DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Aliens, evolution, and creationism
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 249, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/25/2013 01:25:56 PM · #101
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



The extremely unlikely universe is covered under #2, no?


Yes, I suppose it would, however you seem to dismiss that as being too improbable.
06/25/2013 01:27:07 PM · #102
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



An oscillating universe would fit under #3 although most versions of an oscillating universe have been shown to be impossible by Hawkins et al. due to thermodynamic limitations.



Perhaps our new little 'problem' will lead us to something interesting in this regard. Or perhaps down an entirely new road.
06/25/2013 01:30:18 PM · #103
I'm partial to the "grain of sand" theory of universes myself: our entire universe is but a grain of sand on a particular tropical beach of a minor planet orbiting an insignificant star in a larger universe, which itself is just a drop of water in a globe-girdling ocean... etc etc, you get the idea. Fits idea #3.

Great fleas have little fleas
upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so ad infinitum.

And the great fleas themselves, in turn,
have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still,
and greater still, and so on.


1872 A. De morgan, Budget of Paradoxes (Based on Jonathan Swift)
06/25/2013 01:38:04 PM · #104
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm partial to the "grain of sand" theory of universes myself: our entire universe is but a grain of sand on a particular tropical beach of a minor planet orbiting an insignificant star in a larger universe, which itself is just a drop of water in a globe-girdling ocean... etc etc, you get the idea. Fits idea #3.

Great fleas have little fleas
upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so ad infinitum.

And the great fleas themselves, in turn,
have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still,
and greater still, and so on.


1872 A. De morgan, Budget of Paradoxes (Based on Jonathan Swift)


Strange. I've always had a real soft spot for that one myself. It seems to fit the available/observable evidence best. We continue to find more layers in each direction we look.

To continue the thought - not only might there be a vast number of universes, but consider that perhaps our universe is but a single cell in but a single organ of a being, of whom there are billions, who inhabit a much larger realm similar to our concept of a planet, which itself is but a single component of trillions of others like it - and they themselves are but a molecule in the structure of another system.

Message edited by author 2013-06-25 13:45:51.
06/25/2013 01:39:35 PM · #105
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



The extremely unlikely universe is covered under #2, no?


Yes, I suppose it would, however you seem to dismiss that as being too improbable.


When you look at the probability it does seem a bit too improbable. It's hard to fathom numbers like 1 in 10^120. It could, however, be true. We are just really, really, really lucky.
06/25/2013 01:40:54 PM · #106
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



The extremely unlikely universe is covered under #2, no?


Yes, I suppose it would, however you seem to dismiss that as being too improbable.


When you look at the probability it does seem a bit too improbable. It's hard to fathom numbers like 1 in 10^120. It could, however, be true. We are just really, really, really lucky.


And the puddle just so happens to fit the hole. I find it not at all improbable, in fact, when I look around and consider the matter, I find it downright probable.

Consider this: on a small/fast scale - if an ecological niche opens up - there is almost always a species ready to fill the void. The matter, I suspect, holds true to a much larger degree over longer periods of time.

Message edited by author 2013-06-25 13:42:56.
06/25/2013 01:50:34 PM · #107
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



The extremely unlikely universe is covered under #2, no?


Yes, I suppose it would, however you seem to dismiss that as being too improbable.


When you look at the probability it does seem a bit too improbable. It's hard to fathom numbers like 1 in 10^120. It could, however, be true. We are just really, really, really lucky.


And the puddle just so happens to fit the hole. I find it not at all improbable, in fact, when I look around and consider the matter, I find it downright probable.

Consider this: on a small/fast scale - if an ecological niche opens up - there is almost always a species ready to fill the void. The matter, I suspect, holds true to a much larger degree over longer periods of time.


You keep forgetting the tuning has to do with whether there is a niche to begin with not just the quality of the niche. Many of the tunings have to do with whether the universe obliterates itself seconds after it was born. The cosmological constant mentioned above (the 1 in 10^120) is exactly such a factor.
06/25/2013 02:27:30 PM · #108
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



The extremely unlikely universe is covered under #2, no?


Yes, I suppose it would, however you seem to dismiss that as being too improbable.


When you look at the probability it does seem a bit too improbable. It's hard to fathom numbers like 1 in 10^120. It could, however, be true. We are just really, really, really lucky.


And the puddle just so happens to fit the hole. I find it not at all improbable, in fact, when I look around and consider the matter, I find it downright probable.

Consider this: on a small/fast scale - if an ecological niche opens up - there is almost always a species ready to fill the void. The matter, I suspect, holds true to a much larger degree over longer periods of time.


You keep forgetting the tuning has to do with whether there is a niche to begin with not just the quality of the niche. Many of the tunings have to do with whether the universe obliterates itself seconds after it was born. The cosmological constant mentioned above (the 1 in 10^120) is exactly such a factor.


And most holes wouldn't fit the puddle very well. Many would be too deep, or too shallow, or wouldn't have that nice bush above them.

But, it does so happen that there are some holes that fit some puddles very well. No crazy explanations needed, and no need for a finely tuned anything.

In fact, it works out that every time you see a puddle, you'll find that it somehow has marvelously found just the right hole to sit in. Pretty amazing stuff. ;)

Message edited by author 2013-06-25 14:28:50.
06/25/2013 03:48:34 PM · #109
I suspect you still don't quite understand. Or you're being obstinate. Both are more probably than 1 in 10^120. ;)
06/25/2013 06:02:27 PM · #110
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I suspect you still don't quite understand. Or you're being obstinate. Both are more probably than 1 in 10^120. ;)


funny! that's one we can both agree on. ;-)
06/26/2013 12:10:35 AM · #111
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When you look at the probability it does seem a bit too improbable.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859 - 1930), (as Sherlock Holmes)

I seem to remember you liked citing that one ...

As I understand it, current models of the physical universe consider the characteristics and actions ascribed to God impossible, so some other alternative, however improbable, must be the truth, even if we can't define or understand every aspect of it. Even if God is possible, I'm not sure why it should be considered any more likely than any other model ...
06/26/2013 08:34:42 AM · #112
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I suspect you still don't quite understand. Or you're being obstinate. Both are more probably than 1 in 10^120. ;)


Are you saying "That's it. We're done- look no further, Scientific theory has all but proven the existence of God, it couldn't be any other way, and tomorrow will hold no information that can change this postulate."
06/26/2013 11:29:59 AM · #113
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I suspect you still don't quite understand. Or you're being obstinate. Both are more probably than 1 in 10^120. ;)


Are you saying "That's it. We're done- look no further, Scientific theory has all but proven the existence of God, it couldn't be any other way, and tomorrow will hold no information that can change this postulate."


No. Not even close. Science's job is to always look for answers. This doesn't mean answers will always be found, but Science always looks anyway.
06/26/2013 03:48:34 PM · #114
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I suspect you still don't quite understand. Or you're being obstinate. Both are more probably than 1 in 10^120. ;)


Are you saying "That's it. We're done- look no further, Scientific theory has all but proven the existence of God, it couldn't be any other way, and tomorrow will hold no information that can change this postulate."


No. Not even close. Science's job is to always look for answers. This doesn't mean answers will always be found, but Science always looks anyway.


Not close? You aren't understanding me. But no matter, why is God more probable than Luck- no matter how steep the odds? If someone who never had ever heard of the concept of a creator saw this evidence- would they conclude it was a God at the wheel, much less the Christian God of the Bible?
06/26/2013 05:20:38 PM · #115
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Not close? You aren't understanding me. But no matter, why is God more probable than Luck- no matter how steep the odds? If someone who never had ever heard of the concept of a creator saw this evidence- would they conclude it was a God at the wheel, much less the Christian God of the Bible?


I dunno. Experience. If someone won the powerball lottery three times in a row, would you naturally suspect a) she was very lucky or b) the game was rigged? Be honest. I'm pretty sure I'd suspect the game was rigged.

I think I didn't understand you though. I didn't think your statement was close because you said, "Scientific theory has all but proven the existence of God." I'm not sure what you mean by that. We haven't, in essense, proven the existence of God (one interpretation) and we haven't also proven everything so that God need not exist (another interpretation). Certainly I wasn't proposing either idea.

Message edited by author 2013-06-26 17:23:07.
06/26/2013 05:37:41 PM · #116
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Not close? You aren't understanding me. But no matter, why is God more probable than Luck- no matter how steep the odds? If someone who never had ever heard of the concept of a creator saw this evidence- would they conclude it was a God at the wheel, much less the Christian God of the Bible?


I dunno. Experience. If someone won the powerball lottery three times in a row, would you naturally suspect a) she was very lucky or b) the game was rigged? Be honest. I'm pretty sure I'd suspect the game was rigged.

I think I didn't understand you though. I didn't think your statement was close because you said, "Scientific theory has all but proven the existence of God." I'm not sure what you mean by that. We haven't, in essense, proven the existence of God (one interpretation) and we haven't also proven everything so that God need not exist (another interpretation). Certainly I wasn't proposing either idea.


The value of science is disproof, not proof. And Doc, you haven't won the lottery three times in a row. In fact, the whole thing looks more like a bunch of folks standing in line, buying tickets, and telling me about the new cars they're going to buy with all the money they're about to win. Ya know, faith - that thing. :)

Funny enough to carry the lottery analogy further (I think analogies are fun), it's even more silly looking, because there are actually a few dozen lines, and everyone in each line thinks that all the other lotteries are a sham-rip-off, but that theirs is awesome, and everyone else is just wasting their money - especially those who aren't playing the lottery.

Message edited by author 2013-06-26 17:41:31.
06/26/2013 05:47:41 PM · #117
Originally posted by Cory:

...especially those who aren't playing the lottery.

"You must bet. You have no choice. You are in the game."

You can't opt out of this lottery :-)
06/26/2013 05:51:00 PM · #118
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

...especially those who aren't playing the lottery.

"You must bet. You have no choice. You are in the game."

You can't opt out of this lottery :-)


LOL.

By their measure, I've already placed my bets, and I'm all in baby. :D
06/26/2013 05:57:09 PM · #119
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

...especially those who aren't playing the lottery.

"You must bet. You have no choice. You are in the game."

You can't opt out of this lottery :-)


LOL.

By their measure, I've already placed my bets, and I'm all in baby. :D

Hrrmph: I expected you to attribute the quote for me, d00d... You're slippin'
06/26/2013 06:04:08 PM · #120
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

...especially those who aren't playing the lottery.

"You must bet. You have no choice. You are in the game."

You can't opt out of this lottery :-)


LOL.

By their measure, I've already placed my bets, and I'm all in baby. :D

Hrrmph: I expected you to attribute the quote for me, d00d... You're slippin'


Riiight, like citing Pascal EVER goes well in these debates.

Frankly, I hate the whole thing.

Not only is it a piss-poor proposition (Like an omnipotent God could be fooled so easily), but the very premise that the bet is a no-cost wager is obviously crap, there is a huge cost involved in being religious.

*shrug* Just figured it was easier to walk past with an easy chuckle. ;)
06/26/2013 07:04:34 PM · #121
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I dunno. Experience. If someone won the powerball lottery three times in a row, would you naturally suspect a) she was very lucky or b) the game was rigged? Be honest. I'm pretty sure I'd suspect the game was rigged.

If the game was being played in pre-big-bang quantum-weirdness soup with the time constraint removed, then all bets are off. She could draw balls 1 to 45 in their exact order a million times in a row (but instantaneously) and I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
06/26/2013 07:07:23 PM · #122
Wow. An analogy goes wrong in Rant. There's a surprise. :) Let me be clear exactly what I mean.

Our universe supports life and so seems to be a "winning lottery ticket". Our current information says the lottery is one with really, really low odds (winning the real Powerball would be a piece of cake compared to this). I will go over our four previous options listed along with the lottery analogy.

1) One ticket. One winner. The lottery was rigged and some official who likes us picked our numbers on purpose. (God)
2) We got really, really lucky. One pick. One winner. All by chance. (Chance)
3) Unbeknownst to us we actually bought a billion tickets (or enough to make it much more likely that we'd win). We only see the winning ticket but the losing tickets do exist. (Multiverse)
4) This one is harder to translate to the lottery analogy. There is some unknown mechanism by which our lucky win wasn't lucky after all. One ticket. One winner. But it actually wasn't as lucky as it seems (we just can't explain it yet). (undiscovered scientific principle)

JH, you seem to be proposing some version of #3.

Message edited by author 2013-06-26 19:09:12.
06/26/2013 07:23:42 PM · #123
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wow. An analogy goes wrong in Rant. There's a surprise. :) Let me be clear exactly what I mean.

Our universe supports life and so seems to be a "winning lottery ticket". Our current information says the lottery is one with really, really low odds (winning the real Powerball would be a piece of cake compared to this). I will go over our four previous options listed along with the lottery analogy.

1) One ticket. One winner. The lottery was rigged and some official who likes us picked our numbers on purpose. (God)
2) We got really, really lucky. One pick. One winner. All by chance. (Chance)
3) Unbeknownst to us we actually bought a billion tickets (or enough to make it much more likely that we'd win). We only see the winning ticket but the losing tickets do exist. (Multiverse)
4) This one is harder to translate to the lottery analogy. There is some unknown mechanism by which our lucky win wasn't lucky after all. One ticket. One winner. But it actually wasn't as lucky as it seems (we just can't explain it yet). (undiscovered scientific principle)

JH, you seem to be proposing some version of #3.


3. Change the word exist to existed or exist...

-- Going with that - still, how do you come to recognize #1 as being in any way probable?

As best as we can tell, there's a black-box of some sort running the show - and we're trying to figure out what's in the box - the religious argue that there's a sort of superior man-like creature in the box(or outside the box, whatever), making decisions, the secular argue that it's not probable that a man-creature could be in such a box, and that things seem to work in a regulated and predictable way. The religious return with the argument that sometimes the box does something that the secular didn't predict, and the secular shrug and respond 'we'll predict that one now, wonder if there are any more surprises in there?'.....

Still, how does all of that lead you to the conclusion you have made? Why god, and especially, why your god? It doesn't make any sense to me, really - none. I come here to joust with you, not only for amusement, but really, I want to wake up one day, and to have this madness that surrounds me suddenly crystallize into something sensible and comprehensible. Still looks like a jumbled up mess to me though.
06/26/2013 07:29:18 PM · #124
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

JH, you seem to be proposing some version of #3.

Yes, a combination of #3 and #4. On #3 the losing tickets might not all exist, they might not have formed a viable universe, they might have formed a viable universe that existed for a fraction of a nanosecond, or they might have formed multiple viable universes that exist outside our frame of reference.

Regarding #1, I'm not convinced god rigged the numbers because he 'likes us', given his track record. :)
06/26/2013 07:47:55 PM · #125
Originally posted by Cory:

As best as we can tell, there's a black-box of some sort running the show - and we're trying to figure out what's in the box - the religious argue that there's a sort of superior man-like creature in the box(or outside the box, whatever), making decisions, the secular argue that it's not probable that a man-creature could be in such a box...


Here's the question to ponder, Cory. Why do the secular argue it's not probable? What possible information do you have to suggest this when we are discussing something completely outside our frame of reference? We have zero information in the scientific sense. We only have philosphical arguments. The theists will say they are taking it "on faith". What are the secularists doing other than taking it "on faith" as well?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/24/2021 11:08:57 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/24/2021 11:08:57 PM EST.