|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Universal Perfection | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Order arises in the Universe, by undirected and non-biological processes alone, on a regular basis. The molecules in a cloud of gas are less ordered than they are in a spherical star: gravity "pulls" on the gas molecules and imposes order on them. Simple order is not the key here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ I disagree. The fact that we exist is in need of an explanation and so the question is meaningful. Here's a snippet from my personal notes. *********************************However, those who suggest that our existence itself is reason for us to not be surprised at the fine tuning we observe - and that our existence itself is enough for us to not question the probability of the events and conditions that led to our existence - are very much mistaken. To say that Were the conditions different than they were, then we would not be here to question them may be sound logic, but it is not an explanation at all for the origin of the fine-tuning for life that we observe in the universe. It is merely a self-evident observation; one that lacks any explanatory power. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
The analogy is faulty. That would be the equivalent analogy of taking a lifeform from a random universe and placing it in a random, different universe and seing if it survived. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether life can develop in a random universe to begin with, not whether current life can survive in a random universe.
As I referenced in my earlier post, random universes will at the very least survive long enough for complexity - however different - to arise. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
As Rei notes, you card shuffling analogy is off base. For one thing, in the analogy we are told that the machine ARE able to draw any cards at random. As I pointed out we don't yet know if any other possible universe can exist. We don't know how much room there is to wiggle the physical constants.
Secondly, we have forgotten someones comment that the universe isn't fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned to it! There is a difference there. This is about what Rei is saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ What?????? Where'd you come up with that???
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And that's not what the analogy is talking about either.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Yes, you stated that unsupported and untestable presumption previously. So what? Are you claiming that it is indisputable fact...that we are all forced to accept it as true? [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote:quote: Because your analogy only works if this is the only type of universe that can contain life; it assumes its conclusion, by having the person killed in every other scenario. This may be the only type of universe that can contain LAWKI, but to claim that it's the only type of universe that can contain life is quite unsupported by you.
quote: Apparently you didn't even bother to check the article that I referenced. Figures. P.S. - Why the pretentious code comments around your name? We know its you writing, you don't need to clarify. /*Rei*/ ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ So you both agree and disagree with Rei. I agree that the analogy is based on the assumption that the values for the constants of nature could take on a vast variety of combinations. But that is a working assumption that mainstream scientists use: it's not a "Creationist" position. (Besides, if the constants of nature had to take on only those values that are compatible with life, then some would argue that to be an even greater "predestined coincidence" and a stronger argument for design).
quote: /*DNAunion*/ I haven't forgotten about it - I simply don't accept it as any kind of explanation for the "problem" being discussed. For example, it is based on the unsupported assumption that life could exist without oxygen, carbon, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Wrong, the analogy does NOT assume its conclusion. The analogy is not meant to conclude that only one universe can support life. That is a premise the analogy is based on, not its conclusion (there is a difference between a premise and a conclusion).
quote: /*DNAunion*/ You've got it backwards. All empirical observations (which are restricted the one observed universe) to date show that all life is life as we know it, and requires carbon and oxygen (which in turn require fairly specific values for certain constant of nature). Your position - that life not as we know it does exist or even could exist (in some hypothetical universe that cannot be examined or tested) - is the one without any empirical observations whatsoever. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ They aren't pretentious: they're explicit labels used for clarity's sake. Since in the past a few others have wanted me to omit my handle, I started putting it in multi-line C-style comments (the /* ... */). That way, whoever wants to can act like a compiler and ignore it. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:What would be an argument against design? If the universe were different, it would produce different things. It would be fine tuned for those things. Would that require design? JustinC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Beliving in bat-people on the moon does seem more plausable than beliving in a invisible, all-powerful, non interacting god, that creates beeings beliving in bat-people living on the moon.
Doesen't it? I just rather skip the god part of it, and keep the bat-people. -quote-Now why don't you actually support your position - instead of simply stating it - by showing us a system (other than biological life as we know it) that would classify as life, and that arose by undirected, non-biological processes alone? --- Sorry, cant find any such systems here on earth. Guess they must have evolved into something else. Haven't been able to visit any other starsystems lately. The last part of life definition cant be proven.Since neither you nor I knows what the awareness part of life is, in its essence, and it can't be proven that another lifeform/beeing actually has self-awareness. (It could be simulating) As for self-replicating enteties, all i need to do is to construct my own universe in a computer. Why dont you take a look at the "game of life"? To make something logically self-replicating all that is needed are two different logical rules. By combining these in different ways you can construct every other convievable information-construct, like multiplication, a computer game, an artificial intelligence, or a self-replicating system. This selfreplicating system can be infinitly complex. The same can obviously be done with metal and springs, thogh it would be a really slow version. Or atoms of your choice. A self replicating system can be made out of of any sets of atoms. Some sets are just harder to use, but it doesent matter. We have enogh rules to play with. Of course the starting-conditions for almost all matter-combinations will never be met. Trying to make a self-replicating system of hydrogen might force you to make it in galaxy scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Nor are there any observations to contradict it. Of course all life discovered so far is similar - it's all in the same universe, and we've only looked at the tiniest fraction of it. So? We're not discussing this universe. Back to the basics here: You need to evidence that it is only realistic that any form of life would exist only in this universe. Carbon and oxygen don't allow life. The properties of carbon and oxygen allow life. While this may seem like a trivial distinction (such as "Guns don't kill people, bullets fired from guns kill people"), it is critical to this discussion: carbon and oxygen themselves need not even exist in any form - only the types of complex interactions that we see in organic chemistry, which in our universe are partially due to the interactions of carbon and oxygen. What is the basic subset of "capabilities" in nature required for life to occur? That's a good question, and is currently a subject of much debate. Certainly, it would seem that turing compatability of the universe is the basic requirement, but not every turing-compatable universe will create life. Looking at some alternatives - such as Conway's Game of Life - you quickly learn that complexity requires a mix of randomness and order. There need to be stable states, as well as unpredictability, to get interesting behavior that lasts for a reasonable length of time. And, of course, the larger your universe (regardless of its composition), and the more processing time it has, the more interesting results you can get. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Sorry I am ariving late.
Do you think that the nose and ears where perfectly designed to hold spectacles? If not, why do you apply this logic to the universe? ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ I already have. It is an unimpressive computer game that uses a two-dimensional array to represent the positions of organisms with some rules for the creation and deletion of organisms based on neighboring cells in the matrix; once the correct rules were found and a correct starting setup used, some figures would amazingly reappear throughout a run of the program. The organisms don’t self-replicate: they are poofed into existence with a single line of code. It’s not even the organisms that amazingly reappear, but shapes. Finally, there’s not even any self-replication of shapes: in fact, there’s no self-replication in the system at all.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ First, I don’t necessarily want to move from discussing actual life to discussing life as you define it and that exists in your imagination. Second, you made another unsupported assertion.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Another unsupported assertion.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Another unsupported assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ Nor are there any observations to contradict Clingons, Vulcans, or Jedi Knights with their minichlorines (or whatever) that provide them with "The Force". Will you start using these hypothetical life forms to support your argument next?
quote: /*DNAunion*/ So....all empirical evidence to date shows only one form of life, based on organic molecules such as nucleic acids, proteins, etc., which in turn require carbon and oxygen (as well as other things). An opposing position — that life unlike that we know — does or could exist is an unsupported presumption.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ What? Of course we are discussing this universe.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024