Aliens, evolution, and creationism

06/21/2013 12:56:08 AM · #51

Here, have a listen to Penny talking about life elsewhere, since you are likely to have ignored the video the first time around. She's a smart lady, and has some really great insight into exactly how flexible life is.

As for the crap about the sub atomic particles - the fact that the theory needs to be adjusted doesn't invalidate it to the level that you seem to want to believe it does.

In fact, this is the most exciting result possible, and will almost certainly lead to further progress and better understanding.

Hell, it might even lead to the grand unified field theory. Who knows, exciting stuff, but you see it through the lens of religion I guess- since you seem to think this discovery somehow invalidates science and validates religion. I just don't get it.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 01:24:26.

06/21/2013 01:04:48 AM · #52

By the way, Sneezy, that article is from the Simons Foundation, which was started by the really smart version of Bernie Madoff.

Originally posted by Wiki:

In 2006 Simons was named Financial Engineer of the Year by the International Association of Financial Engineers. In 2007 he was estimated to have personally earned $2.8 billion,[14] $1.7 billion in 2006,[15] $1.5 billion in 2005,[16] (the largest compensation among hedge fund managers that year)[17] and $670 million in 2004.
Observers have been wondering how Renaissance's in-house Medallion Fund has managed to continue to outperform the stock market handily while funds open to outside investors have performed miserably. The violation could be related to the Nova Fund, a hedge fund that had very high returns which was mysteriously subsumed by the internal Medallion Fund.[18]
The Stony Brook University Foundation, whose chairman emeritus is James Simons, lost $5.4 million in Bernard Madoff�s Ponzi scheme. Stony Brook invested money with Madoff through managed accounts since 1991. Simons encouraged the 24,000-student school to invest with Mr. Madoff while Mr. Simons was chairman of the Stony Brook Foundation. He helped introduce the college to Bernard Madoff. Mr. Simons's family foundation invested money with Madoff. The foundation is run by Marilyn Simons, Mr. Simons's wife. Mr. Simons is secretary and treasurer.[19]

To call this guy's foundation unbiased is a little bit of a stretch, given the creditably of it's creator, and I'd say that it's a shame io9 even published a link to such a poorly written piece of supposedly scientific literature.

And just to be VERY clear - he's a Christian.

Originally posted by wiki:

Simons shuns the limelight and rarely gives interviews, citing Benjamin the Donkey in Animal Farm for explanation: "God gave me a tail to keep off the flies. But I'd rather have had no tail and no flies."[4]

****

Now, I'm going to really take the damned thing apart, just for good measure:

Originally posted by badly written 'scientific' article posted by Sneezy:

In peril is the notion of �naturalness,� Albert Einstein�s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time.

The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. [....blah..blah.blah]

This is the entire premise of your article, but is knocked down with the simple observation that this is defeatism and mystical thinking . Oh- magic random fluctuations... THAT HAPPEN WITH COMPLETE CONSISTENCY EVERY FRICKEN TIME.

There are laws of nature, we just haven't quite gotten the whole thing assembled correctly yet. But this is another step towards that goal, not away from it, as this article mistaken seems to have concluded. The use of silly phrases like 'last-ditch search for answers' is just icing on the cake - seriously, like all scientists are about to just give up and admit that we don't know what the hell we've been doing all this time.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 01:18:00.

06/21/2013 01:10:07 AM · #53

Sneezy - can you see what I have such a hard time even taking your position seriously here?

It's simply too easy to take apart all of your arguments and sources, if only I want to take the time and care to do the research.

I understand that you, and many others like you, need God for whatever reasons you may have, but life, and the universe, doesn't.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 01:22:09.

06/21/2013 11:11:13 AM · #54

An amazing piece of work Cory! Ad hominem at its very best. You do come up with a small argument at the bottom about defeatism, etc., but you, again, totally miss the premise. They aren't talking about the repeatability of things. They are talking about a TOE. You can't have a TOE if everything seems to be arbitrarily set.

BTW, Penny talking about life in the universe is a COMPLETELY different subject than the one I speak to. If life shows up in a billion billion billion places in our universe we still face exactly the same question.

Damn! Scientific American has been hoodwinked by Simons Foundation as well!

New Physics Complications Lend Support to the Multiverse Hypothesis

Let's see. Two options. The scientific community is being fooled by a Bernie Madoff, Christian charlatan...or...Cory doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll ponder that one for a while. ;)

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 11:12:04.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/21/2013 11:31:03 AM · #55

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Talk about missing the premise.

If there are no rules, and things are arbitrary, expecting them to behave consistently would be insane. However, the consistency we observe does indicate laws underpin the workings.

And.. Umm, you'll notice that Scientific American isn't exactly a journal.

Show me a journal, then I'll listen - as it is you're citing radio astronomers on extraterrestrial life, while ignoring what a geomicrobiologist has to say, and posting biased articles as though they're proof of something.

The scientific community hasn't been fooled one bit - but popular publications sure have been.

As for how you can defend the actions of Mr. Simons... That's just beyond me - the man is clearly a con artist, and a damned good one at that.

As for me not knowing what I'm talking about... Yeah. Whatever dude, I'm a geologist, I've studied this crap, and am personally acquainted with one of the authorities on the subject of extraterrestrial life.

I am NOT a particle physicist, nor would I ever bother with being one - let me point out that you're continuing to try to move the damn goal posts by focusing on the new data that hasn't been explained, and failing entirely to even talk about the point you brought up, and that I was talking to.

You stated that life is just too complex, too perfect, and the universe too harsh for it to be anything but intentional and the work of God.

I said that's bullshit, and quoted a bit of relevant Douglas Adams for levity, which you then focused on, while ignoring my reference to a real authority on the subject. Then you proceeded to attempt to change the conversation a half dozen times, just to avoid admitting that life is super flexible, and that it is not only possible, but rather probable, life has evolved in many places, many times, and is likely a common component of the universe.

I have no idea why you can't actually have a real discussion about anything without playing these silly and frustrating games, but it's quite clear to me that you wish to remain blind and superstitious, and will do whatever it takes to remain so.

ETA: And, no, you're quite wrong in your assumption if life is ever shown to be present throughout the universe, we face the same questions, in fact, your position loses a HUGE chunk of ground once that situation arises, as it's further evidence that we actually aren't all that special, and would completely remove the 'unique' argument.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 12:00:08.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-60D

06/21/2013 11:47:18 AM · #56

Originally posted by Cory:

personally antiquated

#1- antiquated is a funny auto correct for "acquainted."

#2- it's a fool's errand trying shake some sense into some people.

06/21/2013 11:52:00 AM · #57

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Cory:
personally antiquated

#1- antiquated is a funny auto correct for "acquainted."

#2- it's a fool's errand trying shake some sense into some people.

ROFL. Fixed it, thanks! :D

Well, I haven't seen her in a couple of years, so I think it may have been Freudian in nature. ;)

And, I fear, a fool, I am.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 12:00:54.

06/21/2013 12:09:49 PM · #58

Cory, we can stop because I know how you get. Your post above does show that we are talking totally past each other and not to each other. You were making claims about my argument that weren't even pertinent and that I hadn't even brought up (the uniqueness of life, etc).

IF you want to try to talk TO each other (and we don't even need to do that if you don't want), can I ask you to state in your own words how you understand what we might colloqually call the "fine-tuned nature" of the universe? That way we can see if we're even on the same page.

06/21/2013 12:13:43 PM · #59

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here you go Cory. This is a good read on the current state of things. It's the essay the io9 article quotes. Believe it or it they talk about the cosmological constant and it still appears to be fine tuned. I'll quote:

The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it�s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance."

The article

I'm just going to start over with this post. Once more, since I'm a fool.

Let's just assume everything you wrote is correct, as it well may be.

The problem is that you are like the puddle, you find yourself in a hole that fits you, and think that it must be a pretty special hole to fit you so darn well - perfectly in fact.

In reality, of course, the puddle just filled the hole, and there's nothing more to it. (other than why a puddle is thinking about anything in the first place, which is still beyond me, and possibly won't ever be explained by science)

The extrapolation is that we find ourselves in the position of the puddle - we sit on a world where it seems we are quite lucky to be. Of course, I figure it's more probable that we evolved to fit the environment, but I suspect you don't believe in such nonsense. So we can sorta just let this be for now, since it's not really integral to this argument anyway, and my point is equally valid in either state.

If the cosmological constant really does have to be that fine tuned, and assuming it was set to a random level at the outset of the observable universe, with any mistuning of said cosmological constant resulting in a rapid failure of that universe, then it stands to reason that with an infinite amount of time this particular version of the universe was not only probable, but actually inevitable, given that e=MC^2 (at least here, and now anyway - at back to a few milliseconds after the initial event) ...

Assuming that there is at least something before, and something after, which is perfectly reasonable, then it stands that those somethings can try an infinite variety of configurations until a configuration is reached which allows stability to take hold. Of course, we know the universe isn't stable, but rather, that it's simply 'stable enough'.

As for the lack of any theory to explain the new data - WELL OF COURSE!!! Like you said, the data is literally days old - to expect an immediate theory is so amazingly demonstrative of a lack of understanding of the way that science works that it amazes me you even bring this up as though it's somehow surprising.

My entire point is this - you demonstrate a very poor grasp of infinity and the implications of time on the scale we are talking about, and I suspect that is a good part of why you are able to hold the beliefs that you do.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 12:25:03.

06/21/2013 12:22:01 PM · #60

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your post above does show that we are talking totally past each other and not to each other.

Any unbiased observers care to comment?

I feel that I speak directly to your points, and that you often do not speak to mine. I think that the fact you would even say this is astonishing.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

06/21/2013 12:24:56 PM · #61

That is MUCH better. If I understand you, you are championing option #3 (ie. a multiverse) to explain the fine tuned nature of our "puddle" (ie. universe). I have no problem with this. You understand that, right?

(BTW, the best Journal citation for the problem I could find is at this link. It's the Journal of High Energy Physics. Good luck reading it. :) It's 90% greek to me. But between the jargon you can catch a glimpse of the issue.)

Bear_Music

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

06/21/2013 12:26:02 PM · #62

Originally posted by Doc:

1) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but an active entity (ie. God) has ensured that it is so, so that we can come into being.
2) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but just by luck the combination that exists supports life.
3) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but there are such a vast number of other universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them supports life.
4) There are as yet undiscovered reasons why the apparent fine-tuning is not highly unlikely.

He's not outside your parameters here. You're not giving him enough credit. He IS willing to listen, he IS open to dialogue and, to his credit, he's NOT engaging in ad hominem debate. You're treating him like an idiot, and it's kind of insulting, even if I do love you like a black-sheep brother :-)

ETA: Hah, Doc and I cross-posted

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 12:26:47.

06/21/2013 12:29:30 PM · #63

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's a much better article.

"A large enhancement of a factor of 1.5 - 2 in Higgs production and decay in the diphoton channel, with little deviation in the ZZ channel, can only plausibly arise from a loop of new charged particles with large couplings to the Higgs. We show that, allowing only new fermions with marginal interactions at the weak scale, the required Yukawa couplings for a factor of 2 enhancement are so large that the Higgs quartic coupling is pushed to large negative values in the UV, triggering an unacceptable vacuum instability far beneath the 10 TeV scale. An enhancement by a factor of 1.5 can be accommodated if the charged particles are lighter than 150 GeV, within reach of discovery in almost all cases in the 8 TeV run at the LHC, and in even the most difficult cases at 14 TeV. Thus if the diphoton enhancement survives further scrutiny, and no charged particles beneath 150 GeV are found, there must be new bosons far beneath the 10 TeV scale. This would unambiguously rule out a large class of fine-tuned theories for physics beyond the Standard Model, including split SUSY and many of its variants, and provide strong circumstantial evidence for a natural theory of electroweak symmetry breaking at the TeV scale. Alternately, theories with only a single fine-tuned Higgs and new fermions at the weak scale, with no additional scalars or gauge bosons up to a cutoff much larger than the 10 TeV scale, unambiguously predict that the hints for a large diphoton enhancement in the current data will disappear."

As you can see, they're predicting a few ways this may resolve itself, and no where do they say "THE UNIVERSE IS UNNATURAL!!".. That sort of headline and the stuff that followed it were simply conclusions based upon the data, which I think were very incorrect.

I understand you have no problem with a multiverse, as long as God created it. ;)

06/21/2013 12:59:06 PM · #64

You saw that none of my articles declared "THE UNIVERSE IS UNNATURAL!", right? The title was "Is Nature Unnatural?" which is much more diplomatic, isn't it?

You give me very little credit and that's what I always endeavor to change. To open your mind (or people like you) to how someone else thinks. (BTW, I have no problem with the multiverse, period. If God exists, though, it's probably a redundant step (though I suppose it could still exist). Why would one choose option #1 AND #3 if either will suffice on its own?

If you will allow me to probe your position a little, can I ask one question (I brought this up earlier). You said, "with an infinite amount of time this particular version of the universe was not only probable, but actually inevitable". Do you literally mean "infinite"? Or do you just mean "a whole lot"?

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 13:06:09.

06/21/2013 01:08:45 PM · #65

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Cory, regardless of whether or not we "evolved to fit the puddle", the bottom line is that for whatever reason puddle+life=finely-tuned. I'm NOT saying there was some mysterious force behind the fine-tuning, just that the entire thing IS a finely-tuned system.

He's not outside your parameters here. You're not giving him enough credit. He IS willing to listen, he IS open to dialogue and, to his credit, he's NOT engaging in ad hominem debate. You're treating him like an idiot, and it's kind of insulting, even if I do love you like a black-sheep brother :-)

First, you may not be saying there is a mysterious force, but I always suspect he is - especially in a thread titled "RE: Aliens, evolution, and creationism"

With that being said, to be fair, I'm sure you're right about me treating him badly as though he's an idiot, clearly that's not fair.

I don't really quite know if or how I can fix it though - I'm finding myself reacting more and more aggressively and negatively towards any person standing on any position that is supported through religious doctrine. I suppose it's just a matter of respect, and I'm afraid that I've lost almost any form of respect for the religious position and belief. It would seem that I have gotten into a mode where I just meet, with outright contempt, any suggestion that science doesn't have a chance, despite the massive amount of clear evidence of which system has done more to improve quality of life, and advance us as a species, and the even clearer evidence of who's making progress and who's halting progress.

I also get really mad at people who stand in front of their rescuer, or benefactor - and thank god for what the help they were given. I am disgusted with those who thank god when their child is saved from death by doctors, when instead they should have thanked the generations of scientists who worked 12 hour days making the feat possible.

Truly, I fear that religion may well be the single factor that dooms our species - for it is the platform of comfort and convenient fantasy to which people cling, preventing progress, falsely believing in magic, and gods. Certainly, I'll admit that there was a time when religion was crucial to our development, and served it's purpose well - but just like a baby's bottle and diapers, there is a time to leave such childish things behind. I just can't imagine it's going to continue to be good for our species, and while I do strongly believe in the individual's right to be free to think and believe as we please, I just can't see this whole religion thing playing out well for us - and I think I support my right to think this.

To you Jason, I do apologize, as I know you're not an idiot, and in truth I know you to be a good person.

To bring this to a bit of a humorous analogy: your way of thinking spooks me - not because of you - but rather because religious beliefs are like a gun - they're a tool, and a potentially right useful one in the right hands. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that guns were approached like religion in this world we'd be quite literally up to our necks in firearms. And even more unfortunately, it seems to me that the less educated are even more likely to hold these beliefs, which only further compounds the problem. So, just because you're a very responsible 'gun' owner, it's the other yahoos with unlimited ammo that I'm worried about.

PS:(damnit if that article you posted at first wasn't the worst thing I've read in ages. That's gonna do a shitload of damage to the common understanding of this wonderful discovery - the stupid ass who wrote that should be beaten with sticks)

06/21/2013 01:15:07 PM · #66

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

An interesting question. Funny enough, I don't think anything in this universe is infinite, so in truth I actually mean "a whole lot, an inconceivably large amount, so much in fact that the only word we have to adequately convey the idea is 'infinite'."

So, really, I favor some variation of the donut shaped universe, the multiverse, etc - but I don't think infinity really exists, especially since the concept itself is linked to time, which is probably non existent except for the perception of it in this bubble of crap we can see - and most certainly isn't constant, even here.

Why do you ask?

As for your goal, I suppose I'll let you make some progress today on that, and make a conscious effort to not dismiss you as a fool who's position is founded on religious fallacy out of hand.

Now, if I could only get you to admit that the whole thing is an anachronism, and that the time for religion is rapidly passing us by, or perhaps has passed us by. :D

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/21/2013 01:24:20 PM · #67

I should just quit while I'm ahead... :)

The concept of "infinite time past" is paradoxical and I would have explored that. I could ask a different question, however. How would one go about determining if there has been enough time to make the combination of qualities of our universe likely? I assume all that time would "exist" outside our own universe and in the multiverse.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 13:24:37.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/21/2013 01:26:01 PM · #68

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(BTW, I have no problem with the multiverse, period. If God exists, though, it's probably a redundant step ...).

If the multiverse exists wouldn't each "'verse" need it's own (slightly different) God?

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

06/21/2013 01:43:44 PM · #69

BTW, just to make it clear. I didn't title this thread. I just glommed onto it instead of creating yet other Rant thread. It seemed close enough...

Bear_Music

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

06/21/2013 01:49:43 PM · #70

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(BTW, I have no problem with the multiverse, period. If God exists, though, it's probably a redundant step ...).

If the multiverse exists wouldn't each "'verse" need it's own (slightly different) God?

Possibly just one, very kludgy God who kept whacking away at the concept, over and over, until he got it right? I leave it to the theologians to debate whether OURS is the one where he "got it right" or just another one of the abandoned attempts :-)

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 13:49:58.

06/21/2013 01:53:48 PM · #71

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The simple, observable, highly incontrovertible, fact that we exist seems to prove that it is not only likely, but in fact has happened at least once, and probably many more times if the span of 'time' is sufficient, or the rate of 'experiments' is great enough. Aside from that, it's fairly unlikely that what we recognize as time would exist outside of our universe, and in fact it's highly likely that something else entirely may be working at those levels - unfortunately, we haven't yet found any way to observe this state of affairs - perhaps simply because it doesn't exist in such a way that it is observable. Still, our inability to measure, observe, and then subsequently make incorrect conclusions from that data doesn't in any way hinder the operation of these mechanisms.

We exist, therefore it must be so. Q.E.D.

06/21/2013 02:03:12 PM · #72

Now, let me pose three questions in return, on the subject of religion:

What purpose does god serve when trying to figure out how things work, and why? (and I'm not talking about 100 years ago, I'm talking about today, and today only)

Do you agree or disagree that more often than not, in today's world, religious concerns are actively having a negative effect upon our progress?

How does this whole religion thing play out to our benefit in the future - how does this sort of thing end well?

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 14:03:21.

06/21/2013 02:05:02 PM · #73

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(BTW, I have no problem with the multiverse, period. If God exists, though, it's probably a redundant step ...).

If the multiverse exists wouldn't each "'verse" need it's own (slightly different) God?

Possibly just one, very kludgy God who kept whacking away at the concept, over and over, until he got it right? I leave it to the theologians to debate whether OURS is the one where he "got it right" or just another one of the abandoned attempts :-)

Surely you jest?

There is nothing in theology that I've read which would restrict God to any one realm of creation. Besides, God is a puddle, and can be fit to nearly any size and shape of hole requiring something to fill it.

(And yes, I know you're kidding)

06/21/2013 02:42:05 PM · #74

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I should just quit while I'm ahead... :)

The concept of "infinite time past" is paradoxical and I would have explored that. I could ask a different question, however. How would one go about determining if there has been enough time to make the combination of qualities of our universe likely? I assume all that time would "exist" outside our own universe and in the multiverse.

The simple, observable, highly incontrovertible, fact that we exist seems to prove that it is not only likely, but in fact has happened at least once, and probably many more times if the span of 'time' is sufficient, or the rate of 'experiments' is great enough. Aside from that, it's fairly unlikely that what we recognize as time would exist outside of our universe, and in fact it's highly likely that something else entirely may be working at those levels - unfortunately, we haven't yet found any way to observe this state of affairs - perhaps simply because it doesn't exist in such a way that it is observable. Still, our inability to measure, observe, and then subsequently make incorrect conclusions from that data doesn't in any way hinder the operation of these mechanisms.

We exist, therefore it must be so. Q.E.D.

Your last statement "begs the question" in the actual sense of that term (we all tend to use "begging the question" incorrectly to imply, "the natural question (or problem) given your premise is..." rather than to declare the argument to be circular). We have seen that there are (at least) four philosophical answers for why we find ourselves in a habitable, possibly fine-tuned universe. We cannot, therefore, state that any particular one of the four options must be the answer because we find ourselves here. (It would be similarly irrational to declare we know God created us because we exist.)

You do, however, get at my ultimate point with your statement, "it's highly likely that something else entirely may be working at those levels". Are you comfortable with this concept? That a process could happen that we have no access to and could never hope to have access to and that this is our answer? Philosophically that concept is on identical ground as one that includes God. As long as you understand this, I'm happy. I only seek to level the playing field. I don't necessarily seek to bring you to my side of the pitch.

Instead of two posts I'll answer your questions you then asked me.

God serves a philosophical purpose. He can be an important part of philosophical questions and worldviews are almost always built on philosophical premises. He serves no purpose in the scientific sense. In other words, the proper scientific answer is never "God did it." (even if God DID do it.)

I totally, wholeheartedly disagree with your second premise. (suprise)

I think religion benefits us in the future just like it benefits us in the past. We could go into sociological benefits, but that really misses the point which is to describe reality. If religion is the Truth the question of "benefit" is nonsensical. If it isn't true, it actually can still be beneficial (sociologically speaking).

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 14:43:10.