Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[fls]

But I said the probability of what will exist next. I agree that what exists next cannot be determined, but the probability wave of what will exist next is determined by what comes before (I'm pretty sure that is correct).

(That is my understanding as well.)

I'm not saying that you must view it as 'something from nothing'. I'm just saying that it is possible to consider it in that light, so that if someone wondered how Science behaves when faced with the idea, they could see that it doesn't give up and declare something supernatural. It continues to attack the idea and that attack can elicit results.

I guess you are telling me what phyicists have to say about Nothing?

It seems that way to me. I hope so, anyway. I figure if I'm the only one with a particular idea, rather than evidence of my brilliance, it's probably evidence that the idea isn't very good.

But, then, is Nothing black or white?
Surely Nothing means the absence of any properties?

Which is another way to describe symmetry.

Linda

 

[Malerin]

0.0236

You think there's only a 2% chance the Earth is NOT flat?

Okay, but your question seems to have nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

Linda

There was a discussion about certainity and science.

 

[fls]

You think there's only a 2% chance the Earth is NOT flat?

There's a 2% chance that it would be logically impossible for the earth to be flat.

There was a discussion about certainity and science.

But the certainty in science is not about logical possibilities, but about empirical possibilities.

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

You are looking for a definition of natural, HZ, not evidence of a claim. At least try to make the question relevant.

Provide examples in the history of science where a phenomenon has been explained by "magical powers".

The only event I can remember ad hoc is Uri Geller, being investigated by some US University a few decades ago. But to be honest, being tricked by that bloke I don't regard as a crowning moment of scientific research.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but I'm quite comfortable with the assumption that a designed universe is more likely to produce life than the probabilities the physicists currently give for such universes appearing by random chance alone.

If you're not comfortable with that assumption, that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just sharing my viewpoint on the matter.

Beth, me too. This exchange is as much an opportunity to clarify for myself what I think. If I come across as dry, it's a result of trying for precision in a second language.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm aware of that. In our discussion, this requires a vast multitude of universes. This is what is referred to as the 'multiverse' theory. Or, as Thatsoundagain points out, an infinite cycle of universe. I agree that those are also reasonable hypotheses.

So then I don't understand why you said that rarity supports an hypothesis other than random chance.
A person's chance of winning Lotto is close to zero, yet some person wins it every week by random chance.

 

[BillyJoe]

My God of the Self-Aware Universe is:

a) Not mythological; and,
b) Not untestable

But do you agree that science certainly has something to say about the Self-Aware Universe god? For example, such a god must be a product of nature, a product of evolution. Such a god has no bearing on the question of morals, the question of an afterlife.

And, without a multiverse, such a god would be a lonely, self-absorbed, pitiable creature.

 

[BillyJoe]

(That is my understanding as well.)

I'm not saying that you must view it as 'something from nothing'. I'm just saying that it is possible to consider it in that light, so that if someone wondered how Science behaves when faced with the idea, they could see that it doesn't give up and declare something supernatural. It continues to attack the idea and that attack can elicit results.

Okay, but I think that absence of a probability wave in the something from Nothing scenario is a big problem for science because nothing in the natural world that we know of provides an example of that.

It seems that way to me. I hope so, anyway. I figure if I'm the only one with a particular idea, rather than evidence of my brilliance, it's probably evidence that the idea isn't very good.

Point taken.

Which is another way to describe symmetry.

Around the mulberry bush.
But, before there were scientists and science, there was Nothing. Too bad he's not around to stick up for himself.

BJ

 

[Beth]

So then I don't understand why you said that rarity supports an hypothesis other than random chance.

Because that's the criteria by which we reject the hypothesis of random chance. If an observation or set of observations has a sufficiently low probability, the null hypothesis of random chance deviation is rejected.

A person's chance of winning Lotto is close to zero, yet some person wins it every week by random chance.

Does that make buying a lottery ticket a good bet?

The random chance hypothesis can be rescued by presuming a very very large or an infinite set of universes. Since intelligent life will only appear in universes conducive to their development, we can then assume our universe is simply that rare universe that supports life evolving. That hypothesis works, but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.

 

[fls]

Okay, but I think that absence of a probability wave in the something from Nothing scenario is a big problem for science because nothing in the natural world that we know of provides an example of that.

How would we know?

Around the mulberry bush.

Are you interested in some book recommendations?

Linda

 

[tsig]

Here's the reasoning: if the odds of a life-permitting universe occuring by chance are 1 in ten trillion trillion trillion, there are only two rational explanations: Either there are a lot of actual universes out there, or something fine-tuned ours to be life-permitting. Believing we just got lucky would be on par with believing a coin that flips heads 100 times in a row is a fair coin.

The odds that we are here is 1/1 therefore the odds that the universe would support life is 1/1.

 

[tsig]

The complexity has nothing to do with it. Nature has evolved far more complex designs than we humans have yet managed. We're also pretty good at designing simple things like arrowheads and paperclips. Extreme rarity OTOH is considered a good indication that the 'random chance' explanation is not a good fit.

The designer hypothesis comes into play because I find it a startling coincidence that not only are the physical constants of our universe seemingly precisely tuned, but they may also be precisely tuned to the exact values that an intelligent designer might choose for creating a holographic simulation.

If you don't find that a startling coincidence and do not consider that to be evidence supporting the hypothesis of a designer, that's okay. I'm not going to argue the point. The theory is unproven at this stage and even if true, other explanations are possible. That's simply my take on it.

I find it odd that god always uses cutting edge human technology.

 

[Malerin]

There's a 2% chance that it would be logically impossible for the earth to be flat.

How is a proposition possibly logically impossible? That would mean there are possible worlds where there are no possible worlds where the proposition is true. I guess if you didn't understand a proposition you could say it might be logically impossible ("All emeralds are grue" may be logically impossible depending on what "grue" means).

But that's not the case with "The Earth is flat". That is easily understood and there are possible worlds (in the modal sense) where the Earth is flat (a flat Earth does not involve any logical contradictions). Therefore, "the Earth is flat" is not logically impossible. Do you still believe it's 98% likely the Earth is not flat? Is that how "certain" you are?

But the certainty in science is not about logical possibilities, but about empirical possibilities.

Linda

Which is to say that any claim made by science can be given an epistemic value reflecting the degree to which a person believes the claim corresponds to reality.

 

[tsig]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that if a universe were created by an intelligent designer, then the probability that it contains life is considerably higher than the odds currently given by the physicists for ours. If you don't agree, that's fine. As I said earlier, this is just my take on it.

Why would the designer favor life over non-life? Maybe he's running a big chem experiment and we are just chance contaminants.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

But do you agree that science certainly has something to say about the Self-Aware Universe god? For example, such a god must be a product of nature, a product of evolution.

Absolutely my point. That you can define a god that has such material properties.

Such a god has no bearing on the question of morals, the question of an afterlife.

Well... unless his massive, universe-sized brain gives him insights into such things that us puny earthlings haven't yet fathomed.

And, without a multiverse, such a god would be a lonely, self-absorbed, pitiable creature.

possibly. Or maybe his gigantic brain is company enough.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

The random chance hypothesis can be rescued by presuming a very very large or an infinite set of universes. Since intelligent life will only appear in universes conducive to their development, we can then assume our universe is simply that rare universe that supports life evolving. That hypothesis works, but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.

I'm going to jump in here to say that a multiverse has the advantage that it can be mathematically modeled. In fact, in some interpretations of accepted theory, it falls out naturally.

The same cannot be said of an intelligent designer.

 

[fls]

How is a proposition possibly logically impossible? That would mean there are possible worlds where there are no possible worlds where the proposition is true. I guess if you didn't understand a proposition you could say it might be logically impossible ("All emeralds are grue" may be logically impossible depending on what "grue" means).

But that's not the case with "The Earth is flat". That is easily understood and there are possible worlds (in the modal sense) where the Earth is flat (a flat Earth does not involve any logical contradictions). Therefore, "the Earth is flat" is not logically impossible. Do you still believe it's 98% likely the Earth is not flat? Is that how "certain" you are?

You forgot about the smartass factor.

Which is to say that any claim made by science can be given an epistemic value reflecting the degree to which a person believes the claim corresponds to reality.

Which seems to have nothing to do with what you asked or said above.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I'm going to jump in here to say that a multiverse has the advantage that it can be mathematically modeled. In fact, in some interpretations of accepted theory, it falls out naturally.

The same cannot be said of an intelligent designer.

I find them the same in that neither has any empirical evidence to support it. The designer hypothesis has a few advantages as well . My preferred hypothesis is that physicists will someday discover a reason that the constants are constrained to the values they have. But that's just "the we don't know" answer.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Why would the designer favor life over non-life? Maybe he's running a big chem experiment and we are just chance contaminants.

Yes, or we're living in a misconfigured random number generator that someone forgot to switch off. Or that produces results that are "good enough" for the application it's feeding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A minor quibble. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (ETA: if that's what you're referring to?) applies to observable facts, not theories. It says -- in part and very roughly -- you cannot measure both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary precision.

I know the difference between the uncertainty principle and the uncertainty in scientific language I speak of.

I am referring to the problem science has communicating the uncertainty language to the lay public. Like Malerin here is having a hard time with the concept, facts remain uncertain in science.

Here's what I've been saying on this subject for quite some time. I wrote this comment replying to Mike the Mad Biologist's entry, I'm on the Fence Regarding Sciencedebate 2008

Even bringing up the topic in scientific circles creates a backlash. There is a mistaken belief that persuasion connotates deceit. When I mention the problem of the anti-science crowd and to quote Rick Piltz, its "predatory relationship to the uncertainty language of science"**, I get a backlash of arguments about proof and theories which misses the point. You don't have to speak inaccurately about scientific concepts to close the door to those predators.