life is random........

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jul 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    I didn't mean evolution of the universe. I meant in the same way that the process of evolution couldn't be any other way because it simply works as it is and no other way, the universe may be the same.

    In other words, there could be billions of big bangs but only ones that create a universe like ours, with its laws that make it stable, could continue to exist for anything other than a tiny amount of time. The fact that complex life exists in a stable universe wouldn't be a coincidence; it would be the only way those two things could co-exist.

    So when you say: "given that a random creation of the universe could've ended up in so many different ways, I find it notable that it ended up in a way so consistent with design." I'm saying that it couldn't have ended up in so many ways (i.e., only 'stable' universes can last for any meaningful amount of time). It could be stable in many different ways of course, but that doesn't really matter. If it's stable it'll last for a long time; if it's stable and long-lasting then it's not surprising that complex life in some variety would evolve at some point.

    I might not be explaining it very well.

    I'm not sure how you get to the "and possinly an intended one" part?
    test
  2. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,568
    you have to see that everything in this universe is infinite, without beginning or end. the atoms that form your bodies, where do they start? you break down atoms and get quarks, and you can break these down too, only we havent been able to yet. until you reach what? a nothingness, a void? the number PI is a great example of how the universe works. like a circle, there is no beginning, no end.

    realize, you are more void than anything. the void between the elektron and the nucleaus within each atom is enormous already. can you now grasp just how etheral and spiritual of a species we already are in this physical form? we already are more spirit than anything..

    the mind burdens us with time and space, packaging everything and trying to understand the world that it resides in through science and thought patterns. but science will only get us that far.

    one universal truth is: everything works in cycles: your blood flowing through your body, planets rotating around the sun, the seasons, elektrons revolving around the nucleaus, sleep, and so on and on..

    and life is very far from random, my friend..if it were random, you would not be able to experiance that much beauty and perfection
    test
  3. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,487
    This sure turned into an essay writing contest…
    test
  4. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    :scared:
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yo i think you guys r going over the same points again

    a universe of stability would imply a stable universe

    but it doesnt imply complexity. stability =/= complexity

    its true though that there are possinly many universes being cast out and only the stable ones are the ones not just ready to even exist, but even be more prone to complexity; w stability basically acting as a green light to that

    again a big hitch is that we dont know about those universes - whether they exist or not - so though its an ok guess for now, it would have to play a back up to a more feasible guess

    a more feasible guess would have to be a kind that looks w our universe exclusively, as thats what we only have to work with to look at (not other abstracts versions of other kinds of universes)

    i thought x summed up his argument w that text diagram/opening hand argument thing when he was doing that. i havent seen a strong comeback to that. it was a really tight point to make. tight as in hard to crack

    to me i i would say its pro0bably the most feasible thing to go by w current info. doesnt mean its true, but it has the most suggestive strength.

    for the record its not uncommon for cosmologists and physicists to believe in design for the similar reasonings of complexity being so unlikely an event in this universe that it actually seems to suggest intent

    in sum: its not proof, but very strongly suggested

    to be the man you have the beat the man: x's text diagram argument
    test
  6. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    the thing is though both riz's suggestion and x-cali's suggestion make the same amount of unfounded assumptions: in riz's case the existence of other universes and in x-cali's case the existence of a divine architect. most debates on fine-tuning have these two core positions as being equally equipped in dealing with the 'cosmic coincidences' that x cali laid out in his initial argument, so i don't see how you can say one answer is more feasible than the other.

    in order to make an argument based on the probabilities of our own universe we necessarily have to take into account the hypothetical results of what would have happened if this universe had different properties. the hypothetical alternatives being discussed are actually just models of this universe had things turned out slightly differently. i think you are alleging that we are introducing this concept into the discussion when really it plays a vital role in the initial argument.
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah and that was x's text diagram in sum.

    if this universe was different, it would be less likely, than more likely, to have this complexity. this seemed pretty tight to me.

    thus the complexity is a rare hand, so to speak; theres more non complex universes that could have occurred, than this complex universe that we now are observing. this has as an large impact on what kind of suggestions (more likely, less likely) we can make next.

    you could say that this complexity we are observing is not rare, but you could only do that by hypothesizing different kinds of universes that could some produce alternative routes towards similar kinds of complexity. thats valid but not as feasible, as we only have an ability to observe this universe and the way it is exclusively.

    thus x's argument as summed up w the text diagram thing stands above it. it hasnt been strongly challenged yet. its still pretty much on top of this just as being a more feasible interpretation over all
    test
  8. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i don't think the multiverse scenario that riz seemed to be suggesting necessitates that we find alternative routes to complexity, or argue that complexity is not rare. rather that the odds against a complex universe are diminished if there is a larger hypothetical pool of universes to select from. you could make the suggestive argument that other universes exist based on the model of the creation of our own universe.

    i'm not saying that there is an actual multiverse, though. what i'm saying is how is it more feasible to assume one universe with a divine creator than many universes with random parameters, with us (the observers) just having to have lived in a complex one because that's what's needed for intelligent life to blossom? either way we have no proof there is other universes and we have no proof there is a god. only suggestive arguments based on probability.
    test
  9. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    lolyeah exactly

    the whole point is that since we only have an ability to observe this universe any argument depending on the use of other abstracted universes is going to have less feasibility than an argument that looks at this universe exclusively


    the text diagram shows how the complex version of this universe is staggeringly outweighed by how many non complex versions of it could have existed. to get this as an opening hand, suggests design more than it would suggest a lack of design based on that comparison.

    again its only suggested. a lack of design would be more suggested if this universe were not complex, for example.
    test
  10. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    we have just as much of an ability to observe other universes as we do god(actually we probably have a more feasible chance of eventually observing other universes).you're applying a double standard based on which answer you like more.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    ????

    looking at just this universe seems to suggest design (god) just by the odds as we would understand them. its only suggestive, but again this seems pretty tight to me. if like you say suggestive probability is ultimately the only thing we can go by (i agree) then one that looks at this universe exclusively would have more feasibility.

    you + riz arent wrong, thats not what i mean. actually you guys might be completely right. but your arguments, at this current stage, must take a back seat among the other arguments that have been put on the table

    its completely inconclusive though, so far
    test
  12. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    ok let me break down what i'm trying to say more effectively

    there are two hypothesis that we are comparing right now. hypothesis a) the cosmic coincidences that lead to a rare (complex) universe suggest a cosmic designer, and b) the cosmic coincidences that lead to a rare (complex) universe suggest a vast multiverse with a large pool of possible universes.

    both of these hypothesis lead to conclusions which as of now cannot be confirmed, and both of them are being used to diminish the probabilities of a universe with our own parameters arising.

    what you are saying is that the design hypothesis is more feasible because we cannot be sure those other universes exist. the problem with that logic is that the designer also cannot be assured to exist. both hypothesis lead to conclusions which are unconfirmed and both hypothesis are based soley on suggestive arguments based on the probability of our own universe. if you or x-cali had a hypothesis that explained the coincidences without having to draw from phenomena or concepts that exist outside this universe, then that hypothesis would indeed be more feasible.

    as it stands both hypothesis rely on hypothetical elements which exist outside our own universe and can't currently be confirmed nor denied. so i'd say that at the very least they are on equal footing.
    test
  13. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    the thing is looking only at this universe, design seems more likely when comparing the known odds.

    the other way youre describing requires introducing all sorts of new odds
    test
  14. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    how so?

    it's a very basic concept, random process repeated ad infinitum can (and will) lead to even the most unlikely results. the larger the multiverse the more likely a universe like ours would arise. you can postulate this using the current odds we use to deduce the likelihood of a universe with our parameters arising.
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    thats a possibility. but what can be known so far is that this is the only universe, as its the only thing we can observe. starting out w this as your premise means you have to go by odds intrinsic to this universe exclusively. doing that, the odds suggest more towards design than not. not because of god but because of pure chance; it was more unlikely than likely this whole thing could occur by chance. the odds are intrisincally stacked against that. its just an odds game

    if youre premise is that there is more universes then that of course changes. but i dont see how that would be a more efficient outlook ie you have to create new universes/ multi-verses on top of this one
    test
  16. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    but the alternative would be to create a cosmic designer. in either case you are introducing new concepts that have no precedence in our current universe in order to account for a more neat and tidy assessment of the odds.
    test
  17. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah but since the odds as we know them are so stacked against chance, the suggestion of a designer naturally arises from that

    you are arguing that the universe exists by chance, which by odds that we can feasibly know about, is very very unlikely. so unlikely, i argue, that design is more suggested than chance would be. the odds point away from chance, is what im sayinf
    test
  18. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i'm simply arguing that the idea of a multiverse accounts for the chance arisal for our universe equally well as a cosmic designer. both are based on suggestive arguments which are rooted in the current odds, and both introduce new elements into the equation which cannot currently be confirmed. you might prefer one invention over the other, but that doesn't make it a more feasible addition to our current understanding of the universe.

    i'd even go so far as to say that our current model for the creation of this universe gives good precedence to postulate that the process could happen more than once, and with a variety of results. there's no scientific reason i can think of to assume that the process through which our universe arose(big bang) is limited to our universe: we are only currently unable to observe directly whether or not that is the case. but again, we can't observe directly whether there is a cosmic designer either. and in that case, the only real precedence for the concept of a designer is in spiritual conceptions and arguably in analogous observations of the differences between human creations (intelligent design) and natural occurences ('random' process). so a multiverse arguably has more scientific precedence than a designer.
    test
  19. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah i think theyre both feasible yet if youre going to go by the multiverse as reasoning then you have to then explain why and how it exists too. by doing this you are adding completely new rules and parameters to what we know about the uyniverse. to me that seems like an even bigger leap out into the unknown, as youre starting to now venture out into territory that we know absolutely zero about.

    the designer argument is really just based on the odds that chance was very unlikely - which by looking at our universe, seems to be right. thus it can create the suggestion of design as the only alternative without creating new rules for the universe (multiverse)

    to me, thats makes it more feasible - for now - with the information we actually have
    test
  20. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i dont see why you have to explain how and why the multiverse exists but not the cosmic designer. it seems you are applying different rules to the two hypothesis to slant the argument in a particular direction.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)