March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Quantum Mechanics doesn't make sense to the layman; that's basically the entire point.Basic Quantum Mechanics do make sense to me, something being non-causal doesn't... God(well, universe) doesn't throw a dice.
The universe requires no mind.have I said it does?
No, no it doesn't. We have deduced, using technology and applying the Scientific Method, one possible beginning. It appears to have a bit of evidence floating around and no major holes in the theory, so in absense of a better idea most people run with it. The beginning of the universe is most definitely not explained however.So you are saying accepting the Big Bang theory is irrational?
Under our current physical laws, sure. But our current physical laws are based around the basic phsyical forces. If you have different physical forces, you have different physical laws, and everything acts differently.Sure, but still, assuming changing of one constant doesn't change others, which is atleast for some constant possibly true?
We know the universe is just like it is. Why? Well we don't know that one yet, assuming the question even has a meaningful answer.Hypotetically it could be different, as we cannot answer why it's currently like it is.
It is not rational to assign a value for something to exist when no evidence exists to support it.So it wasn't rational to believe in atomism? He just figured out world would makes more sense, you can explain more stuff, when all builds up of blocks. You don't need evidence to believe in something, only thing it needs is for it to make sense. You need evidence when you state something is(or is not) true.
You... don't actually know what the scientific method is do you? Allow Wikipedia to enlighten you and stop you sounding like an idiot. (I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that line just sounds idiotic to anyone who knows what the scientific methoid is in the same way that the statement 'i am riding a flying purple elephant' sounds idiotic to anyone with eyes; it is patently bullshit.)Umm, yes I do. Fact I might sound like idiot, cause I might not phrase things exactly the way you(or anyone else) would understand them.
You appear to be making the common mistake of most religious worldviews; that of assigning 'Science' as some sort of powerful god-force or united body, as if 'Science' does something. Which is not only silly, but also a strawman.
Universe is finite; what's outside the Universe? If that's finite, then what's outside that? So on, ad infinitum. Again, life certain.no-space universe can expand into. And universe being infinite means it's cyclic, there are unlimited dimensions, or something else. If there is just finite universe, eventually law of entropy will make it be one rather cold place for life.
If I test it myself, all I've tested is that in this particular test, life didn't result out of a certain amount of hydrogen (unless you're suggesting I create an entire alternate universe made out of hydrogen).I've never said both are equally valid, both can be valid, they aren't always. Depends on likelyhood you give to it. But I think it's unlikely hydrogen can form life, because according to chemistry, hydrogen cannot form a stable chain. So unless you come up with 2-(hydrogen)atom lifeform, I remain quite skeptical.
But since you CAN'T know for sure, it means it's either true or it's not. According to you, it's a binary situation, so both are equally valid, ACCORDING TO YOU.
QuoteHydrogen cathes fire when it oxidizes, requires oxygen, O, which again requires fusion to be produces from H.
Hydrogen cannot fuse if none of heavier elements are stable. Which they aren't cause strong interaction is just tiny tiny bit less than in this universe.
I think you should take time to do some research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
And again, if the strong nuclear force were a wee bit different from what it is in this universe... Well, it wouldn't be very different. I don't know, maybe the half-life of plutonium might be slightly shorter or something, but that's hardly anything to worry about as far as Life goes, is it?QuoteNot human mind. But wouldn't, by definition, mind be something that observes? Thus mind is required for observation of the universe(not existence of it).
A proton is observed if a photon colides with it. In terms of quantum-mechanics, observation is what occurs when two subatomic particles interact with each other in any way. It has nothing to do with mind. Again, do some research before you make yourself look silly.
At a more "philosophical" level, however, I do think that being unable to predict something doesn't necessarily imply that this something is not deterministic, thoughYup, this I do agree with. Wave form cannot be predicted in any way, I just hard time imagining anything truly random. Why would it act any different if there is exactly the same variables present? It just doesn't make sense to me. To me, it makes more sense that it uses timestamp in pseudo-random number generator to "decide" how it acts.
Unfortunately your analogy doesn't hold up; we know that at one point your Grandfather was alive, as you are here, therefore it is reasonable to assume he remains alive unless there is evidence to the contrary (if he was known to be alive 100 years ago then he probably is not alive today for example).Yeah, he would be around there. Age where you might or might not be alive. I have no way of knowing. I've never declared it's 50/50 chance, I declared the truth value is unknowable, thus you give it subjective Bayesian probability chance of existing based on your SUBJECTIVE view of the world. Just like you might believe that ethical naturalism is correct representation of ethics.
We do not know if God ever existed, nor do we have any evidence to suggest that he did. Declaring therefore that it is a 50/50 chance is illogical. One of the simplest laws in our universe is that objects in a stable state will remain in that state unless influenced by something else. Objects in an unstable state will decay to a stable state. Unless there is reason to assume something has changed, the most probable answer is that it has not.
Can't be life as we know it, sure. But Hydrogen has this really neat property where it tends to gather together in big clumps and catch fire, forming stars, which have this really neat property of fusing the hydrogen into more complex elements and then diffusing those elements all over the place when they go supernova.Euhm
So it's therefore completely rational to assume that there are invisible pink unicorns that can walk through walls? You have a strange definition of rational.Well, they do not seem interact with photons, being invisible and all, so yes, I would say they could walk though walls. Walls are electomagnetic thing, and photons are the transmitter so.
Unfortunately, pointing holes in areas of science that we don't know the answer to does not help your cause.You explain a thing with something that makes most sense to you. Science objectively explains the beginning of the universe, so ok, I buy that. Science doesn't tell anything about something else, I tend to generate an explanation for that. ITS WHAT I BELIEVE, not what is. Science gives me explanation on how the free will works, I don't have to believe it's just an illusion anymore.
The human mind is certainly not required to observe the universe, when we work out the kinks in Quantum Mechanics we'll find out what is, but it's certainly not us.Not human mind. But wouldn't, by definition, mind be something that observes? Thus mind is required for observation of the universe(not existence of it).
We can't say that a universe starting with something other than hydrogen is possible, cause we don't know, but we can say for sure that a universe eventually containing something other than hydrogen is possible, because we're in one.That's what I said. And as far as I know, universe didn't start with elements, it started with matter. Electrons and Protons made Hydrogen, which fuses into Helium, which again fuses into heavier nuclei. That is, assuming we have strong interaction, which is required for nuclei to build up.
I think what he's trying to claim is that if the Strong nuclear force was different than elements wouldn't form because there wouldn't be nuclear fusion.Increase it by few percents and diprotons would be stable.
Of course, this assumption is wrong. As I stated before, there is a relatively broad spectrum of strength the Strong Nuclear Force can have over which nuclear fusion takes place.
Additionally, we have no idea what would happen if the force landed outside that spectrum, assuming it's even possible.Aand yeah, we do know that Gluons keep nuclei together. Without them, nucleons wouldn't stick together. Which is kinda the definition of other-than-hydrogen elements, there is atleast 2 protons...
Ok, where exactly are you trying to take this argument?Again, like I've stated, your world view is based on probabilities you assign to things based on evidence and rational thought. Some rational world views, for example, those that do think multi-verse is unlikely, require creator(or consider it likely based on the views person has). Thus, it is rational to assign value for creator for the creator to likely exist. Stating your world view is only correct one is stupid, Epistemological nihilism is just as correct as your view of the world is. Well, as long as nihilist accepts the subjetive facts(like he perceives that he sees the ball dropping). Science doesn't state truths, it states something happens as cause of something else, and creates theories based on this. Nihilist can deny this gives any knowledge, but to disprove what science states, he must disprove the causality between the two. As that is what science states, basically.
And yeah, i'm not sure where Pjoo is trying to take this, he just did a 180 or something.
I make a claim: I can run as fast as the fastest Olympic runner.It's either true or not. If you claim it, it doesn't make it any more true. Depending on my view of the world, I assign some subjective Bayesian probability value for your statement being true or not, as I cannot have objective evidence against or for the statement(As it is clearly defined as such). And here it is pretty much zero, as I got no reason to think it is true. Someone might have a reason to think God is true, even without objective empirical evidence. Democritus believed atomism is true, based only on his rational mind. I however cannot claim it certainly isn't true.
Now, if you ask me to prove it, I will say that I have no intention of showing to you how fast I can run. I simply don't want to. So, you can't gather any evidence of my actual running performance.
By your own standards, since I either 1) am as fast as the fastest Olympic runner 2) am not as fast as I claim to be, there must be a 50/50 probability for either.
I think you made a typo there, you must have meant: with only hydrogen there simply can only be 50% chance of life.It's pretty much scientific fact that there cannot be life with only one element... It has considerable burden of proof behind the statement, you can test it yourself.
Maybe they don't exist at all and this whole universe is a hallucination. Any theory could be valid, but it is foolish to make blind assumptions in matters you are ignorant of, hence the flaw in assuming a religion that refuses to justify itself...It's completely rational, in my opinion, to assume that this universe is just computer simulation by some intelligent lifeform. It's kinda like God, just doesn't require non-materialistic, non-deterministic, non-reductionist universe.
Have you actually read anything anyone else has said? No, they do NOT have to be EXACTLY like that to support life. THIS life, maybe but not life in general.1) Again with the hydrogen, and again asking why those constants are like they are. Why do we have strong nuclei force? We could just not have it, and life would be impossible. So many laws of physic are essential for life. Question "why do those exist?" is kinda stupid, as "they just do", and there might not be any chance involved, they just might always be like that. But if some of them were any different, means we would not have life. What fine-tuned them to support life? Or did they just always exist as such? Again, why? They just do. Ok. Hypotetically, why couldn't we just not have some laws of physics?
- Because we don't know of other universes with different constants, attempting to list which constants can somehow vary is little more than speculation. There is no reason to assume that any "constant" can be changed. Furthermore, assuming it is somehow a knob that can be turned by a god effectively makes the anthropic principle assume its conclusion.
- While the odds of a universe's fundamental constants having a specific set of values may be very low, the odds of them having some value is 1.0 (100%). It may be that life exists in our universe because it happened to form, by chance, with a set of universal constants that support life. In other words, humanity exists because of a lucky roll of the dice, so to speak.
- Similarly, it is possible that the universe's constants could have varied quite a bit, and still allow earth-style life to form. In other words, a broad variety of universes might be friendly to life as we know it. Indeed, if one of the "constants" is the amount of matter in the universe, why would a god choose a value that was clearly much higher than it needed to be to create life?
- The strong, participatory, and final anthropic principles presuppose that life had to exist in our universe. This is an unwarranted assumption. If our universe could not support life, it would not contain life. There is no reason to suppose that our universe was "intended" or "supposed to" contain life.
- The underlying principles of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principles, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.
- It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.
- The SAP and its variants assume that human observers are required for the existence of the universe. This is a common misrepresentation of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. It is taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat. A cat is placed in a sealed box into which poison will be pumped when the nucleus of a certain atom decays. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the atom exists as both decayed and undecayed (superpositioned) until a measurement is made. Since the atom must exist in this superpositioned state, the cat must exist in the same state until the box is opened. Note that the cat does not cease to exist, nor does the atom's nucleus. They simply exist in an unobserved state. The 'wave forms' that represent the experiment's possibilities have not collapsed into a single 'choice'. If we accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe would still exist without human intelligence. It would simply exist in an unobserved state.
- Most physicists do not accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead they view 'wave form collapse' and 'superpositioning' as an extremely useful and accurate description of poorly understood processes.
kill cats with quantum-randomized poison applications
It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.I believe in causality. I have no clear way of explaining how it all started. I still don't find a creator any better explanation, as I believe there has to be cause for the creator too. Now, if your mind can tolerate the answer "He exists outside of time and space", go ahead, explain the big bang with a creator. I don't care. Explain the universe with story from Bible? I do care.
I feel i should also add that even if the probability of something occurring is infinitely small, this doesn't mean it won't come up on the first try. It just means it's highly unlikely, not impossible.True. Something that is impossible to happen doesn't happen even if tried unlimited times, but we can say with certainity that universe with something else than just hydrogen is possible.
In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.Yes, we can also go with string theory and assume everything is related to single constant. And? It still doesn't tell why those constants have to be like that. There just could be no strong nuclear force and thus only Hydrogen. It isn't so, so universe is suitable for life.
Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.Again, scientists theorize something that is required for quantum mechanics to make sense. Like they would do with it...
If the infinite multiverse theory is correct, then not only is life probable, it's certain. When you're working with infinity any finite chance of occuring will occur an infinite amount of times.Assuming universes aren't limited to same laws, yes. If multiverse theory is correct. Can you state with absolute truth it is so? And if not, there still are some other more complex ways universe could've come into existence without a creator, but still.... It's a valid premise to say creator is more likely than garden gnome... Unless the garden gnome is the creator...
People assume there must be a designer because they don't understand probability. Lets say i generate a random number between one and ten million (i will in fact do this now), and that number turns out to be 645,231. There was a one in ten million chance of 645,231 being the number that cropped up, yet there it is.And lets assume Strong force gets value between 0.0001 and 10000 of what it currently has(really, really bad example)(say, for example number of those transmitters for Strong nuclear force likely to apprear on big bang, would make sense number or density or something of transmitters affects the force, makes some sense? no? ok). There is one in ~5 000 000 chance universe supports enough medium-massed elements for life. Now, there is no problem with unlimited universes, but there is with single universe.
If you mucked with the fundamental constants of the universe, then you'd STILL get things that are rare.Without nuclear forces you don't have elements, only protons circled by electrons. They wont do anything intresting. Other elements wouldn't be rare, they would be non-existant.
So hey, maybe life is virtually impossibly rare. My playing card analogy still holds. Throw a quintillion playing cards on the ground, every possible result will seem impossibly rare. It's not a valid argument for anything. You don't even need to consider the possibility of multiple concurrent universes for your argument to fall apart, because it does so on its own merits.Only this set of cards allows us to perceive the cards, thus it is special.
I'll say that even if the Universe had completely different matter/energy in it than it did now, that doesn't mean the Universe wouldn't exist.I got no idea how this different matter works, but I know how hydrogen does, and I can say with as big certainity as I can say I don't own house elf, that this universe without force that keeps nuclei together, any kind of systems that try to reproduce themselves would be impossible.
3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 rolls of the dice to see if life would appear.Life on double sixes?
Pjoo, perhaps you've missed it, but Ampersand understood you correctly and made a valid counter argument.It's not valid counter argument, with only hydrogen there simply cannot be life.
The fact of the matter is we're not even sure if the forces of nature CAN be any different from the way they are.The point is, why they are exactly like they are?
Furthermore, if there are other universes, a possibility looking more and more likely every day, then the whole argument falls apart, because for everyone one universe where people are saying that the universe is so perfectly designed for life, there are untold quadrillions more that are completely void.
If you believe in unlimited universe, or like, unlimited parrel universes, there eventually will be life without creator, no problem. If you believe there is only this one universe we can observe, well it's far more likely divine plan exists than universe getting it all right by chance. So, premises
1) If there is only single universe, it has either required unimaginably much luck or creator to be able to have life
2) There is only this single universe
=> Creator is unimaginably likely to exist
Now, both 1 and 2 can be wrong, but I find then rather rational premises. I don't persoanlly agree with the second, but that would atleast be your simpler choice.
You need fine-tuned universe to support life, which isn't possible without multi-verse or designer.Yes, multi-verse is imo best option, but it's not any more grounded in fact than God. Some people have no problem believing in supernatural, for them God makes probably more sense than universe splitting up infinite times every time you kill cats with quantum-randomized poison applications. The whole multiverse-thing is still on quite theoretical level.
So?Strong Nuclear force bit weaker.
Pour water onto the ground until it forms a puddle. The puddle then claims that the ground was designed to hold it in it's present shape. It just is not the case. Life, like water, is constantly shifting and changing to adjust to it's environment. The fact of the matter is we're not even sure if the forces of nature CAN be any different from the way they are. Beyond that, Physicists have demonstrated that even if they were slightly different, life sustaining conditions are absolutely possible over a fairly wide degree of variation.
Just because a round peg fits in a hole does not mean that the hole is round.
Furthermore, if there are other universes, a possibility looking more and more likely every day, then the whole argument falls apart, because for everyone one universe where people are saying that the universe is so perfectly designed for life, there are untold quadrillions more that are completely void.
porn altering children's mind so much they turn gay?Not just their mind, also their physiology! Poen warps you brain and all.
And a magical creator who already has the entire plan for what he wants to do with the universe in his head is far more likely than a single particle exploding, I suppose?Umm.. there is flaw with your logic.
Anyway, you're still wrong. A bad premise can scupper an argument. If you are not allowed to challenge the premise of an argument, you can "prove" anything. Let's try one.
Tomorrow, when I get to school, I'm going to punch the first person I see in the face. Why? Because I believe it will make them happy. Why do I believe this? Because boxers punch each other in the face and they can be happy.
It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reason, I'm still right, and I'm still going to hurt an innocent person. Or is your argument flawed?
And rational means it makes sense, it's well-informed, credible, unbiased, logical...
Yeah, except that those arguments are only rational if their premises are rationally. Believing in God for reason X can be totally rational, but reason X itself might not be rational, screwing up the whole thing. For instance, I'd take issue with the rationality of thinking that life in this universe is improbable, so I'd find that person to be irrational, or at least ill-informed about the actual evidence at hand.
