Originally posted by jaywillBut why assign all those factors the label zero? That is deceptive. And that is the heart of your claim. If you do not label all those factors 'zero' then suddenly you get an apparently random series of numbers which is what we expect. So, by labeling certain results 'zero' you have created the illusion that the wheel is designed to only produce zeros.
The coming out of zeros corresponds to the probability of life from the Big Bang.
The multiple wheels and multiple spins corresponds to the appeal to the possibility of infinite number of universes as proposed by Astrophysicist Richard Gott. And with that random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field. The popularized anti-thiest suggestion is that random fluctuations int the primeval radiation field could generate a universe with all the conditions necessary for our existence.
The suggestion is an abuse of probabilty theory. It assumes the benefit of an infinite sample size without any evidence that the sample size exceeds one.
Go back and read your own post. You yourself came up with the analogy of a 1000 spin wheel. You then changed it later on.
And it is you that is abusing probability theory. You appear to be claiming that there is a sample size of 1, and that you can calculate a probability from there. Surely the probability is 1? Or is it me that does not know what 'sample size' means? Please define it so I can understand what you mean.
The possibility of examining a theorized larger sample size is out of the question. We have to think hard about the one universe in which we find ourselves.
I already gave you proof of a large sample size which you appear to have taken pains to avoid.
I do not recognize the conlusion you are attributing to my post.
I do not recognize me taking any position that "all possible universes necessarily point to design ie it is impossible for a univers to exist that does not do so."
Whether you recognize it or not, the conclusion is a trivialy obvious result from your argument.
Rather than not recognize it, why not dispute it? Point me to which property of our specific universe you used in your argument. If you are unable to do so, then my claim stands.
My point was that the laying hold of Gott's theory of possible infinite universes of which we just happen to be in the one that produced us living people, abuses probabilty theory, according to Dr. Ross.
And your point is irrelevant as the existence of infinite universes has nothing to do with the probability theory. You are basically arguing that the dice fell on 'five' because there are no other dice in existence that are on any other numbers.
My post was more aimed at your probability example as representative of the way Theist's think. It was not specically speaking about the hemoglobin matter.
It was speaking to the known event of a extremely unlikely emergence of we wonderfully put together living people in a (for the most part), life hostile universe.
But it is a trivially obvious fact that the current state of the universe is improbable when compared to all other theoretically possible states. As I said, the whole hemoglobin story was unnecessary - and quite obviously nothing more than an attempt on your part to try to make it look like your argument was backed up by someone with a Phd.
Your argument if valid, should work equally well with one role of a dice.
But not too confused to recognize that your resistence to the evidence of Big Bang is like the Flat Earth Society.
Resistance to the Big Bang? What are you talking about? What does the Big Bang have to do with anything I said? Come on, try and defend your argument instead of trying to make out that I am a flat earther.
If you can safely say that there is more than one universe please tell us where it is and how we can observe what goes on over there.
Read my post again. I never made such a claim. Again, I ask you to explain what you mean by 'sample size' and how your claim that there is only one result fits into probability theory.
We only experience this one. Anti-Theist followers of Richard Gott was theorizing INFINITE number of universes. One of them, [they] said, was lucky enough to produce conditions favorable for us living organisms to exist.
Perhaps I mistakenly assumed you are one of these followers of Gott's Quantum Mechanical efforts to propose infinite numbers of universes.
I have nothing to do with Richard Gott. Stop trying to argue against him, and start addressing my points and defending your own claims.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI believe Laplace said that if you know all the information about the universe, you can predict it's state in the future and you can find out what state it was in the past.
Neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that certain quantum events have NO “cause” just as neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that ALL quantum events DO have a “cause”. -------hammy--------------------
However you did say this .......
"In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause " ( ...[text shortened]... nd incredible claims require incredible proof. (now where have I heard that before?)
Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that you cannot ever find out the exact position of a particle AND its exact speed. therefore the absolute determinism of Laplace gets a kick in the groin. So if you have an event, you sometimes cannot know how it came to happen for this reason.
so science cannot always determine how something came to happen.
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that certain quantum events have NO “cause” just as neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that ALL quantum events DO have a “cause”. -------hammy--------------------
Neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that certain quantum events have NO “cause” just as neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that ALL quantum events DO have a “cause”. -------hammy--------------------
However you did say this .......
"In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause " ( nd incredible claims require incredible proof. (now where have I heard that before?)
However you did say this .......
"In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause " (AH)
....and this very much sounded like you were stating it as fact and stating it quite confidently. What you meant to say is that you believe that they have no cause.
. …
Obviously I mean that according to the most common interpretations of quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause. I have already explained why this is.
The rest of your post is fatally flawed because it misrepresents my position as a claim that there MUST be quantum events that have no causes -I made no such claim nor do I assume that this MUST be so.
-rather, along with most quantum physicists, I merely consider it as a “reasonable assumption” given the fact that currently there is no known logical reason nor evidence that certain quantum events have “causes” but I do not totally exclude the possibility that one day some new piece of evidence could come along that proves that all quantum events have causes although that seems unlikely at the current time.
2 edits
==================================
But why assign all those factors the label zero? That is deceptive. And that is the heart of your claim. If you do not label all those factors 'zero' then suddenly
======================================
Zeros was arbitrary. I could have said 1,000 consecutive 8s or 9s or 4s.
The point is 1,000 consecutive same numbers - something that is probability wise unlikely to happen without many many spins of the wheel. But it is logically possible.
Transfer 1,000 consecutive 5s or 6s to mean the emergence of life from ingredients prepared by many random fluctiations as Gott proposed in the earliest fraction of a second in the Big Bang.
Life is logically possible but up againt great odds. One thousand consecutive 6s is logically possible but up against tremendous odds.
I'm under some time constraints this morning.
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSince you apologized and stand corrected to bbarr why not apologize to me for saying I lied ?
I apologise -I stand corrected.
So the word “tunnelling” would appear to have TWO deferent possible meanings in this context.
I think that would be the decent thing to do. It would be more professional too.
Originally posted by jaywilleven better, long posts are discouraging.
[b]==================================
But why assign all those factors the label zero? That is deceptive. And that is the heart of your claim. If you do not label all those factors 'zero' then suddenly
======================================
Zeros was arbitrary. I could have said 1,000 consecutive 8s or 9s or 4s.
The point is 1,000 consecutiv ...[text shortened]... possible but up against tremendous odds.
I'm under some time constraints this morning.[/b]
on to the issue at hand. you haven't looked up the anthropic principle have you? in one of its many forms it basically states that if the state of the universe would have been different as to make us evolve as sulphur based life forms instead of carbon. we would be asking why sulphur.
over so much period of time it is obvious that the odds of this exact chain of events happening are low. but in any chain of events that results in intelligent life, that intelligent life will wonder why things are as they are. and the answer to that question cannot be proved to be god.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSo why insist that the number assigned to each property or event be the same?
Zeros was arbitrary. I could have said 1,000 consecutive 8s or 9s or 4s.
The point is 1,000 consecutive same numbers - something that is probability wise unlikely to happen without many many spins of the wheel. [b]But it is logically possible.[/b]
Lets take three necessary conditions for the current state of the universe:
1. The mass of a proton.
2. The speed of light.
3. The fact that the dice I just threw landed with a five face up.
Why do you insist that if 1. is a '9' then 2. and 3. are also '9's? Why the careful choice of labeling? Surely you can see that it is the labeling and nothing else that supports your argument?
If your hypothetical wheel had produced the numbers 7,9,3,2... would you still have made the same claim?
To show how important labeling is, your admission that the zeros were arbitrary means that the probability in your scenario, suddenly becomes 1000 times greater! So by your 'arbitrary' choice of zero, you were making a claim that something was 1000 times less likely than it really was. Was that simply carelessness or deception?
Originally posted by jaywillI apologised for saying that “when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling” “ -I stand corrected on that.
Since you apologized and stand corrected to bbarr why not apologize to me for saying I[b] lied ?
I think that would be the decent thing to do. It would be more professional too.[/b]
But, unfortunately, what I said what you lied about was no that but about, as I have already said, -for saying:
“…To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunnelling has been PROVED to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "accident" to be able to assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin. …” (my emphasis)
That is clearly false -the only thing that is needed to transporting haemoglobin is a beating hart to pump around the blood that contains the red blood cells that contain the haemoglobin -this is just basic biology.
-unless what you really meant to say in the last part of that statement was
“……to assist in the job of transporting OXYGEN in and out of haemoglobin molecules…” ? -in which case I apologise for not understanding your unclear message, but then, the fact would still remain, sense Quantum tunnelling is an inevitable consequence of quantum mechanics, to state that:
“the very existence of Quantum tunnelling has been PROVED to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "ACCIDENT" to be able to assist in the job of transporting OXYGEN in and out of haemoglobin molecules. …” (my emphasis)
(if that is what you meant?) Is clearly false because even if “the very existence of Quantum tunnelling HAS been PROVED to be able to assist in the job of transporting OXYGEN in and out of haemoglobin molecules”, the fact would remain that the “very existence” of that Quantum tunnelling was NO kind of "unbelievably ACCIDENT" as you suggested but rather just the inevitable consequence of quantum physics:
At: http://www.altair.org/Qtunnel.html
It says:
“…Quantum Tunnelling is a bizarre PREDICTION of Quantum Physics,…”(my emphasis)
Note the word “PREDICTION” in the above.
-thus you still lie about it being “proven” to be an “unbelievably ACCIDENT" -that logically cannot be “proven” because the “very existence” of quantum-tunnelling is no “accident“ but rather PREDICTED from quantum mechanics.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===================================
I apologised for saying that “when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling” “ -I stand corrected on that.
But, unfortunately, what I said what you lied about was no that but about, as I have already said, -for saying:
“…To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunnelling has ence” of quantum-tunnelling is no “accident“ but rather PREDICTED from quantum mechanics.
I apologised for saying that “when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling” “ -I stand corrected on that.
But, unfortunately, what I said what you lied about was no that but about, as I have already said, -for saying:
“…To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunnelling has been PROVED to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "accident" to be able to assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin. …” (my emphasis)
That is clearly false -the only thing that is needed to transporting haemoglobin is a beating hart to pump around the blood that contains the red blood cells that contain the haemoglobin -this is just basic biology.
-unless what you really meant to say in the last part of that statement was
“……to assist in the job of transporting OXYGEN in and out of haemoglobin molecules…” ? -in which case I apologise for not understanding your unclear message, but then, the fact would still remain, sense Quantum tunnelling is an inevitable consequence of quantum mechanics, to state that:
========================================
1.) I could have taken time to make myself more clear, true. The latter is more what I meant.
2.) This Phd. refered to Dr. Ross. who champions the fine tuning of the universe and the Big Bang to the existence of life.
3.) The word "proved" should have been "evidenced for" or "strong evidence of".
4.) If you are so emotionally involved that you cannot resist calling fellow posters or relevant persons names and charge them with lying because you disagree, I don't think I find it profitable to have discussion with you.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't have time to go through all your responses.
But why assign all those factors the label zero? That is deceptive. And that is the heart of your claim. If you do not label all those factors 'zero' then suddenly you get an apparently random series of numbers which is what we expect. So, by labeling certain results 'zero' you have created the illusion that the wheel is designed to only produce zeros.
argue against him, and start addressing my points and defending your own claims.
However, your initial example was invalid in my opinion. The example was suppose to be illustrative of how Thiests might superstituously attribute Divine Cause to the outcome of a coin toss.
The CAUSE of a result of a random coin toss does exist in the mind of Theists such as myself, as a natural one.
The velocity of the toss, the angle of the throw, the air current, the height at which the coin lifts, the speed of its decent, the angle of the surface upon which it falls, etc. all are factors which contribute to whether it lands heads or tails.
If the exact throw could be duplicated in the exact manner the coin would land the same way. Of course an exact duplication of all those parameters is highly unlikely if not humanly impossible.
So you get different outcomes with different throws.
So, if I recall your complaint rightly, it is incorrect to say that some people like Theists would jump to the conclusion that a divine cause is responsible for the result of the toss of a coin.
Now, I brought in another example regarding assumed probability which I thought was more representative of the situation of Thiests citing evidence for a manufactured outcome rather than a random one.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…3.) The word "proved" should have been "evidenced for" or "strong evidence of". …[/b]
[b]===================================
I apologised for saying that “when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling” “ -I stand corrected on that.
But, unfortunately, what I said what you lied about was no that but about, as I have already said, -for saying:
“…To this Phd. the very exis ] because you disagree, I don't think I find it profitable to have discussion with you.
GIVEN the fact that the “very existence” of that quantum tunnelling was NO kind of "unbelievably ACCIDENT" as you suggested but rather just the inevitable consequence of quantum physics and was PREDICTED by quantum physics and therefore the existence of quantum tunnelling was NO “accident“, how could there be "evidenced for" or "strong evidence of" for it being an "unbelievably ACCIDENT" ?
How can that be true when that makes absolutely no logical sense?
Originally posted by jaywillYou missed the point.
So, if I recall your complaint rightly, it is incorrect to say that some people like Theists would jump to the conclusion that a divine cause is responsible for the result of the toss of a coin.
Your argument claimed that certain unlikely events lead to the current state of things. You then claim that the current state of things is highly improbable, therefore it points towards design.
Now (although you are a bit vague) you appear to be saying that you do no think that the result of every toss of a dice points towards design. Therefore, your argument is invalid as you don't accept it yourself.
Now, I brought in another example regarding assumed probability which I thought was more representative of the situation of Thiests citing evidence for a [b]manufactured outcome rather than a random one.[/b]
In other words, you essentially refined your argument, by making the claim that the current state of the universe is unique, and that every property necessary for the current state of the universe is unique.
But you later weakened it by admitting that in your analogy things weren't really as unique as initially claimed.
However, you are yet to provide one single shred of evidence that the universe and all its properties is unique other than 'it exists'. But this could equally be applied to the dice. Again, you don't accept your own argument.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead=======================
But that is besides the point. Whether he was right about haemoglobin's dependency on a specific law of physics is irrelevant.
jaywill is attempting to use the age old argument that if a result is improbable then it cannot occur by accident. On the face of it, it is an obviously fundamentally flawed argument, however people still seem to get taken in by t, the argument that an apparently random result was improbable implies a cause is flawed.
You will find this thread full of people who are absolutely convinced that an event must necessarily have a cause and that if a cause is not evident then it must be invented. So if I throw a dice, some rational people will say 'the result is random' but other people simply cannot accept that. They must find a reason why the result was what it was, and if they have to invoke 'good luck', karma, or God, they will do so, especially if the result of the die has a significant impact on their lives.
====================================
The point - False.
No one need appeal to superstition or supernatural causes to explain any result of the toss of a pair of dice.
This forum is frequented by people who have a psuedo Buddhist attitude about design. They think it is only an appearance. It is essentially like a Buddhist belief that suffering or the world is an illusion.
Quantum Mechanic Theorist Davies apparently sees it differently:
He argued that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenius design"
[Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York Simon nd Shuster, 1984, page 243]
To Davies some Theists (scientists or otherwise) might suggest "Maybe they SEEM to be the product of exceedingly ingenius design because ... they ARE."
Its twhitehead's job to pursuade all of us that that's not a legitimate proposal, for some strange reason.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead=======================
You missed the point.
Your argument claimed that certain unlikely events lead to the current state of things. You then claim that the current state of things is highly improbable, therefore it points towards design.
Now (although you are a bit vague) you appear to be saying that you do no think that the result of every toss of a dice points towards desi . But this could equally be applied to the dice. Again, you don't accept your own argument.
In other words, you essentially refined your argument, by making the claim that the current state of the universe is unique, and that every property necessary for the current state of the universe is unique.
But you later weakened it by admitting that in your analogy things weren't really as unique as initially claimed.
However, you are yet to provide one single shred of evidence that the universe and all its properties is unique other than 'it exists'. But this could equally be applied to the dice. Again, you don't accept your own argument.
=======================================
I don't understand your complaint.
I do understand that myself and Quantum Mechnical Theorist Davies both see evidence of nature possessing what appears to be "ingenius design".
Life in the universe is unique as far as we know. It follows then to me that the univere itself is unique.
Arguments from twhitehead that it is not unique seem disqualified by the amount of money scienctists are spending to search for it elsewhere in the solar system and in the universe.
While twhitehead says "ho hum... life is not a big deal" mainstream science seems to feel otherwise. They're hoping to find evidence of it or it somewhere else beside planet earth.
His reasons are more metaphysical and philosophical than practical.
His Atheism requires this kind of attitude to be more rational to him.