Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 325 (150659)
10-18-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by crashfrog
10-18-2004 4:31 AM


Ah, but you wouldn't see a scientist overstate a claim so blatantly. Scientists understand the limits of probability and certainty. You, apparently, don't.
Oh, for God's sake.........it's this kind of nitpicking that makes debating with you so tedious and unilluminating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 4:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 11:36 AM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 325 (150662)
10-18-2004 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
10-18-2004 4:17 AM


The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life, but only to life as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
We don't know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
Most of the physical variables would not only make HUMAN life impossible........but complex material life altogether.
Nooooooow, why should we even entertain the notion that energy beings exist? Especially since they SHOULD exist here if they can exist at all, because they wouldn't require the same fine-tuned environment that we do.
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
THIS proposition is moronic........and I refuted it earlier.
Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than 1000-fold different are called the same order of magnitude [Klee 2002].
So, what you're saying is, that an event that has 1000-1 odds against happening isn't highly unlikely?
How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
Nope, because of the complex-material life argument found above.
The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental [Kane et al. 2000].
This is true. But those few fundamental conditions are very precisely tuned.
If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we wouldn't be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we can't very well be anywhere else.
Right. This is where Collins' hypothesis comes in.
The anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, He could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.
Let me get this straight..........because science exists, God cannot?
These arguments were mostly very weak.......and that's why I chose not to respond to them the first time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 4:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 5:07 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 259 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 5:20 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 11:44 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 311 by AdminNosy, posted 10-18-2004 9:10 PM JasonChin has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 325 (150665)
10-18-2004 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 4:56 AM


To invoke the anthropic principle, the fact that our kind of life exists tells us alot about the probability of other forms of life existing..........for instance, we're made of baryonic matter. 99% of the matter in the universe isn't baryonic. Therefore, if it were possible for life to exist as non-baryonic matter, the odds against as being baryonic creatures is 99-1. The logical presumption is that life cannot exist as non-baryonic matter.
Conversely, as delicate and requiring such a precisely tuned environment as material life requires, it would seem much more likely that we would exist as non-material life if such a thing were possible. Therefore, the fact that we exist as material life seems to strongly suggest that complex material life is the only kind that can exist. Not to mention the fact that there's no reason at all to assume that energy can self-assemble and evolve like material can, since we've never observed anything that suggests such.
And THIS is why we know the universe is fine-tuned.......because not only would HUMANS not exist if the universe wasn't as fine-tuned as it is, but material life wouldn't exist. And THIS is why being of the opinion that some kind of life would evolve in any kind of universe is inane........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 4:56 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 11:48 AM JasonChin has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 325 (150668)
10-18-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 4:56 AM


Also, Crash, most of the points in the Talkorigins response don't make direct arguments that the universe isn't fine-tuned..........and the points that are, like the first and second points, are easily refuted.
Not to mention that the fact that 12 scientists were quoted in the article doesn't mean that they support the concept of life conforming to the universe anymore than being quoted in Strobel's book meant that the MANY materialists quoted therein are theists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 4:56 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 11:57 AM JasonChin has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 260 of 325 (150672)
10-18-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 2:33 AM


Re: Hey, yall.....
Nope. As a man who has wasted countless hours arguing on the internet over the years, I've decided to implement a policy where I simply ignore certain questions, such as the ones (like these) designed to simply slow down the flow of the conversation in order to avoid the inevitable logical conclusion.......I call these "feet drag" questions".
Frankly from reading your posts I think you talk out of your arse and don't know what you are on about. Besides a overuse of the word moronic - you have failed to back any of the assumptions/asserations you have made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 2:33 AM JasonChin has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 261 of 325 (150684)
10-18-2004 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 3:15 AM


Re: You get a cookie...
JasonChin
I love the way materialists are all about scientific skepticism until science provides evidence against their pre-concieved beliefs.....
Good answer JC,how eloquently you dodge having to think.Pray tell,what pre-concieved belief do you have that prevents you from even attempting to respond to an honest question?
That the universe is the way it is because there is no plan or reason for existence fits what we can observe about the universe,yet it frightens you immensely to consider that you are not special and as such you rail against letting your ego lose its central role in your life.
Illusions don't collapse a force of nature just by contemplating it
Are you saying that consciousness is a force of nature? If not,then what are you refering to ? If so, please elaborate.

[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 3:15 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 7:35 PM sidelined has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 262 of 325 (150735)
10-18-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 4:32 AM


So, is this because the quanta actually exists in all three locations at once or because it moves so quickly that it appears to?
Well, it can't be moving, because then we would detect its charge in the intervening spaces as well, which we don't. I guess if you wanted to think of it as teleporting so fast that we never noticed it was gone from any of the locations, that might make it simpler for you.
It's in all three places at once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 4:32 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 263 of 325 (150736)
10-18-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 4:41 AM


You know how many materialists were quoted in Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator?
No, but what I do know, and apparently you don't, is that there's a difference between "some" and "all."
You claimed all. I showed you that was not true. You seem unable to admit your error, so we are presented with hollow, transparent dodges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 4:41 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 7:46 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 264 of 325 (150737)
10-18-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 4:44 AM


Oh, for God's sake.........it's this kind of nitpicking that makes debating with you so tedious and unilluminating.
We're debating science, Jason. Science is precise. If you find precision "tedious" then you're in the wrong field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 4:44 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 7:53 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 265 of 325 (150742)
10-18-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 4:56 AM


Nooooooow, why should we even entertain the notion that energy beings exist?
They may not, but why couldn't they? Why couldn't life exist in ways we can't even concieve?
It's a poor scientist indeed who mistakes his own predjudices for facts, as you do, constantly.
THIS proposition is moronic........and I refuted it earlier.
By name-calling? That's no rebuttal.
So, what you're saying is, that an event that has 1000-1 odds against happening isn't highly unlikely?
To what event are you referring? And, as always, how did you calculate those odds?
Nope, because of the complex-material life argument found above.
Again, not a rebuttal. Life, even complex life, could exist in ways we can't even concieve. You overstate your claim and pretend to have knowledge that, by definition, you cannot.
But those few fundamental conditions are very precisely tuned.
That's not even a rebuttal, you've just repeated your argument. We know you think the universe is tuned. For god's sake, you've been talking about nothing else for 200 posts.
What we can't ever get you to explain is exactly why. You make hand-waving claims about "odds", without any indication of how you know the odds. When we ask you to support your assertions, you claim we're changing the subject.
These arguments were mostly very weak.......and that's why I chose not to respond to them the first time.
I wish that you had chosen to respond with substantial rebuttals instead of the intellectual feces flinging that has come to typify your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 4:56 AM JasonChin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 266 of 325 (150744)
10-18-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 5:07 AM


99% of the matter in the universe isn't baryonic.
We don't actually know that. Nobody's been able to detect this "dark matter" or even tell us what it is.
To invoke the anthropic principle, the fact that our kind of life exists tells us alot about the probability of other forms of life existing.........
It tells us nothing about other forms of life. Absolutely nothing at all.
The logical presumption is that life cannot exist as non-baryonic matter.
You're right that it is presumption - arrogant presumption on your part. Your argument is like saying "since I flipped this coin and it landed heads, all coins everywhere must always land heads."
The rest of this is the same trash we've had from you for 200 posts or more - the argument from made-up odds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 5:07 AM JasonChin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 267 of 325 (150749)
10-18-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 5:20 AM


Also, Crash, most of the points in the Talkorigins response don't make direct arguments that the universe isn't fine-tuned.........
No, but it demolishes all the support you've offered for concluding that the universe is tuned in any way.
I'm not saying that I know for sure that it isn't; if I were I'd be making the same mistake as you.
We just don't have any reason to know, or even suggest, that the universe is at all tuned. The only reason you make the suggestion is a staggering ignorance of statistics and probability combined with the arrogant presumption that the universe exists only as our playground.
Not to mention that the fact that 12 scientists were quoted in the article doesn't mean that they support the concept of life
Learn to read. Start with the titles of the articles.
"The Beginning of the End of the Anthropic Principle"? "The revenge of Pythagoras: How a mathematical sharp practice undermines the contemporary design argument in astrophysical cosmology"? What do you think those guys think about your anthropic argument?
Steven Weinberg is one of the greatest minds in physics and cosmology today. From the link to his essay ont he page:
quote:
I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life. There is no life force. As Richard Feynman has said, when you look at the universe and understand its laws, 'the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.'
Steven Weinberg holds a Nobel Prize in physics. Does it sound to you like he puts much stock in any variation of the anthropic argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 5:20 AM JasonChin has not replied

Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 325 (150750)
10-18-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 2:40 AM


Re: Hey, yall.....
Hooked on Phonics, Jason? At this point, I must ask if you know how to read. In the article posted, Wheeler is not supporting a conscious-based universe theory. In fact, I even posted bolded text where he clears up that misconception. Wheeler not only states that an observer does not have to be conscious, but he also says conscious beings aren't even the primary observers in the universe. It was in the text I posted and in the article, which is clear to anyone who reads it.
It's no wonder Wheeler and other physicists are constantly being misquoted when morons who can't be bothered to actually read the content start mixing religion and science.
This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-18-2004 11:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 2:40 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by AdminNosy, posted 10-18-2004 12:26 PM Beercules has not replied

Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 325 (150753)
10-18-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by JasonChin
10-18-2004 2:52 AM


Re: Arguing
JasonChin writes:
I state certain FACTS, like there are a bazillion conciousness-effected universe theories
If by "consciousness-effected" you mean a universe that requires conscious observers, then that is also a factual error. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?
This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-18-2004 11:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by JasonChin, posted 10-18-2004 2:52 AM JasonChin has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 270 of 325 (150756)
10-18-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Beercules
10-18-2004 12:09 PM


Not called for
...when morons ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Beercules, posted 10-18-2004 12:09 PM Beercules has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024