?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

02/25/2009 11:08:03 PM · #576

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't know of anyone who holds that assumption. As I've often stated, events and processes can have a natural explanation even if we don't know what it is, and the idea that we'll never have all the answers is perfectly acceptable to me. We will never know the exact position and momentum of an electron, but we needn't resort to miracles to fill that gap in knowledge.

I hear you Shannon. You are just restating your position. I hold the exact same position except I am happy to allow the miraculous to intervene. It's not that I don't think we should always explore for answers, but I'm satisfied that some things may not be answerable by science.

You're not really "satisfied" if you then lean on magic for answers. You may hold the exact same position that some things may not be answerable by science, but after that we diverge into, "because that's just the way it is," and "because that's the way some invisible entity made it, who in turn exists because that's just the way it is." We both allow for the miraculous, but we don't agree that it's intervention. The miraculous for me is a matter of nature beating the odds (even though we may only see the 1-in-a-bazillion occurrence that was successful), whereas for you it's actually beating not just the odds, but the laws of nature itself... essentially adding the incredible to the highly unlikely.

MQuinn

Olympus OM-D E-M1

02/25/2009 11:33:59 PM · #577

But its not magic, its a belief. Something that cannot be measured, or explained away. Albeit I agree there are some that use it as an excuse and use it as a business. But it really is something you have to feel to beleive, for whatever that means to you...

I can only share my personal side of it, I never lost my faith in it. I still pray, and happy with the rewards Im given. Even in my darkest hour I was shown the light. Like I said earlier I know in my heart God has my back. Its one of those things until you feel it can you understand. Look at it, your miracle your alive, those building blocks that led up to that in a short 4.5 bil years... How do you explain it? It just happened?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/25/2009 11:42:40 PM · #578

Originally posted by MQuinn:

Its one of those things until you feel it can you understand. Look at it, your miracle your alive, those building blocks that led up to that in a short 4.5 bil years... How do you explain it? It just happened?

That's EXACTLY how he explains it; billions of planets, billions of years, life was BOUND to happen, we just happen to be on a planet that hit the jackpot. From our perspective, it seems miraculous, sure, but from a universal perspective it seems inevitable, he'd probably say. I can't argue with that, but it's not what I believe.

For me, the mystery is why anyone else CARES what I believe?

R.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

02/25/2009 11:54:31 PM · #579

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...the mystery is why anyone else CARES what I believe?

If beliefs were held as private, personal matters, I doubt anyone would care. There would be no Holocaust, no persecutions, no Inquisition, no witch burning... perhaps not even an organized church. However, beliefs alone are all-too-often used to restrict, divide, judge and control other people, and then it becomes a public issue.

MQuinn

Olympus OM-D E-M1

02/26/2009 12:07:11 AM · #580

Yes, but those were peoples decisions, Mankind desisions. See thats the problem people just intperet it as the way that fits there needs. But yet the basic of why we are here, the randomness of it all doesn't just work.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

02/26/2009 12:18:17 AM · #581

Originally posted by MQuinn:

It works for me.

Mousie

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

02/26/2009 12:32:03 AM · #582

Originally posted by MQuinn:

Look at it, your miracle your alive, those building blocks that led up to that in a short 4.5 bil years... How do you explain it? It just happened?

Let's use a gambling analogy.

The chance I'm going to win tons of money on the slots in Vegas is very low. VERY low.

Yet...

Every damn time I'm at the casino, those bastards are going off like mad, and someone there is winning bank.

There are a lot of slot machines, and a lot of people playing.

While I might see MY jackpot as a miracle, all I have to do is look around and see that, in reality, it's a fairly common occurrence.

There are an awful lot of suns out there, you know.

MQuinn

Olympus OM-D E-M1

02/26/2009 12:50:00 AM · #583

Originally posted by Mousie:

There are an awful lot of suns out there, you know.

Yes there are billions and Billions of stars, in galaxies far and near, stuff we hardly see from the Hubble pointed in space at a fixed location back to the big bang.. Is that 12.5 or 16.5 Billion years ago? I forgot. Its ever expanding due to use of the radar red/blue technoligy we have developed of moving from us or away from us. Space is infinate I got that, But it just magically happened?! From a big bang of Anti-matter and matter? Science doesn't give the answer, because as of yet we don't understand it.

Mousie

02/26/2009 01:16:14 AM · #584

Originally posted by MQuinn:

Originally posted by Mousie:

There are an awful lot of suns out there, you know.

Yes there are billions and Billions of stars, in galaxies far and near, stuff we hardly see from the Hubble pointed in space at a fixed location back to the big bang.. Is that 12.5 or 16.5 Billion years ago? I forgot. Its ever expanding due to use of the radar red/blue technoligy we have developed of moving from us or away from us. Space is infinate I got that, But it just magically happened?! From a big bang of Anti-matter and matter? Science doesn't give the answer, because as of yet we don't understand it.

You might want to do some research on the temporary order that usually arises across energy gradients in an otherwise chaotic system. Fascinating stuff. It's the nautilus's shell, zebra's stripes, the thunderstorm, the jet stream, the whirling planets, the Milky Way... Elegance and complexity is the natural, bountiful result of the unpredictable interactions of a few simple rules. We see this expressed EVERYWHERE.

Also, space is not infinite. Not hardly. Space has a diameter of exactly the speed of light times the age of the universe... as least as far as humans are concerned. What the Hubble sees all those billions of years ago is the edge of the universe.

I don't know how you can comment on science so definitively when you're not even aware of the details.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/26/2009 01:34:52 AM · #585

Originally posted by MQuinn:

But it just magically happened?! From a big bang of Anti-matter and matter? Science doesn't give the answer, because as of yet we don't understand it.

I'm sure humans thought the same thing when fire was first discovered. What is this hot stuff that just appeared out of nowhere? It's magic I tell ya! :) Why is it whenever we don't have an answer to something we call it magic? Can't we just say we don't know yet?

It's facinating to me that we as human have this strong desire to know. It is like a drug. If we're denied the answers or are too impatient to wait for one, we often resort to just making one up just to satisfy the addict.

Message edited by author 2009-02-26 02:05:08.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/26/2009 02:04:05 AM · #586

Originally posted by Mousie:

Also, space is not infinite. Not hardly. Space has a diameter of exactly the speed of light times the age of the universe... as least as far as humans are concerned. What the Hubble sees all those billions of years ago is the edge of the universe.

Isn't it theorized that dark matter is fueling the acceleration and some galaxies may have traveled so far from us that their light may never reach earth? If so how would we ever know about these galaxies let alone what lies beyond the furthest reaching piece of matter?

Mousie

02/26/2009 03:57:09 AM · #587

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Also, space is not infinite. Not hardly. Space has a diameter of exactly the speed of light times the age of the universe... as least as far as humans are concerned. What the Hubble sees all those billions of years ago is the edge of the universe.

Isn't it theorized that dark matter is fueling the acceleration and some galaxies may have traveled so far from us that their light may never reach earth? If so how would we ever know about these galaxies let alone what lies beyond the furthest reaching piece of matter?

Assuming that everything in the universe originated from a singularity and that nothing (no information) can travel faster than the speed of light (still fundamental tenets of even the latest string/m theories), regardless of any acceleration in the expansion of the universe (which is relative to objects within the universe, not to objects hypothetically outside of it) there is an absolute finite limit to the size, as far as I understand. This also assumes a euclidean spatial geometry (plus time and, depending on the theory, a number of compact, non-spatial dimensions). All bets are off if space time is circular!

That Galaxy X could be continuously accelerating faster and faster away from Galaxy Y without ever reaching the speed of light or winking out of existence from this universe because it gets so far away from us than light could ever travel here from it is one of the very counter-intuitive aspects of relativity that's hard to get your head around. The faster things move relative to you, the greater the relative difference in how fast time passes between you and it. If we were to watch Galaxy Y from Galaxy X with a magical telescope, the faster it moved away, the slower their clocks would move. As they asymptotically approached the speed of light, their clocks would basically stop moving at all. They stop moving away any faster. From our vantage point, they will never escape the universe! Relativity is WEIRD. Like, it doesn't matter who's moving relative to who. All that matters is that ONE of you is moving. Nutty!

One axiom of this view is that since anything hypothetically outside of the speed of light boundary can never make it to us... ever... and vice versa... as far as OUR relative universe is concerned... it simply does not exist in any meaningful sense. There is no possible exchange of information. Even if there WAS stuff out there, it would by definition NOT be in our universe.

Nothing lies beyond the furthest piece of matter, effectively.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

02/26/2009 10:18:33 AM · #588

Originally posted by Mousie:

since anything hypothetically outside of the speed of light boundary can never make it to us... ever... and vice versa... as far as OUR relative universe is concerned... it simply does not exist in any meaningful sense...Even if there WAS stuff out there, it would by definition NOT be in our universe.

Eventually galaxies we can already see may accelerate beyond the speed of light relative to us. That would put them beyond the observable universe, but arguably still within the universe itself. "Nothing can move through space faster than the speed of light, but space can do whatever the hell it wants as far as we know..."

Originally posted by MQuinn:

But yet the basic of why we are here, the randomness of it all doesn't just work.

Who says there has to be a purpose for us to be here? Why is that ant you inadvertently squashed on the sidewalk here? Why is an asteroid 60 billion light years away there? They could simply be there because that's where they happened to wind up, and randomness works just fine.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

02/26/2009 10:35:50 AM · #589

Shannon - (completely off topic, I know) there was an interesting quote in that article that reminded my of our discussion about whether advanced technology could permit interstellar travel.

Originally posted by article linked by scalvert:

Nothing can move through space faster than the speed of light, but space can do whatever the hell it wants as far as we know," Arizona State University cosmologist Lawrence Krauss said last week at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago...."When that happens, they carry objects with them, like a surfer on a wave."

If this is true (that space can expand faster than the speed of light and it carries objects along with it), if it were possible to manipulate space to do that, then interstellar travel could be possible. Of course, as you've said before, the energies involved would likely be immense.

Now back to xtianity...

02/26/2009 12:08:05 PM · #590

Two points about the inevitability of life lest the Scientist get too smug. :)

1) We've talked about the anthropomorphic principle of the universe before. Our universe appears to be finely, finely tuned to be able to support matter which can then support life. One cannot, at least scientifically, postulate lots and lots of attempts at getting this right because we only know of one universe and all our evidence says it's only been around once (versus an expanding/contracting universe).

2) Even though we know there are trillions and trillions of stars (a quick google reveals the current number to be estimated at about 10^22 (70 sextillion)) and it seems inevitable that life should arise, that assertion is based on nothing because we have zero idea how life arose. Zip. Zilch. Nada. So if it turns out that the odds are 1 in 10^12 then we know life should be everywhere, but if it turns out the odds are 1 in 10^80, then despite the 70 sextillion stars we are still a 1 in 10^58 longshot (ie. impossible).

Both of those points are basic science and basic mathematics and both are irrefutable. I love Science. I respect it. But at times the arrogance and hubris that can arise when those of the scientific world browbeat the philosophical world is too much. The strong assertions only come because many of us are armchair scientists. How many actually have a degree in one of the basic scientific fields?

Message edited by author 2009-02-26 12:09:37.

02/26/2009 12:56:31 PM · #591

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Our universe appears to be finely, finely tuned to be able to support matter which can then support life. One cannot, at least scientifically, postulate lots and lots of attempts at getting this right because we only know of one universe and all our evidence says it's only been around once (versus an expanding/contracting universe.

The universe must appear to be finely tuned for any being, since conditions would have to be suitable for life to arise and develop long enough to be here and argue about it. We have only one example, so it may be that the universe is actually incredibly hostile to life, and we just happen to be the extremophiles clinging to a galactic thermal vent. One can postulate anything (including flying spaghetti monsters), and the nature of matter and information makes it impossible to know whether or not the universe has been cycling forever.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Even though we know there are trillions and trillions of stars (a quick google reveals the current number to be estimated at about 10^22 (70 sextillion)) and it seems inevitable that life should arise, that assertion is based on nothing because we have zero idea how life arose.

Actually the assertion is based on the fact that we KNOW life arose on at least one planet. Whether or not it was inevitable or freakish chance doesn't really matter, and how is a separate issue. Your own premises start with equally nutty odds and then add supernatural miracles on top of that. When a tornado levels a brothel and skips over a school, we needn't just throw up our hands and assume some invisible giant was steering an atmospheric swizzle stick just because it appears to show favorable "intent." The prior tornado may have yielded the opposite result, and if you were in the church you wouldn't be around now to celebrate your incredible luck.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So if it turns out that the odds are 1 in 10^12 then we know life should be everywhere, but if it turns out the odds are 1 in 10^80, then despite the 70 sextillion stars we are still a 1 in 10^58 longshot (ie. impossible).

Then the odds are somewhere in between. Thanks for narrowing that down for us. If the odds are basically impossible for simple matter and processes to lead to life, then what are the odds that something infinitely more complex than the final result would just happen to exist at the outset without any cause or explanation at all. If you can believe the massively longer odds of the latter, then you must be able to accept a simpler explanation along the way.

Message edited by author 2009-02-26 12:58:35.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/26/2009 01:16:14 PM · #592

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our universe appears to be finely, finely tuned to be able to support matter which can then support life. One cannot, at least scientifically, postulate lots and lots of attempts at getting this right because we only know of one universe and all our evidence says it's only been around once (versus an expanding/contracting universe.

The universe must appear to be finely tuned for any being, since conditions would have to be suitable for life to arise and develop long enough to be here and argue about it. We have only one example, so it may be that the universe is actually incredibly hostile to life, and we just happen to be the extremophiles clinging to a galactic thermal vent. One can postulate anything (including flying spaghetti monsters), and the nature of matter and information makes it impossible to know whether or not the universe has been cycling forever.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even though we know there are trillions and trillions of stars (a quick google reveals the current number to be estimated at about 10^22 (70 sextillion)) and it seems inevitable that life should arise, that assertion is based on nothing because we have zero idea how life arose.

Actually the assertion is based on the fact that we KNOW life arose on at least one planet. Whether or not it was inevitable or freakish chance doesn't really matter, and how is a separate issue. Your own premises start with equally nutty odds and then add supernatural miracles on top of that. When a tornado levels a brothel and skips over a school, we needn't just throw up our hands and assume some invisible giant was steering an atmospheric swizzle stick just because it appears to show favorable "intent." The prior tornado may have yielded the opposite result, and if you were in the church you wouldn't be around now to celebrate your incredible luck.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if it turns out that the odds are 1 in 10^12 then we know life should be everywhere, but if it turns out the odds are 1 in 10^80, then despite the 70 sextillion stars we are still a 1 in 10^58 longshot (ie. impossible).

Then the odds are somewhere in between. Thanks for narrowing that down for us. If the odds are basically impossible for simple matter and processes to lead to life, then what are the odds that something infinitely more complex than the final result would just happen to exist at the outset without any cause or explanation at all. If you can believe the massively longer odds of the latter, then you must be able to accept a simpler explanation along the way.

I hate inserting lines between lines on replies because it's a lot of work. :)

1) You keep talking about God being "more complex" and thus more difficult to explain. This is nonsensical because your "more complex" implies "more complex in a physical way". God is not physical and thus is not more complex in that sense. He is, naturally, more complex informationally, but you can't compare apples to oranges. You can't say "if you reject a natural explanation for the physical universe because of it's complexity you must reject the possibility of a informationally complex God for the same reason." One statement does not imply the other. Your response reveals this complexity distinction because it is nonlogical to speak of something being "infinitely more complex" in a physical sense.

2) I'll just nuance your reply a bit. We know life EXISTS on at least one planet. The word "arose", to me at least, too strongly infers a natural explanation. We do not KNOW life "arose" on earth naturally. We only know it is here now.

3) The odds, indeed, are likely somewhere in between. But you don't know where they are and neither do I. More importantly Bear and Mousie do not know either. I am pointing out that their answer to MQuinn's question implies that they do know and that the odds are obviously in the favor of life existing.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/26/2009 01:29:55 PM · #593

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We've talked about the anthropomorphic principle of the universe before. Our universe appears to be finely, finely tuned to be able to support matter which can then support life. One cannot, at least scientifically, postulate lots and lots of attempts at getting this right because we only know of one universe and all our evidence says it's only been around once (versus an expanding/contracting universe).

This entry from (the all knowing and infallible) Wikipedia sums up my own view on the anthropic principal: "Steven Jay Gould, Michael Shermer and others claim that the Anthropic Principle seems to reverse known causes and effects. Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

2) Even though we know there are trillions and trillions of stars (a quick google reveals the current number to be estimated at about 10^22 (70 sextillion)) and it seems inevitable that life should arise, that assertion is based on nothing because we have zero idea how life arose. Zip. Zilch. Nada. So if it turns out that the odds are 1 in 10^12 then we know life should be everywhere, but if it turns out the odds are 1 in 10^80, then despite the 70 sextillion stars we are still a 1 in 10^58 longshot (ie. impossible).

It is not true to say that we have "zero idea how life arose," as there are currently several different hypotheses as to how life on Earth might have arisen. However, it is true that our understanding here is still in its infancy and research is ongoing. The current problem in this area, as I understand it from my friends who do understand this advanced chemistry, is that there appears to be multiple potential solutions. This is good news, in that it means that if there was more than one way in which life could have arisen without outside influence it makes the probability of that happenstance much greater. But is it also bad news, for the scientists who are trying to nail down what the exact process must have been, because if there isn't just one process by which life could have arisen, then figuring out which specific process occurred on Earth is much harder.

If what you are trying to say here is that, given the current state of our understanding we should approach the question with a certain level of humility, then I complete agree with you. But, again, there really is no evidence or need for inserting any sort of supernatural explanation, beyond the fact that we (as a species) like and find comfort from our historical superstitions and myths.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Both of those points are basic science and basic mathematics and both are irrefutable. I love Science. I respect it. But at times the arrogance and hubris that can arise when those of the scientific world browbeat the philosophical world is too much. The strong assertions only come because many of us are armchair scientists. How many actually have a degree in one of the basic scientific fields?

Ah yes, the old "arrogance and hubris" canard. How is "you can't know" (believers) any more of a "strong assertion" than "all available evidence points to x" (non-believers)?

There is really only one side of this debate claiming "to know" ultimate answers - and it is not the non-believers. That the theistic believer's claim "to know" that there is something beyond the natural world is couched in terms of saying that since the other side can't provide full, complete, and wholly realized evidence for claims that are nevertheless backed up by ever-increasing mountains of observation, experimentation and data, then their supernatural claims must be given equal credence, changes the "arrogance and hubris" of the believer's claim not a wit.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/26/2009 01:34:16 PM · #594

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) You keep talking about God being "more complex" and thus more difficult to explain. This is nonsensical because your "more complex" implies "more complex in a physical way". God is not physical and thus is not more complex in that sense. He is, naturally, more complex informationally, but you can't compare apples to oranges. You can't say "if you reject a natural explanation for the physical universe because of it's complexity you must reject the possibility of a informationally complex God for the same reason." One statement does not imply the other. Your response reveals this complexity distinction because it is nonlogical to speak of something being "infinitely more complex" in a physical sense.

Case and point - this is an incredibly strong assertion about the nature of "God." Doesn't this show a lot of "arrogance and hubris" under your own standard to claim such definite knowledge of a supposedly non-physical entity? What evidence for this assertion of God's nature would you present that does not flow from mere tradition?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/26/2009 01:38:42 PM · #595

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

3) The odds, indeed, are likely somewhere in between. But you don't know where they are and neither do I. More importantly Bear and Mousie do not know either. I am pointing out that their answer to MQuinn's question implies that they do know and that the odds are obviously in the favor of life existing.

For the record, that wasn't MY answer, really: I was explaining what I thought Shannon would say. I'm not a believer in the blind-chance theory of life, which is why I am a believer in God.

R.

02/26/2009 01:39:35 PM · #596

I appreciate your reply Shutterpuppy. A few thoughts:

1) Gould's analogy is flawed when the realization is the fine tuning is to allow matter period. We aren't talking about fine tuning so we can support carbon-based, bipedal, carnivorous life forms. We are talking about having a universe with structure at all. The tuning is required to keep it from becoming a universe of black holes or a universe of homogenous energy. Neither can support ANY life of any conceivable type (even letting the imagination run wild). So, in the end, I don't think this refutation holds water. Having a universe with non-uniform matter, appears to be very unlikely (as far as we know).

2) Abiogenesis is a bit of a hobby of mine. At least reading about it. I would temper your "multiple potential solutions" because most have some fatal flaw we have not been able to overcome. I'm not saying we will never figure it out, but our understanding is at enough of an "infancy" (as you put it) to make any odds making unsupportable. That's the important point because both answers to MQuinn's question relied on odds.

3) I agree both sides should have a level of humility. Don't worry, when I cruise the religious realms, I'm happy to whack-a-mole the know-it-alls in those circles as well. My worldview in these threads has always been, "Nobody knows nothing. We make our gueses and we live with them."

Message edited by author 2009-02-26 13:42:35.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/26/2009 01:40:12 PM · #597

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

3) The odds, indeed, are likely somewhere in between. But you don't know where they are and neither do I. More importantly Bear and Mousie do not know either. I am pointing out that their answer to MQuinn's question implies that they do know and that the odds are obviously in the favor of life existing.

For the record, that wasn't MY answer, really: I was explaining what I thought Shannon would say. I'm not a believer in the blind-chance theory of life, which is why I am a believer in God.

R.

Thanks for the clarification. I did wonder why you were saying this.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/26/2009 01:55:30 PM · #598

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) Gould's analogy is flawed when the realization is the fine tuning is to allow matter period. We aren't talking about fine tuning so we can support carbon-based, bipedal, carnivorous life forms. We are talking about having a universe with structure at all. The tuning is required to keep it from becoming a universe of black holes or a universe of homogenous energy. Neither can support ANY life of any conceivable type (even letting the imagination run wild). So, in the end, I don't think this refutation holds water. Having a universe with non-uniform matter, appears to be very unlikely (as far as we know).

2) Abiogenesis is a bit of a hobby of mine. At least reading about it. I would temper your "multiple potential solutions" because most have some fatal flaw we have not been able to overcome. I'm not saying we will never figure it out, but our understanding is at enough of an "infancy" (as you put it) to make any odds making unsupportable. That's the important point because both answers to MQuinn's question relied on odds.

3) I agree both sides should have a level of humility. Don't worry, when I cruise the religious realms, I'm happy to whack-a-mole the know-it-alls in those circles as well. My worldview in these threads has always been, "Nobody knows nothing. We make our guesses and we live with them."

Doc, it is always a pleasure.

1) I take your point, but I don't believe this overcomes the problem outlined by Gould, et al. This would seem to be a case of the barnacles speculating that without the structure of the boat there wouldn't be any conceivable possibility for life at all. We exist in the universe we do because its fundamental laws and conditions allow for our existence, if they did not, we wouldn't be here to argue about it.

2) I think you should take that first sentence and make a photograph. :) Be sure to bring the lab coat. Other than that, I think on this one we generally agree on the underlying facts, just make differing "guesses."

3) Fair enough. I would simply argue that some guesses are more likely than others. (And I'm sure you would do the same.)

02/26/2009 02:14:52 PM · #599

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

1) I take your point, but I don't believe this overcomes the problem outlined by Gould, et al. This would seem to be a case of the barnacles speculating that without the structure of the boat there wouldn't be any conceivable possibility for life at all. We exist in the universe we do because its fundamental laws and conditions allow for our existence, if they did not, we wouldn't be here to argue about it.

Hmmm, I'll try again. I do get Gould's argument, but I see it this way. Gould is saying, to me at least, this: "Look, there are lots of permutations our universe could have taken. Our's has led to us being the way we are (carbon based, bipedal, etc). It could easily have had different properties and we would be silicon based or metal based, or something else." This argument only works if our universe's properties are one of many possible ones that can support life of ANY type. (Statistically we would be saying that even though there are trillions of possibilities, ours is one of many that supports life. The odds look long but really they are not because many of the possibilities would have worked. Although we may have been different, we would still be here.) However, my argument is this does not reflect reality. The vast majority of possible permutations for the universe cannot support life of any kind because they wind up as either collapsed singularities, a universe of black holes, or a universe of homogenous energy. In your barnacle analogy Gould is saying the boat could have had many shapes and the barnacle would still be there, but I'm contending that most of the time the boat wouldn't even be there in the first place.

Look at it this way, if what I am saying is not true, we would have no need for the idea of a multiverse, yet we do. The multiverse is an attempt at explaining the fine-tuned universe. If the fine-tuning was not our current understanding, we would not be exploring the idea of the multiverse.