|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2002 : 13:38:01
|
Ran accross this article, and since it seems to raise 'possibilities,' thought me would like to see yer reaction to it. By now, think me own views or beliefs, are well enough known. Ball writes: "Arranging the cosmos as we think it is arranged, say the team, would have required a miracle." Is there a godly deity at work, or natural forces beyond our perception or observation, that we have no way to understand, or maybe something in between? Honestly do not know, and am unwilling to rule out any possibility, till more is known of the total picture. Am asolutely convinced, however, that there is much more in play within this vast cosmos, than we have currently even guessed.
Is physics watching over us?
The claim is from a new study led by Leonard Susskind of Stanford University and is reported in an online sister publication to the journal Nature by science writer Philip Ball. Having trouble with the link now, dunno if its me bad, or the site...
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/16/2002 14:05:58
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2002 : 21:03:10 [Permalink]
|
I look at it this way: your chances of getting hit by bus tomorrow are quite small. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, does it qualify as "miraculous"?
Or to put it another way, those claiming that the probability of our universe existing just as it exists are impossibly small are missing one obvious point: the probability of anything that has happened can be reliably said to be 100%.
|
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 21:47:09 [Permalink]
|
Only scanned the article roughly, because it did not seem worth the effort to actually read it. Just the same old nonsense without any idea of math or logic.
What where the chances for the lottery to draw exactly the numbers it did last sunday? So low that it required a miracle for them to come about?
And for drawing conclusions from the universe curiosly having exactly the sort of parameters that we would need to exists: What did they expect to find? Of course the Universe is perfectly adapted to our form of existance; Or better we are perfectly adapted to exists in the universe we have evolved in.
The puzzle that the universe is of a form that allows for the existance of sentient obsevers at all becomes somewhat less puzzeling when you realize that no observer will ever observe a Universe, that does not allow for sentient observers.
The idea is neither new nor does it make much sense.
Edited by - Lars_H on 08/16/2002 21:48:39 |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 23:03:02 [Permalink]
|
Heh heh heh Ya guys are nothing, if not consistent. "The anthropic principle, this says that, no matter how unlikely the Universe seems, the very fact that we are here to ask such questions resolves the paradox." This "same old nonsense" comes from the observation in 1998 that the Universe's expansion seems to be speeding up. Not all that old IMO. The whole point is, that reality as revealed by our best science, indeed, does not make sense. But if ya wants math or logic, try this...
High Energy Physics - Theory, abstract hep-th/0208013
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 13:54:29 [Permalink]
|
Mmm.., did everyone go fishing with echthroi_man? Espritch said, ".., your chances of getting hit by bus tomorrow are quite small. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, does it qualify as "miraculous"? Point taken, however, if living on a Pacific atoll, me steps out of me little grass hut, only to be smacked by a California St. cable car..? What would the chances of finding "the winning lottery ticket" in a fortune cookie? Lars_H said, "Just the same old nonsense without any idea of math or logic," when neither assertion is true in fact. Yet by his silence, must assume he stands upon his statement. But what of the many other atheists here? No reaction, none?
Does this paper prove the existence of a god or gods? No, it does not. IMO what it does say, in light of our current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe "we have evolved in," we are confronted with a "deep paradox," suggesting an "intervention" unexplained within known science, divine or otherwise. Problems with the Big Bang Theory have been known for some time, and continue to mount. However a theist's claim, "God(s) created the universe," becomes of equal validity to the claim, that natural forces created the universe, from a scientific veiwpoint, in that there is no solid proof for either position. In other words, it becomes a matter of opinion.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 17:43:58 [Permalink]
|
I have not answered, because I do not see what point the paper you have linked to makes in regards to deism. The only thing I found was
quote:
Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons
of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing in
ation.
I don't get all of the paper, but from what I get their problem is that our Universe is unlikely to come about. Unlikely not impossible. It does not require a miracle to create a universe such as ours. There only is a problem, if you for some reason would expect our universe to be a liekely outcome or even an inevitable outcome.
Even if we were to come across some problem that would require some sort of factor to allow our current universe to be possible and not just liekly, you could not just go and lable this new factor God and proceed to whorship it. Science does not work that way. You can't get supernatural enteties that defy reason from natural reasoning. Everything we have in science follows the rules. That is what science is all about you just can't introduce something that is not bound by rules and still claim that you are doing science.
And just pointing to some phenomenon that we do not yet understand and saying that God must have intervened there, is exactly the same thing, that made our ancestors believe in Thundergods.
Edited by - Lars_H on 08/20/2002 17:45:18 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 18:06:48 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that what the paper is saying is that there are things that we don't know.
Well...duh! We already know that there are things we don't know, that's why we are trying to find out.
To even mention the "g" word is foolish-that would imply that we did know and stop us from finding out.
When lightning hits a tree it isn't Thor at work. If there was a medium sized bang after the big one it wasn't Jesus' fault.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 20:30:47 [Permalink]
|
In a nutshell:
It is meaningless to talk about the proposition, "God created the universe" until such time as "God" has been 1) associated with a coherent concept and 2a) shown to concretely exist or 2b) logically inferred from observation.
It is similarly meaningless to talk about "supernatural" things. "Supernatural" presumes a violation of naturalistic cause-and-effect. If the creation of the universe is labeled "supernatural," and if the mechanism of creation is by definition beyond our abilities to discern causally, any of the following propositions have an equal claim to The Truth™:
- An omnipotent non-physical being blinked the universe into existence
- Multiple powerful non-physical beings blinked different parts of the universe into existence
- We are the abstract products of a physical being with great imagination in the real universe
- We are the abstract products of an AI in the real universe.
- We are all brains in laboratory jars that have artificial sensory input
- We physically exist but a malevolent light-controlling mutant manipulates each photon that our retinae receive so that we are unable to correctly perceive the physical world.
As you can see, this gets quickly out of hand. So what is it, other than indoctrinated monotheistic bias, that makes a single deity the default "other possibility" when some of us simply can't emotionally deal with naturalism?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume
Edited by - phdreamer on 08/20/2002 20:31:03 |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 21:54:58 [Permalink]
|
Many years ago a scientist did some calculations and determined that bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly. Of course the bumble bees took no notice and went right on flying. Faced with this kind of quandary, you have two options: declare that the flight of bumble bees is "miraculous", or decide that maybe you still have a little to learn about bumble bee aerodynamics.
The first option is acceptable only if you really don't want to know how bumble bees fly. It is essentially a declaration that the problem in insolvable.
Invoking God to explain mysteries of cosmology is exactly equivalent to invoking miracles to explain the flight of bumble bees. It means you're throwing in the towel and declaring that no solution can be found.
I personally think the notion that "since I don't know the solution there must be no solution" is the ultimate in arrogance. It is exactly this sin of arrogance that Intelligent Design theorist commit when they declare that "since I cannot understand how evolution could have produced fill in your favorite complex biological structure or system here, it must have required an intelligent designer".
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
