[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...
This post makes it clear that you still haven't understood the puddle analogy.

Do you think that it's an amazing coincidence that a hole of a particular shape has a puddle of water in it which is exactly the same shape? Are you constantly astonished by how exactly the bumps and dips along the bottom of a hole match the dips and bumps of the puddle?

There may be billions of possible combinations of values of the universal constants which would allow life of some kind to develop. It just wouldn't be the same kind of life as exists in this universe.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Water is subject to and 'acts' according to physical laws.
Do you have some reason to think life doesn't, Jabba?

And as for this "As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into."
You have it backward.
Life arises according to the conditions of the 'hole'.
 
pakeha said:
Water is subject to and 'acts' according to physical laws.
Do you have some reason to think life doesn't, Jabba?

And as for this "As far as we know, life requires a very specific hole to fit into."
You have it backward.
Life arises according to the conditions of the 'hole'.
Click to expand...

I think what Jabba is trying to say is that only a few "holes" will give rise to life.

Or to continue the analogy, puddles only form in holes, not where there is a gradient the water can run down.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

Look at this picture: http://totschool.shannons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/SandboxArt-1.jpg

That young girl just picked up a handful of sand and dropped it on a piece of paper. That every single grain of sand ended up exactly where it did is remarkably unlikely. The odds against it happening exactly like that were astronomical.

Do you think, therefore, that there is some incredible significance to that particular arrangement of grains of sand?

Of course you don't.

It's still exactly the same argument you've been making all along - that the hand of aces is special. It's not. Or, at least, if you believe that it is, you have to convince us that it is. Why is this universe having the correct conditions for life in any way significant or special?
 
Jabba said:
Tomboy ... Why would you think that the beginning of life doesn't require a certain specific physical situation?
Click to expand...

Oh good grief - this is the 'special' argument reprised; every particular kind of event requires a correspondingly specific physical situation, from the formation of a star to a rain shower, from the beginning of life to a comet hitting Jupiter, and probably even the big bang. That's simply an observation of the specificity of causality, it has no greater significance.
 
Jabba said:
- And then, doing that is counterproductive if your goal is effective debate.
Click to expand...

eVerything you do is counterproductive to the goal of effective debate.

And, please note, that this is not snark, ridicule, or disrespect, this is the plain, simple truth. You prevaricate on about perhaps posting something at some point in the future; you ignore points made to you; you can't express your ideas clearly and haven't done even the most basic research into them; you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and, on the very rare occasions that you do admit you may be wrong, rather than allowing this to alter your thinking you abandon that particular line of attack for a while before re-stating it as if it'd never been brought up before. This thread is about a year and a quarter old and, by your own admission, it's not progressed one inch since page 3 - which was your first post on the actual topic of the thread. That's as far from effective debate as it's possible to get.

You've been told innumerable times what would facilitate effective debate but, as with all other things, you simply refuse to take any single thing that anybody says to you on board. You're utterly convinced that you're right about what constitutes effective debate and you won't let anything that anybody says, or any amount of evidence, even begin to change your mind.

If you feel you've been insulted, report the posts. If you feel that there are posters who add nothing of value to the discussion, put them on ignore. And just post something of substance. It's been a year and a quarter and this thread has gone absolutely nowhere. Can you honestly not understand why people might be a little frustrated?
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I assume that the appropriate action to take at this point is implied in #2 above. I'll try to do that.
- Re #3: It's hard to stay on topic when being constantly insulted. The totally natural, and almost unavoidable, urge is to try to defend oneself.
Click to expand...

You've seen the light and given up on immortality?
 
Jabba, I hope you don't think that you can just make assertions without having them challenged. When you make arguments, people are going to ask for clarification, as I did above, or point out where they think you are wrong. That's how a discussion works.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Humots,
- Yeah. I'm here. My grand kids have been sick.
- But also, I've been trying to put it all together at once, and have just now given up on that idea...

Anybody,
- As I understand it, the only explanation for the Anthropic Principle -- besides an amazing coincidence -- is multiverses. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

That's the Cosmic Sharpshooter Fallacy, place humans in the center of the target then draw rings of probability around and be astounded that humans are in the center of such improbability.

It's also know as the Puddle Principle.

ETA: I see the puddle has been thoroughly pizzled in by many others. :)
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
I have a question for everyone except Jabba.

Why are you asking questions as if you expect clear, direct, rational answers?
Click to expand...

It's a combination of the triumph of hope over expectation, and SIWOTI syndrome.
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- I'm not interested in threads. What I want is a link to scientist demolishing the appearance of enormous coincidence.
- Otherwise, I see a universe that happens to allow for life as the first enormous coincidence allowing for my current existence.
Click to expand...

It's actually life that just happens. The universe was here first.

ETA: "I exist, therefore god?"
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jay, Lenny, xtifr,
- Any of you guys still around? If so, do you agree with the others that the Anthropic Principle has been "demolished" by the experts?
Click to expand...

Anthropic Principle = I'm so darned special that a universe with me in it must be pretty special.
 
- The anthropic principle is an idea that I believe supports my claim of immortality.
- However, at this point, it's probably counterproductive to continue discussing it, so I'll try to move on. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to return.

- My next claim is that our own personal existences are totally miraculous, but almost all of us take it totally for granted. In my opinion there are actually two facets to this idea, but one of these is basically ineffable and probably impossible to convey...
- The other is the staggering improbability of our existences. We've come to the point in our discussion where we've agreed that in order to support this improbability claim, I need to show that you, and I, are "special."

- I've run out of time this morning -- but, I'll be back.
 
Jabba said:
- The anthropic principle is an idea that I believe supports my claim of immortality.
- However, at this point, it's probably counterproductive to continue discussing it, so I'll try to move on. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to return.

- My next claim is that our own personal existences are totally miraculous, but almost all of us take it totally for granted. In my opinion there are actually two facets to this idea, but one of these is basically ineffable and probably impossible to convey...
- The other is the staggering improbability of our existences. We've come to the point in our discussion where we've agreed that in order to support this improbability claim, I need to show that you, and I, are "special."

- I've run out of time this morning -- but, I'll be back.
Click to expand...


In other words:


tsig said:
ETA: "I exist, therefore god?"
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The anthropic principle claims that the odds against the universe being supportive of life are staggering. It seems to me that the only reductionistic way to begin to explain such odds is the multiverse way.
Click to expand...

Out of the odds you build your god?

How strange to be hiding out in a probability field, lurking under rows of figures all impossibly high. God used to be master of the universe but is now reduced to cowering in the crevices of universal constants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom