Improbable universe

[mvh18]

I’ve heard a few Catholics who use the ‘perfection’ of our universe as their basis of their belief, and that such a wonderfully functioning world could not have come about out of chance, citing it as too improbable. Now I respect that everyone is entitled to their reason for a belief, but as a person who is quite apt in science and math, this to me seems more a lack of understanding of probability than anything. The probability of a royal flush in poker is less than 1 in 2 million. I also feel the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins) concept is applicable. How do you guys approach this type of basis for our faith?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I’ve heard a few Catholics who use the ‘perfection’ of our universe as their basis of their belief, and that such a wonderfully functioning world could not have come about out of chance, citing it as too improbable. Now I respect that everyone is entitled to their reason for a belief, but as a person who is quite apt in science and math, this to me seems more a lack of understanding of probability than anything. The probability of a royal flush in poker is less than 1 in 2 million. I also feel the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins) concept is applicable. How do you guys approach this type of basis for our faith?

I think that you’re right that most people who employ the argument don’t have a firm grasp on statistics, and I’ll put myself in that category. I recently read an article about dream premonition written by (I believe) an agnostic, essentially saying that just because you dream about someone dying and then they do, you’re not really experiencing anything outside of what is statistically likely. Billions of dreams are had a night, a great many of them probably involve the death of loved ones, and everyone dies eventually, so the odds are actually really in favor of that sort of thing happening, even if dreams are governed only by blind chance. We just think that this is unusual because we don’t focus much on the dreams that don’t come true - what they call confirmation bias.

Dawkins, if I’m not mistaken, applies that argument to biological evolution, and utilizes natural selection, saying basically: evolution necessarily involves taking trillions of chances (each unique DNA code offers a new chance at an evolved characteristic, or at least a new combination of existing traits), and natural selection favors the beneficial outcomes, so it’s not that random. For example, if you evolve a dominant-gene genetic disorder which kills you by the age of 3, that’s not getting passed on - it’s an evolutionary dead-end; but if you evolve a trait which lets you live longer and/or reproduce more, that is getting passed on, so natural selection favors good characteristics (hence, the world we see today, with complex organisms with well-functioning design). Meanwhile, we ignore the badly-functioning genes - the infant genetic disorders (like Tay-Sachs) and so forth, either because of confirmation bias, or because those animals who suffer from the bad genes are less visible (since natural selection disfavors them).

I don’t know that I would disagree with that assessment of evolution very much, except to say that I think the Hand of God is at work in it all. I think He created natural selection, the laws of the universe, and so forth. But I think that the science is roughly there. Catholics believe in sacraments - God working through the everyday material things in life, like water, wine, bread, and even sex and marriage. If He can create new life using the existing DNA of parents, why shy away from macroevolution’s claim that He made various species from preexisting species? At the least, I think the Church is fine with that. We would reject, of course, any attempt to say that since science is at work, God must not be. It’s a logical fallacy, like saying that if you can measure the speed at which a domino falls (or even prove that its fall was caused by the domino before it) that it means that no human involvement started that reaction.

Where I think the improbable nature of the universe comes into play is with the non-biological universe: in other words, from the Big Bang to the first organism. Natural selection can’t explain things, and unlike natural selection where billions of organisms give you plenty of try-and-fail time, the non-biological universe was a one-shot chance. Had the gravitational constant been even slightly off, or the rate at which the universe cooled, or had the strong and weak nuclear forces been somehow different, not only would we not be here, but the universe would have imploded and destroyed itself. Here I think the incredible odds are very important: everything from the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang to the creation of our solar system and the unique way in which Earth just happened to be in a perfect climate to sustain life defies the odds. (This is especially true the closer to the universe’s origin-point you get - there are probably billions of planets which could potentially have shared in Earth’s luck, but only one universe).

Scientists have been forced to design the Anthropic Principle and the Multiverse Theory to try and account for the fact that blind statistics can’t get you (a) from a lack of matter to matter; (b) from the presence of matter in a time-stasis (which is what the Big Bang would be - Augustinian time) to a Big Bang; (c) from the Big Bang to a second after the Big Bang; and (d) from the Big Bang to a universe sustaining life in any form or capacity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ve heard a few Catholics who use the ‘perfection’ of our universe as their basis of their belief, and that such a wonderfully functioning world could not have come about out of chance, citing it as too improbable. Now I respect that everyone is entitled to their reason for a belief, but as a person who is quite apt in science and math, this to me seems more a lack of understanding of probability than anything. The probability of a royal flush in poker is less than 1 in 2 million. I also feel the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins) concept is applicable. How do you guys approach this type of basis for our faith?

creationism, ID, etc are tyically much more a phenomenon of protestant philosophy, one of the 2 pillars of protestantism is something called ‘sola scriptura’ or ‘only scripture’, the essential outcome of that theological position is that the literal integrity of the various books, in what we call the bible is paramount. indeed it is their 1/2 of common claim of legitamacy in seperation from the faith.

therefore, for them evolution is an assault on their version of Christianity.

for most of us the mechanism of creation is of no great consequence.

rational sketicism is a great tool to analyze any idea, evolution, religion, philosophy, cosmology, etc.

you will find that among us rationalism is the root of our faith. as jesuits say the faith is built on a ladder of reason.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve heard a few Catholics who use the ‘perfection’ of our universe as their basis of their belief, and that such a wonderfully functioning world could not have come about out of chance, citing it as too improbable. Now I respect that everyone is entitled to their reason for a belief, but as a person who is quite apt in science and math, this to me seems more a lack of understanding of probability than anything. The probability of a royal flush in poker is less than 1 in 2 million. I also feel the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins) concept is applicable. How do you guys approach this type of basis for our faith?

I’m not a scientist or mathematician, so I probably should remain silent. But I won’t.
Part of the problem with the argument of those who feel the universe is a purely natural phenomenon, having no Divine hand behind it, is that we know so very little about it, even in a “natural” sense. We now “see” forms of radiation that we knew nothing about even a few decades ago. We surely haven’t seen them all yet. We have no idea at all what happens to “information” when matter goes into a black hole. We don’t know whether anything comes out or, if so, what or where or in what form. Scientists argue about such things and may never resolve even those things. And if the Big Bang was a real event, what, exactly was it before the Bang? And if it was a “string”, how did the “string” come to be, and what, exactly, are the properties of such a “string”, since we are, almost by definition, precluded from ever seeing one. And are there “branes”? Are there all the dimensions some physicists seem to think must be there? And dark matter? We think it’s surely there, but maybe it isn’t. Maybe something altogether different explains why the universe seems to demand more matter than we think could be there without simply assuming the existence of “dark matter”.

And all the “rules” we think are there. Matter acts this way, energy that way, except when “X” obtains, then it behaves that other way. Are those constructs of our own minds or do they rule the universe? Are we simply imposing our own patterns on the universe simply because, so far, they seem to work, except when they don’t? Does the universe operate by principles altogether different from the ones we suppose, but we assume, like some tribe of Indians whose rain dances manage to work more often than not that we know how it all works because we have not yet seen it not work?

And (going strange on you here now) what do we know of the workings of God or perhaps His angels? Is the whole complicated set of all equations we know and the many more we undoubtedly do not know simply a spot on the “clothing” of an angel? Is an angel perhaps a principle of how energy works in this dimension? We impose our own anthropomorphic ideas onto such things as angels and picture them as beings with wings and harps. How do we really know that, say, the governing principles of matter and energy are not part of a conscious being? We don’t know. We just assume it because we know so little of it.

It is amusing to me to see scientists soberly and earnestly predict that there are surely “X” number of intelligent beings in the universe; some undoubtedly superior to us. They base that on the workings of “chance”; like the innumerable number of monkeys pounding on typewriters and eventually producing all the works of Shakespeare. It’s probable because of all the numbers. But then, they balk at some point of “superiority”. Well, perhaps some creature at the far end of some distant galaxy has managed to manipulate matter by sheer force of its mind, or travel through time. But it has to be a creature. It can surpass even our ability to imagine it, but it can’t surpass some limit we put on it even if we have no inkling at all where the outer edges of the limit are. Yes, there are surely superior beings, but none of them can be God, simply because we insist that none can be.

A sea slug which is touched by a human being may well perceive some aspect of that human being. But it certainly doesn’t know, and can’t know, whether that human being can conjugate a French verb or not.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

A sea slug which is touched by a human being may well perceive some aspect of that human being. But it certainly doesn’t know, and can’t know, whether that human being can conjugate a French verb or not.

:dancing:

What a hilarious metaphor. It described what you were saying perfectly, and in such colourful terms! Ha ha ha!

 

[mvh18]

I think that you’re right that most people who employ the argument don’t have a firm grasp on statistics, and I’ll put myself in that category. I recently read an article about dream premonition written by (I believe) an agnostic, essentially saying that just because you dream about someone dying and then they do, you’re not really experiencing anything outside of what is statistically likely. Billions of dreams are had a night, a great many of them probably involve the death of loved ones, and everyone dies eventually, so the odds are actually really in favor of that sort of thing happening, even if dreams are governed only by blind chance. We just think that this is unusual because we don’t focus much on the dreams that don’t come true - what they call confirmation bias.

Dawkins, if I’m not mistaken, applies that argument to biological evolution, and utilizes natural selection, saying basically: evolution necessarily involves taking trillions of chances (each unique DNA code offers a new chance at an evolved characteristic, or at least a new combination of existing traits), and natural selection favors the beneficial outcomes, so it’s not that random. For example, if you evolve a dominant-gene genetic disorder which kills you by the age of 3, that’s not getting passed on - it’s an evolutionary dead-end; but if you evolve a trait which lets you live longer and/or reproduce more, that is getting passed on, so natural selection favors good characteristics (hence, the world we see today, with complex organisms with well-functioning design). Meanwhile, we ignore the badly-functioning genes - the infant genetic disorders (like Tay-Sachs) and so forth, either because of confirmation bias, or because those animals who suffer from the bad genes are less visible (since natural selection disfavors them).

I don’t know that I would disagree with that assessment of evolution very much, except to say that I think the Hand of God is at work in it all. I think He created natural selection, the laws of the universe, and so forth. But I think that the science is roughly there. Catholics believe in sacraments - God working through the everyday material things in life, like water, wine, bread, and even sex and marriage. If He can create new life using the existing DNA of parents, why shy away from macroevolution’s claim that He made various species from preexisting species? At the least, I think the Church is fine with that. We would reject, of course, any attempt to say that since science is at work, God must not be. It’s a logical fallacy, like saying that if you can measure the speed at which a domino falls (or even prove that its fall was caused by the domino before it) that it means that no human involvement started that reaction.

Where I think the improbable nature of the universe comes into play is with the non-biological universe: in other words, from the Big Bang to the first organism. Natural selection can’t explain things, and unlike natural selection where billions of organisms give you plenty of try-and-fail time, the non-biological universe was a one-shot chance. Had the gravitational constant been even slightly off, or the rate at which the universe cooled, or had the strong and weak nuclear forces been somehow different, not only would we not be here, but the universe would have imploded and destroyed itself. Here I think the incredible odds are very important: everything from the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang to the creation of our solar system and the unique way in which Earth just happened to be in a perfect climate to sustain life defies the odds. (This is especially true the closer to the universe’s origin-point you get - there are probably billions of planets which could potentially have shared in Earth’s luck, but only one universe).

Scientists have been forced to design the Anthropic Principle and the Multiverse Theory to try and account for the fact that blind statistics can’t get you (a) from a lack of matter to matter; (b) from the presence of matter in a time-stasis (which is what the Big Bang would be - Augustinian time) to a Big Bang; (c) from the Big Bang to a second after the Big Bang; and (d) from the Big Bang to a universe sustaining life in any form or capacity.

I’d firstly like to say thank you for taking your time to give such a well thought reply, much appreciated. I agree with pretty much everything you say, and share your views on the role God plays in evolution. Love the domino analogy by the way!

You mentioned in your last paragraph the anthropic principle, which was what I was alluding to in my original post. I don’t think anyone can deny that we are in a ‘goldilocks’ universe, where the elementary scientific constants that define the laws of our world just seem too perfect to be a coincidence. I was reading in ‘The Divinity Code’ by Ian Wishart that the chance of human life is something completely uncomprehensible like ten to the ten followed by 35 zeros! However does this itself imply a divine creator? As mentioned, people get full houses in poker all the time, and this in itself is very improbable. The chance of a person winning Lotto is improbable, however people win Lotto all the time. I guess the question is, at what point does an event become so improbable that it becomes impossible practically speaking?

 

[mvh18]

I’m not a scientist or mathematician, so I probably should remain silent. But I won’t.
Part of the problem with the argument of those who feel the universe is a purely natural phenomenon, having no Divine hand behind it, is that we know so very little about it, even in a “natural” sense. We now “see” forms of radiation that we knew nothing about even a few decades ago. We surely haven’t seen them all yet. We have no idea at all what happens to “information” when matter goes into a black hole. We don’t know whether anything comes out or, if so, what or where or in what form. Scientists argue about such things and may never resolve even those things. And if the Big Bang was a real event, what, exactly was it before the Bang? And if it was a “string”, how did the “string” come to be, and what, exactly, are the properties of such a “string”, since we are, almost by definition, precluded from ever seeing one. And are there “branes”? Are there all the dimensions some physicists seem to think must be there? And dark matter? We think it’s surely there, but maybe it isn’t. Maybe something altogether different explains why the universe seems to demand more matter than we think could be there without simply assuming the existence of “dark matter”.

And all the “rules” we think are there. Matter acts this way, energy that way, except when “X” obtains, then it behaves that other way. Are those constructs of our own minds or do they rule the universe? Are we simply imposing our own patterns on the universe simply because, so far, they seem to work, except when they don’t? Does the universe operate by principles altogether different from the ones we suppose, but we assume, like some tribe of Indians whose rain dances manage to work more often than not that we know how it all works because we have not yet seen it not work?

And (going strange on you here now) what do we know of the workings of God or perhaps His angels? Is the whole complicated set of all equations we know and the many more we undoubtedly do not know simply a spot on the “clothing” of an angel? Is an angel perhaps a principle of how energy works in this dimension? We impose our own anthropomorphic ideas onto such things as angels and picture them as beings with wings and harps. How do we really know that, say, the governing principles of matter and energy are not part of a conscious being? We don’t know. We just assume it because we know so little of it.

It is amusing to me to see scientists soberly and earnestly predict that there are surely “X” number of intelligent beings in the universe; some undoubtedly superior to us. They base that on the workings of “chance”; like the innumerable number of monkeys pounding on typewriters and eventually producing all the works of Shakespeare. It’s probable because of all the numbers. But then, they balk at some point of “superiority”. Well, perhaps some creature at the far end of some distant galaxy has managed to manipulate matter by sheer force of its mind, or travel through time. But it has to be a creature. It can surpass even our ability to imagine it, but it can’t surpass some limit we put on it even if we have no inkling at all where the outer edges of the limit are. Yes, there are surely superior beings, but none of them can be God, simply because we insist that none can be.

A sea slug which is touched by a human being may well perceive some aspect of that human being. But it certainly doesn’t know, and can’t know, whether that human being can conjugate a French verb or not.

Thanks for the replies guys. To be fair to most atheists, they claim they simply don’t know enough to make a decision or cannot commit put faith in something in something intangible. I guess a key step in finding God is coming to the realization that there are simply some things beyond our capability.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The chance of a person winning Lotto is improbable, however people win Lotto all the time. I guess the question is, at what point does an event become so improbable that it becomes impossible practically speaking?

The reason it happens all the time is that even though it’s an improbable event, people play so many hands of poker that the improbable become probable. (I.E., there is only a 1:6 chance of rolling a 6, but if you roll the die 20 times and don’t get a 6, that’s actually *more *unusual - I think you know what I mean already).
With biological evolution, we have lots of chances, so even though it’s a series of low probability events, we can say, “some of these, at least, were likely to happen even in a world governed only by blind fate and natural selection.” With inorganic evolution, however, a lot of these things are such that had they failed, the universe would collapse. That’s like if a state legalized the lottery, and the very first ticket won the jackpot. Or if you sat down for your first poker hand ever and drew a royal flush. (Actually, this is way less probable than either of those things, but you see my point). If you’re a lifelong gambler, the odds are going to go your way sometimes. But if you sit down once and pull of this sorts of odds, we’d rightly suspect a miracle or a fraud.

 

[MegaTherion]

I don’t think anyone can deny that we are in a ‘goldilocks’ universe, where the elementary scientific constants that define the laws of our world just seem too perfect to be a coincidence.

You’re making the mistake of judging what’s happened based on the outcome.

If things had been a little bit different at the beginning of the universe, we would have gotten a different universe – perhaps life would have developed in that different universe in a different way. Perhaps not.

Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. In fact, it’s absurd to say that something couldn’t have happened when we know that it did.

My favorite analogy is to a roulette wheel. What are the odds that the color red comes up 100 times in a row? It’s some huge, astronomical number. But what are the odds that any old pattern of 100 colors comes up (red, black, black, red, red, red, black, black, red, etc.)? Any combination of 100 colors has the same exact improbable odds as the “run on red” or any other combination of 100 colors. We just attach importance to the “run on red” because we judge it to be special.

You value the universe in its current state because you judge it to be special. But any other formulation of the universe (with different forms of life in it) would be just as improbable.

 

[mvh18]

The reason it happens all the time is that even though it’s an improbable event, people play so many hands of poker that the improbable become probable. (I.E., there is only a 1:6 chance of rolling a 6, but if you roll the die 20 times and don’t get a 6, that’s actually more unusual - I think you know what I mean already).
With biological evolution, we have lots of chances, so even though it’s a series of low probability events, we can say, “some of these, at least, were likely to happen even in a world governed only by blind fate and natural selection.” With inorganic evolution, however, a lot of these things are such that had they failed, the universe would collapse. That’s like if a state legalized the lottery, and the very first ticket won the jackpot. Or if you sat down for your first poker hand ever and drew a royal flush. (Actually, this is way less probable than either of those things, but you see my point). If you’re a lifelong gambler, the odds are going to go your way sometimes. ** But if you sit down once and pull of this sorts of odds, we’d rightly suspect a miracle or a fraud.

This is more towards my point. Even if something is highly improbable, does it require an external agent? It is highly improbable that, after flicking a coin a hundred times, I get all heads, however it is still possible. If we are talking about possibilities, even for one off events as you say, do you think there is a magnitude of probability (say one in one billion), where for all practical purposes is impossible? I suppose from a scientists point of view the answer is no, but hey thats why I did engineering and not science.

 

[tdgesq]

This is more towards my point. Even if something is highly improbable, does it require an external agent? It is highly improbable that, after flicking a coin a hundred times, I get all heads, however it is still possible. If we are talking about possibilities, even for one off events as you say, do you think there is a magnitude of probability (say one in one billion), where for all practical purposes is impossible? I suppose from a scientists point of view the answer is no, but hey thats why I did engineering and not science.

Hi mvh18,

The problem I have with this kind of analysis is that it is really a misuse of statistics and the statistical method. Statistics is concerned with probabilities and the ability to measure the likelihood of certain outcomes. When asking what is the likelihood that our universe came into existence as the result of random chance, we would need to have observable data at hand to run the analysis. We don’t really have anything like that.

The best we can do is speculate given the age of the universe as we understand it today. Even then, the answer you will get is that it appears monumentally improbable that our current state of affairs came about as a result of random events. The rejoinder that: statistical theory shows us that such a result is possible is to lose the argument I think. Unicorns and flying elephants are logical possibilities as well. The point is that statistics (speculatively) lead strongly away from the conclusion that the universe is a product of randomness.

Btw, I am not a big proponent of design and fine tuning theories for the existence of God. I still think that the Cosmological Argument and its variations are the best. The question of how anything exists at all - why there is anything in existence - is where I like to start.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

all i can say is that the the probability of something occuring from nothing is zip.

probability cant arise from nothing whatsoever.

the implication being that if you start with the statistical argument you give away the default state of reality as nothing whatsoever, and surrender immediately to the idea of ‘something’ prior to creation, something from which a quantum fluctution may arise. some basis for the beginning of a non-creation cosmology.

i like to start with the highest hurdle in cosmological arguments as well, that said, the statistical arguements come in handy, but long after we have thouroughly discussed why there is such a thing as existence at all.

there are so many flaws in the idea of atheism, i hardly see how an unbiased rationalist can come to that conclusion.

 

[Dameedna]

It is amusing to me to see scientists soberly and earnestly predict that there are surely “X” number of intelligent beings in the universe; some undoubtedly superior to us. They base that on the workings of “chance”;

It is those somber and often self-sacrificng scientists(eg. madam curie died of radiation poisening due to self-experimentation ), that used numbers to understand everything from tidal paths to quantum mechanics, and create the microchip which you are currently utilizing.

I find it not amusing at all, for people to patrionize those that accepted the unknown with tension and anxiety and through a desire for truth, eventually gained an understanding. With that understanding, of course came further questioning, anxiety and tension that they spent their entire lives dealing with. They didnt give themselves your luxury of faith. They admited they didn’t know. They lived very uncomfortable lives so that you could be helped. They lived with a state of mind that most people of faith find so intolerable and scary that they go to church every sunday and worship a deity they believe will cause eternal suffering rather than accept the unknown. And you laugh at them?

These are the same people that have created the vaccines that mean you no longer have to exist with a world Polio epidemic.

Your disrespect of these theorists is abysmal. You probably wouldn’t even be alive without their “theorizing” about the world at large. Considering infant mortality rates prior to the scientific method and medical advances, most of us wouldn’t be. This theorizing you seem to be so “amused” by, is given to you by scientists that try and help you, even though you laugh at them behind their backs.

I am never ceased to be amazed at the extrodinary lack of knowlege that people have when it comes to scientific hisotory and the great sacrifices and ridicule people had to suffer to get their theories proven and accepted and the GREAT deal of comfort it has provided to so many people today.

Quite frankly, it’s disgusting. I know being disgusted will not bring you around to my way of thinking and probably helps scientific people not one bit, but these comments can’t go unremarked.

 

[Dameedna]

all i can say is that the the probability of something occuring from nothing is zip.

Happens all the time at a quantum level and has been observed.

Hope you didn’t base your faith on that premise.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is those somber and often self-sacrificng scientists(eg. madam curie died of radiation poisening due to self-experimentation ), that used numbers to understand everything from tidal paths to quantum mechanics, and create the microchip which you are currently utilizing.

I find it not amusing at all, for people to patrionize those that accepted the unknown with tension and anxiety and through a desire for truth, eventually gained an understanding. With that understanding, of course came further questioning, anxiety and tension that they spent their entire lives dealing with. They didnt give themselves your luxury of faith. They admited they didn’t know. They lived very uncomfortable lives so that you could be helped. They lived with a state of mind that most people of faith find so intolerable and scary that they go to church every sunday and worship a deity they believe will cause eternal suffering rather than accept the unknown. And you laugh at them?

These are the same people that have created the vaccines that mean you no longer have to exist with a world Polio epidemic.

Your disrespect of these theorists is abysmal. You probably wouldn’t even be alive without their “theorizing” about the world at large. Considering infant mortality rates prior to the scientific method and medical advances, most of us wouldn’t be. This theorizing you seem to be so “amused” by, is given to you by scientists that try and help you, even though you laugh at them behind their backs.

I am never ceased to be amazed at the extrodinary lack of knowlege that people have when it comes to scientific hisotory and the great sacrifices and ridicule people had to suffer to get their theories proven and accepted and the GREAT deal of comfort it has provided to so many people today.

Quite frankly, it’s disgusting. I know being disgusted will not bring you around to my way of thinking and probably helps scientific people not one bit, but these comments can’t go unremarked.

My goodness, what a great fuss over nothing! Did I say “all scientists”? No, I did not.

And your being disgusted with me, about whom you know absolutely nothing, will certainly not bring me around to your “way of thinking”, and thank God for that!

 

[Dameedna]

My goodness, what a great fuss over nothing! Did I say “all scientists”? No, I did not.

No, you just laughed at scientists with theories, who use numbers and probablity equations that eventually lead to discoveries about our reality.

Theoritical scientists, lead toward discoveries. It is THESE scientists, you so easily dismiss with a laugh and a patrionizing remark as though they are sooo, soo silly.

Some scientists discuss the science of potatoe cutting. I don’t think you were talking about them.

And your being disgusted with me, about whom you know absolutely nothing, will certainly not bring me around to your “way of thinking”, and thank God for that!

I may not know you, but by your comments I know you have contempt for those that have pretty much created the world you live in through their theories and mathematical unknowns.

It’s up to you to decide wether or not you will treat them with contempt, while you take in their vacines for the flu every year, or give them their hard-earned and deserved respect.

That …will be a moral choice you will be required to make I suspect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Happens all the time at a quantum level and has been observed.

Hope you didn’t base your faith on that premise.

i assume you mean virtual particles?

they arise from a vacuum, not nothing.

a vacuum posseses dimension. it is a definable area of space. from where did the vacuum come?

further, they are a device used to explain certain particle interactions. they dont actually falsifiably exist, hence the word ‘virtual’

when we say that nothing comes from nothing, we literally mean ‘nothing’ no vacuum, no particles, no dimension, space time. nothing physical of any kind.

i think you simply misunderstand the nature of virtual particles and their place in physics.

quit watching the discovery channel

 

[Ridgerunner]

I may not know you, but by your comments I know you have contempt for those that have pretty much created the world you live in through their theories and mathematical unknowns.

Well, you’re totally wrong about that, so what else do you think you know about me?

I obviously believe in God, which is really what offended you. You don’t have to go inventing spurious ways to insult me just to put a better face on that bias. I’m glad I didn’t disclose my ethnic origin or you might call me a “Mick” or a “Bogtrotter”. Oops! :doh2:

 

[mvh18]

You’re making the mistake of judging what’s happened based on the outcome.

If things had been a little bit different at the beginning of the universe, we would have gotten a different universe – perhaps life would have developed in that different universe in a different way. Perhaps not.

Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. In fact, it’s absurd to say that something couldn’t have happened when we know that it did.

My favorite analogy is to a roulette wheel. What are the odds that the color red comes up 100 times in a row? It’s some huge, astronomical number. But what are the odds that any old pattern of 100 colors comes up (red, black, black, red, red, red, black, black, red, etc.)? Any combination of 100 colors has the same exact improbable odds as the “run on red” or any other combination of 100 colors. We just attach importance to the “run on red” because we judge it to be special.

You value the universe in its current state because you judge it to be special. But any other formulation of the universe (with different forms of life in it) would be just as improbable.

well as a man of science, I would say that no other universe configuration would enable life as we define it (MRS GREN). It’s my belief that a carbon rich planet is essential for this type of being, which evidence suggests only comes about from our current universe. Maybe a silicon rich universe would produce silicon blocks that can ‘think’, however that such ‘life’ would excrete, respirate, move, reproduce etc