News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Just a Question

Started by Egor, February 13, 2012, 08:24:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:50:39 AM
Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

You are the one who is naming it "God" in this discussion.  I'm trying not to approach this from a Christian or theist standpoint, but to start with observation.  It appears that the order in the cosmos is consistent with some form of intelligence, and since I don't know one way or the other, I'm placing the probability at 50-50.  Faith and religion haven't entered the scene yet.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Stevil on February 18, 2012, 10:17:45 AM

I am going with 99.99999999% for unintelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me in a reasonable way how it is possible to have intelligence without the following:
- information
- data transformation rules
- a physical data processing system
- data
- physical system observing measurable attributes of some physical substance or force
- physical substance or force with measurable attributes
- time
- space

Well, I could also say I'm going with 99.99999999% for intelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me how something like the cosmos can arise without it.  The Big Bang stands as a sort of barrier to us having knowledge of what's on the other side.  So this is sort of like a Turing test to determine that without seeing what's there.  It may be possible to have intelligence without all the things you list, it may not. Hard for us to know since we can't see.  So we look at the nature of things now, and we see physical laws that work together to bring about living, intelligent beings.  That, to me, suggests that this state of things is reflective of the nature of whatever is responsible for the cosmos to begin with.  It's consistent with intelligence.  I can't explain the things you mentioned, but neither can I explain how physical laws can come into existence that lead to a universe such as ours.  So, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

The Magic Pudding

I think it's OK for the big brained to tell me of the big bang but they don't know what came before.
God is another explanation but it's impolite to question his origin.
This is why you don't have to be particularly intelligent or immoral to be an atheist.
An average non indoctrinated ten year old will see the craziness of it.

Dobermonster

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:50:39 AM
Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

You are the one who is naming it "God" in this discussion.  I'm trying not to approach this from a Christian or theist standpoint, but to start with observation.  It appears that the order in the cosmos is consistent with some form of intelligence, and since I don't know one way or the other, I'm placing the probability at 50-50.  Faith and religion haven't entered the scene yet.


I'm using the word "God" because it's a lot shorter than saying "unknown intelligent creator of the universe". But ok. You're still arguing that order must follow intelligence? Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on. Just because our human laws are intelligently devised doesn't mean that physical laws are as well, as natural as that assumption may feel. You're coming at this from a very human point-of-view, which I can't fault (everyone does it to some degree), but I would try to persuade you to consider that your human bias is influencing your perception of the universe.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AMSo, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

I don't agree with the equal footing thing, humans are biased they are prone to imagine human shaped explanations. Rabbits might imagine things differently, the universe sprung from nothing one night just like grass.  I don't think rabbits are sufficiently arrogant to imagine a big rabbit did it.  Maybe the Big Rabbit did create everything, rabbits like to dig and there all these worlds just waiting to have holes dug in them.  We know how intelligence evolved, why this crazy crazy chicken and egg game?  There were rocks and then there was intelligence, ohhh but maybe intelligence made the rock?  No Big Rabbit did it and he doesn't think about stuff.

Dobermonster

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 19, 2012, 12:57:40 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AMSo, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

I don't agree with the equal footing thing, humans are biased they are prone to imagine human shaped explanations. Rabbits might imagine things differently, the universe sprung from nothing one night just like grass.  I don't think rabbits are sufficiently arrogant to imagine a big rabbit did it.  Maybe the Big Rabbit did create everything, rabbits like to dig and there all these worlds just waiting to have holes dug in them.  We know how intelligence evolved, why this crazy crazy chicken and egg game?  There were rocks and then there was intelligence, ohhh but maybe intelligence made the rock?  No Big Rabbit did it and he doesn't think about stuff.

This is a personal preference, but I also find The Big Rabbit theory (as intelligent design will be referred to from now on) terribly unimaginative. We're only just finding out how much stranger reality is from how perceive it. That's what makes it so cool. We're finding out that when we test perception against reality, reality reveals something more bizarre and unexpected and difficult for us to understand. We've only got this far because of the cumulative effect of human intelligence.
That's why I stand in the strictly skeptic zone - if you want me to consider something as a reasonable possibility, you need to show the evidence. The Big Rabbit hypothesis has failed under scrutiny again and again. And yet we're still being forced to say it's a legitimate theory - not because there's evidence for it, but because the more you broaden the definition of The Big Rabbit (i.e. from theism to deism), more impossible it becomes to disprove. So no, I can't agree that there is equal footing here. Consider the words of Jimmy Carr (on winning the lottery), "Sure it's 50-50. Everything's 50-50 - you either win it, or you don't".

Stevil

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AM
Well, I could also say I'm going with 99.99999999% for intelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me how something like the cosmos can arise without it. 

So, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 
Sorry, but you are not comparing apples with apples.
We could say that the underlying of the cosmos is either intelligent or unintelligent. Fine, this has no bearing on the likelyhood of each option.

If we go into information theory, i.e. that intelligence requires, knowledge, requires information, requires data, then the intelligence option has problems where as the unintelligent option has no such problems.

En_Route

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM
Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I can't even get a grip on the idea that evolution has brought order out of chaos - what criteria are you applying?
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 19, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on.

The only evidence I have is the existence of a universe that operates in such a way as to bring about organization, including life and consciousness, and operates logically.  That is consistent with intelligent. I understand that the phrase "physical laws" just describes what is.  But the cosmos operates according to patterns, and is consistent, and proceeds logically.  That's about all I have to say - enjoyed the back and forth. 

Dobermonster

Quote from: En_Route on February 19, 2012, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM
Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I can't even get a grip on the idea that evolution has brought order out of chaos - what criteria are you applying?

It's not completely analagous, I grant you. It's an old argument that life is so complex and structured that it must be formed by an intelligent being. We now know how organic structures form out of a combination of chance, variability, and physical laws. That's all I meant.

Crow

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AM

Well, I could also say I'm going with 99.99999999% for intelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me how something like the cosmos can arise without it.  The Big Bang stands as a sort of barrier to us having knowledge of what's on the other side.  So this is sort of like a Turing test to determine that without seeing what's there.  It may be possible to have intelligence without all the things you list, it may not. Hard for us to know since we can't see.  So we look at the nature of things now, and we see physical laws that work together to bring about living, intelligent beings.  That, to me, suggests that this state of things is reflective of the nature of whatever is responsible for the cosmos to begin with.  It's consistent with intelligence.  I can't explain the things you mentioned, but neither can I explain how physical laws can come into existence that lead to a universe such as ours.  So, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

One main argument against a creator is from physics which states the more disorder the more probable creation is. The most popular metaphor of this is: a strewn pack of cards is more likely to be brought together by a person than cards that are already stacked. What we know from various mathematical experiments (those which are possible for the LHC to function and various other applications) is that the big bang was the beginning of disorder and ever since the universe began it has been getting more and more disordered, so prior to the big bang the universe was in a unique highly ordered state (therefore we could say perfect). So the hypothesis goes; if a creator was likely to exist it would start creation from a point such as now to create a more ordered creation, however we see the opposite with humans being one of those disorders even though we perceive our plantet to be ordered we are more like the few cards that congregate together. When viewed from a close perceptive it looks ordered but when viewed from afar it is anything but ordered.

It may be impossible for us to know for 100% certainty what came before the big bang. However it is possible from observing what is present now to work out possible solutions to what environment was present prior to the big bang and test those hypotheses and if they work help create a theory.
Retired member.

Tank

#131
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 20, 2012, 01:57:46 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 19, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on.

The only evidence I have is the existence of a universe that operates in such a way as to bring about organization, including life and consciousness, and operates logically.  That is consistent with intelligent. I understand that the phrase "physical laws" just describes what is.  But the cosmos operates according to patterns, and is consistent, and proceeds logically.  That's about all I have to say - enjoyed the back and forth.  
What exactly is logical about gravity or the weak nuclear force? What premise would you start from to show that their existence/behaviour is in any way 'logical' except from a subjective human perspective? Why should matter attract rather than repulse?

EDIT: The other thing to consider is that in this universe entropy rules. Any order we see is ultimately transient. This is a dead universe in the same way you are a dead person, you're just not dead yet.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Amicale

#132
Quote from: Tank on February 20, 2012, 08:05:25 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 20, 2012, 01:57:46 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 19, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on.

The only evidence I have is the existence of a universe that operates in such a way as to bring about organization, including life and consciousness, and operates logically.  That is consistent with intelligent. I understand that the phrase "physical laws" just describes what is.  But the cosmos operates according to patterns, and is consistent, and proceeds logically.  That's about all I have to say - enjoyed the back and forth.  
What exactly is logical about gravity or the weak nuclear force? What premise would you start from to show that their existence/behaviour is in any way 'logical' except from a subjective human perspective? Why should matter attract rather than repulse?

EDIT: The other thing to consider is that in this universe entropy rules. Any order we see is ultimately transient. This is a dead universe in the same way you are a dead person, you're just not dead yet.

Tank, if I understand you correctly (it's insanely late/very early here, take your pick), I agree with you on any order we see being transient. Ecurb, we don't appear to live in a universe that brings about organization including life and consciousness. The fact that life exists on our planet appears to be a fluke, at least in this galaxy. The majority of space as we currently know it is chaotic and inhospitable to life. The laws of physics that apply to our earth do not apply elsewhere; same goes for the chemical compositions here that do not allow life to occur anywhere else we've currently found. It's entirely possible that somewhere else in the universe, life DID start up against all odds just as it did here... but as Tank points out, the vast majority of the known universe appears to be lifeless. We just happened to win the cosmic jackpot. Unfortunately, winning it means only having it for a short period of time (when comparing how long life on earth has existed to the age of the universe itself) and having it full of danger, disease, and various other limitations that don't really suggest any intelligence, or a design.

EDIT: This post started a discussion about the universality of the laws of physics and the goldilocks zone - Tank


"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan