Disorder can't create order?

[Rolf]

The creative process is not a question about creative power as a property of
objects like atoms and molecules, not to mention rubble in a junk yard. Even
there an energy source is required, but is in the nature of junkyard rubble
that there isn't much a tornado can do with it except make it move around
until eventually it is ground to powder blowing away.

The creative proces is a matter of expenditure of energy.In this world of
ours, energy is the mover of everything.

If anything happens at all - in the macroscopic as well as the microscopic
or nanoscopic world, it is due to the use of energy. That is the whole idea
of entropy: There ain't no free lunch.

The precence of free energy is what makes things happen, not some ad hoc
concepts like "chaos can't create order". chaos by itself can't do anything,
it is the energy available in the chaos that does the work, makes things
happen with the inevitable byproduct of sending energy down the path to
stasis; i.e. entropy. We are all contibutors to that process. I can't type a
character on my keyboard without increasing entropy in the universe - but I
sill have created an order that wasn't.there before I pushed the buttons on
the keyboard.

Ray has not demonstrated any understanding of the world and he doesn't want
to know. He was born 200 years too late and is in love with William Paley
and Queen Victoria.

The normal state of matters in the universe is order, not chaos. It takes
just a casual look at the world around us and we find all sorts of order.
This planet of ourse is as good example as any.

It is not a piece of chaos and randomness. I see a world where order reigns,
quite naturally because that's the way the world works.

He has never identified even a single person in this world that share his
version of theologcal creationism.

Rolf

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 13:58:49 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@mail.com>
wrote:

This is the point where I like to mention Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize
(1977) for, among other things related to thermodynamics, showing how
order can arise from disorder consistent with all the laws of physics.

There is such a massive flow of energy in the universe that diverting
just a tiny fraction is sufficient to explain all the "order" that we
have.

[Bill]

The explanation may exist but is it correct? There is energy
and there is order but what connects them? What is the
causal link? As it turns out, what connects them is the
explanation itself.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

How an you possibly ask whether the explanation is correct? According to you all evidence is viewed by whoever sees it simply as confirmation of what they want to believe anyway. Under the model of epistemology you have advanced in your posts, it means nothing for anyone to say that an explanation is correct, or that it is incorrect.

[Bill]

I'm not that bad. I believe that any explanation about
anything is necessarily provisional simply because an
explanation is not the thing being explained. Explanations
are intellectual artifacts and that must mean there is an
inescapable element of abstraction.

What I see is that explanations tend to accrue into unwieldy
conceptual constructions that acquire more legitimacy than
the data they're allegedly based on. Finding flaws in an
explanation doesn't mean the data is flawed but that seems
to be the way my posts are understood.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Well, I just took you at your word. But if you have a specific, detailed example of what you mean (something more detailed than "consider cosmology") then perhaps I or someone else can figure out what you mean when you claim that "conceptual constructions acquire more legitimacy than the data they are allegedly based on." At other times you've been pretty explicit that people will simply interpret data to fit the beliefs they want to hold anyway, but if you're making a more nuanced point, a detailed example would help.

Or we could be back to the bit where you say:

"I never claimed there was no life anywhere other than earth; everybody misunderstands me. What I'm saying is X." Where X turns out to be some complicated phraseology about uniqueness that everybody but you understands to mean that there's no life anywhere but earth.

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kr24lat9rv4a70kif...@4ax.com...

Only if "order" is taken to mean trivial repeated patterns with noise
components increasing over time.

> There is such a massive flow of energy in the universe that diverting
> just a tiny fraction is sufficient to explain all the "order" that we
> have.

"Diverting" is a term loaded to the gills. Diverted by what or whom?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by broger...@gmail.com:

>How an you possibly ask whether the explanation is correct? According to you all evidence is viewed by whoever sees it simply as confirmation of what they want to believe anyway. Under the model of epistemology you have advanced in your posts, it means nothing for anyone to say that an explanation is correct, or that it is incorrect.

He also seems to have a continuing problem regarding
"shows", and thinks it invariably means "explains without
evidence".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RSNorman]

'Order' means the features we see in the universe: galaxies and stars
and solar systems and planets that have substructures like core,
mantle, and crust with oceans and continents and lakes and rivers and
climate and complex chemistry. Oh, yes. It also includes the living
organisms including humans.

The flow of energy is diverted by the laws of physics which, at the
risk of sounding too jonathanly, do have the abiity to produce
structures which self-organize. Gravity causes diffuse regions of gas
to condense into galaxies and stars and planets. The "standard model"
of physics causes particles to organize into nucleons and atoms and
molecules which exhibit chemical reactions.

[Bill]

I was very clear that I have not said nor do I believe that
there is no life elsewhere in the universe. What I have said
is there is no evidence for it.

It's really the same as saying that, because there is no
evidence for the existence of unicorns, unicorns don't
exist. You (and others) take that to mean that, since there
are no unicorns on Earth, they must exist elsewhere.

You play with the concept of evidence and confuse yourselves
most horribly. Worse still, you blame me for your confusion.

Bill

[Greg Guarino]

You've gone well past that:

"All the positive, verifiable and testable scientific evidence is that
life and intelligent observers only exist on Earth. This makes Earth
special and our existence as intelligent observers exceptional. This is
the scientific conclusion."

[broger...@gmail.com]

That's fine. You have often seemed to be saying that "since there is no evidence the scientific conclusion is that Earth is unique." Which is saying that the correct conclusion is that there is no life elsewhere. Except that the reason we have no evidence for life elsewhere is that we have not looked for it with methods that could be expected to find it (as has been explained to you many times). So the correct conclusion is that we don't know. If you'd stick to that, there'd be no argument.

>
> It's really the same as saying that, because there is no
> evidence for the existence of unicorns, unicorns don't
> exist. You (and others) take that to mean that, since there
> are no unicorns on Earth, they must exist elsewhere.

No, what we say, over and over again, is that we have no evidence on which to base a conclusion one way or the other. We have no evidence that life is present elsewhere; we have no evidence that life is absent elsewhere (except for very ambiguous evidence for Mars). What we keep saying is that the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion one way or the other. You seem to wish that we were concluding that there was definitely life elsewhere. But we are not saying that.

>
> You play with the concept of evidence and confuse yourselves
> most horribly. Worse still, you blame me for your confusion.

I'm not confused in the least.
>
> Bill

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:k1g4lalf1qafjknt2...@4ax.com...

To extrapolate from the trivial repeated patterns actually examined by
Prigogine in his scientific papers to the things which may be speculated
about in his popular books is rather presumptuous, to say the least.

> The flow of energy is diverted by the laws of physics which, at the
> risk of sounding too jonathanly, do have the abiity to produce
> structures which self-organize. Gravity causes diffuse regions of gas
> to condense into galaxies and stars and planets.

That is mere speculation. Nobody knows how stars, galaxies, or planets
really form.

> The "standard model"
> of physics causes particles to organize into nucleons and atoms and
> molecules which exhibit chemical reactions.

That much may be correct, because we can observe these small-scale,
short-time events in laboratories. But to extrapolate from this to
Stars, galaxies and planets, or even to biological organisms is, again,
presumptuous.

[Bill]

My remarks are based entirely on the available - physical -
evidence.

Bill

[Bill]

When I suggested that the existence of intelligent observers
implies intent in the universe, most posters here argued
that there was no such implication. When I argued that the
conditions necessary for intelligent observers on Earth were
special and probably singular, it was dismissed due to the
possibility that these conditions may exist elsewhere.

Now an implication is something that can only exist in the
mind of an intelligent observer; it's a concept. Notice also
that extrapolating from what is observed to what may
potentially be observed, is likewise a concept. Implications
and extrapolations and inferences are not, in themselves,
physical, empirical fact, they are intellectual constructs
about fact.

If you can infer the existence of life elsewhere based
solely on the single instance of life on Earth (which has
been done here), then other inferences (intent in the
universe) are just as valid. The actual facts in either case
do not exist. Which inference one finds persuasive will
depend on what one already believes; everything is just
confirmation bias.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Yup. you singularly failed to explain why this would follow and why
other properties like "having 2 arms" or "having an acute sense of
smell" or "having a methane atmosphere" do not warrant the same implication

When I argued that the
> conditions necessary for intelligent observers on Earth were
> special and probably singular, it was dismissed due to the
> possibility that these conditions may exist elsewhere.

Yup. You failed to give any evidence that it is Probably singular

>
> Now an implication is something that can only exist in the
> mind of an intelligent observer; it's a concept. Notice also
> that extrapolating from what is observed to what may
> potentially be observed, is likewise a concept. Implications
> and extrapolations and inferences are not, in themselves,
> physical, empirical fact, they are intellectual constructs
> about fact.
>
> If you can infer the existence of life elsewhere based
> solely on the single instance of life on Earth (which has
> been done here),

No, not by a single person

then other inferences (intent in the
> universe) are just as valid.

Nope. To be valid, there needs to be a connection between the premise
and the conclusion, which you failed to provide

[Greg Guarino]

Of which we have none.

[RSNorman]

Presumptuous though it may be, it is solid science. Stars, galaxies
and planets all form through known mechanisms and we can see evidence
of this happening. OK, not galaxies, but there is really good
evidence for the formation and progression of stars through their life
cycles as well as for planets. The origin of biological organisms
through abiogenesis is a science still in its infancy I admit. Still
it is even more presumptuous to conclude that science cannot explain
the universe simply because there are things in the universe that
science has not yet explained.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:18:58 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>
>"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>news:v2q4lap9e2oibsodq...@4ax.com...

>I don't use "there are things in the universe that science has not yet
>explained" as a reason why science can't explain the universe. I use the
>fact that the methodology of science is inherently opposed to
>acknowledging the existence of metaphysical entities, such as the
>energetic will of an irreducible conscious living being.
>
>Metaphysically entities really exist, and they are part of the universe.
>But science cannot possibly account for them. Therefore science cannot
>explain the universe. This is a defect in the very foundation of modern
>science.
>

I admit to being a mechanistic reductionist. Once I have been shown
serious evidence for metaphisical entities that lie outside the domain
of science then I may well convert. Until then, the universe I
inhabit and can observe and in which the laws of science apply is
sufficient for me.

[Kalkidas]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ioednY7Pvub47c_I...@giganews.com...

> Are you sure? Maybe billions of examples isn't enough data. Maybe we
> should wait for next week when we can have analyzed a few thousand
> more. That might change everything.

LOL! So you have seen a star form? I mean, not an imaginary star in your
imagination, but a real star, in real time, really out there in space?

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 3:34:03 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

>
> When I suggested that the existence of intelligent observers
> implies intent in the universe, most posters here argued
> that there was no such implication.

Yes, I argued that the existence of intelligent observers does not imply that there was an intent to produce them.

>When I argued that the
> conditions necessary for intelligent observers on Earth were
> special and probably singular, it was dismissed due to the
> possibility that these conditions may exist elsewhere.

Your argument was dismissed because you provided no rationale for the conclusion that the conditions were as narrowly restricted as you claim, except by citing a Wikipedia article. But, as you say, people who rely on others' words to make their point, usually don't have much to say.

>
> Now an implication is something that can only exist in the
> mind of an intelligent observer; it's a concept. Notice also
> that extrapolating from what is observed to what may
> potentially be observed, is likewise a concept. Implications
> and extrapolations and inferences are not, in themselves,
> physical, empirical fact, they are intellectual constructs
> about fact.

Sure.

>
> If you can infer the existence of life elsewhere based
> solely on the single instance of life on Earth (which has
> been done here), then other inferences (intent in the
> universe) are just as valid.

No and no. In the first place, we have not inferred the existence of life elsewhere. We have claimed that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion either way. In the second place, the fact that one inference is valid does not mean that all inferences are valid.

>The actual facts in either case
> do not exist. Which inference one finds persuasive will
> depend on what one already believes; everything is just
> confirmation bias.

The actual facts certainly do exist in both cases. We just don't know what those facts are. I, and most posters, and content to say that we don't know. You want to draw positive inferences about the uniqueness of life on earth and the intent of someone to produce intelligent observers, in the absence of evidence.

>
> Bill

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:v2q4lap9e2oibsodq...@4ax.com...

[Ray Martinez]

Then, based on the fact of said result or effect, sound logic requires that we describe the cause as designed.

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/12/15 3:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 7:29:04 AM UTC-7, RSNorman wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 13:58:49 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@mail.com>

snip

>>>
>>
>> This is the point where I like to mention Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize
>> (1977) for, among other things related to thermodynamics, showing how
>> order can arise from disorder consistent with all the laws of physics.
>>
>> There is such a massive flow of energy in the universe that diverting
>> just a tiny fraction is sufficient to explain all the "order" that we
>> have.
>
> Then, based on the fact of said result or effect, sound logic requires that we describe the cause as designed.

Ray, you make reference to what you imagine is "sound logic", usually
when you are saying something completely illogical, and irrational. You
accuse others of not being able to think logically, when your own claims
have no connection with actual logic, and in many cases violate all
known logical rules. You also employ all manner of logical fallacies in
your arguments.

That leads to the question: Where exactly did you get your education
about logic? Were you self taught, or did you get these ideas from
someone else?

Have you ever talked to anyone familiar with logic? Have you ever run
your idea of "logic" past anyone who has actually studied logic?



DJT

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:8is4lad7kvq14ra4e...@4ax.com...

But you already do acknowledge metaphysical entities. No one can live
without acknowledging them. For instance, justice, freedom, civil
rights, tomorrow, yesterday, etc. There is no materialistic evidence for
them, but there is evidence.

[Roger Shrubber]

Let's revamp this. Tell me where I get it wrong.
P1 Science is methodologically self-restricted to objective validation.
P2 Objective validation is restricted to reproducible causation.
P3 Causation outside of reproducible objectively measurable phenomena,
exist AND operate in reality, to specifically control objective phenomena.

Therefore, science is incapable of elucidating reality.

Now there are some simple problems with the above syllogism that can be
repaired with slightly more sophisticated notions of reproducible
causation. I offer the phrase "in principle reconcilable" in that
direction while avoiding the nitty-gritty of the full reconciliation.

I object to assertion P3 above as unestablished beyond assertion.
But I await your repair of my syllogism to something that does not
require a dogmatic assertion like P3.

[Bill]

How is your, entirely philosophical mechanistic
reductionism, superior to any metaphysical interpretation of
reality? Other than preference, how is your philosophical
preference preferable? In another thread people have told me
that no one here has replaced religion with science yet
that's what you recommend here.

Bill

[Jimbo]

Many higher caste Indians, at least until recent decades, thought the
caste system was justified, along with practices such as sati and live
burial of widows. Those conceptions of justice were not 'metaphysical
entities.' They were barbaric customs based on superstitions people
believed were reality.

It's true that everyone forms values-based atittutudes and that one's
personal experiences contribute to their formation, but it's an error
to claim they are equivalent to concepts such as 'tommorow' and
'yesterday,' which are concepts based on observable evidence that
everyone agrees on.

In the thread 'Re: Bladderwhackery,' you said you knew a way to
objectively differentiate between true and false religious claims.
This 'objective' test turned out to be nothing more than a claim that
your religion's creation stories are true while those of other faiths
are false, and that since your own stories are true, you have an
objective means of testing your claims. You ran away when I asked you
why those stories should be given any more credence than Genesis or
any other creation stories.

You refuse to support those beliefs with objective evidence or support
them with logical argument, but you claim that science is
fundamentally flawed because it takes no account of 'metaphysical
entities' that amount to nothing more than your own confused
identification of those beliefs with objective reality. Bad Kalkidas!
Bad!

[Bill]

The absence of evidence is only significant when it is and
the rest of the time it isn't. Same for the existence of
evidence. I infer, from directly and verifiable observation,
that life requires a very specific suite of very specific
conditions.

From this I can reasonably infer that intelligent observers
are rare in the universe and maybe exclusive to Earth. The
complete absence of any contrary evidence whatsoever,
supports this inference.

It's only inference and not an assertion so it can't be
objectively verified with current data. By the same logic,
neither can it be refuted. While it's claimed that our
ignorance prohibits any conclusions, the fact is that people
use this ignorance to argue against logically valid
inference. Like evidence, ignorance matters when it does and
not when it doesn't.

Bill

[Roger Shrubber]

No. I have not observed any process that requires millions of years.
However, given billions of observations, we have statistical sampling
of processes sufficient to extrapolate. I've not actually observed
many people from birth through death either. Nevertheless, I've
witness the various stages along the way with myriad exemplars that
suggest a continuum. That continuum is born out by the recorded
observations of others. Do you request a special exception to the
practice of extrapolation from myriad examples? You probably do.

[Inez]

True. More specifically, the absence of evidence is more significant the more and the better you've looked for it, and less significant the less you've looked.

> Same for the existence of
> evidence. I infer, from directly and verifiable observation,
> that life requires a very specific suite of very specific
> conditions.

Yes, you infer from insufficient data. GIGO.

[Bill]

Well now there's a conundrum: to know the data is
insufficient we first have to know what constitutes
sufficient data. So, how can you know the data from which I
derive my inferences, is insufficient?

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:59:03 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

>
> The absence of evidence is only significant when it is and
> the rest of the time it isn't.

Do you really not understand this? Really? The absence of evidence is important when it has been searched for with methods which could be expected to find it if it were present. When evidence has not been properly searched for, its absence is not significant. It's hard to believe that you do not understand that, but perhaps you don't.

>Same for the existence of
> evidence. I infer, from directly and verifiable observation,
> that life requires a very specific suite of very specific
> conditions.

How can you possibly infer that from only a single example of a life-bearing planet?

>
> From this I can reasonably infer that intelligent observers
> are rare in the universe and maybe exclusive to Earth. The
> complete absence of any contrary evidence whatsoever,
> supports this inference.

The absence of evidence in this case is not significant because, as explained above, we have not looked for the evidence using methods which could be expected to find it if it were present. It's hard to believe that you do not understand this simple idea, but maybe you really don't.

>
> It's only inference and not an assertion so it can't be
> objectively verified with current data. By the same logic,
> neither can it be refuted.

Indeed, it can neither be confirmed nor refuted. As we all keep saying, we do not have enough evidence to conclude either that life exists elsewhere, or that it doesn't.

>While it's claimed that our
> ignorance prohibits any conclusions, the fact is that people
> use this ignorance to argue against logically valid
> inference. Like evidence, ignorance matters when it does and
> not when it doesn't.

Do you think that it is appropriate to draw conclusions in the absence of evidence? What is the difference, in your mind, between an inference, a conclusion, and a speculation? It's fine to speculate in the absence of evidence; if, for you, an inference is a sort of speculation, then fine, you can infer, too. But for most of us, drawing an inference and forming a conclusion are more or less equivalent, and nether should be done in the absence of evidence one way or the other.

>
> Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

The data from which you draw your inference is insufficient because it is not derived using methods which would have found life if it in fact existed away from earth. How hard is that to grasp? The only other planet for which we have any evidence at all is Mars, and the evidence against life on Mars is ambiguous (look up Viking Lander and perchlorate). We have no evidence about life on any other planet in the solar system, and certainly none about other planets in the rest of this galaxy or in other galaxies. I and others have made this point to you repeatedly and you simply ignore it.

>
> Bill

[RSNorman]

I do not at all claim to that science supplants or replaces religion.
I only say that I have no need for religion. If you choose a
different route, then I have no complaint or objection. (Yes, I
understand that there are militant atheists who do complain and
object. But not I.) And I ask that you not complain or object to my
relationship with the universe.

Most important, when science is taught in schools, I insist that it be
actual science. If you want religion to be taught in school then, in
the United States at least, please restrict it to schools that do not
receive any form of public or governmental support or assistance. I
have absolutely no objection to your teaching religion in religious
institutions and churches and in private family settings. Oh, yes.
Keep it out of the public marketplace.

I do not at all claim either that my philosophy is superior. Only
that it is demonstrably extremely accurate in describing events that
occur within the physical universe that we all inhabit and that no
other philosophical system has anywhere near the same degree of
success and accuracy in doing so.

[RSNorman]

I agree that humans create abstract ideas like freedom and justice and
love as tools to help us deal with each other as individuals and so
live (or at least attempt to live) in harmony and respect to our
mutual benefit. We also create abstract ideas like those of
mathematics. None of these things has material existence. All of
these things I can see as having human cultural origin and can trace
their history and development.

So what I should have said is that I lack serious evidence for
metaphysical entities outside the domain of science that have material
existence or produce changes to the activity of material objects in
the universe I inhabit. Of course those cultural artifacts you
mentioned as being metaphysical have impact on our world and our lives
but that is only because they have impact on human behavior which then
exerts its influence through materialistic forces.

My understanding of what most people call "god" or "sacred" is exactly
such human culturally produced notions that can be traced through
their history and development.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 13:22:38 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>I was very clear that I have not said nor do I believe that
>there is no life elsewhere in the universe. What I have said
>is there is no evidence for it.

You have said much more than that.

>It's really the same as saying that, because there is no
>evidence for the existence of unicorns, unicorns don't
>exist.

Wrong. As has been pointed out to you many times, there is no
evidence for the existence of unicorns, while there is evidence for
the existence of life in the Universe. Why do you doubt the veracity
of the evidence?

>You (and others) take that to mean that, since there
>are no unicorns on Earth, they must exist elsewhere.

And wrong again. Why do you insist on conflating reasonable inference
with certainty?

>You play with the concept of evidence and confuse yourselves
>most horribly. Worse still, you blame me for your confusion.

Actually, you continue to prove your own confusion, and you're to
blame for it. If anybody else is confused here, you haven't shown
that to be the case.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:31:19 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>When I suggested that the existence of intelligent observers
>implies intent in the universe, most posters here argued
>that there was no such implication. When I argued that the
>conditions necessary for intelligent observers on Earth were
>special and probably singular, it was dismissed due to the
>possibility that these conditions may exist elsewhere.
>
>Now an implication is something that can only exist in the
>mind of an intelligent observer; it's a concept. Notice also
>that extrapolating from what is observed to what may
>potentially be observed, is likewise a concept. Implications
>and extrapolations and inferences are not, in themselves,
>physical, empirical fact, they are intellectual constructs
>about fact.
>
>If you can infer the existence of life elsewhere based
>solely on the single instance of life on Earth (which has
>been done here), then other inferences (intent in the
>universe) are just as valid.

Not if those other inferences have zero evidence supporting them.

>The actual facts in either case
>do not exist.

Do you really think there's no life on Earth?

>Which inference one finds persuasive will
>depend on what one already believes; everything is just
>confirmation bias.

<PING> Dang it!

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:32:26 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Guarino wrote:
>

>> On 5/12/2015 1:22 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 1:14:03 PM UTC-4, Bill

>>>> wrote:
>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Or we could be back to the bit where you say:
>>>>
>>>> "I never claimed there was no life anywhere other than
>>>> earth; everybody misunderstands me. What I'm saying is
>>>> X." Where X turns out to be some complicated phraseology
>>>> about uniqueness that
>>>> everybody but you understands to mean
>>> that
>>>> there's no life anywhere but earth.
>>>

>>> I was very clear that I have not said nor do I believe
>>> that there is no life elsewhere in the universe. What I
>>> have said is there is no evidence for it.
>>

>> You've gone well past that:
>>
>> "All the positive, verifiable and testable scientific
>> evidence is that life and intelligent observers only exist
>> on Earth. This makes Earth special and our existence as
>> intelligent observers exceptional. This is the scientific
>> conclusion."
>
>My remarks are based entirely on the available - physical -
>evidence.

Wrong. Your remarks reflect your confirmation bias.

[jillery]

Nobody knows how people really form, but most of us have some pretty
good ideas. Of course, you might think you were found in a cabbage
patch.

>> The "standard model"
>> of physics causes particles to organize into nucleons and atoms and
>> molecules which exhibit chemical reactions.
>
>That much may be correct, because we can observe these small-scale,
>short-time events in laboratories. But to extrapolate from this to
>Stars, galaxies and planets, or even to biological organisms is, again,
>presumptuous.

No extrapolation necessary. Stars, galaxies, planets, and biological
organisms have their own evidence.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 12:10:42 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

>>> > There is such a massive flow of energy in the universe
>>> > that diverting just a tiny fraction is sufficient to
>>> > explain all the "order" that we have.
>>>

>>> The explanation may exist but is it correct? There is
>>> energy and there is order but what connects them? What is
>>> the causal link? As it turns out, what connects them is
>>> the explanation itself.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> How an you possibly ask whether the explanation is
>> correct? According to you all evidence is viewed by
>> whoever sees it simply as confirmation of what they want
>> to believe anyway. Under the model of epistemology you
>> have advanced in your posts, it means nothing for anyone
>> to say that an explanation is correct, or that it is
>> incorrect.
>
>I'm not that bad.


Actually, you're even worse.


>I believe that any explanation about
>anything is necessarily provisional simply because an
>explanation is not the thing being explained. Explanations
>are intellectual artifacts and that must mean there is an
>inescapable element of abstraction.
>
>What I see is that explanations tend to accrue into unwieldy
>conceptual constructions that acquire more legitimacy than
>the data they're allegedly based on. Finding flaws in an
>explanation doesn't mean the data is flawed but that seems
>to be the way my posts are understood.


At last you admit that your problem is with your perception of
reality, not reality itself.

[jillery]

So you have seen atoms? You raise your philosophy to scorn and
derision.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:48:21 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

[...]

>But you already do acknowledge metaphysical entities. No one can live
>without acknowledging them. For instance, justice, freedom, civil
>rights, tomorrow, yesterday, etc. There is no materialistic evidence for
>them, but there is evidence.

You identified abstract concepts, not entities.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 17:37:38 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>How is your, entirely philosophical mechanistic
>reductionism, superior to any metaphysical interpretation of
>reality? Other than preference, how is your philosophical
>preference preferable? In another thread people have told me
>that no one here has replaced religion with science yet
>that's what you recommend here.

What metaphysical interpretations of reality helped to create the
devices you use to post to Usenet?

[jillery]

Metaphysical entities might actually exist, but then so might the
Flying Spaghetti Monster. Until you can show how your metaphysical
entities interact with the Universe, they existence remains mere
speculation.

[Mr. B1ack]

Disorder CAN create order. Indeed it pretty much guarentees it.
A chaotic system can and will manage to produce - at least
briefly - every possible state of that system.

Think of the ocean ... a slightly choppy day ... when suddenly
a 50-foot wave appears and smashes your boat to splinters.
A 50-foot wave is a real *something* isn't it ? There's a lot of
order to it. So where did it come from ?

Well, it came from the random interactions of all the little
waves. Every so often, they'll cross and merge "just so"
to produce that big blob of order known as a "rogue wave".

[Inez]

It seems like a head scratcher as long as you don't, you know, actually look at the specifics of what you're saying.

We looked for life on earth, and found some. We looked for life on the moon and didn't find any. Not really a shocker, there isn't any atmosphere or water there. We looked at Mars and...maybe found evidence of past life? We're not sure, it's very far away and we haven't been able to put any rocks in a lab with humans, but there are some promising signs.

From this you draw conclusions about the scarcity of life in the universe. We've examined essentially 0% of the universe, and yet you think you have enough data.

[Kalkidas]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:_Y6dnbrCONnp48_I...@giganews.com...

Here is my reasoning:

P1 Modern science is methodologically self-restricted to offering
material, mechanistic and impersonal explanations of empirical
phenomena.
P2 However, not all empirical phenomena are explainable by material,
mechanistic and impersonal explanations, because non-material,
non-mechanistic, and personal entities do really exist and their
essential natures are irreducible to matter, mechanism, and
impersonalism.

Therefore, modern science cannot in principle explain all empirical
data.

I take it that you would generally agree with P1, but not with P2. In
that case, I can offer some observations:

Why can't quantum theorists even begin to agree on the notion of what an
"observer" is?
Why is there so much hostility exhibited by those who hold rigidly to P1
whenever it is suggested that causality proceeds, not from the material
to the apparently non-material, but the other way around?
Why do so many hard-core materialists simply deny the existence of
irreducible spirit as a primary component of reality, rather than take
its existence as simply another an hypothesis to be tested?

These are not the actions of open-minded seekers of truth.

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:oe85la9ktu2fh5bh4...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:48:21 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:8is4lad7kvq14ra4e...@4ax.com...

[snip]

>>> I admit to being a mechanistic reductionist. Once I have been shown
>>> serious evidence for metaphisical entities that lie outside the
>>> domain
>>> of science then I may well convert. Until then, the universe I
>>> inhabit and can observe and in which the laws of science apply is
>>> sufficient for me.
>>
>>But you already do acknowledge metaphysical entities. No one can live
>>without acknowledging them. For instance, justice, freedom, civil
>>rights, tomorrow, yesterday, etc. There is no materialistic evidence
>>for
>>them, but there is evidence.
>>
>
> I agree that humans create abstract ideas like freedom and justice and
> love as tools to help us deal with each other as individuals and so
> live (or at least attempt to live) in harmony and respect to our
> mutual benefit. We also create abstract ideas like those of
> mathematics. None of these things has material existence. All of
> these things I can see as having human cultural origin and can trace
> their history and development.

If you are consistent with your claim of being a materialistic
reductionist, you should try to offer materialistic evidence that humans
really "create" those things.

For instance, what is the material evidence that there was a time when
there was no such thing as "justice"? And what is the mechanism by which
"justice" was created by a human being? When, where, and by whom, was it
created? What was the substance from which it was formed? Etc.

For that matter, why are you calling "justice" an "abstract idea" rather
than what I called it: a metaphysical entity that really exists "out
there" (so to speak). What is the material evidence that "justice" only
exists in the human mind and not anywhere else? Why does every single
human mind have this notion of "justice" (they all do have the notion,
even if the particulars differ), if justice was only an arbitrary
creation of someone a long time ago, and could just as well not have
ever been created.

[Bill]

RSNorman wrote:


...

>
> I do not at all claim either that my philosophy is
> superior. Only that it is demonstrably extremely accurate
> in describing events that occur within the physical
> universe that we all inhabit and that no other
> philosophical system has anywhere near the same degree of
> success and accuracy in doing so.

If you limit your investigations of reality to just those
that produce a particular outcome, that will determine how
you see nature. You see nature as a mechanism made of
mechanisms which reduce to still more mechanisms and each
explains the others.

This is not a scientific observation, it is entirely
philosophic, a conceptual framework where the concept is at
least as important as the data.

Your philosophy precedes your observations thereby forming
their content. This will necessarily lead to interpreting
all subsequent observers based on the philosophy making the
philosophy the primary datum in your investigations. You
know what you will find before you even look. A convenient
intellectual shortcut but it's not science.

Bill

[Bill]

Inez wrote:

...

>> >
>> > Yes, you infer from insufficient data. GIGO.
>>
>> Well now there's a conundrum: to know the data is
>> insufficient we first have to know what constitutes
>> sufficient data. So, how can you know the data from which
>> I derive my inferences, is insufficient?
>>
>> Bill
>
> It seems like a head scratcher as long as you don't, you
> know, actually look at the specifics of what you're
> saying.
>
> We looked for life on earth, and found some. We looked
> for life on the moon and didn't find any. Not really a
> shocker, there isn't any atmosphere or water there. We
> looked at Mars and...maybe found evidence of past life?
> We're not sure, it's very far away and we haven't been
> able to put any rocks in a lab with humans, but there are
> some promising signs.
>
> From this you draw conclusions about the scarcity of life
> in the universe. We've examined essentially 0% of the
> universe, and yet you think you have enough data.

Actually I infer the scarcity of life from the conditions
necessary for life, data we actually do have. I'm thinking
here of a Goldilocks Zone, a very special suite of very
special conditions that not only must exist, but must exist
for a minimum length of time.

Going beyond even that are the very special circumstances
that must prevail for life to begin and then, develop. This
data is available just from the condition here on Earth even
before looking elsewhere. I've enumerated all this in other
threads. There is sufficient data.

Bill

[Jimbo]

You could ask these same sorts of questions about language. What is
the evidence there was a time when there was no such thing as
"language," and what is the mechanism by which "language" was created
by a human being? When, where and by whom was it created? What was the

substance from which it was formed? Etc.

The answer would be the same. Language isn't a 'metaphysical entity,'
at least not in the sense that you're trying to apply this phrase. It
evolved over time and its precursors occur in nonhuman animals.
Monkeys have a sense of fairness that can be observed and
experimentally tested.

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=monkeys%20sense%20of%20fairness&gsc.sort=>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#Evolutionary_perspectives

>For that matter, why are you calling "justice" an "abstract idea" rather
>than what I called it: a metaphysical entity that really exists "out
>there" (so to speak). What is the material evidence that "justice" only
>exists in the human mind and not anywhere else? Why does every single
>human mind have this notion of "justice" (they all do have the notion,
>even if the particulars differ), if justice was only an arbitrary
>creation of someone a long time ago, and could just as well not have
>ever been created.

It's incorrect to assume that only humans have a sense of fairness or
'justice.' Other creatures, including dogs, possess such a sense as
well. They don't create abstract ideas about it like people in some
societies do, but humans are unusual in a number of ways.

[Inez]

That's data that we as a species has, but not data that you have. You can't actually provide any sort of calculation from this data, and the people who are experts in the field seem to think it is likely that there is life elsewhere.

[Bill]

Using the conditions we know exist in our neighborhood, we
can infer that among them is some minimum point beyond which
life is not possible. These same criteria suggests some
ideal state, most conducive to life and intelligent
observers.

This data exists and is easily observed so data for
calculations is available. Granted any calculation will be
tenuous at best, but there's enough data to estimate the
limits of habitability elsewhere. There is insufficient
evidence to calculate probabilities of course, but we can
estimate the necessary conditions for life.

Bill

[Roger Shrubber]

P2 requires support, and it's complex. It really should be broken
into manageable bits rather than presented as a tangle of assertions
and attempted conclusions.
Maybe
P2(abc) non-material, non-mechanistic, and personal entities do really exist
P3(abc) their essential natures are irreducible to matter, mechanism,
and impersonalism.
P4 (abc) Therefore not all empirical phenomena are explainable by

material, mechanistic and impersonal explanations

I put in the abc because it's three distinct claims around
(a) non-material, (b) non-mechanistic, and (c) personal, entities

> Why can't quantum theorists even begin to agree on the notion of what an
> "observer" is?

There is a degree of woo around that but it isn't that hard.
The observer does not need to be a conscious entity.
Observing requires that some energetic interaction take place.
Outside of energetic interactions, the full suite of potential
of waveforms is retained. After energetic interactions, certain
former probabilities are negated. I don't think it's much different
than noting that prior to events there's a probability distribution
and after and event the probability collapses to 1 or 0. That's
most of it but it gets played with.

> Why is there so much hostility exhibited by those who hold rigidly to P1
> whenever it is suggested that causality proceeds, not from the material
> to the apparently non-material, but the other way around?

I think you get hostility whenever you assert something that
you can't demonstrate. Especially when you keep asserting it and
stamping your foot and claiming that it is obvious.

> Why do so many hard-core materialists simply deny the existence of
> irreducible spirit as a primary component of reality, rather than take
> its existence as simply another an hypothesis to be tested?

Two good reasons, maybe others not so good.
The direct testing seems to be impossible. And regards an indirect
testing which involves asking "do we need something more", the answer
keeps coming up "no".

> These are not the actions of open-minded seekers of truth.

That's based on plenty of projected misunderstandings.

Back to your "logic". I might grant "personal" entities if I
knew what it actually means. People exist but they are material.
If you mean something like 'souls' then this currently lacks
objective support. I'm unsure about the others depending on
what we mean by exist. I'll grant that love exists in a conceptual
way but I don't grant that it is capable of impacting the physical
world. If someone you love dies, or stops loving you, I'm not so
sure that you have anyway to sense it. That said, there are some
powerful anecdotes that say otherwise. They intrigue me. I'd like
to believe that it was just a lot of confirmation bias in people
who were just worrying.

P3(abc) in my rewrite is more a matter of extracting defining
aspects of abc in preparation for concluding P4. But I wonder,
what does it mean to not be reducible. Does it mean that there's
no interaction between these things and what we can materially
measure, or that any interaction is so unpredictable that we
can't measure them? If there's no potential interaction then
science rightly ignores them. Most other answers seem to involve
a great deal of special pleading. But there's that referred claim
that they are empirical phenomena. In what way are they empirical?
If they can be measured, then at least that aspect by which they
can be measured can be reduced to matter and perhaps mechanism.
I'm not sure I grasp your intent with "impersonalism" other than
perhaps that the particulars who who is doing the measuring should
not matter.

[RSNorman]

Somehow you seem to have the notion that there is a "science" out
there somewhere but I have missed exactly what it might be. So please
enlighten us as to what that notion of science is, exactly. Also
please enlighten us to any phenomena that escapes my interpretation of
what science is.

There is, indeed, a vast subject mater called "philosophy of science"
which dates back some millenia to Arisototle's time. Exactly what
constitutes "observation" and "reality" and "cause and effect" has
been hashed over and over from many different perspectives. I am not
educated in that field and so cannot discuss it properly since I do
not know all the various arguments that have been presented with the
evidence and reasoning for and against them. This is unlike my
experience with the content of what is now considered science where I
have been educated in several branches and am familiar with the nature
of the evidence and arguments. So find a philosopher to go into all
this with you. I only repeat that my position " is demonstrably

[Inez]

What neighborhood? What point? What does "beyond some minimum point" mean?

> These same criteria suggests some
> ideal state, most conducive to life and intelligent
> observers.

No one is arguing this.

> This data exists and is easily observed so data for
> calculations is available.

So why don't you avail yourself of this data and perform your calculation for us? Because the experts don't seem to think that life has to be as rare as you think it is. What are they doing wrong? Show your work.

> Granted any calculation will be
> tenuous at best, but there's enough data to estimate the
> limits of habitability elsewhere. There is insufficient
> evidence to calculate probabilities of course, but we can
> estimate the necessary conditions for life.
>

But see, I don't think you are able to perform this calculation, tenuous though it may be. Rather than assuring me it's possible to show life elsewhere is unlikely, why don't you show your work?

[RSNorman]

As the old movie like goes, "Surely you jest!" Do you really believe
"justice" has an existence independent of human society? Do you
really believe that different human societies do not have vastly
different concepts of what justice is? Do you not understand that
there have been heated arguments and even wars over different
interpretations? Do you not understand that our modern notions of
justice are not at all uniform across all present societies and,
further, even the Western European concept (which includes America and
other societies which have inherited Western European ideas) has
changed radically over the couple of millenia of Western European
civilization? I do understand that you come from a different
background, but Indian and Chinese notions of justice are also neither
static in time nor universal in geographical distribution.

I do know that there are fundamental text in various religions all
insisting that a particular God (or set of gods) has passed down the
notion of justice from on high. I then wonder why different people
see very different notions of justice from the same source and why
different religions have such diverse views.

I also do know that all social animals develop (through the
evolutionary process) controls on behavior that help the society as a
whole thrive as a cohesive unit. You can argue evolutionary biology
about group selection but you can also argue that the individuals in
such societies also derive benefit from the mutual adoption of those
controls. The evolutionary basis of social behavior is a hotly
researched and hotly argued subject. So I would argue that our
notions of justice, based on notions of morality and right/wrong, have
components both selected by evolution in social animals and crafted
conscious reasoning by individuals in specific societies.

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:fae7la134urrp5i55...@4ax.com...

Well it's rather obvious that you have no material, mechanistic
explanation of the origin of metaphysical entities. A lot of conjecture,
but no evidence.

It would be more fruitful if you just accepted that not every real thing
is made of matter or radiation operating by mathematical laws.
Especially since mathematics was, according to your statement, created
by humans and therefore could not have existed before them.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Burkhard]

How do you know that?

[RSNorman]

I think it is time for you now to describe a "real thing" that is not
made of matter or radiation operating by mathematical laws. Please
account for some process by which we are made aware of that "real
thing" and how it influences our behavior. Please also account for
how it originated. If it is something that has was produced by some
outside agency or intelligence, please give us some indication of what
that agency or intelligence is and how we come to know about it and
that our knowledge of such an agency or intelligence is not simply the
creation of the human imagination.

Indicate whether your knowledge of all these things is purely through
faith or through observation and reason.

[Jimbo]

Your proclamation would have more force if you would present some
evidence that justice, 'freedom, civil rights, as well as 'yesterday'
and 'tommorow' are actually 'metaphysical entities' as you have
claimed. Do you really believe that 'justice' is a goddess who weighs
evidence in her scales? Do you think there's a god or perhaps a an
elemental spirit of 'yesterday' and 'tommorow'? If not, then what the
heck do you mean by saying they're 'metaphysical entities?' You might
as well say 'today' is a metaphysical entity as well. It wouldn't make
any more sense than your other claims, but it wouldn't make less, and
it would be consistent with your previous claims.

>It would be more fruitful if you just accepted that not every real thing
>is made of matter or radiation operating by mathematical laws.
>Especially since mathematics was, according to your statement, created
>by humans and therefore could not have existed before them.

How would it be fruitful? You apparently accept that belief and you
seem unable to make coherent evidence-based analyses of anything. You
refuse even to answer questions that would clarify what you think
you're talking about. Where is this 'fruitfulness' in your attitude?
Perhaps real things exist that are not made of matter and which don't
operate by mathematical laws, but you've done nothing to demonstrate
their existence.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

You are basing that argument on life as we know it here on earth; does
it not occur to you that there might be entirely different life forms
elsewhere in the universe that developed in an entirely different
environment?

[Bill]

You seem to want to avoid an appropriate response by asking
for trivial clarifications. Knowing what is necessary for
life here provides a baseline for estimating what is
necessary for life elsewhere. This will have to include our
position relative to the sun and other planets and, maybe,
characteristics of the sun's orbit around the galaxy.

In the case of intelligent observers on Earth, there are
variables having specific values that may be necessary for
life anywhere else. Until life is found elsewhere, we can't
know with certainty which variables and which of the values
are fundamental. It may well be that life requires just the
values we see here on Earth.

Bill

[Bill]

Jimbo wrote:

...

>>
>>Well it's rather obvious that you have no material,
>>mechanistic explanation of the origin of metaphysical
>>entities. A lot of conjecture, but no evidence.
>
> Your proclamation would have more force if you would
> present some
> evidence that justice, 'freedom, civil rights, as well as
> 'yesterday' and 'tommorow' are actually 'metaphysical
> entities' as you have claimed.

Things like justice, freedom, civil rights, as well as
yesterday and tomorrow are only metaphysical. Just about
everything that everyone believes is metaphysical. Being
metaphysical, these "Things" cannot be quantified or
demonstrated by any method of science and must, therefore,
be non-scientific. To a mechanistic, reductionist
materialist, none of these non-scientific things can exist.

Bill

[Bill]

Of course, the old no evidence is evidence that no evidence
explains something.

Bill

[Jimbo]

They are concepts - socially constructed ideas. This is true to a
certain extent even of such basic ideas as yesterday, today and
tommorrow. As such, they may be understood differently in different
societies, and have different normative meanings attached. East Asians
have traditionally understood freedom differently than Europeans, for
example. Kalkidas seems to think they all have some kind of eternal
Platonic reality. Do you agree with him that they exist independently
of our own socially constructed understandings and values?

>
>Bill

[Jimbo]

You tell 'em, Bill! Some character tried to tell me the other day that
there's such a thing as black swans, but I've never seen one and I
figure that's pretty good evidence they don't exist!

>
>Bill

[Inez]

I'm not disputing this (although I could do so; there may be other forms of life that have different requirements). What I'm trying to get you to do is show that these factors that are necessary for life (as far as we know) are so rare that life might well be unique to earth. This is the whole basis of your argument, but I submit that you don't actually know how rare these conditions are.

> This will have to include our
> position relative to the sun and other planets and, maybe,
> characteristics of the sun's orbit around the galaxy.
>
> In the case of intelligent observers on Earth, there are
> variables having specific values that may be necessary for
> life anywhere else. Until life is found elsewhere, we can't
> know with certainty which variables and which of the values
> are fundamental. It may well be that life requires just the
> values we see here on Earth.
>
> Bill

Your argument seems to boil down to personal incredulity. Is this the case, or do you have actual numbers to show us?

[RSNorman]

This is quite silly. Pressure, Young's modulus, coefficient of
thermal expansion, elasticity -- all of these are abstract notions
that do not exist in the material world. Yet they can be defined as
properties of matter in a way that they can be studied.

Justice, freedom, and civil rights, as well as yesterday and tomorrow
are abstract notions that do not exist in the material world. Yet
they can be defined in terms of human behavior, something that does
exist in the world, and the human conception of time in terms of days.
To a mechanistic, reductionist materialist, all of these things can
exist in the way we discuss how (and when) humans interact with each
other. They can be studied.

I have gone through this time and again. It is now your turn to
describe the existence of these "metaphysical" notions, how they come
to exist, how they can be perceived by humans, and how we can know
that our knowledge of them is "true" and not simply a human creation
derived from the combination of our culture (practices passed from
generation to generation based on our experience, learning and reason)
and our innate behavioral characters all of which help us live as
social animals in cohesive groups.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/12/15 2:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> There is such a massive flow of energy in the universe that diverting
>> just a tiny fraction is sufficient to explain all the "order" that we
>> have.
>

> Then, based on the fact of said result or effect, sound logic requires
> that we describe the cause as designed.

Now that you have established to your satisfaction that God was
designed, I must ask: Who designed God?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bill]

You must be a computer simulation, a 3K Basic program
running on a Commodore 64 probably. Since any explanation
will exceed your computer capacity, what's the point. I'm
guessing a bucket of sand would have a better grasp on what
constitutes human reality.

Bill

[Bill]

Inez wrote:

...

>>
>> You seem to want to avoid an appropriate response by
>> asking for trivial clarifications. Knowing what is
>> necessary for life here provides a baseline for
>> estimating what is necessary for life elsewhere.
>
> I'm not disputing this (although I could do so; there may
> be other forms of life that have different requirements).
> What I'm trying to get you to do is show that these
> factors that are necessary for life (as far as we know)
> are so rare that life might well be unique to earth. This
> is the whole basis of your argument, but I submit that you
> don't actually know how rare these conditions are.
>

All we need to know is the one case where life thrives and,
very sensibly, use that as a standard.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Earth is an excellent standard. Unless you have an estimate as to how closely someplace else needs to match that standard, your standard tells you nothing at all. So just provide a justification for some estimate of how closely a world would have to match the physical characteristics of earth in order to support life and then you're done. Otherwise, you have nothing useful.

[William Morse]

And we know that sunlike stars are common, and that planetary systems
around such stars are common, and that the universe if not infinite is
at least vast (read Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for what that
means). So based on that life would be expected to be common in the
universe, assuming that its appearance on earth was not a fluke.

> Bill
>

[Kalkidas]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:pui7lah2f8apnh3uc...@4ax.com...

Ok. For example, the self.

> Please
> account for some process by which we are made aware of that "real
> thing" and how it influences our behavior.

The beginning process is to hear from authorities who know more than
oneself. This is distasteful to most people, who can not bring
themselves to admit that anyone is smarter than themselves. But it is
the only means of obtaining knowledge of things which cannot at all be
noticed by our material senses and mind.

When one is sufficiently schooled, one can directly examine the self,
and "see for oneself", so to speak. But without first accepting
instruction from a superior teacher, this will never happen.

>Please also account for
> how it originated.

It never originated. The self is eternal.

> If it is something that has was produced by some
> outside agency or intelligence, please give us some indication of what
> that agency or intelligence is and how we come to know about it and
> that our knowledge of such an agency or intelligence is not simply the
> creation of the human imagination.

In order to imagine anything, one has to already be a self.

> Indicate whether your knowledge of all these things is purely through
> faith or through observation and reason.

I have always thought that faith is a response to knowledge, not a means
of knowledge. Perhaps many people claim otherwise, but it makes no sense
to me. Perhaps it would be better put that knowledge comes through
humility and submission to a spiritual master. Faith comes from this.

[Bill]

William Morse wrote:

...

>> orbit around the galaxy.
>>
>> In the case of intelligent observers on Earth, there are
>> variables having specific values that may be necessary
>> for life anywhere else. Until life is found elsewhere, we
>> can't know with certainty which variables and which of
>> the values are fundamental. It may well be that life
>> requires just the values we see here on Earth.
>
> And we know that sunlike stars are common, and that
> planetary systems around such stars are common, and that
> the universe if not infinite is at least vast (read
> Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for what that means).
> So based on that life would be expected to be common in
> the universe, assuming that its appearance on earth was
> not a fluke.

That's what everyone tells me. Absence of evidence only
means that evidence is there, we just haven't found it yet.
We know that the evidence we need to confirm what should be
true will turn up eventually. Now I've been told that this
is perfectly reasonable but I still have reservations.

Silly me, I keep thinking that evidence is related to
something demonstrably real.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Yes, everyone keeps telling you two things. First, that they expect that life is likely to be common in the universe and, second, that we don't know yet whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. How hard is that to get?

If your default expectation is that there is life nowhere else, that's fine. You just have to be aware that you have no evidence supporting that position. To get that evidence you'd have to examine a lot of planets using techniques that would find life if it were there.

Likewise, it's fine to expect that life is out there, but we all recognize that we have no direct evidence. The nifty thing is, the same experiments that would work to increase support for the absence of life elsewhere (the evidence you need) are the correct experiments to do to look for evidence of the presence of life elsewhere (the evidence we need). So we know what experiments to do. While waiting for results, the correct conclusion is "we don't know yet."

If, in the absence of direct evidence, while we wait, you want to argue that the conditions for life are so restrictive that they are unlikely to be found anywhere else, you'll have to do better than simply saying it might be so.

[Inez]

That is step one. Step two, which you refuse to address, is applying this standard to the universe and seeing if these conditions are likely to exist elsewhere. Can you do so?

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:52:10 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>RSNorman wrote:
>
>
>...
>
>>
>> I do not at all claim either that my philosophy is
>> superior. Only that it is demonstrably extremely accurate
>> in describing events that occur within the physical
>> universe that we all inhabit and that no other
>> philosophical system has anywhere near the same degree of
>> success and accuracy in doing so.
>
>If you limit your investigations of reality to just those
>that produce a particular outcome, that will determine how
>you see nature. You see nature as a mechanism made of
>mechanisms which reduce to still more mechanisms and each
>explains the others.
>
>This is not a scientific observation, it is entirely
>philosophic, a conceptual framework where the concept is at
>least as important as the data.
>
>Your philosophy precedes your observations thereby forming
>their content. This will necessarily lead to interpreting
>all subsequent observers based on the philosophy making the
>philosophy the primary datum in your investigations. You
>know what you will find before you even look. A convenient
>intellectual shortcut but it's not science.

How is it that *your* philosophy does not precede your observations?
How is it that *you* manage to avoid all these terrible pitfalls
everybody else fall into?

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 09:43:32 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

[...]

>Here is my reasoning:
>
>P1 Modern science is methodologically self-restricted to offering
>material, mechanistic and impersonal explanations of empirical
>phenomena.
>P2 However, not all empirical phenomena are explainable by material,
>mechanistic and impersonal explanations, because non-material,
>non-mechanistic, and personal entities do really exist and their
>essential natures are irreducible to matter, mechanism, and
>impersonalism.
>
>Therefore, modern science cannot in principle explain all empirical
>data.
>
>I take it that you would generally agree with P1, but not with P2. In
>that case, I can offer some observations:
>
>Why can't quantum theorists even begin to agree on the notion of what an
>"observer" is?


AIUI quantum theorists don't disagree on what an observer is, but on
what is required to make an observation. Non quantum theorists, ex.
charlatans, quotemine quantum theorists to rationalize their latest
woo.


>Why is there so much hostility exhibited by those who hold rigidly to P1
>whenever it is suggested that causality proceeds, not from the material
>to the apparently non-material, but the other way around?


That which you label as hostility, is more likely simple frustration
at having to correct popular idiocies. Science studies the material
effects of material causes. Any cause that has material effects is a
material cause, by definition.


>Why do so many hard-core materialists simply deny the existence of
>irreducible spirit as a primary component of reality, rather than take
>its existence as simply another an hypothesis to be tested?


Just how do you propose testing irreducible spirit?


>These are not the actions of open-minded seekers of truth.


They are the actions of those who understand and work within the
limits of their methodology. If only you could reasonably say the
same.

[RSNorman]

In other words, "I don't have the vaguest idea how to even begin
answer your challenge." So, once again, you describe an alternative
to mechanistic, reductionist materialism as a way of explaining what
happens in the universe we inhabit and I will listen to you.

[jillery]

Your last paragraph contradicts your previous paragraph. Even as a
sample of one, Earth provides a diversity of environments where life
is found. Life exists in the hot acidic cauldrons of geothermal
pools, and in the below-freezing blackness of sea bottoms, and
underneath miles of frozen Antarctic glaciers, and even within
apparently solid rock.

Since life first appeared on Earth, the Sun's luminosity has increased
at least 25%, the Moon's distance from the Earth has at least doubled,
the Earth's rotation has slowed by almost half, and the average global
temperature has varied by at least 17 degrees centigrade. The Earth
has flipped more than once from completely frozen over to no ice
anywhere, and variations inbetween. It's atmosphere has gone from
zero free oxygen to more than 30% molecular oxygen.

How does all this variability support the idea that the Earth is
finely tuned for life? Or that life requires fine-tuning? There is
zero evidence that the conditions found on Earth are, or ever were,
anything but ordinary.

[Bill]

Since you require explanations for the obvious, the answers
won't satisfy you. In fact, the more some things are
explained, the less we know. We may become expert in the
explanations without a clue to what they explain.

Bill

[Bill]

Likely to exist is one way to say, does not exist. We
should, more correctly, say that there are things that could
exist even with no evidence for their existence. This logic
applies to all things for which we lack evidence.

Bill

[RSNorman]

What is obvious is that you are unwilling to state just what you
believe. Many people, for example, are quite happy to say "God
created the universe and all it contains and imbued humanity with
immortal souls and passed on knowledge of how to live a good life
through the works we call scripture." You may not have that
explanation but you do have something. Let's hear it, obvious that it
may be. I am easily satisfied. I may not agree but I will be
satisfied that you have a position that you are willing to express.

You may hesitate because you might have gone through all this
elsewhere. Frankly, I read very little of what you post so I would
have missed it. I engage now only because the notion of order from
disorder is a favorite topic of mine. This diversion into
alternatives to reductionistic materialism is secondary.

[RSNorman]

I do appreciate that there are a number of Eastern philosophies that
view notions of identity and causality and such rather differently
from the classical European system of philosophy. However the Western
approach has led to an enormous ability to predict and control forces
of nature in the form of science and technology. I am not at all
saying that this is a "good" thing and that mankind is "better off"
for following this approach. However teaching Western notions of
science and causality and material forces is now universal even in
societies where the Eastern patterns prevail.

I am totally ignorant of the basics of these philosophies and cannot
comment on the notions they contain. However I am quite willing to
admit that they may, indeed, include notions of "oneness" and "inner
self" that are as much beyond scientific explanation as is "immortal
soul." My arguments that these are culturally constructed devices, as
is the notion of God, clearly are not accepted by many.

So I can only conclude with what I wrote to start: "the universe I

[Bill]

RSNorman wrote:

...

My personal beliefs are not relevant. I'm interested in
things so I think about them and post about them here. I
don't exclude concepts because they are unpopular or bizarre
or crackpot because they offer alternatives, interesting
odds and ends to ponder. I'm in no rush to find certainty or
collect inviolate fact or affect some pose of infallibility.

Regardless of one's philosophy or religion or academic
accomplishment, there are gaps and inconsistencies and
contradictions. Ignorance is no great obstacle and no
crushing shame, it's a starting point. I see posters here as
consumed by a pointless quest for absolute certainty making
ignorance anathema.

Bill

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 10:33:57 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
...

> Regardless of one's philosophy or religion or academic
> accomplishment, there are gaps and inconsistencies and
> contradictions. Ignorance is no great obstacle and no
> crushing shame, it's a starting point. I see posters here as
> consumed by a pointless quest for absolute certainty making
> ignorance anathema.
>
> Bill

Probably by accident, you've finally said something most scientists can
agree with: ignorance is exiting, challenging. The fun part of science
is the pursuit. One of the greatest fears of science is that the Truth,
when it is eventually discovered, will mean the end of the game. Fortunately
that'll never happen (IMO). Of course, you have to have some intuition about
which new (possibly crackpot?) ideas are worth pursuing.

[Bill]

That requires giving them serious consideration, up to the
point where ideas become obviously crackpot. This will also
mean that you really can't dismiss anything based on the
opinions of others up to and including scientists,
theologians or any other authority. My posts have followed
that approach and I am condemned for do it. What should I
infer from that?

Bill

[Inez]

No it isn't! "Likely to exist" is one way to say "we don't know, but our best guess if for existence." Why is it that you think that no matter how little evidence we have, we must take a firm position?

> We
> should, more correctly, say that there are things that could
> exist even with no evidence for their existence. This logic
> applies to all things for which we lack evidence.
>
> Bill

Focus Bill, focus! You've made a positive claim: that the conditions required for life are so rare in the universe that earth is probably unique. What I'm asking you to do is back that claim up. You claim that the list of necessary factors is so restricting that despite the enormous number of planets in the universe they all line up on only one. Show your math! Link us to some reputable scholar who agrees with you! Do something to indicate this is not just something you've decided to think because it supports your preferred position!

Aren't you the guy who's always going on about how people only use data that supports what they want to believe? Show us you're not one of those guys.

[erik simpson]

As I said, some intuition is required. Not all ideas are equal.

[Bill]

Granted, but there's only one way to find out. Unless we
already know the answers, we can't ignore the questions.
What I've noticed here is that people believe they have
their answers so they don't have to consider the questions.
This is biggest flaw in having opinions.

Everything should be looked at as worth thinking about every
time. Philosophies get in the way and force us into biases
which we then use to filter all new input. Since we will
then have a context for interpreting information, there's no
need to think about it.

Bill

[RSNorman]

Perhaps that you have given ideas serious consideration past the point
where they become obviously crackpot.

There do exist places where every possible idea is given full voice
and argument. These places are usually late at night with a bunch of
college sophomores guzzling or puffing away at the same time and the
next day there is nothing worthwhile having been produced except for
the bonhomie of the moment. Oh, yes-- I forget another place: the
internet! But there the bonhomie is replaced by rancor.

In science and mathematics there are ideas that are valued because
they express old notions in particularly elegant ways or relate old
ideas in new ways unanticipated or that open the door to whole new
developments (or perhaps all three at the same time). Then there are
fruitless or worthless ideas that do not at all contribute to further
work or new developments. These are quickly discarded or ignored. You
seem to value every possible idea that has not been overwhelmingly
proved wrong as being of equal value. You also seem to degrade every
worthwhile idea that has proved to be of major significance but which
still leaves some questions open as geing of equal consequence and
importance to those which are sterile.

I you wish to reject reductionist materialism, the subject at hand in
this particular instance, then please substitute something superior.
It is worthly to sit on the sideline sniping "yes but there are gaps.
It is not at all settled and everything else (whatever that may be)
deserves equal merit!"

[Bill]

I'm a big fan of crackpottery and off the wall conspiracies
because they are a counterpoint to smug declarations of
certainty. By examining points of view that appear nonsense,
I discover little bits of stuff worth looking into. The Net
is an ideal medium for this kind of thing.

I'm also a big fan of science and technology tempered by a
deep interest in history. To me, it's all part of living a
life I can live with. I really can't see why people are in
such a rush to know everything. It's the process that
requires thinking, once we know something we don't have to
think about it any more.

I don't believe any of the theories of biological evolution
simply because there's enough ambiguity to keep the question
open. I also don't accept the cosmological standard model as
complete because there are viable alternatives. This is not
anti-science, it's not anti-knowledge nor anti-intellectual,
it is simply paying attention.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 4:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

>
> I'm a big fan of crackpottery and off the wall conspiracies
> because they are a counterpoint to smug declarations of
> certainty. By examining points of view that appear nonsense,
> I discover little bits of stuff worth looking into. The Net
> is an ideal medium for this kind of thing.

The Net is certainly an ideal medium for crackpottery and off the wall conspiracy theories.

>
> I'm also a big fan of science and technology tempered by a
> deep interest in history. To me, it's all part of living a
> life I can live with. I really can't see why people are in
> such a rush to know everything. It's the process that
> requires thinking, once we know something we don't have to
> think about it any more.

I'm not sure what people are in this great rush to know everything. Maybe they're closeted with the people who insist that the possibility of finding evidence for extraterrestrial life means that we already have the evidence, and the people who are terribly confused by metaphorical language in biology, or incapable of seeing that elliptical planetary orbits are a simplification, or that science has all the answers. I haven't met them, but they seem to live in high density around wherever you are.

>
> I don't believe any of the theories of biological evolution
> simply because there's enough ambiguity to keep the question
> open. I also don't accept the cosmological standard model as
> complete because there are viable alternatives. This is not
> anti-science, it's not anti-knowledge nor anti-intellectual,
> it is simply paying attention.

Sure, just tell us about your detailed problems with the evidence for biological evolution, or modern cosmology (not that cosmologists think they've solved the problem, either) If you provide some detailed arguments, the discussion could get interesting. If you just give generalities about how the evidence is always viewed in light of the existing theories, and interpreted to support whatever theories people already want to believe, then there's not much to talk about. But you recently denied that you held such an epistemologically nihilistic position about science. So we should be able to talk about evidence.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

I did all that, several times. If there is a single
plausible alternative to some proposition, discussion is
possible and the proposition is interesting. Once I learned
long division in grade school, proving it became tedious
repetition, a lot like punishment.

The standard model of cosmology has several alternatives. It
has several fundamental problems which have led to a
proliferation of theory. String theory, branes, parallel
dimensions, manyworlds and multiverses and others that owe
their legitimacy to observed problems with the standard
model and the Big Bang and cosmic inflation, etc. Lots of
unattained knowledge left to discover.

The problems with biological evolution are due in part in
the absence of direct evidence; it has to be deduced from
the requirements of theory. Most evidence is hypothesized
which, while scientific, is not empirical. It may be true
but it can't be shown to be true. I find the origin and
development of life to be a genuine and still unresolved
mystery.

Stir in the weirdness of quantum mechanics, and hitching my
wagon to any point of view seems premature at best.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

No you haven't. You've pointed in the general direction of things that you think might be problems, but you've provided no details.

>
> The standard model of cosmology has several alternatives. It
> has several fundamental problems which have led to a
> proliferation of theory. String theory, branes, parallel
> dimensions, manyworlds and multiverses and others that owe
> their legitimacy to observed problems with the standard
> model and the Big Bang and cosmic inflation, etc. Lots of
> unattained knowledge left to discover.

That there are many things left to discover is not in doubt. The question is, what specific weakness do you see in the standard model of cosmology, what data does it fail to explain, what alternative explanations do a better job. So far, you've just thrown around a lot of names of ideas, without saying what you think their strengths or weaknesses are in accounting for what specific observations.

>
> The problems with biological evolution are due in part in
> the absence of direct evidence; it has to be deduced from
> the requirements of theory. Most evidence is hypothesized
> which, while scientific, is not empirical. It may be true
> but it can't be shown to be true. I find the origin and
> development of life to be a genuine and still unresolved
> mystery.

I suspect that you have a definition of "direct evidence" that precludes the existence of direct evidence in an science at all, certainly in any science involving processes that take longer than a few decades to play out. If you have a better explanation for the fossil record, the current distribution of species, the nested hierarchies of morphological and genetic characters, go ahead and propose it.

The origin of life (as opposed to its development once it got started) really is an open question. What's interesting, to me anyway, are experiments done to test various possible scenarios, rather than a general "wow, I'm scratching my head, cause nobody knows."

>
> Stir in the weirdness of quantum mechanics, and hitching my
> wagon to any point of view seems premature at best.

Quantum mechanics is weird, but it works very, very well. In any case, you've already hitched your wagon to the point of view that the universe, as a whole, has intent, and that that intent is to generate us (lucky us) as intelligent observers, in order to for the universe to become self-conscious. You hardly seem reticent about hitching your wagon to a specific point of view.
>
> Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

That's not surprising, considering that you are a source of
crackpottery yourself.

>and off the wall conspiracies

That is, idiotic theories.

>because they are a counterpoint to smug declarations of
>certainty. By examining points of view that appear nonsense,
>I discover little bits of stuff worth looking into. The Net
>is an ideal medium for this kind of thing.

You should read real science rather than those crackpot sites you like
to read. In other words, why rummage in the garbage for valuables
when you could buy them at the store?

>I'm also a big fan of science and technology tempered by a
>deep interest in history. To me, it's all part of living a
>life I can live with. I really can't see why people are in
>such a rush to know everything.

Which people would these be?

> It's the process that
>requires thinking, once we know something we don't have to
>think about it any more.
>
>I don't believe any of the theories of biological evolution
>simply because there's enough ambiguity to keep the question
>open.

Simply because of your religion.

>I also don't accept the cosmological standard model as
>complete because there are viable alternatives.

Which are not Intelligent Design.