life is random........

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

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

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think design, as an argument, acts just an alternative to chance. it doesnt invalidate chance but exists as its natural alternative purely because the odds (as we so far know them) are stacked against chance. as they are stacked against chance, it suggests more towards design. this is pretty straight forward reasoning as far as i can understand it.

    you can say that it was god i guess if you want but at the heart of this is the reasoning that since what we observe in this universe was very unlikely by the odds (as we know them) to have happened by chance, the natural alternative to this is design.

    ultimately i feel that if the odds are saying that chance was unlikely, then that has to make some kind of suggestion towards design, with the only way to come away with some kind of different conclusions being from altering what we know about the odds themselves eg discovering a multi-verse (or something like that)

    i thnk that is the only way

    but we arent at that stage to do something like that yet
    test
  2. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    the odds don't necessarily point away from chance, the odds are based on chance. if it was designed then there were no odds, the entire thing was fixed. so based on that reasoning any improbable chance event implies design. but design cannot be taken seriously as an alternative to chance unless a mechanism for design exists. so introducing such a concept to account for the odds is every bit as much of a leap as introducing a multiverse to account for the odds.

    i see the logic in what you're saying about chance vs design but if you are to deduce design then a mechanism for that design is implicitly part of that answer. you can't just say well the odds were so slim that it must have been designed and then just leave it at that.
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    youre right but im not arguing that design is actually what happened. ultimately we can only make guesses based on what we understand as odds. so im just saying that chance - by what can be known about the odds - was so unlikely that design has to be brought up by virtue that its the only alternative that can be proposed to chance - and by the same odds - even favored.

    the odds as they are so far simply unfold that way. it doesnt overtly point to design, but it does present a suggestion to it more than it presents a suggestion to chance since by what we know chance is so unlikely

    to change that you would have to ultimately add new data to what we know about these odds.

    and even in a multiverse you would have to try to explain what the multiverse is and why it exists too. again the problem of chance vs design forcibly comes up. i think as far as understanding ultimate causality, you can never actually escape this from happening. you will only ever get an incomplete answer that suggests possinly anything based on whatever the known odds currently are.
    test
  4. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    it's inconvenient that I'm busy with other stuff as well. but I'll attend to this as much as I can.

    it is important to keep in mind that exobiology is a large unanswered question. There could be vast amounts of life in all kinds of habitats in the universe. having only one planet to work with is a major limitation, but it is clear that there is vast amounts of life in every niche on earth. There is life here that can survive and flourish in environments that are extreme to us, supporting the notion that it may be widespread in the universe. after all, the earth is made up of elements and processes that occur elsewhere.

    hostility towards life, and efficiency for supporting life, are relative. through human perceptions, such as our sense of scale, the universe may seem like a desert. but it might be highly efficient at supporting life. the earth definitely is - life exists here everywhere from the upper atmosphere to the deep crust, from ice caps to the ocean floor.

    as far as filler, it is hard to say how much of it truly is filler. after all, vast distances between stars help prevent disruption to solar systems. huge stars generate neutron stars and black holes, but without supernovas, you wouldn't have the heavier elements. using the earth as our best known example of the universe seems to indicate a high level of efficiency.

    I pointed out hazardous phenomena in the universe as an example of the extent of physics. much of the extremes that physics runs to are hostile to life, and we can see this in measured doses in our own universe. yet, even the most dangerous forces are balanced and stable. when you consider issues like dark matter/energy, different vacuum states, antimatter, the big bang, etc, it seems clear that there was a large range of potential for the universe, much of it unfriendly to life on a universal scale. and yet we ended up with this universe, which goes back to my diagram/card analogies.

    I don't see the trial and error process as being an argument against a designer. It does argue against God creating life with a single goal in mind (us), but that's not my position. I'm saying that the designer set the stage for the universe to host life, and let things unfold. This is supported by the far-ranging possibilities of physics, which took a path of complexity, balance, and life in spite of everything else. Riz put forward a different point about that, which I'll get to soon.


    an interesting link, but it is all speculation. That theory about the cosmic background radiation is more of a hypothesis.

    and that is a different and interesting view of the multiverse theory. if that were the case, it would bring the "ocean multiverse" and probability ideas back into play. however, that is a speculative idea at this point. as far as we know, there is the one universe, which current cosmology supports. another issue is the nature of the required "background space" - space exists within universes, so what is in between them? It can't be space as we know it. Maybe it is a different dimension or different type of space entirely, but that is going even further into hypotheticals.


    the ultimate fate of the universe is not settled. clearly the universe is expanding, but we are not sure where this will eventually lead. I have mentioned a few of the possible outcomes that have been theorized, but once again nothing is certain. It is agreed upon that the universe will maintain itself in its current condition for a very long time. More research needs to be done on dark matter and dark energy, as they comprise the great majority of mass in the universe.

    I pointed out the big freeze/big crunch/big rip scenarios as valid physical possibilities. in a random string of universes, there is a strong possibility that there would be an outcome to end the cycle. However, if we have a designed universe cycling from one big bang to the next, the designer could preclude it from reaching one of those conclusions and keep it going. that's assuming past universe iterations, which is hypothetical. in any case, if the universe provides for life for as long as possible, or even indefinitely, that would be evidence of a designer in favor of life.
    test
  5. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    I had to break it up due to the 7500 character limit.

    the universe shaping design could be taken a few different ways. if you mean Riz' argument, I'll get to that in the next post. other than that, I've compared the state of the universe to the wide range of possibilities allowed by physics and cosmology as evidence of design. It can be difficult to picture other possible universes, but hydrogen gas universes can be easily brought up as a contrast to design.

    In my answer to that, I showed how our models show long-term stability on the scale of billions of years. I also mentioned that as far as the ultimate outcome, it is not certain, but it may well be conducive to the continuation of life, which would be more evidence of design.


    I see. the analogy is not perfect. I was trying to show how certain patterns can be very exceptional as compared to the natural patterns that can take shape. I find the patterns of life and the universe to be exceptional as compared to the range of natural patterns.


    to tie this in with a couple later posts:

    that's the problem when discussing how the universe came to be. we're pretty much stuck considering concepts outside the universe. while study of the universe can shed some light on this, our cosmology research is still a frontier, which is limiting in many ways. stating that the universe formed from chaos, void, or a designer are all making philosophical leaps. keep in mind that nothingness is also unprecedented in the universe.
    test
  6. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    basically, you mean that the universe has unfolded this way because this is the only way it can be theoretically. to use my card example, it would be like the dealer being unable to deal cards UNLESS they created the royal flush hand. and so the universe self-organized without any need of a designer.

    definitely an interesting alternative. however, physics has shown that the universe took several decisive turns as the big bang unfolded. if the matter/antimatter conflict had gone differently, it would be an antimatter universe. or if they'd all canceled out, it would be a universe flooded with light and nothing else. there's dark matter/energy, and other issues about the big bang. it seems to be, from the current understanding, that there are many other possible universes with stability. But since this topic is still being debated, I definitely can't discard your idea.

    but I will say that there are many stable universe models which could not conceivably support life.


    basically, life resulted from the state of the universe. and the state of the universe was designed to permit this.


    Lol, it sure did.
    test
  7. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    There's way too much stuff in here now to reply to everything properly.

    Btw, I'm not necessarily suggesting that there's multiple universes. Instead, I'm saying that there may have been multiple big bangs and only universes with stable laws can last for any meaningful amount of time after that. We could be the only universe or one of billions, but I'm not sure that's important. (We could be the result of the only big bang and I'm not sure that makes any difference either)

    I accept that there are versions of a universe that coule be both stable and unsuitable for life as we know it. I'm not sure it rules out the possibility of complexity, though. Going back to your post about the difference between a slug and hydrogen, I think ultimately we're arguing about complexity rather than life.

    But anyway, my real point is this:

    1) A universe that has a stable set of laws will almost always last longer than a universe with unstable laws.

    2) A universe that exists for a long time is always more likely to develop complexity/life because a) it takes a long time for complexity to develop and b) by its very nature, a long-lasting universe is also a stable universe, which makes it more suitable for complexity/life.

    Therefore, a lifeform that exists in a stable, long-lasting universe shouldn't turn around and say "what a coincidence that the universe is so stable in exactly the way we need!" Because, as I've hopefully shown, it's not a coincidence at all.

    To modify your diagram:

    ..(l)..(l)...(l)....(l)...(l)........(l).......(l)
    ...l.....l......l......l......l..........l..........l

    The dots on the bottom row represent unstable universes that flicker in and out of existence quickly.
    The lines on the bottom row represent stable universes that, by their very stable nature, last for a much longer time.
    The dots on the top row represent no ability for life/complexity.
    The lines in brackets on the top row represent the potential for life/complexity.

    Yeah, but I didn't get how you went from basically saying our world is in general quite hostile to life to implying this suggests design.
    test
  8. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    what i'm saying is, without a mechanism for design (an intelligent architect) the chance that universe was designed is zero, which is lower than the chance that the universe arose this way without design. so even in considering design as an alternative to chance, we are already assuming that some designer exists as part of that answer. otherwise that explaination simply makes no sense.

    to say that the odds point more to design than to chance simply means that there were many possible outcomes in a chance scenario. any scenario which has more than one possible outcome (especially broad scale scenarios like the creation of a universe) is going to be easier to account for by design than by chance. because design diminishes the probability of a given outcome to 1 no matter what the scenario. you will never get better odds than one, so you will never find a chance event where the odds 'point to chance.' so i feel like that argument is sort of flawed to be honest.
    test
  9. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    it is relative, yes. that's mostly because we are unable to directly observe so much of the known universe to a great enough extent that we can detect whether there is life or not outside this planet. however, we have been able to observe that the other planets in our solar system lack an ozone layer and are seemingly dead. we create odds for the existence of life on other planets based on the ones that have some of the same features as ours - and yet for every one of those planets that might have life there are many more that do not have those features.

    the argument that life manages to thirve in the most extreme conditions on earth is by itself not amazing. life is highly adaptive and prone to spread - but we don't know what conditions allow for it to arise in the first place. so based on current observations, the likelihood that there are some other planets with life are good. but the likelihood that there are many more dead planets than life supporting ones is even better.

    this to me does suggest a lack of design if life was the intended goal. or at the very least it does imply a lack of efficiency in the design, which i think indicates either that the designer is non-existent or that it does not prioritize life in the same manner that we do.





    yea from what i remember it'll be another 7 years or so before they are able to deduce if the data is conclusive. something to do with the planck constant if i recall. and that could very well be 7 years of waiting to find out that there's nothing to see here.

    as for the deal with the background space, it's my understanding that it is indeed analogous to 'space as we know it;' that the multiverse is an 'infinite' (i hate that word) background spacetime that forms bubbles of inflationary universes with their own space-time properties. you're right that it's highly speculative, but so is your statement that one universe would have been likely to die out in a way that could end the process. it is after all purely speculative exactly what happens in a big freeze or a big rip - let alone what happens afterwards.





    is there any current theory that doesn't involve the eventual death of the universe (with life dieing out long before hand)? it would indeed indicate design if out of nowhere our universe were to stop expanding at a position that would allow for the indefinite blossoming of life, but i wouldn't hold my breath. unfortunately you and i will probably never get the answer to this question unless convergent technology actually does manage to turn us into immortals.
    test
  10. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    what i mean by the universe shaping design is that basically we are defining the indicators of design as the specific parameters it has which (for now) support life. if we were to observe the early stages of the universe before stars had formed that would supposedly indicate a lack of design, or if we were to observe the universe after all its stars had burned out and it was full of black holes that would likewise indicate a lack of design based on our current criteria.

    the fact that we don't get to observe either one of those stages directly does not make them any less a part of the intended structure of the universe, if it is designed. i would even go so far as to argue that the ultimate intended purpose of the universe would more logically be the universe in its final state - whether that be a dissolved universe of cold radiation or a rip in the fabric of spacetime or a collapsed universe, or some other unknown ending. so i guess i don't see why a hydrogen universe would not be designed. the probability that such a universe could arise on its own would still be much easier to explain using a model of design: the only reason we don't see that is because the results are not desirable to us.

    yea, this is certainly a question that mankind could very well never figure out. i think 'nothingness' as scientists talk about in terms of the big bang is just sort of a lazy way to describe the singularity, which we obviously don't actually know anything about since the first fraction of a second in the current big bang models is practically a blank slate. i can't imagine that they actually mean that literally nothing existed beforehand.

    then again whatever way we try to look at it we're stuck with two possibilities: either something came from nothing or something has always existed. both of those concepts are equally incomprehensible to us.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i dont know what you do to get that number. you had to assign a probability to god - yet god could always possibly exist. you conclude here that its actually zero. that sounds like all or nothing thinking

    the odds are what they are, knowing what we know. yes its flawed because we dont have perfect knowledge. but the point is not to have perfect knowledge right now but to have an understanding of whatwe can know with whats there

    you should at least keep this folded away in your drawer if anything. it sounds like youre trying to discard it because its not 100% enough for you
    test
  12. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    [youtube]Ro3WILau_9w[/youtube]
    test
  13. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    no, what i actually said was that without the existence of a designer (or god) the probability for design is zero. that's pretty straightforward logic: without a designer you cannot have a design. i'm not saying the probability for god is actually zero. but you seemed to be trying to separate the theory for design from the theory for a designer, and i was showing that they are implicitly connected. thus the design hypothesis makes just as much as a leap as the multiverse hypothesis because it requires that you make an assumption about the existence of something that cannot be confirmed to exist and is seemingly outside and independent of our universe.


    no, i think the very logic being used is flawed. that is, that there are certain odds that inherently 'point away from chance' and towards design; meanwhile any chance event is bound to be less probable than any designed event. when you get into the realm of a series of chance events, the idea that probability would or even could point towards that series of events is absurd. there is an obscure line being drawn in the sand somewhere that isn't and probably can't be defined, which is probably no coincidence as to why this is relegated to remaining a strictly 'suggestive' argument.

    that said, i'm not writing off the suggestive element completely. i'm definitely intrigued by the cosmic coincidences, and as i have said to x-cali it's the strongest case i've seen for design. you keep accusing me of being closed minded but i think i have been perfectly fair. it seems anything short of dropping to my knees and screaming hallelujah renders me a hard headed atheist.
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah but designer is always going to be default alternative to any argument based on chance

    for example multiverse might be happening (thus increasing chance that this universe wesnt designed) but you can never shake the possibility for design anyway; its always going to be linked to ultimate causation eg multiverse increases chances for a chance universe (vs designed universe) but what then are the chances for a multiverse to just slap itself together to exist too...

    what then are the chances for that

    so you see its impossible to really remove the design alternative. the possibility that there was a designer is always going to be present just by the nature of the question

    loldef not asking you to believe in god though. but yeah you should keep it tucked in your drawer at least
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    just thought of this. theres really no point but:

    what if the universe/multiverse was designed by god but god himself was created by chance

    i have to go to aeh and argue about lil b
    test
  16. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    how could god b created by chance?
    test
  17. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    @radium

    i guess it depends on what are the properties of that multiverse are and how they came to be. the entire argument for design based on fine tuning is based on the 'unlikelihood' of our own universe; who's to say if the multiverse shares that unlikelihood? though i suspect that you are right and that if it does exist then it probably is just as unlikely as our universe if not more so.

    so i don't exactly expect for the 'design question' to ever go away. it has always found its niche comfortably in the realm which is just past what science can reasonably grasp, and i don't expect that to change any time soon. i do think however, as x-cali's fine tuning arguments have helped highlight for me, that the more in depth we get into this question the more intricate and meaningful our picture of design becomes. and that i think is something positive no matter what your disposition.

    as for what if the universe was a product of the mutliverse, and the multiverse was a product of god, and god was a product of chance: well then that would be some shit, wouldn't it?
    test
  18. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah i dont think you can get away from the design alternative w/o having ultimate knowledge (the end of science)

    its always there at the base of every question that can even be asked about reality. its the first question that can ever be asked before any other question can be asked. its the first question of this universe, humanity, and probably cognizant thinking on any scale human or some other thing


    ha it reminds me of the exterior of hieronymus bosch's garden of earhtly delights

    The Garden of Earthly Delights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    you can see god looking down at the world as though silently overwhelmed at the plight of all the souls that will struggle to exist on his little creation; just completely robbed of movement by the levity of what he had just done. almost unsure of himself. extremely powerful image
    test
  19. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    naturally, a universe with stable laws is a prerequisite for the development of complexity, as you've illustrated. there's no denying that. However, physics can clearly imagine the hydrogen gas universe, or many other alternatives, which can have stability without any potential for further complexity.

    While stability is needed, potential for complexity is another step after that. since we're making diagrams, here's a pyramid:

    .............|life|
    ........|complexity|
    ..|stability & stable laws|



    Like I was saying, we can see on this planet how life has thrived through a very broad range of environments and physical conditions. Not enough information is available on exobiology yet to take that research further.

    there are very hostile forces in the universe. But this indicates to me that much of the potential of physics is hostile to life. which leads me to theorize, with reason, that the universe could have turned out in a vast number of ways that would not support life. and yet, the universe came out this way, where even the most hostile, alien forces are limited and may even play a larger role beneficial to life.
    test
  20. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    extremophiles and other forms of life haven't even been ruled out on the other solar system planets. the conditions that allow life to arise is another big question. more data and research is needed before we can get a larger sense of life in the universe. until then, the earth indicates a very high level of efficiency in supporting life, and life shows great adaptability to the conditions the universe throws at it (keep in mind that this planet is bound by the same laws as the rest of the universe). extremophiles thrive in conditions that may be common on exoplanets, which are numerous.

    but, more knowledge is needed. if life is very difficult to start, that would argue for a lack of efficiency in universal design. then of course, there's the issue of what the theoretical maximum efficiency for life really is.



    that is true. although models for big freeze/rip are better modeled and thought out than the hyperspace separating universes - which is not to say that this invalidates the multiverse either, just that it's going further out from what we know.


    indeed @ the last line. dark matter and dark energy seem to be key to understanding the universe at large. there could be a Big Bounce/Cyclic mechanism that could keep regenerating the universe. Or an oscillation that allowed galaxies, stars and planets to maintain themselves. we can create equations and hypotheses about where the universe will end up, but we're in a very rudimentary position until learn more about the vast majority of the mass/energy of the universe.
    until then, it is up for consideration, and a continuous support of life is not out of the question.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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