Physical Necessity?

[tonyrey]

Only if you want to employ circular reasoning. Which, hey, go nuts.

It is circular reas0ning to regard the laws of nature as self-explanat0ry.

Can science account for itself - and the scientist into the bargain?:ehh:

 

[Aloysium]

Only if you want to employ circular reasoning. Which, hey, go nuts.

Really? There is no circular reasoning to assert that it is all a miracle.
There are little personal ones, medium sized ones written in the skies and the biggest, in our hearts.
You might wish to explain, at least to yourself, how the various constituents of matter (just start there), its structures, the relationships and the constants that describe them, how they exist at all.
And/or, how they came to be.

You are yourself; explain that.

 

[Aloysium]

It is circular reas0ning to regard the laws of nature as self-explanat0ry.

Can science account for itself - and the scientist into the bargain?:ehh:

What he said.

 

[tonyrey]

You are implying that the size of the universe alone is a good reason to believe life is inevitable!

Are there any precise statististics on which that conclusion is based?

1. The fact that life has not only survived but also developed on this planet for nearly four billion years in such a hostile environment makes it very difficult to believe it is an entirely fortuitous event - especially considering that monocellular organisms have the greatest survival value.

Right, and there are places on Earth where humans could probably survive without the benefits of clothing or structures to shield us from the elements. But there are many, many more places on Earth where they couldn’t. Nobody who’s ever found themselves stuck at the South Pole, or at the bottom of an ocean, has thought to remark at just how “fine-tuned” the Earth is for supporting human life.

Being stuck at the South Pole or at the bottom of an ocean is hardly an everyday occurrence for the vast majority of inhabitants of this planet. Do you always generalise on the basis of very rare instances and overlook the problem of not only the origin of life but also its progressive development?

2. There is also the enormous problem of explaining how rational persons have been produced by mindless things. It amounts to believing thought is derived from dust! That must be the greatest miracle that has ever occurred…

Miracles are, by definition, results from the suspension of the laws of nature. Given that we don’t yet know all the relevant laws of nature, it would overstepping to assume that an un-guided process couldn’t ultimately result in the rise of rational, conscious minds.

Apart from sidestepping the problem of explaining how rational persons have been produced by mindless things it is overstepping the mark to assume science is in principle capable of explaining everything - including itself. The acid test is whether in practice you base** all** your conclusions, choices and decisions on scientific theories. If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

What he said.

I await the explanation with great curiosity…

 

[AyJSimon]

Really? There is no circular reasoning to assert that it is all a miracle.
There are little personal ones, medium sized ones written in the skies and the biggest, in our hearts.
You might wish to explain, at least to yourself, how the various constituents of matter (just start there), its structures, the relationships and the constants that describe them, how they exist at all.
And/or, how they came to be.

You are yourself; explain that.

I attribute my existence to the laws of biology. Your argument is that this is all a miracle. A miracle ultimately caused by another miracle. Which itself was uncaused (another miracle!) That’s circular reasoning, pretty much by definition.

Scientists, at least, have the intellectual honesty to admit that we don’t yet know the answers to some of these questions. But acknowledging that fact doesn’t make “miracles” a more likely explanation.

 

[Aloysium]

I attribute my existence to the laws of biology. Your argument is that this is all a miracle. A miracle ultimately caused by another miracle. Which itself was uncaused (another miracle!) That’s circular reasoning, pretty much by definition.

Scientists, at least, have the intellectual honesty to admit that we don’t yet know the answers to some of these questions. But acknowledging that fact doesn’t make “miracles” a more likely explanation.

There is no way to simplify this.
It is possible to describe in detail the physical components of the experience you are having as you read this. But, what I am talking about is something beyond that.
Before I waste a lot of time on this, are you really interested? Better still, do you have any questions regarding who you are? Let’s explore.

Briefly:

This isn’t a question of cause as it is a description of what is.
Biological systems involve the myriad of processes, that transform the surrounding world into the organism itself.
Your brain does not cause anything. It is material, and while merely an infinitely smallest part, it is more complicated than the rest of the universe, which is incomprehensibly huge.

Fact is that the more one knows, the more one realizes one knows nothing.
Ultimately, reality can be known, and it reveals itself as mystery (awesome wonder).

It sounds like you are satisfied with the idea that biological explanations can or will be able to explain who you are.
You may not wish to go down the rabbit hole; you may prefer to take the blue rather than the red pill.

 

[inocente]

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life – every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

His claim is rather ridiculous. We only know of life on this one little planet so he can’t possibly know what’s necessary. It’s classic god-of-the-gaps - find God in what we don’t (yet) know rather than find God in what we know.

The “miracle” of fine-tuning is like knowing that Pi is 3.14159265358979323846, and then finding out that’s exactly the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Glory be, that’s so unlikely it must be a miracle !

Philosophically, if all Christians followed his lead then no Christian would ever do science, because he’s already decided it’s all a big miracle so what’s the point. Morally, if all Christians followed his lead then no Christian would ever have found a cure for a disease because whenever someone feels better, it’s a miracle, praise be, end of story.

So my view is we should be grateful to Christians who try to find things out rather than follow him into his wilderness.

 

[ChainBreaker]

His claim is rather ridiculous. We only know of life on this one little planet so he can’t possibly know what’s necessary. It’s classic god-of-the-gaps - find God in what we don’t (yet) know rather than find God in what we know.

The “miracle” of fine-tuning is like knowing that Pi is 3.14159265358979323846, and then finding out that’s exactly the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Glory be, that’s so unlikely it must be a miracle !

Philosophically, if all Christians followed his lead then no Christian would ever do science, because he’s already decided it’s all a big miracle so what’s the point. Morally, if all Christians followed his lead then no Christian would ever have found a cure for a disease because whenever someone feels better, it’s a miracle, praise be, end of story.

So my view is we should be grateful to Christians who try to find things out rather than follow him into his wilderness.

True, but there is also a thing called “science of the gaps”, which is the idea that science in principle applies to all philosophical questions regarding the world we exist in. The equally naive and unjustified belief that science can explain it all by identifying the physical relationships between things.

For example; science can in principle observe emergent properties and the relationships involved in its emergence, but science cannot in principle explain the “existence” of emergent properties in relation to any particular physical activity.

There comes a point where science alone results in brute facts that cannot themselves be explained by science or the physical events being observed.

 

[oldcelt]

“Peerless” in what sense?

Our dear old human bodies, as amazing and precious as they are to their minds, are excelled in every physical category by some other form of life.

We are physically unique only in that our heads hold a conscious mind.

And some biologists working with apes or cetaceans would deny our uniqueness even in that area.

ICXC NIKA.

Well stated.

 

[tonyrey]

His claim is rather ridiculous. We only know of life on this one little planet so he can’t possibly know what’s necessary. It’s classic god-of-the-gaps - find God in what we don’t (yet) know rather than find God in what we know.

A false dilemma. God is found both in what we know and what we don’t know.

The “miracle” of fine-tuning is like knowing that Pi is 3.14159265358979323846, and then finding out that’s exactly the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Glory be, that’s so unlikely it must be a miracle !

The analogy is totally false. One ratio is not comparable to a set of numerous circumstances essential for the existence of living organisms.

Philosophically, if all Christians followed his lead then no Christian would ever do science, because he’s already decided it’s all a big miracle so what’s the point.

Eminent Christian scientists are well aware that the miracle of life does not preclude investigation into all the conditions essential for life.

Morally, if all Christians followed his lead then no Christian would ever have found a cure for a disease because whenever someone feels better, it’s a miracle, praise be, end of story.

Miracles often occur when cures are found in **both **prayer and scientific investigation. They are not mutually exclusive.

So my view is we should be grateful to Christians who try to find things out rather than follow him into his wilderness.

Jesus was not an obscurantist. He told us solve problems as well as pray to the Father.

 

[inocente]

True, but there is also a thing called “science of the gaps”, which is the idea that science in principle applies to all philosophical questions regarding the world we exist in. The equally naive and unjustified belief that science can explain it all by identifying the physical relationships between things.

True, but there’s a difference in motive. People who didn’t know why the sun moves across the sky could believe it’s the work of a sun god. Anyone who disagreed and said it’s just the Earth rotating was likely to be called a heretic, since that would take a job away from the sun god. That’s why theologians don’t like “god-of-the-gaps” - it must either invest in ignorance or be in constant retreat before new knowledge.

For example; science can in principle observe emergent properties and the relationships involved in its emergence, but science cannot in principle explain the "existence" of emergent properties in relation to any particular physical activity.

Not sure. For example classical mechanics emerge from quantum mechanics. Ohm’s Law emerges from the statistical behavior of lots of electrons, none of which individually obey the law.

There comes a point where science alone results in brute facts that cannot themselves be explained by science or the physical events being observed.

True, but I was contrasting god-of-the-gaps with Christian scientists, and Christian scientists would not argue for scientism (or at least I don’t see how any Christian could).

 

[inocente]

A false dilemma. God is found both in what we know and what we don’t know.

That’s not a very good theology if it leads to an investment in ignorance.

The analogy is totally false. One ratio is not comparable to a set of numerous circumstances essential for the existence of living organisms.

You missed my point. He doesn’t know the circumstances. Because he can’t possibly know the circumstances.

Eminent Christian scientists are well aware that the miracle of life does not preclude investigation into all the conditions essential for life.

You missed my point. He is not a scientist or he wouldn’t make such statements. His only concern appears to be polemic for his interior designer. He’s not interested in the subject matter for its own sake, only in using it to bolster his belief.

*Miracles often occur when cures are found in **both ***prayer and scientific investigation. They are not mutually exclusive.

When someone has an unexplained remission from a disease, the immoral thing to do is call it a miracle and go no further. The moral action is to match it with similar cases and try to find a common denominator, since that could lead to a cure for everyone else with the disease.

Jesus was not an obscurantist. He told us solve problems as well as pray to the Father.

Agreed. Jesus is light not darkness.

 

[Bradski]

The “miracle” of fine-tuning is like knowing that Pi is 3.14159265358979323846, and then finding out that’s exactly the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.

I read one years ago that amused me. It’s the fact that everyone has exactly the right amount of skin to cover their whole body. I mean, what are the chances of that…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . what are the chances of that…

How about:
What are the chances that you would exist? In all time and all places, even if there are multiverses? 100% - because you do exist; no other reality is possible.
What are the chances that someone among the billions of people who did not, do not and will not know you, what are the chances that they could predict that you would exist? 0%, since only you and those who love you know of your unique existence. To everyone else, you are one among many, another grain of sand on the beach.

 

[GEddie]

I read one years ago that amused me. It’s the fact that everyone has exactly the right amount of skin to cover their whole body. I mean, what are the chances of that…

LOL.

Not necessarily, once one has wrinkles

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

You are implying that the size of the universe alone is a good reason to believe life is inevitable!

Look at it this way, Tony. The chances of you posting something sensible is extremely remote. But with nearly 18,000 posts, I’m sure if we spent enough time and effort, we would almost be guaranteed to find a nugget of wisdom somewhere.

Surely…

 

[inocente]

I read one years ago that amused me. It’s the fact that everyone has exactly the right amount of skin to cover their whole body. I mean, what are the chances of that…

Dude! No way, that’s spooky. And, every day there’s just the right amount of news to fill up the newspapers. Freaks me out man.

 

[inocente]

How about:
What are the chances that you would exist? In all time and all places, even if there are multiverses? 100% - because you do exist; no other reality is possible.
What are the chances that someone among the billions of people who did not, do not and will not know you, what are the chances that they could predict that you would exist? 0%, since only you and those who love you know of your unique existence. To everyone else, you are one among many, another grain of sand on the beach.

Is it you who writes poetry? You reminded me of one which some may not agree with, but it’s on-topic:

• I stand at the seashore, alone, and start to think.

There are the rushing waves
mountains of molecules
each stupidly minding its own business
trillions apart
yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages
before any eyes could see
year after year
thunderously pounding the shore as now.
For whom, for what?
On a dead planet
with no life to entertain.

Never at rest
tortured by energy
wasted prodigiously by the sun
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea
all molecules repeat
the patterns of one another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves
and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity
living things
masses of atoms
DNA, protein
dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle
onto dry land
here it is
standing:
atoms with consciousness;
matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea,
wonders at wondering: I
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe.

Richard Fenyman, The Value of Science, a public address to the National Academy of Sciences, 1955.*

 

[tonyrey]

You are implying that the size of the universe alone is a good reason to believe life is inevitable.

Your sarcasm fails to conceal the absurdity of regarding life as inevitable merely on account of the size of the universe. Is there anything that sheer size can’t achieve? If so what is it?

Such a hypothesis amounts to having blind faith in physical necessity but it is hardly surprising if one is convinced that the power of reason is derived from mindless molecules - and blissfully unaware it is a self-destructive hypothesis.