion, besides an unshakable
faith in materialism?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 14, 12:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> [long, apparently fruitless discussion deleted]
> >>>>> Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
> >>>>> likely?
> >>>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
> >>>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
> >>>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
> >>>> Yes. I think #2 is unlikely because if there were such a being we would
> >>>> probably see some evidence of its existence.
> >> but I'm tired of you
> >> hinting at what you mean. I would prefer clear statements.
>
> > There's one of your own mantras. [Allusion to Kleinman.]
>
> Thanks, but no. I say it only when appropriate, as an actual, specific
> response.
to even a halfway attentive reader. Do you deny this?
>Kleinman's mantras are repeated even when irrelevant to
> anything under discussion.
> >>>>> Notes:
> >>>>> [1] less than 15 billion --milliard to Europeans-- years old
> >>>>> [2] had only that much time to expand from something that, at the time
> >>>>> of the Big Bang, was smaller than a galaxy
> >>>>> [3] also known as "our space-time continuum".
> >>>> Tiny and young compared to what?
> >>> Young compared, for instance, to what the famous astronomer Sir James
> >>> Jeans thought was the age of our universe: a thousand times what it
> >>> actually is, and he gave three independent lines of argument for it.
> >> Yes, and young compared to a number I just thought up. So what?
>
> > You asked, I answered.
>
> Is a meaningful answer possible?
this below.
> >>> Tiny compared to how large a universe could conceivably be and still
> >>> have galaxies substantially like ours, given a drastic enough
> >>> hyperinflationary period.
> >> Again, so what?
>
> > There's another one of your mantras.
>
> Again, used only when appropriate. In this case, I was asking for an
> explanation or defense, which has not been forthcoming.
3.
> >>> Wait, the best is yet to come.
> >>> Absolutely ("infinitesimally") young AND tiny compared to a Steady
> >>> State Universe like Hoyle thought ours was.
> >>> Hoyle thought our universe has existed for infinitely many years and
> >>> is infinitely large and will go on existing for infinitely many years,
> >>> with young stars continuously created out of hydrogen (or neutrons
> >>> decaying into protons and electrons and a kind of neutrino) which
> >>> continuously comes spontaneously into being.
> >>> Hoyle's theory was long thought of by physicists and cosmologists to
> >>> be a VERY good contender as to what our universe is actually like.
> >>> The debate between it and the theory we now have went on for decades,
> >>> and it took a very detailed map of the cosmic background to tip the
> >>> scales against it.
>
> >> If you have a point, I'm really, really tired of waiting for it. An
> >> elephant is really tiny compared to Big Bonzo, my imaginary friend who's
> >> as big as a zillion gazillion galaxies.
>
> > You ask a question, I give a straight answer.
>
> I do not consider that a straight answer unless it shows that there is
> something meaningful about the comparison.
srraightforward answer. Evidently you wanted more than a
straightforward answer, but failed to spell it out. Don't blame me
for your laziness.
> You apparently meant "young"
> and "tiny" to convey some idea of probability. I'm really asking what
> the point was of bringing those terms up. Perhaps I wasn't clear about
> that the first time.
you hand in stands for all time. We can go on discussing other things
you are interested in, once you make them clear.
> Beyond these trivialities, the main question remains: what is your major
> point, and what is your argument for or against any of your three
> choices or for fine-tuning?
odds against abiogenesis are so great as to be expected to occur only
once in MANY universes like ours.
In fact, the odds would then favor it happening not just once, but
infinitely many times, and so my argument for directed panspermy would
have required a somewhat different foundation, and been a lot less
convincing than it ought to be to anyone who endorses alternative 1.
up there.
> > You want more, I'll give you more later, but I just got a call from my
> > daughter who is a student here, asking me to pick her up.
>
> There's really no need to explain these details of your personal life.
something like that in there. Nice to know you are more reasonable
than him in that respect (along with many others).
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
than an hour ago before making your selection.
> But if
> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
> bringing it up.
search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
convinced you know the truth about these matters?
> >>>> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
> >>>> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
> >>> Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
> >>> like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
> >>> existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
> >>> deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
> >> I'm sure you intended some kind of point there,
>
> > Doesn't "incredible stroke of luck" tell you anything?
>
> Is that your point? Then you have to present some kind of argument.
> What's so unlikely about our universe? Of course in order to know that,
> you have to know how likely various sorts of universes are. What do you
> have on that?
deep reason for not comparing 1. with 3. yourself.
Are you resisting any inclination to think about them? as opposed to
your very ready rejection of 2. on the grounds that we ought to have
some evidence for it? and your backpedaling to a position of needing
sufficiently good evidence for it? [And what would you count as being
sufficiently good?]
John Harshman
[getting rid of arguments about arguments, retaining discussion of the
topic]
>>>Do you have ANY personal beliefs about which of the following is most
>>>likely?
>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>> point, and what is your argument for or against any of your three
>> choices or for fine-tuning?
>
> If Hoyle were correct, I would not have ever said that I believe the
> odds against abiogenesis are so great as to be expected to occur only
> once in MANY universes like ours.
>
> In fact, the odds would then favor it happening not just once, but
> infinitely many times, and so my argument for directed panspermy would
> have required a somewhat different foundation, and been a lot less
> convincing than it ought to be to anyone who endorses alternative 1.
> up there.
(the ones above). I do not know your major point, and I don't know your
argument for or against any of your three choices or for fine-tuning.
Could you make another attempt at answering those questions?
John Harshman
are eyewitness accounts of that. Joseph Smith has testimony from many
individuals that they had seen the golden plates. The miracle of Fatima
was apparently witnessed by thousands. It really isn't easy, especially
when you have second-hand accounts long after the fact, some of them of
dubious authorship.
>> But if
>> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
>> bringing it up.
>
> Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
> search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
> convinced you know the truth about these matters?
whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
>>>>>> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
>>>>>> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
>>>>> Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
>>>>> like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
>>>>> existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
>>>>> deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
>>>> I'm sure you intended some kind of point there,
>>> Doesn't "incredible stroke of luck" tell you anything?
>> Is that your point? Then you have to present some kind of argument.
>> What's so unlikely about our universe? Of course in order to know that,
>> you have to know how likely various sorts of universes are. What do you
>> have on that?
>
> Before I answer these questions, an observation: you seem to have a
> deep reason for not comparing 1. with 3. yourself.
skilled at it, and it gets in the way of the discussion. So what's to
compare? Where can we get any traction?
> Are you resisting any inclination to think about them? as opposed to
> your very ready rejection of 2. on the grounds that we ought to have
> some evidence for it? and your backpedaling to a position of needing
> sufficiently good evidence for it? [And what would you count as being
> sufficiently good?]
about the evidence for God? First, we can easily rule out the God of
Abraham, because he has various defined characteristics that are
incompatible with the world we see. You would be better off arguing for
a super-powerful being who is compatible with the world. One, for
example, who has no interest in human beings, much less in individuals.
One who created the world and then sat back to watch, perhaps. I can't
rule out such an entity.
Rolf
produce.
A lot of scholarship is required.
My answer is much, much longer than anyhing I could present here.
My studies of depth psychology solved the riddle of the Bible for me
sixty years ago. My personal experience has served to reaffirm that.
To the extent I can talk about studying, the riddle of religions vs. depth
psychology
has been a lingering interest of mine the past sixty years, and I haven't
found any
reason to believe that the character Jesus is anything but a myth. Myths are
powerful
symbols in the human mind. Death and Resurrection, been with mankind for
several
thousand years BCE.
WRT 'faith in materialism', I have chosen the most parsimonous conclusion:
The God of literalitst Christendom is a fiction.
There is no evidence that God is interefering in mundane or celestial
affairs.
He/it may be a force in personal life, In fact, I believe he/it is.
According to the book of Job, he/it is what is sending us dreams when we
sleep.
WRT literalism, I take the liberty of emailing you a small piece about it.
I have even made a translation of a book published in 1966 by a Norwegian
psychiatrist/psychologue "Religion or Psychology". I can email you a Msword
file.
If the subject is of interest to you:
Googling for the author's name, Arne Duve, I found that he published in
English (Psychology and God, 1978),
The book is available at NOK 130 (I suppose about $20)
http://www.bokpanett.no/index.php?nr=90&case=4&id=13094&idkategori=53&startrow=2352
http://tinyurl.com/6ag7eoe
Rolf
> Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
But can you actually find any? I don't think so.
> Joseph Smith has testimony from many
> individuals that they had seen the golden plates.
No evidence they were miraculous, though.
>The miracle of Fatima
> was apparently witnessed by thousands.
...who might have thought that an especially bright and spectacular
sundog was the sun.
I've seen such a sundog, and to make it even more interesting, it was
at Conyers, Georgia, where alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin
were taking place right then and there.
It was the best sundog I have ever seen, and because of the way the
clouds were moving behind it, it kept changing its appearance fast
enough so that some might have thought it "danced."
That's not at all like the the eyewitness accounts of the aftermath of
the Resurrection. Jesus was reported in the Gospel According to John
that he walked together with Peter with John close by on the shores of
a lake, and ate fish that had been caught from the lake.
>It really isn't easy, especially
> when you have second-hand accounts long after the fact, some of them of
> dubious authorship.
The authorship of I Corinthians 15 has never been in doubt. We have
pretty reliable dates for some of those letters, too. The first, I
Thessalonians, was written ca. 50 AD.
> >> But if
> >> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
> >> bringing it up.
>
> > Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
> > search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
> > convinced you know the truth about these matters?
>
> To the extent that I am convinced that I know the truth about, say,
> whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
Despite the lack of any evidence that St. Paul was lying?
Interesting.
Concluded in my next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 2:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
> >>>>>> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
>
> >>>>> Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
> >>>>> like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
> >>>>> existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
> >>>>> deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
>
> >>>>>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
> >>>>>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
>
>
> >>> Doesn't "incredible stroke of luck" tell you anything?
>
> >> Is that your point? Then you have to present some kind of argument.
> >> What's so unlikely about our universe? Of course in order to know that,
> >> you have to know how likely various sorts of universes are. What do you
> >> have on that?
>
> > Before I answer these questions, an observation: you seem to have a
> > deep reason for not comparing 1. with 3. yourself.
>
> Be careful of assigning motives to other people. You don't seem very
> skilled at it,
Ernest Major, less than 3 hours before you posted this, and he
conveniently forgot that I had actually anticipated him falling into a
false dichotomy fallacy before he actually fell--right on the same
thread.
> and it gets in the way of the discussion. So what's to
> compare? Where can we get any traction?
about Hoyle, and I don't have time right now to answer that other post
where you did your usual "I don't see what you are getting at" bit.
> > Are you resisting any inclination to think about them? as opposed to
> > your very ready rejection of 2. on the grounds that we ought to have
> > some evidence for it? and your backpedaling to a position of needing
> > sufficiently good evidence for it? [And what would you count as being
> > sufficiently good?]
>
> Are you really ignoring the whole main question in favor of an argument
> about the evidence for God?
2. and you can't even seem to guess at how to choose between the
purely natural hypotheses 1 and 3.
>First, we can easily rule out the God of
> Abraham, because he has various defined characteristics that are
> incompatible with the world we see.
>You would be better off arguing for
> a super-powerful being who is compatible with the world.
now.
> One, for
> example, who has no interest in human beings, much less in individuals.
> One who created the world and then sat back to watch, perhaps. I can't
> rule out such an entity.
only one.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
himself. But surely the messenger of God himself is a reliable witness.
It's reported in the Qur'an and all the major Hadiths.
>> Joseph Smith has testimony from many
>> individuals that they had seen the golden plates.
>
> No evidence they were miraculous, though.
amazes me.
>> The miracle of Fatima
>> was apparently witnessed by thousands.
>
> ...who might have thought that an especially bright and spectacular
> sundog was the sun.
> I've seen such a sundog, and to make it even more interesting, it was
> at Conyers, Georgia, where alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin
> were taking place right then and there.
>
> It was the best sundog I have ever seen, and because of the way the
> clouds were moving behind it, it kept changing its appearance fast
> enough so that some might have thought it "danced."
>
> That's not at all like the the eyewitness accounts of the aftermath of
> the Resurrection. Jesus was reported in the Gospel According to John
> that he walked together with Peter with John close by on the shores of
> a lake, and ate fish that had been caught from the lake.
attributed to him?
>> It really isn't easy, especially
>> when you have second-hand accounts long after the fact, some of them of
>> dubious authorship.
>
> The authorship of I Corinthians 15 has never been in doubt. We have
> pretty reliable dates for some of those letters, too. The first, I
> Thessalonians, was written ca. 50 AD.
>>>> But if
>>>> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
>>>> bringing it up.
>>> Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
>>> search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
>>> convinced you know the truth about these matters?
>> To the extent that I am convinced that I know the truth about, say,
>> whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
>
> Despite the lack of any evidence that St. Paul was lying?
> Interesting.
lying, but I don't count even his sincere account, if such it was, as
much evidence for the existence of the resurrection or of God. On the
other hand, there is very good evidence against that particular god.
John Harshman
>> and it gets in the way of the discussion. So what's to
>> compare? Where can we get any traction?
>
> Explaining this will have to wait, since it depends on what I said
> about Hoyle, and I don't have time right now to answer that other post
> where you did your usual "I don't see what you are getting at" bit.
not to understand you it isn't because I'm adopting some kind of ploy or
strategem, but because I really don't understand you and want
clarification? If you did, all would be simpler, and you might even
attempt that clarification.
>>> Are you resisting any inclination to think about them? as opposed to
>>> your very ready rejection of 2. on the grounds that we ought to have
>>> some evidence for it? and your backpedaling to a position of needing
>>> sufficiently good evidence for it? [And what would you count as being
>>> sufficiently good?]
>> Are you really ignoring the whole main question in favor of an argument
>> about the evidence for God?
>
> Yes, because you seem to have some very specific reasons for rejecting
> 2. and you can't even seem to guess at how to choose between the
> purely natural hypotheses 1 and 3.
if we decisively reject him, there could be any number of other
potential creators.
>> First, we can easily rule out the God of
>> Abraham, because he has various defined characteristics that are
>> incompatible with the world we see.
>
> At the time of Abraham? Please explain.
reject him now. He is supposedly active in the world, yet we see no sign
of any of his actions. And the deity of the Old Testament is the hero of
a great number of silly stories that can't be taken seriously.
>> You would be better off arguing for
>> a super-powerful being who is compatible with the world.
>
> And with the God of Abraham, until you explain what you wrote just
> now.
appearing, causing this or that plague, telling people to do things,
destroying cities, and the like. We would be able to tell he was there.
Since there is no sign in the present world of such a person, we can
conclude that he doesn't exist. (Though an alternative is that he has
suffered an extreme personality change in the past couple thousand
years. Still, an extreme personality change would also be incompatible
with the God of Abraham.)
>> One, for
>> example, who has no interest in human beings, much less in individuals.
>> One who created the world and then sat back to watch, perhaps. I can't
>> rule out such an entity.
>
> Deism, in other words. A reasonable subcategory of 2. but not the
> only one.
seems to me that any alternative must also possess this virtue. What do
you have?
pnyikos
Certainly nothing comparable to what is testified about Jesus.
> It's reported in the Qur'an and all the major Hadiths.
parts of the Qur'an were composed after he was no longer with us, to
use a quaint turn of phrase.
> >> Joseph Smith has testimony from many
> >> individuals that they had seen the golden plates.
>
> > No evidence they were miraculous, though.
>
> You think he actually had any golden plates?
>Your credulity at times
> amazes me.
stubborn about other kinds of inferences is quite unique in my
experience.
> >> The miracle of Fatima
> >> was apparently witnessed by thousands.
>
> > ...who might have thought that an especially bright and spectacular
> > sundog was the sun.
>
> So maybe Paul or his contacts were also mistaken.
which Doubting Thomas experienced.
> > I've seen such a sundog, and to make it even more interesting, it was
> > at Conyers, Georgia, where alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin
> > were taking place right then and there.
>
> > It was the best sundog I have ever seen, and because of the way the
> > clouds were moving behind it, it kept changing its appearance fast
> > enough so that some might have thought it "danced."
>
> > That's not at all like the the eyewitness accounts of the aftermath of
> > the Resurrection. Jesus was reported in the Gospel According to John
> > that he walked together with Peter with John close by on the shores of
> > a lake, and ate fish that had been caught from the lake.
>
> Is it your claim that the apostle John actually wrote the book
> attributed to him?
who wrote it.
> >> It really isn't easy, especially
> >> when you have second-hand accounts long after the fact, some of them of
> >> dubious authorship.
>
> > The authorship of I Corinthians 15 has never been in doubt. We have
> > pretty reliable dates for some of those letters, too. The first, I
> > Thessalonians, was written ca. 50 AD.
>
> I refer to the entire corpus of Paul's epistles.
> >>>> But if
> >>>> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
> >>>> bringing it up.
> >>> Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
> >>> search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
> >>> convinced you know the truth about these matters?
> >> To the extent that I am convinced that I know the truth about, say,
> >> whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
>
> > Despite the lack of any evidence that St. Paul was lying?
> > Interesting.
>
> Not so interesting as you may imagine. Paul may or may not have been
> lying, but I don't count even his sincere account, if such it was, as
> much evidence for the existence of the resurrection or of God. On the
> other hand, there is very good evidence against that particular god.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
>
> > Let's see you find anything similar to the above passage in the lives
> > of martyrs who claim to be close to the events about which they
> > preached.
>
> >> Hardly eligible as evidence for anything else.
>
> > So do you think Paul was deluded, or lying? or a combination of the
> > two? What basis do you have for your opinion, besides an unshakable
> > faith in materialism?
>
> WRT to Paul, neither.
were all one or the other?
> Paul alone would require much more than I could
> produce.
> A lot of scholarship is required.
>
> My answer is much, much longer than anyhing I could present here.
> My studies of depth psychology solved the riddle of the Bible for me
> sixty years ago. My personal experience has served to reaffirm that.
>
> To the extent I can talk about studying, the riddle of religions vs. depth
> psychology
> has been a lingering interest of mine the past sixty years, and I haven't
> found any
> reason to believe that the character Jesus is anything but a myth.
things attributed to Jesus, and who was crucified more or less as
depicted in all four gospels?
Muslims deny the second half, but they are very much appreciative of
the first part, even with "non-miraculous" omitted. There are even
miracles surrounding the life of his mother in the Koran that are
missing from the Bible.
> Myths are powerful
> symbols in the human mind. Death and Resurrection, been with mankind for
> several thousand years BCE.
return? He shows some decisive breaks by the Judeo-Christian
tradition from the tradition of the other cultures which embraced the
myths of which you speak.
> WRT 'faith in materialism', I have chosen the most parsimonous conclusion:
> The God of literalitst Christendom is a fiction.
> There is no evidence that God is interefering in mundane or celestial
> affairs.
Edith Stein a saint and Mother Teresa and John Paul II to be Blessed.
Have you ever read accounts of these alleged miracles, attested to by
doctors familiar with the pre-miracle and post-miracle cases?
> He/it may be a force in personal life, In fact, I believe he/it is.
> According to the book of Job, he/it is what is sending us dreams when we
> sleep.
such claim there.
> WRT literalism, I take the liberty of emailing you a small piece about it.
could not find it.
Did your e-mail carry the name "Rolf"? I often delete e-mail from
people whose names I do not recognize, because it is almost invariably
spam.
> I have even made a translation of a book published in 1966 by a Norwegian
> psychiatrist/psychologue "Religion or Psychology". I can email you a Msword
> file.
drastically back in my posting for the coming month.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 3:43 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 15, 2:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 14, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> But perhaps I'm wrong, in
> >>>>>>>> which case I have no way to choose. Physicists may have clues.
> >>>>>>> Indeed, more and more of them are opting for [3] because [1] seems
> >>>>>>> like an incredible stroke of luck. The ONLY universe that ever
> >>>>>>> existed, having conscious beings who are continually unlocking its
> >>>>>>> deepest secrets--that is what 1. entails.
> >>>>>>>>> 1. Our young [1] tiny [2] universe [3] is all there is or can be.
> >>>>>>>>> 2. A super-powerful being created this universe.
> >>>>>>>>> 3. There is a mind-boggling, perhaps infinite number of universes.
> >>>>>> I'm sure you intended some kind of point there,
> >>>>> Doesn't "incredible stroke of luck" tell you anything?
> >>>> Is that your point? Then you have to present some kind of argument.
> >>>> What's so unlikely about our universe? Of course in order to know that,
> >>>> you have to know how likely various sorts of universes are. What do you
> >>>> have on that?
on another thread. The abrupt change of topic therein was elicited
by an unexpected comment by you about the chain of fossils we have
from *Hyracotherium* ["the dawn horse"] to *Equus* ["the modern
horse]:
______________ begin repost______________________
> > And we have a darn good idea of
> > what the best approximation to that chain is among the species known
> > from fossils.
> We can approximate a chain. But the chance that we have a true chain is
> almost nil.
Oh, really? Care to apply your reasoning to the claim that the
chances of a universe being as fine-tuned as ours is almost nil?
I could tell you, for instance, that among the ~10^500 kinds of
universes that are solutions to the Feynmann equations, only a tiny
fraction are suitable for life as ours (Hawking, who has made a long
study of this issue, has said so). But I can almost predict your
reaction:
"Unless you have some reason for thinking that the solutions are
equally likely, or even that the whole small fraction of solutions
suitable for life are less likely than all the rest, this statement
gives no traction I could use."
Some people I could name would give a harsher [excuse the pun] closing
clause, e.g. "you are just indulging in an argument from personal
incredulity" or "this is just the discredited god of the gaps
nonsense."
=================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/msg/1ebb7e129ecf8228
Perhaps now you see why I next wrote the following:
> >>> Before I answer these questions, an observation: you seem to have a
> >>> deep reason for not comparing 1. with 3. yourself.
> >> Be careful of assigning motives to other people. You don't seem very
> >> skilled at it,
> > Don't be so sure of that. The last one to make this kind of crack was
> > Ernest Major, less than 3 hours before you posted this, and he
> > conveniently forgot that I had actually anticipated him falling into a
> > false dichotomy fallacy before he actually fell--right on the same
> > thread.
>
> Please stop derailing your own discussions with irrelevant nonsense.
worse than this, in response to a remark about "many howard hersheys"
by Jack Dominey.
> >> and it gets in the way of the discussion. So what's to
> >> compare? Where can we get any traction?
> > Explaining this will have to wait, since it depends on what I said
> > about Hoyle, and I don't have time right now to answer that other post
> > where you did your usual "I don't see what you are getting at" bit.
things, thanks to that unexpected comment by you. It is my reply your
post where Hoyle is mentioned that will have to wait.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to when I have more time.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
I don't see a major difference. I see very little reason to believe that
either of them had anything to do with any actual god. Obviously you're
a Christian agnostic. If you were a Muslim agnostic you'd be on about
how relatively credible the Qur'an was.
>> It's reported in the Qur'an and all the major Hadiths.
>
> On what alleged basis? I think it is pretty well established that
> parts of the Qur'an were composed after he was no longer with us, to
> use a quaint turn of phrase.
On the same alleged basis as most religions. Mohammed is said to have
written both of them. (Well, dictated.)
>>>> Joseph Smith has testimony from many
>>>> individuals that they had seen the golden plates.
>>> No evidence they were miraculous, though.
>> You think he actually had any golden plates?
>
> No. The people who claimed they saw them had no such evidence.
So why make a point about whether they miraculous? Isn't their
nonexistence a simpler objection?
>> Your credulity at times
>> amazes me.
>
> Your ability to jump to conclusions like this while being very
> stubborn about other kinds of inferences is quite unique in my
> experience.
You ability to avoid the implications of your statements is, sadly, by
no means unique.
>>>> The miracle of Fatima
>>>> was apparently witnessed by thousands.
>>> ...who might have thought that an especially bright and spectacular
>>> sundog was the sun.
>> So maybe Paul or his contacts were also mistaken.
>
> One can hardly be mistaken about some of the events, such as that
> which Doubting Thomas experienced.
Was said to have experienced.
>>> I've seen such a sundog, and to make it even more interesting, it was
>>> at Conyers, Georgia, where alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin
>>> were taking place right then and there.
>>> It was the best sundog I have ever seen, and because of the way the
>>> clouds were moving behind it, it kept changing its appearance fast
>>> enough so that some might have thought it "danced."
>>> That's not at all like the the eyewitness accounts of the aftermath of
>>> the Resurrection. Jesus was reported in the Gospel According to John
>>> that he walked together with Peter with John close by on the shores of
>>> a lake, and ate fish that had been caught from the lake.
>> Is it your claim that the apostle John actually wrote the book
>> attributed to him?
>
> I believe it was an accurate account of what he verbally told the ones
> who wrote it.
Do you have a basis for that belief?
>>>> It really isn't easy, especially
>>>> when you have second-hand accounts long after the fact, some of them of
>>>> dubious authorship.
>>> The authorship of I Corinthians 15 has never been in doubt. We have
>>> pretty reliable dates for some of those letters, too. The first, I
>>> Thessalonians, was written ca. 50 AD.
>> I refer to the entire corpus of Paul's epistles.
>
> Irrelevant.
Agreed.
>>>>>> But if
>>>>>> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
>>>>>> bringing it up.
>>>>> Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
>>>>> search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
>>>>> convinced you know the truth about these matters?
>>>> To the extent that I am convinced that I know the truth about, say,
>>>> whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
>>> Despite the lack of any evidence that St. Paul was lying?
>>> Interesting.
>> Not so interesting as you may imagine. Paul may or may not have been
>> lying, but I don't count even his sincere account, if such it was, as
>> much evidence for the existence of the resurrection or of God. On the
>> other hand, there is very good evidence against that particular god.
>
> Such as...?
If he existed, we would expect to see considerable evidence of his
existence. The failure to see such evidence is evidence against the god
hypothesis. One could of course assume a stealth god, but that would not
fit the one being claimed.
John Harshman
I am not interested in your attempts to vindicate your motive-guessing
skills. Sorry.
>>> Don't be so sure of that. The last one to make this kind of crack was
>>> Ernest Major, less than 3 hours before you posted this, and he
>>> conveniently forgot that I had actually anticipated him falling into a
>>> false dichotomy fallacy before he actually fell--right on the same
>>> thread.
>> Please stop derailing your own discussions with irrelevant nonsense.
>
> Turnabout is fair play. You've hit me with irrelevant nonsense far
> worse than this, in response to a remark about "many howard hersheys"
> by Jack Dominey.
>
>>>> and it gets in the way of the discussion. So what's to
>>>> compare? Where can we get any traction?
>
> Note the use of "traction" in the excerpt above.
>
>>> Explaining this will have to wait, since it depends on what I said
>>> about Hoyle, and I don't have time right now to answer that other post
>>> where you did your usual "I don't see what you are getting at" bit.
>
> Well, I changed my mind about the proper order into which to do
> things, thanks to that unexpected comment by you. It is my reply your
> post where Hoyle is mentioned that will have to wait.
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to when I have more time.
Can we get back to something real? Here's a whole post with nothing
whatsoever in it.
Rolf
I am sorry, I changed my mind about it. Taking a closer look i found it not
only useless but misleading.
WRT the book translation, any time it suits you. There are some interesting
passages in it. The author's opinion on matters of importance both for
individuals, Christianity and the life and future of mankind are as valid
today as always.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 6:50 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 20, 3:43 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Mohammed was assumed bodily into heaven from Jerusalem. I believe there
> >>>> are eyewitness accounts of that.
>
> >>> But can you actually find any? I don't think so.
>
> >> Turns out that I was wrong. There were no observers other than Mohammed
> >> himself. But surely the messenger of God himself is a reliable witness.
>
> > I see very little reason to think Mohammed was a messenger of God.
> > Certainly nothing comparable to what is testified about Jesus.
>
> I don't see a major difference.
eyewitness accounts of Jesus's various miracles like the raising of
Lazarus on the one hand and totally unspecified events in the Islamic
literature? If you can name any of the events to which you allude,
please do so.
Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
God."
>I see very little reason to believe that
> either of them had anything to do with any actual god. Obviously you're
> a Christian agnostic. If you were a Muslim agnostic you'd be on about
> how relatively credible the Qur'an was.
even one Muslim trying to argue for the existence of God the way
Thomas Aquinas did in _Summa Contra Gentiles_ and _Summa Theologica_?
I get the impression that it is blasphemy for a Muslim to question the
existence of Allah, and thus very bad form to argue for Allah's
existence.
> >> It's reported in the Qur'an and all the major Hadiths.
>
> > On what alleged basis? I think it is pretty well established that
> > parts of the Qur'an were composed after he was no longer with us, to
> > use a quaint turn of phrase.
>
> On the same alleged basis as most religions. Mohammed is said to have
> written both of them. (Well, dictated.)
of eyewitnesses to Mohammed's ascension into heaven? You found none
in the Quran. Does your denial above go a lot further than that?
> >>>> Joseph Smith has testimony from many
> >>>> individuals that they had seen the golden plates.
> >>> No evidence they were miraculous, though.
> >> You think he actually had any golden plates?
>
> > No. The people who claimed they saw them had no such evidence.
>
> So why make a point about whether they miraculous? Isn't their
> nonexistence a simpler objection?
individuals" [did John Smith name any of them?] could hardly have
rendered an opinion on whether they were miraculous, or just a labor
of love by John Smith.
> >> Your credulity at times
> >> amazes me.
>
> > Your ability to jump to conclusions like this while being very
> > stubborn about other kinds of inferences is quite unique in my
> > experience.
>
> You ability to avoid the implications of your statements is, sadly, by
> no means unique.
misinterpreted the alleged "implication" above.
> >>>> The miracle of Fatima
> >>>> was apparently witnessed by thousands.
> >>> ...who might have thought that an especially bright and spectacular
> >>> sundog was the sun.
> >> So maybe Paul or his contacts were also mistaken.
>
> > One can hardly be mistaken about some of the events, such as that
> > which Doubting Thomas experienced.
>
> Was said to have experienced.
and did, since it might have been a hallucination to which he
responded "My Lord and my God!"
[...]
> >>>>>> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
> >>>>>> bringing it up.
> >>>>> Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
> >>>>> search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
> >>>>> convinced you know the truth about these matters?
> >>>> To the extent that I am convinced that I know the truth about, say,
> >>>> whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
> >>> Despite the lack of any evidence that St. Paul was lying?
> >>> Interesting.
> >> Not so interesting as you may imagine. Paul may or may not have been
> >> lying, but I don't count even his sincere account, if such it was, as
> >> much evidence for the existence of the resurrection or of God. On the
> >> other hand, there is very good evidence against that particular god.
>
> > Such as...?
>
> If he existed, we would expect to see considerable evidence of his
> existence.
But more to the point: as should be clear from my last reply to Rolf,
there IS evidence, and AFAIK there is a deafening silence from the
skeptics of the modern-day miracles attributed by the Vatican to Edith
Stein, Mother Teresa, and John Paul II.
For that matter, have you ever read any account debunking the "miracle
of Fatima"? I have never seen even an attempt at explaining it the
way I did. [Most of my explanation is missing above; the post where I
made it has several specific details].
Peter Nyikos
John S. Wilkins
> Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
> bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
> God."
And yet, oddly, Jesus also said "I have come not to bring peace, but a
sword." and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple."
Some advocate of peace...
--
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
John Harshman
> On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Sep 21, 6:50 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 20, 3:43 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Mohammed was assumed bodily into heaven from Jerusalem. I believe there
>>>>>> are eyewitness accounts of that.
>>>>> But can you actually find any? I don't think so.
>>>> Turns out that I was wrong. There were no observers other than Mohammed
>>>> himself. But surely the messenger of God himself is a reliable witness.
>>> I see very little reason to think Mohammed was a messenger of God.
>>> Certainly nothing comparable to what is testified about Jesus.
>> I don't see a major difference.
>
> To what does this refer? no major difference between the (allegedly)
> eyewitness accounts of Jesus's various miracles like the raising of
> Lazarus on the one hand and totally unspecified events in the Islamic
> literature?
No.
> If you can name any of the events to which you allude,
> please do so.
I'm alluding to reasons to think Mohammed was a messenger of God
compared to reasons to think Jesus was the son of God.
> Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
> bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
> God."
So? In order to draw any conclusions from that, you have to know what
God likes. How do you know what God likes?
>> I see very little reason to believe that
>> either of them had anything to do with any actual god. Obviously you're
>> a Christian agnostic. If you were a Muslim agnostic you'd be on about
>> how relatively credible the Qur'an was.
>
> I doubt it. Apologetics is not an Islamic specialty.
Then why all the Islamic apologetics web sites?
> Can you cite
> even one Muslim trying to argue for the existence of God the way
> Thomas Aquinas did in _Summa Contra Gentiles_ and _Summa Theologica_?
> I get the impression that it is blasphemy for a Muslim to question the
> existence of Allah, and thus very bad form to argue for Allah's
> existence.
It's certainly good form to argue that Islam is the one true religion
and the Qur'an is superior to other religious books. Isn't that close
enough?
>>>> It's reported in the Qur'an and all the major Hadiths.
>>> On what alleged basis? I think it is pretty well established that
>>> parts of the Qur'an were composed after he was no longer with us, to
>>> use a quaint turn of phrase.
>> On the same alleged basis as most religions. Mohammed is said to have
>> written both of them. (Well, dictated.)
>
> The real issue here is: what accounts are there alleging the presence
> of eyewitnesses to Mohammed's ascension into heaven? You found none
> in the Quran. Does your denial above go a lot further than that?
There are no alleged witnesses, as I discovered upon looking it up.
>>>>>> Joseph Smith has testimony from many
>>>>>> individuals that they had seen the golden plates.
>>>>> No evidence they were miraculous, though.
>>>> You think he actually had any golden plates?
>>> No. The people who claimed they saw them had no such evidence.
>> So why make a point about whether they miraculous? Isn't their
>> nonexistence a simpler objection?
>
> Simpler, but not as thorough. Even if they did exist, the "many
> individuals" [did John Smith name any of them?] could hardly have
> rendered an opinion on whether they were miraculous, or just a labor
> of love by John Smith.
Now where is Joseph Smith going to get enough gold to make his own
golden tablets? Your credulity surfaces at bizarre times and places.
>>>> Your credulity at times
>>>> amazes me.
>>> Your ability to jump to conclusions like this while being very
>>> stubborn about other kinds of inferences is quite unique in my
>>> experience.
>> You ability to avoid the implications of your statements is, sadly, by
>> no means unique.
>
> Wrong: what you are seeing above is an explanation that you
> misinterpreted the alleged "implication" above.
I'm going to stand by this one. You are actually willing to believe that
Joseph Smith might really have had golden tablets.
>>>>>> The miracle of Fatima
>>>>>> was apparently witnessed by thousands.
>>>>> ...who might have thought that an especially bright and spectacular
>>>>> sundog was the sun.
>>>> So maybe Paul or his contacts were also mistaken.
>>> One can hardly be mistaken about some of the events, such as that
>>> which Doubting Thomas experienced.
>> Was said to have experienced.
>
> I see no compelling reason to doubt the account of what Thomas said
> and did, since it might have been a hallucination to which he
> responded "My Lord and my God!"
It might have. If indeed there was such a person, and if he told this to
someone, and if it was written down. On the other hand, it could just
have been made up by the person, whoever that might have been, who wrote
the sole (as far as I know) source for the story. I see no compelling
reason to believe the account.
> [...]
>>>>>>>> But if
>>>>>>>> you don't count that as good evidence anyway, I don't see the point of
>>>>>>>> bringing it up.
>>>>>>> Because I am, technically speaking, an agnostic and definitely in
>>>>>>> search of the truth about these matters. Are you an atheist,
>>>>>>> convinced you know the truth about these matters?
>>>>>> To the extent that I am convinced that I know the truth about, say,
>>>>>> whales being the living sister group of hippos, yes.
>>>>> Despite the lack of any evidence that St. Paul was lying?
>>>>> Interesting.
>>>> Not so interesting as you may imagine. Paul may or may not have been
>>>> lying, but I don't count even his sincere account, if such it was, as
>>>> much evidence for the existence of the resurrection or of God. On the
>>>> other hand, there is very good evidence against that particular god.
>>> Such as...?
>> If he existed, we would expect to see considerable evidence of his
>> existence.
>
> Deists would disagree with you.
Deists don't believe in that particular god, but in a quite different god.
> But more to the point: as should be clear from my last reply to Rolf,
> there IS evidence, and AFAIK there is a deafening silence from the
> skeptics of the modern-day miracles attributed by the Vatican to Edith
> Stein, Mother Teresa, and John Paul II.
Are you indeed claiming that there are such miracles? What kind of
agnostic are you, exactly?
> For that matter, have you ever read any account debunking the "miracle
> of Fatima"? I have never seen even an attempt at explaining it the
> way I did. [Most of my explanation is missing above; the post where I
> made it has several specific details].
Even if we are unable to explain accounts of (alleged) odd events, how
is that evidence for the existence of the Christian god? What in his
supposed nature leads you to believe he would reveal himself through
rare, cheap tricks rather than through more general effects?
Mitchell Coffey
> pnyikos<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
>> bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
>> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
>> God."
>
> And yet, oddly, Jesus also said "I have come not to bring peace, but a
> sword." and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
> and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
> also, he cannot be my disciple."
>
> Some advocate of peace...
see Him putting up with what went down under Moses in the Wilderness, or
after Moses in the conquest of Canaan. You can't imagine seeing Him
going along with that Amalekites business; what I'm saying is, if Jesus
had been around back then, God would have stripped Him of the kingship.
Mitchell
Rolf
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
>> bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
>> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
>> God."
>
> And yet, oddly, Jesus also said "I have come not to bring peace, but a
> sword." and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
> mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
> his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
>
> Some advocate of peace...
Rolf
with attributes, features and irrational behaviour to match. Faith is
sustained and reinforced by a positive feedback loop. It hardens like a
sediment.
I suppose not all 'miraculous' events may have a rational explanation but
even so, that doesn't mean there is a benevolent deity out there somewhere
doing it. Strange things seem to happen at times, I can only shrug and say
so what?
A few people thanking God for being saved from this or that accident - but
what about the vast number of people not being saved? Seems to me the hand
of God in human affairs is as random as mutations. Isn't that just what it
is: natural events with no particular 'cause'?
Mike Lyle
Wilkins) wrote:
>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
>> bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
>> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
>> God."
bloodthirsty deed by Muhammad or his immediate followers. You may
question the record, but as far as it goes it indicates that the early
Muslims really were an endangered minority forced to act in
self-defence. Whatever the balance on that score, the claim that
Muhammad was a warmonger is a moronism worthy of the highest
traditions of American Christian derangement.
>And yet, oddly, Jesus also said "I have come not to bring peace, but a
>sword." and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
>and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
>also, he cannot be my disciple."
>
>Some advocate of peace...
--
Mike.
pnyikos
> > Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
> > bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
> > "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
> > God."
>
> And yet, oddly, Jesus also said "I have come not to bring peace, but a
> sword."
essence, "My teachings, peaceful though they are, will divide people
from each other as surely as a sword does." And that has come to pass
countless times, including today.
It reminds me of the uproar that is taking place at a University of
Wisconsin branch campus, where a professor is even threatened with
criminal charges because the words in a provocative poster he put up
on his door are completely misunderstood. Have you heard about this
incident?
> and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
> and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
> also, he cannot be my disciple."
have read.
Peter Nyikos
John S. Wilkins
And perhaps the kind of evasions and retrointerpretations you just did
are what we might expect from them?
It's totally amazing how much Christian teachings have been used to
justify invasions, genocide, war, imperial ambitions, racial
discrimination, slavery and yet we hear from Christians of all stripes
how that isn't *true* Christianity. But it is true Islam, right?
Something about motes and beams comes to mind, but that's just because I
studied Christian theology...
Burkhard
tricky. "Miseo" definitely _also_ means hate, so not a question of a
straightforward error in any case. it _can_ be used in the comparative
sense - but then you'd expect the comparator in the text (more than
whom?) So people who argue the mistranslation need to combine it with
a claim of a general tendency at that time for rhetorical
exaggeration of certain emotional terms, and you get passages like
Poimandres as evidence:
"If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to
love yourself.", or 29:30-1 (never mind that this is Hebrew and a
different time
and this way Luke becomes just like the Stoics: "The good is
preferable to every intimate relation."
The two obvious problems are the "costs" that creates. Not only does
the Christian ethics look like a mere plagiarised version of stoicism,
exactly the same argument, with exactly the same textual and
linguistic evidence, can be used for "love". So forget Aquinas,
forget Augustinus, forget pretty much all of Christian theology, it is
all based on a mistranslation, and God is not love, but "like a bit
better".
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 10:28 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
> > > > bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
> > > > "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
> > > > God."
>
> > > And yet, oddly, Jesus also said "I have come not to bring peace, but a
> > > sword."
>
> > Read the sequel, and I believe you will see that he is saying in
> > essence, "My teachings, peaceful though they are, will divide people
> > from each other as surely as a sword does." And that has come to pass
> > countless times, including today.
> > It reminds me of the uproar that is taking place at a University of
> > Wisconsin branch campus, where a professor is even threatened with
> > criminal charges because the words in a provocative poster he put up
> > on his door are completely misunderstood. Have you heard about this
> > incident?
If you read the excellent account in the article below, I think you
will see why I was reminded of this uproar when I read your comment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/university-wisconsin-firefly-_b_985486.html
> > > and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
> > > and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
> > > also, he cannot be my disciple."
>
> > "hate" is a mis-translation from the Greek, according to one article I
> > have read.
>
> Perhaps you are doing to Islamic doctrine what I just did to Christian?
> And perhaps the kind of evasions and retrointerpretations you just did
> are what we might expect from them?
wonder whether you
(1) read the sequel to the quote you gave [did you just grab the quote
out of an atheist rag?]
(2) know what you are talking about.
> It's totally amazing how much Christian teachings have been used to
> justify invasions, genocide, war, imperial ambitions, racial
> discrimination, slavery and yet we hear from Christians of all stripes
> how that isn't *true* Christianity. But it is true Islam, right?
in: the value of the evidence provided in the Gospels and in I
Corinthians 15 for the ressurection of Jesus and hence the existence
of a god. What people calling themselves Christians did or did not do
in subsequent centuries is neither here nor there.
> Something about motes and beams comes to mind, but that's just because I
> studied Christian theology...
think about how relevant it is to the question of what kind of person
he was.
If you stay on your anti-Christian soapbox here, without getting back
to the issue we were discussing, don't expect me to respond to you on
this thread any more.
By the way, how has your job situation evolved? I seem to recall you
were facing a crisis there a while ago.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
to do a more detailed, direct reply to Harshman.
On Sep 30, 4:23 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>> I see very little reason to think Mohammed was a messenger of God.
> >>>> Certainly nothing comparable to what is testified about Jesus.
> >>> I don't see a major difference.
>
> >> To what does this refer? no major difference between the (allegedly)
> >> eyewitness accounts of Jesus's various miracles like the raising of
> >> Lazarus on the one hand and totally unspecified events in the Islamic
> >> literature?
>
> > No.
"major difference" has a highly specialized meaning in his eyes:
> >> If you can name any of the events to which you allude,
> >> please do so.
>
> > I'm alluding to reasons to think Mohammed was a messenger of God
> > compared to reasons to think Jesus was the son of God.
>
> >> Another bit of food for thought: Mohammed was a warmonger, whose
> >> bloodthirsty deeds are not denied by Muslims, while Jesus even said,
> >> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of
> >> God."
>
> > So? In order to draw any conclusions from that, you have to know what
> > God likes. How do you know what God likes?
[lots of back-and-forth, including some more deck-stacking by
Harshman, deleted here]
> >> But more to the point: as should be clear from my last reply to Rolf,
> >> there IS evidence, and AFAIK there is a deafening silence from the
> >> skeptics of the modern-day miracles attributed by the Vatican to
> >> Edith Stein, Mother Teresa, and John Paul II.
>
> > Are you indeed claiming that there are such miracles? What kind of
> > agnostic are you, exactly?
side. Until that deafening silence ends, or until I witness such a
miracle myself, I have to remain in a state of suspended judgment on
this one.
Harshman, on the other hand, is behaving like a typical "atheism of
the gaps" devotee: as long as his nose isn't rubbed into an actual
miracle, he refuses to seriously entertain the possibilty that they
may occur.
> >> For that matter, have you ever read any account debunking the
> >> "miracle of Fatima"? I have never seen even an attempt at
> >> explaining it the way I did. [Most of my explanation is missing
> >> above; the post where I made it has several specific details].
>
> > Even if we are unable to explain accounts of (alleged) odd events, how
> > is that evidence for the existence of the Christian god? What in his
> > supposed nature leads you to believe he would reveal himself through
> > rare, cheap tricks rather than through more general effects?
> Right. People of faith create their God in their own image, equipping him
> with attributes, features and irrational behaviour to match.
Greek gods, which WAS valid. Its validity wrt the Judeo-Christian-
Islamic tradition is debatable.
I asked you whether you had read Mircea Eliade's book about the myth
of eternal return. It's title is _Cosmos and History_.
You left that question in your reply, unaddressed, so now let me ask
you: have you ever even HEARD of Mircea Eliade?
If you haven't, your exposure to sophisticated philosophy and
psychology of religion is sadly deficient.
> Faith is
> sustained and reinforced by a positive feedback loop. It hardens like a
> sediment.
mail. :-)
> I suppose not all 'miraculous' events may have a rational explanation but
> even so, that doesn't mean there is a benevolent deity out there somewhere
> doing it. Strange things seem to happen at times, I can only shrug and say
> so what?
would NOT shrug his shoulders and say "so what?" He would try to
assess the evidence in the light of everything he knows.
> A few people thanking God for being saved from this or that accident - but
> what about the vast number of people not being saved?
that seem to contradict what we seem to know about science and
medicine.
You may have been exposed to priests or ministers who were closet
atheists and who claimed e.g. that in the "miracle of the loaves and
fishes" it was an actual "miracle" for Jesus to get the people to
share their food (mostly loaves and fishes) with those who had none.
That's a typical redefining of "miracle" by people who are firmly in
the Humean camp as to whether miracles of the sort that I mean ever
happened.
>Seems to me the hand
> of God in human affairs is as random as mutations. Isn't that just what it
> is: natural events with no particular 'cause'?
you may be seriously undemining science.
Peter Nyikos
Robert Camp
> Short on time, I do a "twofer", hoping to have enough time this week
> to do a more detailed, direct reply to Harshman.
>
> On Sep 30, 4:23 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > John Harshman wrote:
> > > pnyikos wrote:
> > >> On Sep 22, 12:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>> pnyikos wrote:
> > >> But more to the point: as should be clear from my last reply to Rolf,
> > >> there IS evidence, and AFAIK there is a deafening silence from the
> > >> skeptics of the modern-day miracles attributed by the Vatican to
> > >> Edith Stein, Mother Teresa, and John Paul II.
>
> > > Are you indeed claiming that there are such miracles? What kind of
> > > agnostic are you, exactly?
>
> One who does not dismiss evidence without hearing from the other
> side. Until that deafening silence ends, or until I witness such a
> miracle myself, I have to remain in a state of suspended judgment on
> this one.
>
> Harshman, on the other hand, is behaving like a typical "atheism of
> the gaps" devotee: as long as his nose isn't rubbed into an actual
> miracle, he refuses to seriously entertain the possibilty that they
> may occur.
I've run into this "atheist of the gaps" business a few times recently
and I'm keen to know if it has any meaning beyond a silly reflexive
riposte.
Can you explain what it means to you and how you use it? My initial
impression is that it's like saying, "Oh yeah, well every time you see
no evidence for (X) you conclude that it's unreasonable to infer (X)!"
I could certainly be missing something, but I have difficulty
perceiving the above as a particularly stinging rebuke.
<snip>
> > I suppose not all 'miraculous' events may have a rational explanation but
> > even so, that doesn't mean there is a benevolent deity out there somewhere
> > doing it. Strange things seem to happen at times, I can only shrug and say
> > so what?
>
> That's a typical "atheism of the gaps" response. A true agnostic
> would NOT shrug his shoulders and say "so what?" He would try to
> assess the evidence in the light of everything he knows.
An assessment of evidence is suggested in the phrase "Strange things
seem to happen at times," the obvious implication of which is that
there will inevitably occur phenomena for which there is no satisfying
naturalistic explanation forthcoming from available evidence. It is at
this point that both atheist and agnostic will be faced with a choice
of filling in the blank with some comforting narrative or accepting
the condition as indeterminate (hence the shrugging).
Neither a true atheist or agnostic looks at an evidential disparity
and infers support for that which is not demonstrably there. To
complain about this approach by calling it "atheism of the gaps" seems
pretty naive to me.
RLC
pnyikos
> On Oct 3, 8:24 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Short on time, I do a "twofer", hoping to have enough time this week
> > to do a more detailed, direct reply to Harshman.
It's a conviction that all unexplained phenomena can simply be
dismissed as something for which we just haven't found a natural cause
yet. Compare the following two statements:
"The Resurrection obviously didn't happen, because it contradicts
science."
"If the Resurrection happened, we will find a purely naturalistic
explanation for it."
The first is a typical "village atheist" remark. The second would be
expressive of an "atheism of the gaps" attitude.
Harshman's statements aren't quite so clear cut as the second, but
they seem to betoken the same attitude, typified by his aggressive
reaction to my comment about the miraculous cures attributed to the
intercession of the people named.
> My initial
> impression is that it's like saying, "Oh yeah, well every time you see
> no evidence for (X) you conclude that it's unreasonable to infer (X)!"
>
> I could certainly be missing something, but I have difficulty
> perceiving the above as a particularly stinging rebuke.
your 'initial impression'.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I suppose not all 'miraculous' events may have a rational explanation but
> > > even so, that doesn't mean there is a benevolent deity out there somewhere
> > > doing it. Strange things seem to happen at times, I can only shrug and say
> > > so what?
>
> > That's a typical "atheism of the gaps" response. A true agnostic
> > would NOT shrug his shoulders and say "so what?" He would try to
> > assess the evidence in the light of everything he knows.
>
> Again with that phrase. I don't see how it pertains.
reminded him of the way I [AND also the Vatican office responsible for
the canonization of Stein and the beatification of the other two] use
the word "miracle."
You deleted that part. I recommend that you read it again.
Peter Nyikos
Rolf
What evidence? There are so many words in print and so many of them just
that, words without substance. I like words have backing in verifiable facts
or at least be reasonable. People rising from the dead after two nights in
the grave don't meet any of my criteria.
Robert Camp
I'm not confused about how you, or others, apply it. I'm trying to
determine if it has any meaning beyond the pejorative.
The problem, as I see it, is that this is not a bit of logic that
works both ways. The phrase "god of the gaps" refers to an error of
reason. It's about a tendency to interpret a lack of observations or
data as evidence in favor of the proposition that god exists. This is,
for obvious reasons, a mistaken assumption. "That god exists" is a
positive statement which requires positive evidence, not a lack of
evidence (unless justification can be provided for why a paucity of
data should be a prediction which follows from the statement).
Atheism, on the other hand, is a reaction to that proposition ("god
exists"). And an atheist's observation that some particular hole in
our knowledge is *not* evidence for the supernatural is a reaction to
the error of reason presented by a "god of the gaps" argument. As a
result, finding a lack of support for some particular proposition (god
exists) in a dearth of data is an expression of reason, not error.
Thus my confusion that "atheism of the gaps" should be presented as
some sort of reproach. If anything, it's a clear correction of muddled
rhetoric.
Now, if you contend that "atheism of the gaps" is an active, not just
reactive, bit of argumentation then I invite you to cast about for
instances where atheists pick examples of incomplete knowledge out of
thin air and declare, "Aha, this previously-unmentioned-by-any-theist
gap proves there is no god!" I suppose you might find one or two, but
I sincerely doubt you'll discover a ubiquity deserving of the name
"atheism of the gaps."
> Harshman's �statements aren't quite so clear cut as the second, but
> they seem to betoken the same attitude, typified by his aggressive
> reaction to my comment about the miraculous cures attributed to the
> intercession of the people named.
I'm not really concerned with what Harshman was saying. But it seems
to me his question about what you were *claiming* regarding miracles
was the part that required your attention. If you weren't claiming
anything, just refusing to repudiate something for which the evidence
was inconclusive, then you could have just said so. But you went ahead
with the silliness about "atheism of the gaps" and nose-rubbing (which
was more illogic of a similar sort).
> > My initial
> > impression is that it's like saying, "Oh yeah, well every time you see
> > no evidence for (X) you conclude that it's unreasonable to infer (X)!"
>
> > I could certainly be missing something, but I have difficulty
> > perceiving the above as a particularly stinging rebuke.
>
> That's because you spin-doctored Harshman's aggressive attitude with
> your 'initial impression'.
Like I said, I'm not talking about anything Harshman wrote. I simply
want to understand your use of the phrase in question. I think it is a
silly junior-high level "Oh, yeah, well so are you!" kind of comment
masquerading as wit. Since you are one of the few here who would both
use that phrase and be able to put together coherent sentences I'm
asking you to explain it.
> > > > I suppose not all 'miraculous' events may have a rational explanation but
> > > > even so, that doesn't mean there is a benevolent deity out there somewhere
> > > > doing it. Strange things seem to happen at times, I can only shrug and say
> > > > so what?
>
> > > That's a typical "atheism of the gaps" response. A true agnostic
> > > would NOT shrug his shoulders and say "so what?" He would try to
> > > assess the evidence in the light of everything he knows.
>
> > Again with that phrase. I don't see how it pertains.
>
> See above. �Rolf was doing some spin-doctoring of his own, and I
> reminded him of the way I [AND also the Vatican office responsible for
> the canonization of Stein and the beatification of the other two] use
> the word "miracle."
>
> You deleted that part. �I recommend that you read it again.
Why? I wasn't concerned with any of that. I deleted it because it was
immaterial.
What is this mania that suggests to you that everyone is, or should
be, interested in everything you write?
RLC