[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

Humots,
- You seem to be saying that in this forum, as long as you're being honest about them, it's OK to express your negative opinions of your opponents. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Savage:

The MA, to which you agreed when you joined the site, is clear: Attacks directed against the person of any member are violations of the MA, and should be reported. OTH: this is a discussion forum (1. NOT a "debate" forum; 2. There is an "E" in JREF).

Pointing out that an opinion, or a claim of fact, or a random supposition, made by a member, is incorrect, demonstrably, wrong, even silly, is not a violation of the MA. I repeat advice others have offered: if you feel you, personally, are being attacked, use the report function (the little exclamation point, bottom left). If you feel that commentary upon your opinions has reached a level of incivility, use the report function.

OTH, I venture to conjure that if you were to directly address actual questions; eschew the fringe resets; and avoid diversions and derailments; much of what you perceive as personal negative opinions would be ameliorated. You will still see arguments about the content of your offering--but isn't that why you are here?

In that light: do you ever plan to defend, or justify, your use of the odd construction "essentially prove"? In what way is that construction not inescapably oxymoronic?

 

[pakeha]

Slowvehicle,
- I try to demonstrate my understanding of the puddle analogy in the post below.


- You guys are equating the rules governing the existence of life with the rules causing water to seek its own level. My claim is that such an equation (analogy) is incorrect, inapplicable. The rules governing the existence of life have no resemblance to the rules governing the shape that water takes.

Could you explain why the hilited bit is true?

 

[Jabba]

I don't think Tomboy would disagree that the beginning of life requires a certain specific physical situation, although it may well be that there are several specific situations that would give rise to life.

Dave,
- That's a possibility, but that should require at least one different physical constant and that should require at least one more universe.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- That's a possibility, but that should require at least one different physical constant and that should require at least one more universe.

Why?

 

[Jabba]

Could you explain why the hilited bit is true?

Pakeha,
- Water seeks its own level. That's how it can adjust to whatever hole it finds -- why water adapts to the shape of the hole. As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into.

 

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- That's a possibility, but that should require at least one different physical constant and that should require at least one more universe.

Nonsense, unless you're saying that Earth is the only place in the universe where life could start.

 

[godless dave]

Pakeha,
- Water seeks its own level. That's how it can adjust to whatever hole it finds -- why water adapts to the shape of the hole. As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into.

And water requires specific temperature and air pressure ranges to be in liquid form.

 

[steenkh]

Pakeha,
- Water seeks its own level. That's how it can adjust to whatever hole it finds -- why water adapts to the shape of the hole. As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into.

A puddle with a very specific shape also requires a very specific hole to fit into.

We do not need to go into multiverses for this argument any more than we need to find more holes than one for our puddle. As far as we know there are lots of possibilities for universes that could support life, but this does not mean that any other exists.

 

[Tomboy]

Tomboy was extending a branch to you with the hope that you might find encouragement in the realisation that at least one person can see that you're trying to understand the puddle analogy.

Do you see the scare quotes around "seeks its own level" in Tomboy's post? Scare quotes are used, among other things, to make it clear that the author is sojourning from the literal, or conventional, meaning of the words in the quotes.

I venture to expect that Tomboy was not, in fact, claiming that if one puts two populations of living things in two connected containers, that the life in the bowls would seek its own level, or evenly distribute itself. I rather reckon that Tomboy might have been trying to reach you, to clarify your apprehension of a concept, by adopting your term as a starting point.

I don't think Tomboy would disagree that the beginning of life requires a certain specific physical situation, although it may well be that there are several specific situations that would give rise to life.

You're all correct. I'm sorry if I muddied the proverbial puddle.

Jabba, I was just trying to show support and acknowledge that you seemed to be understanding the meaning of puddle analogy in a sense. I tried to validate your understanding by creating my own analogy using your own words.

Actually, kind of, yes. Well, not that that's what Pixel is saying, but that's sort of what the puddle analogy is illustrating. Life "seeks its own level" in that life adapts to its environment the same way water adapts to the shape of the hole in which it finds itself. This planet wasn't designed or created specifically for life as we know it any more than that hole in the ground was created or designed specifically for that puddle of water.

That highlighted part above was the actual point I was trying to make.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Pixel,
- In my opinion (of course), I'm not the one struggling with the logic -- it's you guys who are struggling with the logic.

If absolutely everybody disagrees with your reasoning, then it's probably wise to consider that there may be a problem with your reasoning. Especially in light of the fact that a week or two ago you suddenly had the revelation as to what the core issue in this thread was, and it turned out to be what everybody had been telling you it was for over a year.

If everybody other than you has been right before, then you really owe it to yourself to consider that everybody other than you might be right again.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Tomboy:
Actually, kind of, yes. Well, not that that's what Pixel is saying, but that's sort of what the puddle analogy is illustrating. Life "seeks its own level" in that life adapts to its environment the same way water adapts to the shape of the hole in which it finds itself. This planet wasn't designed or created specifically for life as we know it any more than that hole in the ground was created or designed specifically for that puddle of water.

You're all correct. I'm sorry if I muddied the proverbial puddle.

Jabba, I was just trying to show support and acknowledge that you seemed to be understanding the meaning of puddle analogy in a sense. I tried to validate your understanding by creating my own analogy using your own words.



That highlighted part above was the actual point I was trying to make.

Tomboy,

- I do appreciate your attempts (past and present) to help me convey my opinions. You're one of a very few that have not seen fit to "toast" me.

- I'm not claiming that this planet was designed or created specifically for life as we know it. Here's what I'm claiming.
- That the universe (assuming that there is only one) happens to allow for life -- with all of life's required constants -- is an enormous and very interesting coincident -- and suggests that there is something wrong with the current scientific take.

 

[godless dave]

- I'm not claiming that this planet was designed or created specifically for life as we know it. Here's what I'm claiming.
- That the universe (assuming that there is only one) happens to allow for life -- with all of life's required constants -- is an enormous and very interesting coincident -- and suggests that there is something wrong with the current scientific take.

I think we understand that.

Do you have any reasoning to back up this claim?

Specifically:

1. How is it a "coincidence"?

2. Why would something being unlikely to occur mean the scientific understanding of what happened is wrong?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pakeha,
- Water seeks its own level. That's how it can adjust to whatever hole it finds -- why water adapts to the shape of the hole. As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into.

No.

Simply no.

The reason that water takes the shape of its container is that water is a liquid. The state of matter that we define as liquid has no determinate shape; the particles that make up the liquid (be they atoms or molecules) are not bound to each other in a fixed relationship. Liquids "slosh", and "flow", and their shape is determined by their container at any given moment. (That is not "seeking its own level", which is a way to describe the fact that in two different containers of water, joined by a tube, the water in both containers will eventually stabilize at the same level. Please let go of the "seeks its own level" verbiage; it is only getting in your way.)

Your last comment demonstrates that you still do not understand the objections to the fine-tuning argument.

Follow:

"Life" does not, in fact, require a very specific hole to fit into. Life as we know it (LAWKI) does, in fact, have some requirements. You need oxygen,water, nutrients, and calories; you need them provided in fairly specific ways within fairly specific temperatures and pressures. There is, however, life on this planet that cannot survive the conditions that are necessary for you. There are places on this planet that you cannot survive.

The "black smokers" at great ocean depths are of such a temperature and pressure, not to mention toxicity, as to be instantly fatal to you--yet extremophiles thrive there. Those same extremophiles would not long survive the temperature and pressure, not to mention the UV exposure, of your kitchen table. Neither ofyou would be alive this morning, if you had spent last night naked, outside in my garden.

For which of you , then, shall we say that this planet is "fine-tuned"?

The truth is that the life from which you evolved developed to take advantage of the conditions on parts of this planet; the ancestors of the extremophiles did the same thing, but with different conditionsin a different part of the planet.

The conditions determined what kind of life could develop; the conditions were not fine-tuned to the kinds of life that would develop.

It is possible to conceive of life (not LAWKI) that would require totally different conditions--life so odd to us we might not even be able to recognize it as life. And yet, if such a thing did exist, it is likely zhoy would be tempted to ponder how perfectly the universe was "fine-tuned" for zhom.

Life does not "require a very specific hole"; even on this planet, much of which is inimical to you, life takes advantages of the holes it can.

Now: What has any of that to do with "essentially proving" immortality?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm not claiming that this planet was designed or created specifically for life as we know it. Here's what I'm claiming.
- That the universe (assuming that there is only one) happens to allow for life -- with all of life's required constants -- is an enormous and very interesting coincident -- and suggests that there is something wrong with the current scientific take.

"Life's required constants" are the result of the way the Universe is, not a convenient fit for it and there's no more coincidence involved than there is in the puddle fitting its hole.

Also, what in the name of Ptah do you mean by "the current scientific take"?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- That's a possibility, but that should require at least one different physical constant and that should require at least one more universe.

No it would not.

 

[John Jones]

Pakeha,
- Water seeks its own level. That's how it can adjust to whatever hole it finds -- why water adapts to the shape of the hole. As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into.

That doesn't answer the question. Why would another universe be required?

 

[Agatha]

- I'm not claiming that this planet was designed or created specifically for life as we know it. Here's what I'm claiming.

- That the universe (assuming that there is only one) happens to allow for life -- with all of life's required constants -- is an enormous and very interesting coincident -- and suggests that there is something wrong with the current scientific take.

Even if I agreed with you that it is a coincidence that this teensy tiny part of the universe allows for life:

1. Why does that imply that there is anything wrong with the 'current scientific take'?

2. What, exactly, does the 'current scientific take' say that is incompatible with life on this planet - or some unimagined life on another planet?

[off topic, please don't waste a post replying to this bit]I have tried exceedingly hard not to react to your rudeness to me and others, Jabba, and I have also tried very hard to remain courteous and informative while posting towards you. I have posted facts and links, and I have asked pertinent questions - all of which you have almost entirely ignored. If you perceive rudeness in your fellow posters (rather than criticisms of your arguments) then report the offending posts and let the mods decide.

However, I think you should also look to your own behaviour especially the way you ignore the topic in favour of complaining about perceived rudeness; it is very frustrating and it is also rude to your fellow posters who may actually want to understand your thinking about immortality, even if they disagree with it or can point out logical or factual errors.

We are aware your time here is limited, so why do you waste posts telling us you may, at some indeterminate future time, post something relevant? Why do you waste a post to ask if a particular poster is online? If the poster is interested in what you have to say, they will read your post at their convenience and reply when they have time.[/offtopic]

Please, use your posts to post about the topic of the thread.

 

[Tomboy]

Tomboy,

- I do appreciate your attempts (past and present) to help me convey my opinions. You're one of a very few that have not seen fit to "toast" me.

Your opinions are interesting, but I admit I share the frustration of other folks here and hope that at some point, you'll have something of substance with which to back up those opinions.

 

[HighRiser]

(snip for brevity)

- I'm not claiming that this planet was designed or created specifically for life as we know it. Here's what I'm claiming.
- That the universe (assuming that there is only one) happens to allow for life -- with all of life's required constants -- is an enormous and very interesting coincident -- and suggests that there is something wrong with the current scientific take.

How so? Your statement of your belief is not a sufficient argument. Present the reasoning, if not the evidence that leads you to this belief.

Life arose on this planet and is adapted to the conditions on this planet. Life continues to evolve as time goes on and as environmental conditions change. Life has had something like 3.7 billion years to get to where we are now. Man has had .0001% of that period to gaze at our navels and ponder philosophy on this planet and in this universe, which is the only sample of life we have to observe.

Multiverses, intelligent design, the puddle analogy, immortality, statistical mathematics, and the FSM are all constructs of the human mind. If you have any evidence to the contrary, you're very late in presenting it.

 

[steenkh]

- I guess that "negative" might be the wrong word.
- I mean to claim that almost every post disagreeing with my opinions in this thread expresses anger at me and implies that I am either stupid or evil -- or some combination thereof.

I think it is less anger, and more frustration because you seem to want to misunderstand arguments and analogies, and the reason why you have been so slow to develop your own arguments most likely is that you saw the criticism coming.

I too am rather frustrated, because as you might remember, we had the same dicsussions at atheist.net, and it ended when you withdrew because you needed a break to reconsider your arguments. Then, I find that you have started here with exactly the same arguments! You seem not to have reconsidered at all, but rather tried to find another audience!

This is such a shame, because unlike other theist debaters there, you kept your integrity, and acknowledged - after a long time - when you were wrong.