|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4551 days) Posts: 3 From: Isle of Wight, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is it VERSUS? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
GDR writes:
I am not sure I’m willing to concede the point he seems to be trying to make. While we might be wrong I’m not sure that means we must in all cases be wrong. Certainly our reasoning seems to be valid on many occasions. If I am correct in that, then isn’t his quote then implying, therefore the ToE can’t be correct and there must be Goddoneit?
I see him as saying that if everything from atoms, to molecules, to cells, to complex life forms and consciousness just occurred by chance or by accident, then we have no reason to be able to trust the reason that was produced by that process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
GDR writes:
In any Universe where 'stuff happens', then properties would have to be either consistent enough for said stuff to happen or if completely inconsistent, nothing could evolve to the point to recognize that stuff was happening. Seem like this touching a bit like the puddle being made just right for the pot-hole analogy.
I guess the question is why does the universe have consistent properties in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Trae writes: I am not sure I’m willing to concede the point he seems to be trying to make. While we might be wrong I’m not sure that means we must in all cases be wrong. Certainly our reasoning seems to be valid on many occasions. If I am correct in that, then isn’t his quote then implying, therefore the ToE can’t be correct and there must be Goddoneit? I understand him to be saying that the ToE may very well be correct, but in order to have confidence in that conclusion our intelligence must have come from something more than a fortunate, unplanned, coming together of atoms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Taq writes: For all we know there could be irrational universes out there, universes where laws are not stable and change in both time and space. I would argue that such a universe could not produce life, much less intelligent life. You first need a rational universe in order to have intelligent life. Therefore, if there are a plethora of universes then the rational ones are candidates for producing life, and even intelligent life. In my opinion, your argument suffers from a confirmation bias. Of course we find intelligent life in a rational universe, it can't be any other way (according to my argument above). However, a rational universe is but one of many outcomes from an unplanned (i.e. unintelligent) process that creates universes. Let's assume that you are correct. You still have something instead of nothing. You talk about a plethora of unplanned universes. Why should we accept that it is more logical to accept the idea that a multitude of universes are either planned or unplanned any more than if there is just one?
Taq writes: In my opinion, your argument suffers from a confirmation bias. Of course we find intelligent life in a rational universe, it can't be any other way (according to my argument above). However, a rational universe is but one of many outcomes from an unplanned (i.e. unintelligent) process that creates universes. Sure that is a sensible argument to make, but it is still just a statement of belief as is mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Modulous writes: This universe only appears rational. That is to say, within the scope of our evolved environment it is natural that the world would appear rational (something that 'makes sense') since our sense making tools were evolved to make sense of the low energy macro universe in which we are competing. But when you look closely - it transpires that the universe isn't reasonable, rational, sensical, or even particularly understandable. It is marginally describable. I have to agree. From the little I know of QM nothing is as it seems. Just the same, to the naked eye it seems rational, and it does work for us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: Let us once doubt our reason, and we cannot reason ourselves out of this doubt. And once the doubt has been admitted, it cannot be expelled by appeal to belief in God, since that might be one more of our mistakes. I don't have a problem with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Trae writes: In any Universe where 'stuff happens', then properties would have to be either consistent enough for said stuff to happen or if completely inconsistent, nothing could evolve to the point to recognize that stuff was happening. Seem like this touching a bit like the puddle being made just right for the pot-hole analogy.
That's the anthropic principle in a nutshell. From my point of view however it still requires us to believe, that at least one universe, had to exist as opposed to not existing, (something instead of nothing), and in that universe energy had to form atoms, which had to come together to form molecules, which had combine in such a way as to form incredibly complex living cells, which had to combine over time to evolve into higher life forms, which had to evolve into creatures that are sentient and eventually able to discern a moral code and make moral decisions. We have to form our own beliefs about this. I have come to the conclusion that I believe that there is an intelligent plan that is at the root of all this, and that an intelligent plan requires an intelligent planner. Many others have come to the other conclusions. It is all a matter of belief as there is no proof either way. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I understand him to be saying that the ToE may very well be correct, but in order to have confidence in that conclusion our intelligence must have come from something more than a fortunate, unplanned, coming together of atoms. Why must an intelligence be the product of a plan? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
From my point of view however it still requires us to believe, that at least one universe, had to exist as opposed to not existing, (something instead of nothing), and in that universe energy had to form atoms, which had to come together to form molecules, which had combine in such a way as to form incredibly complex living cells, which had to combine over time to evolve into higher life forms, which had to evolve into creatures that are sentient and eventually able to discern a moral code and make moral decisions. Why does it require belief when we have evidence that this is exactly what happened? Belief for me indicates an idea that is not backed by evidence. Once you have evidence you no longer need belief. Do we have to believe that germs cause disease? No, we have evidence which negates the need for belief.
It is all a matter of belief as there is no proof either way. But there is evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Let's assume that you are correct. You still have something instead of nothing. You talk about a plethora of unplanned universes. Why should we accept that it is more logical to accept the idea that a multitude of universes are either planned or unplanned any more than if there is just one? We only need to consider that there is a potential source for confirmation bias. This allows us to understand the tentativity of our conclusions. When I design new experiments in my line of work I have to constantly be aware of the assumptions I am making and how to determine if my assumptions are incorrect. I try to include different controls and conditions that would prove my hypothesis or assumptions wrong if certain results are observed in these control samples. However, no perfect experiment can ever be made because there are thousands of different sources of bias, no matter how remote, that could be giving you false positives. You just try to cover the most obvious ones. With the origin of the universe we have an experiment that is difficult to design controls for. All we can do is determine what these controls should be. The first and most obvious one is "are there other universes". If there are (a big if, but necessary to consider as part of the "experiment"), then any statements we make about the probability of the our universe having such and such characteristic is pure crap. Confirmation bias is very possible (or not) which makes the anthropic principle a leap of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: From my point of view however it still requires us to believe, that at least one universe, had to exist as opposed to not existing, (something instead of nothing), and in that universe energy had to form atoms, which had to come together to form molecules, which had combine in such a way as to form incredibly complex living cells, which had to combine over time to evolve into higher life forms, which had to evolve into creatures that are sentient and eventually able to discern a moral code and make moral decisions.Taq writes: Why does it require belief when we have evidence that this is exactly what happened? Belief for me indicates an idea that is not backed by evidence. Once you have evidence you no longer need belief. Of course you're right. I didn't finish the sentence. The point I meant to make was that we have to come to our own conclusions about whether that sequence of events happened as the result an intelligent plan by an intelligent planner, or whether it was just a series of unguided naturalistic events.
Taq writes: But there is evidence. And what would that be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Taq writes: We only need to consider that there is a potential source for confirmation bias. This allows us to understand the tentativity of our conclusions. When I design new experiments in my line of work I have to constantly be aware of the assumptions I am making and how to determine if my assumptions are incorrect. I try to include different controls and conditions that would prove my hypothesis or assumptions wrong if certain results are observed in these control samples. However, no perfect experiment can ever be made because there are thousands of different sources of bias, no matter how remote, that could be giving you false positives. You just try to cover the most obvious ones. With the origin of the universe we have an experiment that is difficult to design controls for. All we can do is determine what these controls should be. The first and most obvious one is "are there other universes". If there are (a big if, but necessary to consider as part of the "experiment"), then any statements we make about the probability of the our universe having such and such characteristic is pure crap. Confirmation bias is very possible (or not) which makes the anthropic principle a leap of faith. That sounds sensible to me. All beliefs about our origins, the meaning or lack of meaning of life, right or wrong, etc require a leap of faith. I think that essentially it largely boils down to what makes sense to us as individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
That sounds sensible to me. All beliefs about our origins, the meaning or lack of meaning of life, right or wrong, etc require a leap of faith. I think that essentially it largely boils down to what makes sense to us as individuals. "I don't know" does not require a leap of faith. It is a frank acceptance of our ignorance on the subject. Working our way back to the OP . . . I often find that theists take an "I don't know" and assert that this "I don't know" is actually "God did it" with zero evidence to back them. When this is pointed out the theist jumps back and accuses the one claiming "I don't know" of taking a leap of faith. As to the existence of other universes, we simply don't know. We also don't know if rational and consistent universes can come about without an intelligence. We simply have to acknowledge that these things could be true or false. Furthermore, perhaps at some point we can even design experiments to test these things. Some claim that predictions made by String Theory could be tested at the LHC, for example. There is also a track record for scientific and theistic explanations. At one time in history we explained almost everything in nature through the actions of this deity or that. Fermentation was caused by the god Baccus, for example. Through time so many of these theistic explanations have fallen away as science finds the real natural causes for these phenomena. We have now worked our way to the very creation of the universe itself, but we are told once again that the theistic explanation is right. Should we just ignore the track record of theistic and scientific explanations over the last 2,000 years? Even more, "God did it" is a reason to not look for the answer. If Zeus really does produce lightning then let's just close down all of those experiments that are looking for a natural cause, right? There is no reason to find out how Zeus does it because that is unknowable, right? This is the another source of friction between the camps. When scientists hear "God did it" they hear calls for their resignation. Scientists don't want to give up looking for answers. They see no reason to close down their labs, throw the dustcovers over their telescopes, or sell of the LHC for parts. They have this crazy idea that by applying our puny little brains we can find out how nature works, even how universes come about. It's kind of why they became scientists to begin with. In the end, when scientists here "God did it" they hear someone who is afraid that science will find the answer and want to stop them before they do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024