Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

I think you made a typo there, you must have meant: with only hydrogen there simply can only be 50% chance of life.

It's pretty much scientific fact that there cannot be life with only one element... It has considerable burden of proof behind the statement, you can test it yourself.

If I test it myself, all I've tested is that in this particular test, life didn't result out of a certain amount of hydrogen (unless you're suggesting I create an entire alternate universe made out of hydrogen).

But since you CAN'T know for sure, it means it's either true or it's not. According to your logic, it's a binary situation, so both are equally valid.

[Pjoo]

The universe requires no mind.

have I said it does?

No, no it doesn't. We have deduced, using technology and applying the Scientific Method, one possible beginning. It appears to have a bit of evidence floating around and no major holes in the theory, so in absense of a better idea most people run with it. The beginning of the universe is most definitely not explained however.

So you are saying accepting the Big Bang theory is irrational?

Under our current physical laws, sure. But our current physical laws are based around the basic phsyical forces. If you have different physical forces, you have different physical laws, and everything acts differently.

Sure, but still, assuming changing of one constant doesn't change others, which is atleast for some constant possibly true?

We know the universe is just like it is. Why? Well we don't know that one yet, assuming the question even has a meaningful answer.

Hypotetically it could be different, as we cannot answer why it's currently like it is.

It is not rational to assign a value for something to exist when no evidence exists to support it.

So it wasn't rational to believe in atomism? He just figured out world would makes more sense, you can explain more stuff, when all builds up of blocks. You don't need evidence to believe in something, only thing it needs is for it to make sense. You need evidence when you state something is(or is not) true.

You... don't actually know what the scientific method is do you? Allow Wikipedia to enlighten you and stop you sounding like an idiot. (I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that line just sounds idiotic to anyone who knows what the scientific methoid is in the same way that the statement 'i am riding a flying purple elephant' sounds idiotic to anyone with eyes; it is patently bullshit.)


You appear to be making the common mistake of most religious worldviews; that of assigning 'Science' as some sort of powerful god-force or united body, as if 'Science' does something. Which is not only silly, but also a strawman.

Umm, yes I do. Fact I might sound like idiot, cause I might not phrase things exactly the way you(or anyone else) would understand them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Induction

"Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases." = Science proves, based on empirical evidence, that something acts like causality from scientific laws says it will.
It can be wrong, but when something doesn't act like it's supposed to, you see there's an error and it can be fixed. It gives that same knowledge to everyone, being empirically testable, not depending on their world view. Even to nihilist, ball falling rules scientific rules, even if the nihilist doesn't accept them as knowledge. It doesn't state it is true that the ball will fall like that, it states if gravity is true, ball will fall. Clearly, if the ball just starts floating in the air without any tricks, theory of gravitation needs to be looked into. But then, gravity is most likely broken for everyone...

Science = Science that follows the rules of Philosophy of science. It's not science if you throw person into water and burn him cause she floats. I really just didn't bother typing how "Concensus of science practicers do not produce information that can be viewed as absolute truth..."

Universe is finite; what's outside the Universe? If that's finite, then what's outside that? So on, ad infinitum. Again, life certain.

no-space universe can expand into. And universe being infinite means it's cyclic, there are unlimited dimensions, or something else. If there is just finite universe, eventually law of entropy will make it be one rather cold place for life.

If I test it myself, all I've tested is that in this particular test, life didn't result out of a certain amount of hydrogen (unless you're suggesting I create an entire alternate universe made out of hydrogen).

But since you CAN'T know for sure, it means it's either true or it's not. According to you, it's a binary situation, so both are equally valid, ACCORDING TO YOU.

I've never said both are equally valid, both can be valid, they aren't always. Depends on likelyhood you give to it. But I think it's unlikely hydrogen can form life, because according to chemistry, hydrogen cannot form a stable chain. So unless you come up with 2-(hydrogen)atom lifeform, I remain quite skeptical.
The point was, fact you give higher chance for something, and someone gives higher chance for something else, doesn't mean your opinion is any better. God is, and always will be, outside the field of science, just like pretty many other things in philosophy and theology. Doesn't mean they cannot be debated. Belief just is pretty annoying thing to debate on, cause basis on belief is another belief.

"Consider a belief P. Either P is justified or P is not justified. If P is justified, then another belief Q may be justified by P. If P is not justified, then P cannot be a justifier for any other belief: neither for Q, nor for Q's negation.
For example, suppose someone might believe that there is intelligent life on Mars, and base this belief on a further belief, that there is a feature on the surface of Mars that looks like a face, and that this face could only have been made by intelligent life. So the justifying belief is: that face-like feature on Mars could only have been made by intelligent life. And the justified belief is: there is intelligent life on Mars.
But suppose further that the justifying belief is itself unjustified. It would in no way be one's intellectual right to suppose that this face-like feature on Mars could have only been made by intelligent life; that view would be irresponsible, intellectually-speaking. Such a belief would be unjustified. It has a justifier, but the justifier is itself not justified. In fact, more recent observations have shown that the "helmeted face" does not look the same up close, nor when viewed from the side."

This is what I've been saying to whole time, maybe copypaste helps.
Just that. Your whole belief system is based on truths that you view as justified, which justify other views. You cannot really claim any of those to be justified or true without sounding arrogant prick, so claiming you know something about philosophical and theologial truths is well... I feel, very arrogant and disrespectful. Belief in God can be either Belief only(faith - irrational), or Belief with conscious mental states(feelings, faith - irrational or intellectual intuition - rational). And while not rational, irrational sources are also justification for belief, they are usually kinda independent on philosophical thought of others.

[Neruz]

So you are saying accepting the Big Bang theory is irrational?

Stating it as irrefutable fact is irrational. Saying that it's the best guess we have at the moment and assuming it to be generally correct for any everyday purpose is not.

Sure, but still, assuming changing of one constant doesn't change others, which is atleast for some constant possibly true?

That is a gigantic and entirely unfounded assumption. You're talking about modifying the core rules of the Universe here, the very foundations of the structure. Of course if you remove the foundations the building will fall over, but if that foundation was somewhere else to begin with then the building would have been built differently.

Assuming that you could just change something as fundamental as the Strong Nuclear Force and everything else would be the same is irrational.

Hypotetically it could be different, as we cannot answer why it's currently like it is.

Maybe, maybe not. It's possible that this is the only way the Universe can exist. We have no way of knowing.

So it wasn't rational to believe in atomism? He just figured out world would makes more sense, you can explain more stuff, when all builds up of blocks. You don't need evidence to believe in something, only thing it needs is for it to make sense. You need evidence when you state something is(or is not) true.

Faith is irrational, that's how it works. And no, it was not rational to believe in atomism until experimental data came back. And if you look back through history, you may notice that the scientists of the day did not believe in atoms until they were able to run some experiments on the concept. Until then it was just a hypothesis.

Umm, yes I do. Fact I might sound like idiot, cause I might not phrase things exactly the way you(or anyone else) would understand them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Induction

"Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases." = Science proves, based on empirical evidence, that something acts like causality from scientific laws says it will.
It can be wrong, but when something doesn't act like it's supposed to, you see there's an error and it can be fixed. It gives that same knowledge to everyone, being empirically testable, not depending on their world view. Even to nihilist, ball falling rules scientific rules, even if the nihilist doesn't accept them as knowledge. It doesn't state it is true that the ball will fall like that, it states if gravity is true, ball will fall. Clearly, if the ball just starts floating in the air without any tricks, theory of gravitation needs to be looked into. But then, gravity is most likely broken for everyone...

Science = Science that follows the rules of Philosophy of science. It's not science if you throw person into water and burn him cause she floats. I really just didn't bother typing how "Concensus of science practicers do not produce information that can be viewed as absolute truth..."

I can't make any sense of this, i have no idea what you're trying to say? I think you're missing something in Induction as a reasoning. To use the old apple example; i have observed that when i drop an apple, gravity affects it and it falls. I have observed this say a few dozen times. How many times doesn't actually matter. Ergo, i can use Inducive reasoning to say that, based on my experimental data, unless an example exists to prove otherwise, every time i drop an apple it will be affected by gravity and fall to the ground.

This can then be accepted as scientific 'fact' until somone produces an experiment which proves otherwise, possibly by dropping an apple and having it do a barrel roll. At which point we go back to my original 'fact' and find out where it went wrong.

no-space universe can expand into. And universe being infinite means it's cyclic, there are unlimited dimensions, or something else. If there is just finite universe, eventually law of entropy will make it be one rather cold place for life.

So is the no-space infinite? If so, it's full of an infinite number of universes, as we can plainly see that the chances of a Universe existing are finite (we're in one).

Your whole belief system is based on truths that you view as justified, which justify other views. You cannot really claim any of those to be justified or true without sounding arrogant prick

We can state that these truths are justified by the Scientific Method. if you want to prove them unjustified, you first need to prove that the Scientific Method is unjustified, or flawed.

Go for it. People have been trying to do it for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Who knows, maybe you'll be the one to break it.

[RAM]

Belief without reason is dangerous, it leads to poorly justified actions.

If a god cannot be proved then it should not be obeyed.

[Pjoo]

So you are saying accepting the Big Bang theory is irrational?

Stating it as irrefutable fact is irrational. Saying that it's the best guess we have at the moment and assuming it to be generally correct for any everyday purpose is not.

Well, being part of science, it's already refutable. It needs to be refutable to be considered part of science.

Sure, but still, assuming changing of one constant doesn't change others, which is atleast for some constant possibly true?

That is a gigantic and entirely unfounded assumption. You're talking about modifying the core rules of the Universe here, the very foundations of the structure. Of course if you remove the foundations the building will fall over, but if that foundation was somewhere else to begin with then the building would have been built differently.

Assuming that you could just change something as fundamental as the Strong Nuclear Force and everything else would be the same is irrational.

Well, It's quite hard to debate on, as we have no idea why laws of physics exist, but there isn't really anything that would prevent if it wasn't as it is. But, well, it is. We would first need to know how laws of physics are applied to universe. Multi-verse just doesn't really make it any more likely if all the universes are the same.

So it wasn't rational to believe in atomism? He just figured out world would makes more sense, you can explain more stuff, when all builds up of blocks. You don't need evidence to believe in something, only thing it needs is for it to make sense. You need evidence when you state something is(or is not) true.

Faith is irrational, that's how it works. And no, it was not rational to believe in atomism until experimental data came back. And if you look back through history, you may notice that the scientists of the day did not believe in atoms until they were able to run some experiments on the concept. Until then it was just a hypothesis.

It was thought up using intellectual intuition. Thinking and theory can give evidence just like empirical data. For example, graviton. It would make everything so much simpler...

Umm, yes I do. Fact I might sound like idiot, cause I might not phrase things exactly the way you(or anyone else) would understand them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Induction

"Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases." = Science proves, based on empirical evidence, that something acts like causality from scientific laws says it will.
It can be wrong, but when something doesn't act like it's supposed to, you see there's an error and it can be fixed. It gives that same knowledge to everyone, being empirically testable, not depending on their world view. Even to nihilist, ball falling rules scientific rules, even if the nihilist doesn't accept them as knowledge. It doesn't state it is true that the ball will fall like that, it states if gravity is true, ball will fall. Clearly, if the ball just starts floating in the air without any tricks, theory of gravitation needs to be looked into. But then, gravity is most likely broken for everyone...

Science = Science that follows the rules of Philosophy of science. It's not science if you throw person into water and burn him cause she floats. I really just didn't bother typing how "Concensus of science practicers do not produce information that can be viewed as absolute truth..."

I can't make any sense of this, i have no idea what you're trying to say? I think you're missing something in Induction as a reasoning. To use the old apple example; i have observed that when i drop an apple, gravity affects it and it falls. I have observed this say a few dozen times. How many times doesn't actually matter. Ergo, i can use Inducive reasoning to say that, based on my experimental data, unless an example exists to prove otherwise, every time i drop an apple it will be affected by gravity and fall to the ground.

This can then be accepted as scientific 'fact' until somone produces an experiment which proves otherwise, possibly by dropping an apple and having it do a barrel roll. At which point we go back to my original 'fact' and find out where it went wrong.

This is exactly what I am saying. Based on inductive reasoning and empirical evidence, you can state that somehing happens as cause of something else. It's not always the truth, say, Einstein, but it's possible to be proven wrong if it infact is untrue.

no-space universe can expand into. And universe being infinite means it's cyclic, there are unlimited dimensions, or something else. If there is just finite universe, eventually law of entropy will make it be one rather cold place for life.

So is the no-space infinite? If so, it's full of an infinite number of universes, as we can plainly see that the chances of a Universe existing are finite (we're in one).

If we go with big bang, universe keeps expanding. The universes get spead more or less evenly, but there isn't any energy coming in(d'oh), so eventually, due to law of entropy, we have mass and energy evenly spread across the universe just lying there.

Your whole belief system is based on truths that you view as justified, which justify other views. You cannot really claim any of those to be justified or true without sounding arrogant prick

We can state that these truths are justified by the Scientific Method. if you want to prove them unjustified, you first need to prove that the Scientific Method is unjustified, or flawed.

That's what I've been saying. But scientific method doesn't give you beliefs, it gives you knowledge(or likely to be true knowledge anyways). It basically gives you right to state metal conducts electricity because metallic bond has delocalized electrons that are free to "transmit the current". If someone doesn't agree with you, he can always give more credible explanation for the phenomenon that is supported by empirical evidence.


Go for it. People have been trying to do it for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Who knows, maybe you'll be the one to break it.

The point was, you cannot use scientific method to prove or disprove things that aren't within the field of science, so metaphysics, theology and philosophy, cannot be knowledge, they will always just be beliefs, that are based on belief system of proving beliefs with other beliefs, with all the beliefs being subject to bias and ridicuous quantification, so stating "my beliefs are better than yours" is rather arrogant.

[Starver]

Apologies, I appear to have come quite late to this part of the discussion, should have checekd further down...  And looks like the arguments that I was also presenting weren't understood by you anyway.  Am tempted to remove this reply, but if you're reading it I haven't (yet).

Life is, without creator, extremely unprobable. If some of the physical constant would be different by fraction, life would be impossible. Well, this is, unless we have unlimited or close to unlimited universes or chances for universes, unlimited universe = guaranteed life.

(s/unprobable/improbable/;HTH;HAND)
If the physical constants were different then life like ours would not be possible, but there could be life-type-X unlike us that would be going "It's amazing, if the physical laws were unlike our own, then life-type-X could not exist, for example if the laws were [insert verbatim what our universe is actually like] then life would obviously be impossible".

Cue the puddle of water being so amazed that the pothole in the road is so perfectly designed to hold the puddle that it is.

And any universe that did not have a valid set of circumstances for any form of life would never have anyone in it to consider the ramifications of that universe not supporting life.  But apart from a totally null universe (or universes an short but unintense life-cycle) there's no reason to believe that some kind of 'life' (whether recognised by us or not) would not exist.

This is all true regardless of whether you believe there is just the one universe and all there will ever be) an infinite cycle of =>our Big Bang=>our Big Crunch=>Another Big Bang=>Another Big Crunch=> in which each iteration explores another set of constants, a set of parallel 'universe bubbles' doing the same in parallel or every possible universe that could exist being stacked up in a hyper*N-cube array.

It's like assuming that 'our' Goldilocks Zone is an essential prerequisite for life on other worlds.  In fact, that life must exist on worlds and that there's no electromagnetic life-like construct living within the bounds of a nebula, somewhere, or grazing on the dark-matter halos of galaxies or situated at the event horizon of a black hole and formed purely of the particle/anti-particle quantum 'foam'...  (All of that pure theory...  But carbon-chain chemistry is probably as hard a concept to imagine for a hypothetical creature composed of megneto-fusion torii within the core of certain types of star.)

Taking the Strong Anthropic Principle to prove there is something 'special' about our universe is similar to past assumptions about the geocentric nature of the solar-system.  Whatever the assumptions behind the latter, it has since been shown to be wrong.

[Pjoo]

Taking the Strong Anthropic Principle to prove there is something 'special' about our universe is similar to past assumptions about the geocentric nature of the solar-system.  Whatever the assumptions behind the latter, it has since been shown to be wrong.

An universe with life must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.

See, nothing like Strong Anthropic principle at all!

[RAM]

The scientific method does not produce irrefutable facts, and other approaches can generate reliable assumptions. There is nothing special about the scientific method that makes it the font of all knowledge, it is just a very effective means of getting reliable assumptions.

If I can come up with a half a dozen reasons why a any specific religion is likely to be false then it seems fair to say that believing it for no justifiable reason is foolish...

And the whole 'mistakes are dangerous' thing should be pretty obvious...

[Starver]

An universe with life must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.

See, nothing like Strong Anthropic principle at all!

Given that in-between my original (much delayed, see inserted comment at top) reply and getting to 'this' point in the covnersation, you seem to have reversed direction, I'm now not sure whether you're being funny, in the above, are referring to an initial misconception of mine or have missed some point.  (Apart from the points it has already been pointed out that you're missing.)  When I know, I'll try to give a helpful or otherwise appropriate response.

[Ampersand]

Here is the problem with your argument as I see it. I will try to formalize this as best as possible.

1. The nature of the universe is such that life is possible
2. If the nature of the universe was different, life would not be possible
3. The possibility of the universe having a different nature is vastly more likely than it having this nature
Therefore, a creator must have caused the nature of the universe to be this way.

Here's the problem:

First, you posit that the existence of intelligence requires a universe that is finely tuned such that it is conducive to life, and then posit an intelligence that does not require a universe that is finely tuned such that it is conducive to life, as it obviously isn't within this universe, to explain how it was made.

In other words, you state a general rule that must be obeyed, and posit the existence of something that breaks that rule.

[Osmosis Jones]

In a word; No.
In more words; You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. If you want to discuss Quantum Mechanics i highly reccomend actually researching it, because it's a ludicrously complicated subject with vast misconceptions in the general populace, you cannot just 'pick it up' without dedicating time and effort to the subject.

Oh god, this.

I do quantum mechanics units. It doesn't work like that. Everyone, if you want to argue metaphysics, go for it. Just please, don't drag poor defenseless QM into this. It can't defend itself.

[Pjoo]

An universe with life must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.

See, nothing like Strong Anthropic principle at all!

Given that in-between my original (much delayed, see inserted comment at top) reply and getting to 'this' point in the covnersation, you seem to have reversed direction, I'm now not sure whether you're being funny, in the above, are referring to an initial misconception of mine or have missed some point.  (Apart from the points it has already been pointed out that you're missing.)  When I know, I'll try to give a helpful or otherwise appropriate response.

Oh, and yes, clearly I have to say my permise isn't true as I cannot give reasonable chances for other options trying to have different mindset I do have and I cannot even begin to imagine why I would want to explain anything with supernatural.
And I actually didn't at any part take or argree with the Strong Anthropic Principle. At least if I understand the term correctly. I agree that to observe the laws of physics, you need an observer. I do not think that universe requires observer. I just think this one has one.

1.  This universe, clearly. Other universes? I don't know, but I don't believe universes have to support life to exist
2. I don't believe life would be possible with only Hydrogen... Or if stars collapsed on themselves. Or if chemistry wouldn't work. Again with the belief, particle/anti-particle quantum 'foam'-creatures sure do sound awesome....
3. There is no logical imperative universe that says universe has to have laws like these, and no logical imperative it has laws like these that support life. Other than it does... But It could have not had such laws!

And you also need to assume that there is single limited universe, no big crunch or multiverse.

But to explain same thing with multi-verse, you need to assume multi-verse, changing laws of physics that can have values that can support life, or just same laws of physics in every verse that can support life. It's always a lot assuming with suck questions.

First, you posit that the existence of intelligence requires a universe that is finely tuned such that it is conducive to life

Yeah, I believe it basically is true. You need some base that forms the life, such as carbon(or maybe silicon or particle-anti-particle-foam, dunno). Probably you need something that makes the creature evolve, too. Something that transfers energy from external energy source into the life-form.
Aand... without nuclear fusion, you would need to use energy from somewhere else. I can only imagine using anti-matter as energy source is a bit hard, same with potential energy of Astronomical objects, especially if you are particle-foam-bacteria.

[Ampersand]

I like how you carefully neglected to quote my entire sentence.

First you posit that existence of intelligence requires a finely tuned universe, and then posit an intelligence which DOES NOT require a finely tuned universe to do the fine tuning.

[Pjoo]

I like how you carefully neglected to quote my entire sentence.

First you posit that existence of intelligence requires a finely tuned universe, and then posit an intelligence which DOES NOT require a finely tuned universe to do the fine tuning.

I actually was posting already and just read bits of it and didn't think it much but...

First, you posit that the existence of intelligence requires a universe that is finely tuned such that it is conducive to life, and then posit an intelligence that does not require a universe that is finely tuned such that it is conducive to life, as it obviously isn't within this universe, to explain how it was made.

Uhm.. I've stated this universe is "fine-tuned-enough" for life, but I don't think I've said universe is finely tuned such that it is conductive to life. Can you quote me on that or word that a bit differently, I don't really get what you are stating atm?

Or are you meaning when I stated creator is possible assuming single finite universe?

[Ampersand]

Not conductive, conducive; tending to promote or assist.