Hngerhman said
MikeinNeb said
Well I don’t think 13.8 billion years is all that long personally. I also think the “chemical processes” are besides the point. Modern humanity, with it’s vast knowledge and ability to completely transform (and scar) this planet, can’t make a mouse from scratch, much less a mouse that can then reproduce 10 more mice just like it……. And yet we are to believe that it can be done by random chance, given enough “time and ingredients”? All the atoms in the universe working continuously over their entire existence, can’t even randomly reproduce a children’s book, much less comprehend what it means. The fact that something far greater than us is behind our existence is for me pretty black and white. The tricky part is understanding the “why”.
If 13.8BN years is not long, then within a metaphorical blink of an eye humans will be in a position to construct a mouse from scratch (assuming we agree on the operative meaning of construct, mouse and scratch). I apologize if my focus on chemical processes seems irrelevant. Do you consider reactions such as abiogenesis of amino acids to lack pertinence to the formation of life? If so, I’d love to understand why. Especially if biological processes sit atop / emerge from chemical processes which sit atop / emerge from physical processes, then I’m struggling to find/isolate the level(s) of reality wherein you see the need for agent-directed participation.
Circling back to randomness – is it that you deny randomness per se, or randomness (embedded within physical processes that are subject to path dependent constraints) is insufficient to create complexity? Would you deny nature contains actual (rather than merely apparent/epistemic) stochastic processes?
ETA – “All the atoms in the universe working continuously over their entire existence, can’t even randomly reproduce a children’s book, much less comprehend what it means.” I think this is precisely what’s in question in our conversation here. It would be my view, which is certainly open to change from compelling counterargument, that this is precisely what all the atoms in the universe have, in fact, done. Except perhaps Goodnight Moon – that one is obviously divinely inspired.
Well let’s see; “Abiogenesis”. Had to Google that one… “Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,** you do not have permission to see this link ** While the details of this process are still unknown….”
But I take it you have the unknown part figured out? ….. A “Stochastic Process” means “Random Process”. So what exactly are you saying I’m “denying?” “Random Processes”??? I’m for them!!!
You need to go back to your math; To the variables, the unknowns, the probabilities….. What’s the probability of all these nuclear fusion generated heavier elements congregating in unique quantities in the area of a secondary star that was assembling a planetary system, including a planet at just the right distance around a star at just the right size with a revolution at just the right rpm tipped at just the right angle with a just right molten core with an iron center to produce just the right magnetic field to contain just the right amount of lighter elements to produce just the right amount of water stirred by the tidal effects of just the right sized moon…….. You could write a book (People have) on addressing to the extent possible the infinite amount of “stars that had to line up” for us to exist as we do. Again, the probability of it all happening is 1 over slightly less than infinity. But if you want to think that’s how it happened; completely by random, knock yourself out. But don’t be one of those people who’s retirement planning involves buying lot’s of lottery tickets weekly. There’s a reason lottery providers and casinos rake in lots of money. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
But I take it you have the unknown part figured out? …..
No, science freely concedes the presence of blank spaces on the map. “God did it” is not an answer, it’s the lack of an answer. An invitation to stop thinking. The proper answer to a question for which we have as yet no answer is “I don’t know“, not “insert favorite reassuring explanation“.
Again, the probability of it all happening is 1 over slightly less than infinity…
Statistically improbable events happen all the time including the possibility that you will read Dawkins’ book which addresses exactly the questions you raise (in much better prose than I can manage alas).
MikeinNeb said
Well let’s see; “Abiogenesis”. Had to Google that one… “Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,** you do not have permission to see this link ** While the details of this process are still unknown….”
But I take it you have the unknown part figured out? …..
I’m going to just quickly mention that we know lots of empirical facts of chemistry that point strongly in the direction of abiogenesis (but as with any scientific hypothesis, it is provisional and falsifiable). A couple hyper-salient examples: (a) we know simple chemicals plus energy can generate amino acids, which are the precursors to (complex) proteins; (b) we know lipids can self-form into (cell wall) membranes.
That said, the precise mechanisms of how we got from energized carbon soup to the first life form are not worked out. Yet. Lest I be seen to be proselytizing a type of “science of the gaps”, let me just say: unless the history of human endeavors, science in particular, is a poor guide for future discoveries in the fields in focus, then we’ll likely close that loop. I myself certainly don’t have the (currently) unknown portion figured out yet, no – but I know people who are working on it, and it’s exciting stuff.
Am I giving inductive credence to humans figuring this out? Yes. Am I doing so irresponsibly? I don’t think I am. But I am open to feedback. And, this is empirically verifiable, so time will ultimately tell. At present, I think the vast preponderance of empirical evidence to date points to us likely succeeding, and I’m unaware of countervailing evidence – and would love to be made aware should it exist.
MikeinNeb said
A “Stochastic Process” means “Random Process”. So what exactly are you saying I’m “denying?” “Random Processes”??? I’m for them!!!
Great, thanks. I couldn’t tell from the above (e.g., loaded dice, special randomness) whether you thought stochastic processes didn’t exist, or just that they cannot produce our observed complexity. I now understand that it’s the second.
MikeinNeb said
You need to go back to your math; To the variables, the unknowns, the probabilities….. What’s the probability of all these nuclear fusion generated heavier elements congregating in unique quantities in the area of a secondary star that was assembling a planetary system, including a planet at just the right distance around a star at just the right size with a revolution at just the right rpm tipped at just the right angle with a just right molten core with an iron center to produce just the right magnetic field to contain just the right amount of lighter elements to produce just the right amount of water stirred by the tidal effects of just the right sized moon…….. You could write a book (People have) on addressing to the extent possible the infinite amount of “stars that had to line up” for us to exist as we do. Again, the probability of it all happening is 1 over slightly less than infinity. But if you want to think that’s how it happened; completely by random, knock yourself out. But don’t be one of those people who’s retirement planning involves buying lot’s of lottery tickets weekly. There’s a reason lottery providers and casinos rake in lots of money. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I appreciate the advice to focus on the probabilities and to avoid wagering my retirement on bets within systems where the inherent probabilities (and expected value) are set unfavorably. Solid words to live by. Our brains are not wired well for probabilistic thinking, nor do our dopamine systems always point us in the right direction. Do I have these things conquered? Not by a long shot. But, take some comfort from my assurance to you that I have a decent handle on them. I make part of my living from people not being able to distinguish p(~x) = 1% from p(~x) = 0.1%.
Ok, you seem to be espousing a variant of the fine-tuning argument, but more a local flavor than the global version (though they are not mutually exclusive views). And you mention a loose analogy to lotteries. I’m sure you are not falling prey to conflating the low probability that I (our solar system, specifically) win the lottery (produces the life on our planet) with the high(er) probability that someone (some solar system) will win the lottery (produce life), based on the very low individual p(x) but very high N. Since that isn’t the case, I’m not yet able to see which probabilities I’m misapplying and would appreciate you helping me to.
Ok, you seem to be espousing a variant of the fine-tuning argument, but more a local flavor than the global version (though they are not mutually exclusive views). And you mention a loose analogy to lotteries. I’m sure you are not falling prey to conflating the low probability that I (our solar system, specifically) win the lottery (produces the life on our planet) with the high(er) probability that someone (some solar system) will win the lottery (produce life), based on the very low individual p(x) but very high N. Since that isn’t the case, I’m not yet able to see which probabilities I’m misapplying and would appreciate you helping me to.
And that’s where you’re messing up. The odds that “ANY” solar system can win the “Life Lottery” are certainly better than us alone, but still essentially 1 over infinity for the “NOT” result…… Your concept of the vastness of the universe isn’t coming to terms with the infinitely greater vastness of the random probability of life occurring.
This reminds me of the Billion Dollar Powerball awhile back, where everyone was pouring in a week hundreds of millions of dollars into tickets, NBA stars were buying $100,000 of tickets individually…….. And there was all of ONE winning ticket. (And it wasn’t an NBA Player who won. Nor did it involve spontaneous amino acid replication under ideal and sustained environmental conditions…..)
And this has been officially beat to death. So I’m done with the discussion. Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful dialogue!
MikeinNeb said
Ok, you seem to be espousing a variant of the fine-tuning argument, but more a local flavor than the global version (though they are not mutually exclusive views). And you mention a loose analogy to lotteries. I’m sure you are not falling prey to conflating the low probability that I (our solar system, specifically) win the lottery (produces the life on our planet) with the high(er) probability that someone (some solar system) will win the lottery (produce life), based on the very low individual p(x) but very high N. Since that isn’t the case, I’m not yet able to see which probabilities I’m misapplying and would appreciate you helping me to.And that’s where you’re messing up. The odds that “ANY” solar system can win the “Life Lottery” are certainly better than us alone, but still essentially 1 over infinity for the “NOT” result…… Your concept of the vastness of the universe isn’t coming to terms with the infinitely greater vastness of the random probability of life occurring.
This reminds me of the Billion Dollar Powerball awhile back, where everyone was pouring in a week hundreds of millions of dollars into tickets, NBA stars were buying $100,000 of tickets individually…….. And there was all of ONE winning ticket. (And it wasn’t an NBA Player who won. Nor did it involve spontaneous amino acid replication under ideal and sustained environmental conditions…..)
And this has been officially beat to death. So I’m done with the discussion. Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful dialogue!
The second paragraph, the Powerball example, seems to me to be precisely illustrative of my point (that there was a high likelihood of a winner despite the de minimus probability that any one person would win, because of the high N, especially after successive rounds), which makes me think that the two of us are unfortunately talking past each other somehow. For my part, I apologize if I’m missing a subtlety there.
On the first paragraph, you are saying (figuratively) that despite the vastness of the universe, the conjoined probability of life emerging undirected in all local points throughout all the time of the universe is (effectively) zero. Forgive me, but the assumption needed to make that statement true would seemingly be that p(spontaneous life) = limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity, or in any practical sense (I mean this in its most expansive sense, not just “everyday”) indistinguishable from zero. I had taken your description of that assumption of that probability being very low, but didn’t fully realize that it actually operated as a zero at every level of rounding to any finite choice of significant digit. Now I get that. So, in addition to Robert’s very insightful question above, I’d also ask: how would one go about empirically justifying such an assumption, even if an attempt was made at quantification? Just the two examples I mentioned above, amino acids and lipid membranes, have an observed probability of spontaneous emergence of 100% (at some local point in the universe, given the right conditions), and they are at the more complex end of things vs. heavy elements and gravitationally intertwined bodies.
And I thank you for the conversation – it’s a very interesting view, and one that I’ll want to think about more, even if our dialogue here comes to a close. All the best!
Last Comment by me, I promise…..
How have you quantified the random probability of life occurring?
I go back to “Infinite Monkeys”. It says the following;
Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event …”, and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed “gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers.”
In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long.** you do not have permission to see this link **
I argue that the creation of life is infinitely more complex than the creation of “Hamlet”. It is certainly infinitely more complex than a document 79 characters long. Have I done the math to back up my statement? No. But if generating life isn’t infinitely more complex than generating the song lyrics for “Spongebob SquarePants”, then I’ll buy you a Coke….. 🙂
Have a great weekend everyone!
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The only thing dumber than the ‘infinite monkey typists’ scenario is the ‘whirlwind through the junkyard producing a Boeing 747’ scenario. It’s shameful and sad that adults in the twenty first century can still seriously entertain this crap. What an indictment of our educational system!
But I want to get back to the lack of gospel only cults. I think the nature of the tradition mitigates against it. It was a long time before you had a church that thought of itself as a entity with four official gospels all with the same authority. Before that there were relatively isolated divergent groups that each tended to privilege a limited collection of texts. All four gospels has their own constituencies. The were finally collected at least partly as a way of unifying these groups. And by the time the gospels were collected the rest of the NT canon had been formed already. So there was never really a time when you would have had a four gospel only tradition.
A modern reconstruction would run up against the problem of reconciling the gospels with each other. While there is overlap, not to mention dependency, there is no definitive unified vision.
The only thing dumber than the ‘infinite monkey typists’ scenario is the ‘whirlwind through the junkyard producing a Boeing 747’ scenario. It’s shameful and sad that adults in the twenty first century can still seriously entertain this crap. What an indictment of our educational system!
Really?? Well I think your a F**cking moron who seems to substitute Ad Hominem attacks and “Then the randomness miracle happens!!” from actually thinking.
You know what’s worse than a DipSh*t?? A loudmouthed DipSh*t!!
Regarding “Gospel Only Cults”, if you actually knew something about the History of the early Church, instead of just being a blowhard loudmouthed jerk, you’d know that it was imperative of the early church that it’s educated/noble/elite component sought the claim that Christianity was not a “new cult”, but was just a “Continuous and Righteous Heir of Judaism”. An “Ancient Religion” meant respect and permission to survive from the Romans. Thus, “survival of the fittest Darwanism” is why there are no “Gospel Only’ Sects.
And loud-mouthed “Random Event” you couldn’t figure that out, but mechanical engineer me on my own free time reading up on philosophy can??!! WHAT A MORON!!
Robert said
MikeinNeb said
Last Comment by me, I promise…..Oops.
I forget to include the small print voiding the contract where responses are necessary to snot nosed adolescent atheist assh*les living in their parents basement who have to borrow their parent’s minivan to go out and spend all their considerable free time mocking people for their faith and for asking for prayers for those who are victims of horrible events…..
I seem to have had the benefit of having the “entirely random generated intellect and sarcasm DNA strand”, which God has put in my heart that I should use as necessary…. 🙂
Robert said
Reminds me of the line from Qohelet:גַּ֤ם אֶת־הָעֹלָם֙ נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבָּ֔ם מִבְּלִ֞י אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־יִמְצָ֣א הָאָדָ֗ם אֶת־הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֛ה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים מֵרֹ֥אשׁ וְעַד־סֽוֹף׃
… also eternity he placed in their heart without that humanity would ever find what God has done from the beginning until the end.
The question still remains whether or not monkeys typing randomly is a good metaphor for the evolution of a/the universe. Personally, I’m content to leave the unanswerable questions unanswered until we find an answer. Who really knows everything that is involved in the creation and evolution of a Universe?
“Si comprendis, non est Deus”
(Augustine)
So you can’t hold it against an atheist to simply use “doesn’t believe” for something no-one can understand or fathom anyway.
We are all in this together, whether we realize it or not!!
Personally, I’d rather expand the canon rather than limit it. The first things I would add would be Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and Jesus Christ Superstar by Andrew Lloyd Webber and lyrics by Tim Rice. Would anyone else like to add books to the canon?
“Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)