Intelligent Design

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, I am willing to cede that on a certain (non-quantum) level, there is no such thing as randomness. I see where you're coming from on this. (Yes, I speak gibberish.)

Well, I appreciate some sort of affirmation anyway. Thanks.

When a gambler throws a pair of dice down a craps table, the result is not entirely random. The size and weight of the dice, the shapes of the corners, the position of the dice before the throw, the force, spin, and momentum of the throw, even temperature and windspeed will affect the outcome. These are all non-random factors. If one wanted to do all of the math involved with the physics, one could indeed calculate exactly what the result of the throw would be. However, such math is beyond the realm of most mortal gamblers. For the purposes of the casino, the results are truly random.

Yet if the casino didn't base everything upon the odds that they would win more they would lose, they wouldn't be in business now would they? So, how would you go about calling that random?

In much the same way that for the purposes of evolution, genetic mutations are random. Even though the causes of such mutations are based in a very real physics, those causes have little to do in the expression of whether the host organism gains any ability to catch a tastier rabbit, thus survive longer, thus birth a healthier litter. The granularity of evolution is not sufficiently granular enough to care. For all intents and purposes, it's all random.

Same with the dice. The gambler doesn't care about about microscopic imperfections of the dice. Such things will not make enough of a difference in the way the house sets its odds. Nor does it -- and this is the important thing -- imply that such imperfections are evidence of long term advanced planning by a superior intelligence has cosmically determined that Joe Schmendirck from Reno will hit a hard eight.

Things can unfold without advance planning. Anyone who's worked on a long term office project can attest to this.

I couldn't agree more. Indeed, we have the appearance of randomness but, what I'm asking is that we don't call something what it isn't.

 

[Tricky]

You misunderstand. Rna-Dna per se would not be here, or a least it wouldn't have "emerged" as materialists believe it did.

I see I did misunderstand. Still, the failure of RNA-DNA to emerge would not necessarily preclude the emergence of a different kind of information-carrying molecule that was the basis of life. The principle of "that which can reproduce itself will maintain" would not be eliminated.

 

[drkitten]

Yet if the casino didn't base everything upon the odds that they would win more they would lose, they wouldn't be in business now would they? So, how would you go about calling that random?

Because "random" doesn't mean "equally probable" or anything of the sort.

If you are willing to accept for the moment the existence of a hypothetical, truly random, genuinely unbiased pair of dice -- I buy them at the same store where the physicists get their frictionless surfaces and electrical engineers get their resistanceless wires -- I can still analyze the random system that results and make statements like "it's more likely that someone will roll a 7 than a 2."

That statement isn't true despite the randomness of the system, but because of it. If it weren't random, such a statement might not be true, since I might be able to analyze the throw and say that this throw in particular is going to come up a 2.

Casinos make money because the random factors work in their favor, in the long run.

 

[drkitten]

I see I did misunderstand. Still, the failure of RNA-DNA to emerge would not necessarily preclude the emergence of a different kind of information-carrying molecule that was the basis of life. The principle of "that which can reproduce itself will maintain" would not be eliminated.

I believe the argument is that a change in one of the basic physical constants would result in a universe that would not only not allow RNA-DNA to emerge, but not allow physical systems of a sort that would result in life-like conditions at all.

Just as an example -- if the gravitational constant were fractionally larger than it is, then the gravitational expansion of the universe would long since have stopped and reversed itself. The total lifespan of the universe -- Big Bang to Big Crunch -- would be sufficiently small that planets based on heavy elements such as silicon would be unable to form. Literally, since silicon and similar elements are formed only in the hearts of stars, there would not be enough time for the first generation of stars to form silicon before the Universe came to an end.

 

[tdn]

Yet if the casino didn't base everything upon the odds that they would win more they would lose, they wouldn't be in business now would they? So, how would you go about calling that random?

Personally, I would call it "random." Casinos can still calculate odds based on random events. Randomness does not mean that every and all events have an equal chance of happening at any time. Cetain events are more probable than others, and casinos base their odds on this. But without the possibility of certain unlikely events occurring, gamblers would have little incentive to gamble in the first place. In fact, casinos depend on randomness to draw in business in the first place. It's their reason for existing.

A casino which based its business on determinism would be unprofitable indeed.

I couldn't agree more. Indeed, we have the appearance of randomness but, what I'm asking is that we don't call something what it isn't.

Once again it's a question of granularity. When a system is incapable of differentiating how minute elements determine outcome, the results are indistinguishable from randomness. And for all intents and purposes, it is random, or close enough for jazz.

Even so, and here is what we're driving at, even if the original conditions of the universe set up a chain of A causes B causes C, that does not mean that some divine consciousness planned it all out in advance. It simply means that things happened the way they happened.

 

[Iacchus]

Because "random" doesn't mean "equally probable" or anything of the sort.

It means that some things are more related than others. That does not mean, however, that things are not related in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Tricky]

I believe the argument is that a change in one of the basic physical constants would result in a universe that would not only not allow RNA-DNA to emerge, but not allow physical systems of a sort that would result in life-like conditions at all.

Just as an example -- if the gravitational constant were fractionally larger than it is, then the gravitational expansion of the universe would long since have stopped and reversed itself. The total lifespan of the universe -- Big Bang to Big Crunch -- would be sufficiently small that planets based on heavy elements such as silicon would be unable to form. Literally, since silicon and similar elements are formed only in the hearts of stars, there would not be enough time for the first generation of stars to form silicon before the Universe came to an end.

Yes, there are all sorts of things that could be different. One example I was given in ecology was that if ice hadn't had a lower density than water (making it unlike the vast majority of compounds) then life couldn't have formed, because bodies of water would have frozen from the bottom up, rather than being covered with ice thus insulating and keeping the water liquid available for easier chemical reactions.

But my point still remains. We simply don't know what the universe would be like if a physical constant were different. Maybe a change in the gravitational constant would have resulted a different density for atomic particles, thus compensating for the different GC. But the principle of "that which can maintain stability or reproduce itself remains", would still govern all these modified interactions. You can play the "what if" game with anything, but it is simply impossible to conject on what all the ramifications of a "what if" would be, and none of them bring us any closer to proving a creator.

 

[Iacchus]

Once again it's a question of granularity. When a system is incapable of differentiating how minute elements determine outcome, the results are indistinguishable from randomness. And for all intents and purposes, it is random, or close enough for jazz.

Ah, but is it live or, is it Memorex?

 

[Mercutio]

The evidence is the fact that we exist. Or, haven't you figured that out yet?

Please read my post. I used the phrase "You are trying to infer from our mere existence..." So yes, the evidence is the fact that we exist. Evidence of what, though? Of our existence. It is not evidence of anything prior to that. You will need independent evidence for that to avoid your circularity.

I already know that God exists. So, it's just a matter of trying to explain it to other folks in a way that they can understand.

See, once again your readers have put more thought into your posts than you have. Your own definitions of god and of man's knowledge mean that, as a mortal, it is quite impossible for you to know god exists. Any entity sufficiently powerful enough to fool your mortal cognition would do. It's just a matter of trying to explain it to you in a way that you can understand...

Yes, and you merely speak for yourselves.

And we must sometimes point out where you say one thing and contradict yourself at another place. We allow you to speak for yourself and show that you both claim knowledge and claim that such knowledge is impossible.

Nothing--not logic, not evidence--nothing about your view as you present it is in the slightest bit compelling. You say you are trying to explain it such that others can understand, but you consistently avoid learning about your logical fallacies or your contradictions with observed evidence. You try to teach, but are unwilling to learn and thus willfully ignorant.

With others, I might feel bad telling you this. But frankly, you have never shown that you get it, so it really doesn't matter.

 

[Iacchus]

See, once again your readers have put more thought into your posts than you have. Your own definitions of god and of man's knowledge mean that, as a mortal, it is quite impossible for you to know god exists. Any entity sufficiently powerful enough to fool your mortal cognition would do. It's just a matter of trying to explain it to you in a way that you can understand...

And, what you fail to realize, is that I am both mortal and, immortal.

 

[Mercutio]

And, what you fail to realize, is that I am both mortal and, immortal.

Hey, wow! You are right!


I do fail to realize that!

 

[kmortis]

If you are willing to accept for the moment the existence of a hypothetical, truly random, genuinely unbiased pair of dice -- I buy them at the same store where the physicists get their frictionless surfaces and electrical engineers get their resistanceless wires -- I can still analyze the random system that results and make statements like "it's more likely that someone will roll a 7 than a 2."

I went to that store. I bought this chineese puzzle box. I still can't figure out how to solve it. I figure it was busted, but when I tried to return it, the store was gone.

 

[kmortis]

Iacchus,
Do you have an issue with evoltion as a process, imperfectly described as it is, to bring forth life as we know it? Could not your all-powerfull God used evolution to bring life?

I, for one, have no issue with that sort of view. It's when you start denying the evidence that is before you in order to avoid the alteration of a belief that I find repugnant. All this "interconnectedness" talk is a religious discussion through other means.

Besides, as we all know, only 23 people REALLY exist, the rest of ya'll are just inreference patterns in our thought waves.

 

[drkitten]

It means that some things are more related than others.

No, it doesn't.

 

[hammegk]

But my point still remains.

All that remains is the fact you again missed the point.

 

[Tricky]

All that remains is the fact you again missed the point.

I don't believe so. Paul was saying that we wouldn't know the effects of changing or "evolving" constants. You replied that you remembered hearing that if you changed them (or rna-dna, as I originally thought you were referring to) by 2% then we wouldn't be here. I agreed that "we" wouldn't be here, but that does not mean that no life would.

So if your point is not there, perhaps you could state it more clearly for the slow class.

 

[hammegk]

I don't believe so. Paul was saying that we wouldn't know the effects of changing or "evolving" constants.

So if your point is not there, perhaps you could state it more clearly for the slow class.

Paul is wrong too. Changing the constants just a tiny bit tends to result in no elements, no chemistry, no time, nothingness.

If y'all want to asssign "life" to every universe, no matter how weird the basic physics, go for it. Our universe acts more "live" than "dead" in any case. Happy now?

 

[CFLarsen]

And, what you fail to realize, is that I am both mortal and, immortal.

So, if someone kills you, they don't go to jail?

 

[Tricky]

Paul is wrong too. Changing the constants just a tiny bit tends to result in no elements, no chemistry, no time, nothingness.

If y'all want to asssign "life" to every universe, no matter how weird the basic physics, go for it. Our universe acts more "live" than "dead" in any case. Happy now?

Perhaps you might be able to make such a speculation if you could control which constants were different and which weren't, but what's to say they don't each affect the others. So I still think your case for "no life (or elements) unless everything is perfect" is not supported.

But as you suggest above, the universe wouldn't even form unless the basic physics were correct. Therefore, even by your own logic, the constants could not be anything other than correct, since there is a universe.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Mercutio]

Our universe acts more "live" than "dead" in any case.

Could you explain your thinking here? I see scare quotes around some pretty important concepts, so I am thinking you are using them differently. I don't want to jump to any conclusions here...