Xenu supports Hillary Clinton for President.
DF
Okay, condensed version here & leaving out lots of good stuff, but this is interesting...
Did you know..
In the early moments of the universe following the Big Bang (shut up & go with me here), matter and antimatter were created in almost equivalent amounts, but the symmetry between matter and antimatter was not precise. Why did asymmetry exist? It would seem more "natural" for there to be no asymmetry. But if there had been complete symmetry, the universe would quickly have devolved into pure radiation & we would not be here to debate ID.
Did ya? Huh? Huh? Didya?
Did you know..
In the early moments of the universe following the Big Bang (shut up & go with me here), matter and antimatter were created in almost equivalent amounts, but the symmetry between matter and antimatter was not precise. Why did asymmetry exist? It would seem more "natural" for there to be no asymmetry. But if there had been complete symmetry, the universe would quickly have devolved into pure radiation & we would not be here to debate ID.
Did ya? Huh? Huh? Didya?
quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac:quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
DF
Aren't there supposed to be some mice involved?
now crusty, you see that cat??...well.......
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
It would seem more "natural" for there to be no asymmetry. But if there had been complete symmetry, the universe would quickly have devolved into pure radiation & we would not be here to debate ID.
Yes, this is interesting, fascinating, mid-boggling stuff that used to confound physicists. Stephen Hawking described this process (in "A Brief History of Time") as "attempting to understand the mind of God."
However, Hawking's book covers this subject stating that a Grand Unified Theory predicts this asymmetry and has even been shown in the labs. It appears that the laws of physics favors particles very slightly over anti-particles resulting in what we see today. Some guy won a Nobel Prize for this discovery.
SO, I'm not sure who you are reading but you should know that sometimes Creationists use this kind heady stuff as "proof" when it has been settled by science for a long time. Examples include the kinds of ting you describe here as well as supposed dinosaur and human footprints embedded in ancient mud beds. This silly foorprint thing has been soundly disproved by science here) yet the Creationists still use the examples to "wow" less-educated people who do not understand the science.
In short, they lie through their teeth which is why I despise them so.
I have Hawking's book, too. Hawking says "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous." 
I'm reading that next if I ever finish this one.
I'm reading that next if I ever finish this one.quote:Originally posted by dialectic.:
Why didn't God just give the wasp spinnerets?
What a practical joker.
I hope God has a sense of humor. If not, I'm in serious trouble!
Same here, autumn. I learn best through humor. Sometimes it's the straw that broke the camel's back when I finally get it and it's one of those "laugh or cry" instances, but humor just the same. If God doesn't have a sense of humor, how would we explain an ostrich or a platypus or Al Gore? JK!
quote:"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous."
And I happen to agree. The odds of me finding a woman who would put up with my silly butt for as long as she has is equally impossible.
But here we are.
"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty - Stephen Hawking"
Who's there to say that there is just "one" universe? As time as progressed mankind has learned Earth isn't the only planet. Our sun is just a somewhat average small-medium sun, surrounded by billions of other suns, residing in a galaxy in turn surrounded by billions of other galaxies. Just because we do not currently posses the technology to peer outside our universe, does not mean there are not others setting right outside. I've got to say the odds of life existing in other places is very likely.
One day I think mankind will be looking at the Universe like we look at Galaxies today. There is a very good probability that universes exist similar to ours. Others that never cooled down enough for atoms to form. Possibly even others that are no bigger than an atom. A Multiverse of universes could potentially be around us, even lurking right under our noses literally.
Whether your a creationist or evolutionist, take a read at the works of Michio Kaku. Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds are both a great read. He does an excellent job explaining difficult physics to even the very non science buffs. Also in a matter as not to offend.
One day I think mankind will be looking at the Universe like we look at Galaxies today. There is a very good probability that universes exist similar to ours. Others that never cooled down enough for atoms to form. Possibly even others that are no bigger than an atom. A Multiverse of universes could potentially be around us, even lurking right under our noses literally.
Whether your a creationist or evolutionist, take a read at the works of Michio Kaku. Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds are both a great read. He does an excellent job explaining difficult physics to even the very non science buffs. Also in a matter as not to offend.
quote:Who's there to say that there is just "one" universe? As time as progressed mankind has learned Earth isn't the only planet.
If scientists have their way, we will create "universes" in a lab this summer when they switch on the Large Hadron Collider. Or perhaps destroy it.
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
The chance that all the physical constants (speed of light, strength of nuclear forces, force of gravity, principles of electromagnetism, etc.) would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining life is almost infinitesimal. Yet here we are. That points me to an intelligent designer.
This is known as "the anthropic principle." The ID people use the argument as proof of a designer, but the scientific rebuttal goes something like this (I will use an analogy):
If you place 100 coins in a box and shake the box, after a huge number of tries, all 100 coins will be found heads up. In other words, given an infinite amount of possibilities, eventually one of those rare universes where the conditions are appropriate for life will spring up. It didn't happen by design, it happened by shaking the box a huge number of times until the proper conditions arose. There are likely an infinite number of universes where the conditions were not right for life. We happen to find ourselves in one of those rare instances where the conditions were right.
Or, if you don't want to accept parallel universes, you can apply the same explanation to a single universe; where it is born, evolves, and then contracts back unto itself (the big crunch). Each time the universe is "born" the laws of physics are different. 99.999+% of the times the conditions will not be stable enough for stars, planets, protons, electrons, and life. We happen to exist in a one of the rare "cycles" where the conditions were right -- perhaps 1 in 10^50.
SittinPurdy
You have given answers to questions which preclude asking another question.
What is your absolute proof?
You have given answers to questions which preclude asking another question.
What is your absolute proof?
quote:Originally posted by SittinPurdy:quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
The chance that all the physical constants (speed of light, strength of nuclear forces, force of gravity, principles of electromagnetism, etc.) would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining life is almost infinitesimal. Yet here we are. That points me to an intelligent designer.
This is known as "the anthropic principle." The ID people use the argument as proof of a designer, but the scientific rebuttal goes something like this (I will use an analogy):
If you place 100 coins in a box and shake the box, after a huge number of tries, all 100 coins will be found heads up. In other words, given an infinite amount of possibilities, eventually one of those rare universes where the conditions are appropriate for life will spring up. It didn't happen by design, it happened by shaking the box a huge number of times until the proper conditions arose. There are likely an infinite number of universes where the conditions were not right for life. We happen to find ourselves in one of those rare instances where the conditions were right.
Or, if you don't want to accept parallel universes, you can apply the same explanation to a single universe; where it is born, evolves, and then contracts back unto itself (the big crunch). Each time the universe is "born" the laws of physics are different. 99.999+% of the times the conditions will not be stable enough for stars, planets, protons, electrons, and life. We happen to exist in a one of the rare "cycles" where the conditions were right -- perhaps 1 in 10^50.
There's a problem with that rebuttal. You have too many individual parts that have to hit exactly the right value. There is more than one box. Each box contains 100 coins of like nature or each individual part is being shaken & then you are saying they all land exactly right and simultaneously? Nope, not good enough for me. You won't be placing my money with those odds.
That's called the Joy principle...haha.
Life evolved to fit the universal constants you describe.
If gravity were .5g or 2g, we would look different, but life would still be possible. There is nothing sacred or necessary about gravity being 1g.
The Earths atmosphere is opaque to most electromagnetic radiation. Visible light (along with radio waves) may pass through, however. This EM phenomenon was not arranged so that we may see, our eyes evolved to the light available.
As for the nuclear forces, they exist where they must, and the values we measure in them are just that, measurements. If they were more or less, perhaps they would not work toward existence, but exist they must, and so they work at the values we can measure.
I agree, the universe is a complex, marvelous place, but its existence is proof of itself, nothing more. WE evolved to fit the universe, it was not designed with us in mind.
DF
If gravity were .5g or 2g, we would look different, but life would still be possible. There is nothing sacred or necessary about gravity being 1g.
The Earths atmosphere is opaque to most electromagnetic radiation. Visible light (along with radio waves) may pass through, however. This EM phenomenon was not arranged so that we may see, our eyes evolved to the light available.
As for the nuclear forces, they exist where they must, and the values we measure in them are just that, measurements. If they were more or less, perhaps they would not work toward existence, but exist they must, and so they work at the values we can measure.
I agree, the universe is a complex, marvelous place, but its existence is proof of itself, nothing more. WE evolved to fit the universe, it was not designed with us in mind.
DF
I wasn't actually talking about what it became. I was referring to how it began. There are too many components that had to be exactly in order - no less and no more - to form a stable universe capable of sustaining life.
Joy,
That's what I'm talking about, too. Considering the trillions of stars and even more countless planets, quite a few planets must be capable of life. Odds are for it.
DF
That's what I'm talking about, too. Considering the trillions of stars and even more countless planets, quite a few planets must be capable of life. Odds are for it.
DF
Here's my point...I'm saying that if you go by the odds, this universe should not exist. The fact that it does exist against all odds, points to the possibility of (dare I say it?!) a creator.
However, I hope there is life on other planets yet to be discovered, Deep, & hope we discover it in my lifetime. Wouldn't it be cool if there were a way to travel there? Maybe they will discover us & be advanced enough to have means of travel in place, which is cool as long as they are peaceable. I'm not looking for a sci-fi movie experience or anything.
However, I hope there is life on other planets yet to be discovered, Deep, & hope we discover it in my lifetime. Wouldn't it be cool if there were a way to travel there? Maybe they will discover us & be advanced enough to have means of travel in place, which is cool as long as they are peaceable. I'm not looking for a sci-fi movie experience or anything.
Joy,
I looked up Dr. Collins' statements on the universe. According to him, the universe is finely tuned to develop life.
This does not stand to reason. Of all of the planets in our own little Solar system, only one of them supports life, and incompletely so. Most of the stars in the universe exist near galactic centers, and are awash in gamma rays, subject to seismic upheaval due to multiple sun systems, and otherwise improbable places for the development of life as we know it.
For Dr. Collins' premise to be true, then we would see a universe teeming with life. We have tried to find it, and cannot. True, we don't know how much or little life is out there, but there is no reason to think the universe is predisposed to life.
DF
I looked up Dr. Collins' statements on the universe. According to him, the universe is finely tuned to develop life.
This does not stand to reason. Of all of the planets in our own little Solar system, only one of them supports life, and incompletely so. Most of the stars in the universe exist near galactic centers, and are awash in gamma rays, subject to seismic upheaval due to multiple sun systems, and otherwise improbable places for the development of life as we know it.
For Dr. Collins' premise to be true, then we would see a universe teeming with life. We have tried to find it, and cannot. True, we don't know how much or little life is out there, but there is no reason to think the universe is predisposed to life.
DF
I don't think I have read what you are stating by Dr. Collins. Although I quoted him & am partially through one of his books, that was my opinion of what I've learned overall & not based on his book alone.
From what I've read thus far of him, I think(?) he is saying a planet in the universe is capable of sustaining life & there is a possibility that other planets like our's exists. In short, he may lie closer to agreeing with you than with me.
I have to tell you, I like him. He is fair. He presents all sides and arguments. I can see why he was the head of the Human Genome Project. He's an asset to the science community & highly complimentary of them, including their ability to remain unbiased in a quest for answers.
From what I've read thus far of him, I think(?) he is saying a planet in the universe is capable of sustaining life & there is a possibility that other planets like our's exists. In short, he may lie closer to agreeing with you than with me.
I have to tell you, I like him. He is fair. He presents all sides and arguments. I can see why he was the head of the Human Genome Project. He's an asset to the science community & highly complimentary of them, including their ability to remain unbiased in a quest for answers.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Joy,
I looked up Dr. Collins' statements on the universe. According to him, the universe is finely tuned to develop life.
This does not stand to reason. Of all of the planets in our own little Solar system, only one of them supports life, and incompletely so. Most of the stars in the universe exist near galactic centers, and are awash in gamma rays, subject to seismic upheaval due to multiple sun systems, and otherwise improbable places for the development of life as we know it.
For Dr. Collins' premise to be true, then we would see a universe teeming with life. We have tried to find it, and cannot. True, we don't know how much or little life is out there, but there is no reason to think the universe is predisposed to life.
DF
DF,
I think you are missing the point. The anthropic principle (which is a well known idea this Dr. Collins is regurgitating, and I've never heard of the man) states that if the universe's laws were not such to support life in the first place, we would not be here to discuss these questions. It does not postulate that "the universe is fine tuned for life, therefore life must exist everywhere in the universe." That is a non-sequitur.
This Dr. Collins is right; if the laws of the four fundamental forces were changed even a very slight degree, life would not be possible at all -- anywhere. This is especially true if you take into account quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, which are studies of the nuclear forces. If these laws were changed, atomic nuclei would not be possible, thus matter itself would not exist. And if matter doesn't exist, planets, galaxies, and humans would not exist.
There are a few different forms of the anthropic principle (strong and weak are the major two). Hawking discusses the anthropic principle at length in a couple of his books and provides a explanation to it (though he isn't the first to provide the explanation).
The explanation is basically the one I gave in my previous post: Given enough possible universes, a universe with these proper conditions will appear at some point (especially if you accept the multi-verse idea, which says there are an infinite number of universes). We just happen to find ourselves in one of the universes that are right for life.
There is no doubt that the laws of physics are "just right" for life to exist in this universe. The question is: is our universe the only one or are there a very large number of universes? Similarly, one could ask: even if this is the only universe, does this universe have a life/death cycle? That is, does it collapse unto itself and rebirth itself with new laws of physics each time? If so, it is only a matter of "tries" before the conditions are correct for matter, planets, galaxies, and life.
So, the resolution of this question depends on whether or not this is the only universe, and if so, does this universe have a life cycle? There is no firm scientific conclusion to either question yet because there isn't enough data to make either conclusion (though I think most theoretical physicists do think there is a multiverse -- string theory, for one, says there is).
The famous double-slit experiment suggests that we can see the effects of a parallel universe.
But only if you don't' look at it.
The whole thing is beyond mind bending.
This video is kinda corny but effectively demonstrates the concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&feature=related
But only if you don't' look at it.
The whole thing is beyond mind bending.
This video is kinda corny but effectively demonstrates the concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&feature=related
Sittin,
Enjoying your posts.
There is much we don't know about the origins of the universe. Needless to say, "god dun it" is not a sufficient answer.
What if a fundamental law of existence states that existence consists of space, time, and matter? In that case, matter would be forced to exist, at whatever values are necessary.
It's pretty clear that at the origin of the universe, the battle between matter and anti-matter was fought, and what matter remains is the result of the smallish advantage matter had over anti-matter. Perhaps for every million anti-quarks, there were a million+1 quarks.
Dr. Collins is taken as saying something like "the universe is fine tuned for life, therefore life must exist everywhere in the universe", right or wrong. It's not a non-sequitur. My point precisely is that the universe is not generally suitable for life as we know it. Life is pretty rare; we have found none other than ours so far, so when Joy tells us that the universe is designed to sustain life, we must wonder.
I understand the multiverse ideas (after a fashion, as we all must), but they are unproven and may only serve as placeholders for incomplete math, after all. Restricting our observations to our own, knowable universe, we are not entitled to the parochialism that says the universe is fine-tuned to support us, however. By far, most of it is not.
DF
Enjoying your posts.
There is much we don't know about the origins of the universe. Needless to say, "god dun it" is not a sufficient answer.
What if a fundamental law of existence states that existence consists of space, time, and matter? In that case, matter would be forced to exist, at whatever values are necessary.
It's pretty clear that at the origin of the universe, the battle between matter and anti-matter was fought, and what matter remains is the result of the smallish advantage matter had over anti-matter. Perhaps for every million anti-quarks, there were a million+1 quarks.
Dr. Collins is taken as saying something like "the universe is fine tuned for life, therefore life must exist everywhere in the universe", right or wrong. It's not a non-sequitur. My point precisely is that the universe is not generally suitable for life as we know it. Life is pretty rare; we have found none other than ours so far, so when Joy tells us that the universe is designed to sustain life, we must wonder.
I understand the multiverse ideas (after a fashion, as we all must), but they are unproven and may only serve as placeholders for incomplete math, after all. Restricting our observations to our own, knowable universe, we are not entitled to the parochialism that says the universe is fine-tuned to support us, however. By far, most of it is not.
DF
quote:What if a fundamental law of existence states that existence consists of space, time, and matter? In that case, matter would be forced to exist, at whatever values are necessary.
Not sure your point, but there is no such law. A universe can exist without solid matter.
quote:Dr. Collins is taken as saying something like "the universe is fine tuned for life, therefore life must exist everywhere in the universe", right or wrong. It's not a non-sequitur.
That's not what he is saying (or at least this is not what the anthropic principle says). Where are you getting this idea?
quote:It's pretty clear that at the origin of the universe, the battle between matter and anti-matter was fought, and what matter remains is the result of the smallish advantage matter had over anti-matter. Perhaps for every million anti-quarks, there were a million+1 quarks.[quote]
Yes, but, again, that's not the point. Without the four fundamental forces being exactly as they are, there would be no quarks at all. There would be no matter or anti-matter.
[quote]Dr. Collins is taken as saying something like "the universe is fine tuned for life, therefore life must exist everywhere in the universe", right or wrong. It's not a non-sequitur.
Saying the universe has the right conditions for life says nothing about the commonality of such life. Therefore, it is a non-sequitur.
I can't speak for Collins, but the anthropic principle says nothing about the numeric prevalence of life. All it says is that the initial conditions of the universe must be such that life can form. And this universe does have perfect conditions for life (adjust the strong or weak nuclear forces in the slightest and there would be no life).
quote:I understand the multi-verse ideas (after a fashion, as we all must), but they are unproven and may only serve as placeholders for incomplete math, after all. Restricting our observations to our own, knowable universe, we are not entitled to the parochialism that says the universe is fine-tuned to support us, however. By far, most of it is not.
If you don't accept the multi-verse hypothesis or that this universe has many (perhaps infinite) life cycles, then to suggest that the conditions of this universe arose by accident is optimistic indeed. I have no problem with an atheist position, but to think that this is the one and only universe and to think that the conditions were 1 in 100000 quadrillion in rarity so that carbon based life could form is a bit of a stretch.
My opinion is that:
A) There are parallel universes and perhaps an infinite number of them. Therefore, we are not special. (I think this is likely, btw)
B) There is a God.
Of course, there could be a God even with parallel universes, but that's beside the point here.
quote:A) There are parallel universes and perhaps an infinite number of them. Therefore, we are not special. (I think this is likely, btw)
B) There is a God.
Whoah. You just finished eloquently defending your stance of multiverse with evidence-based conjectures and educated opinions. Then you make the quantum leap to the "fact" that there is a God.
You are, of course, welcome to a faith in god based on no evidence, but you can't use non-evidence as proof of god. Please explain.
If you are using the "finely tuned universe" as proof of god, then you will need to explain the abundance of gamma radiation, the purposelessness of dark energy, the bareness of life in our own solar system, the lack of radio signals indicating that we are not Alone. Heck, you even need to explain the vacuum of space. It's just not friendly at all to the formation of life.
Someone had to be the first intelligent life in the universe. We humans could be it. However, our understanding of evolution is that life gets more complicated, more "intelligent" given enough time. If life is possible in the rest of the universe, then the odds are nearly overwhelming that it will be eventually intelligent.
Sittin,
Dr. Collins is a deist, and he is paraphrased on his Wiki site as saying: Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
If the properties for life were tuned, there must have been a tuner whose intent was to make a universe capable of life. Is it reasonable to think that all of the universe exists so that life can exist only on Earth? Especially if life is the intent of the universe maker, shouldn't life therefor exist all over it?
It does not follow that an entire universe, created to support life, would only support it here, in this fashion.
It is also possible, likely even, that the values of the strong and weak nuclear forces are the result of the inevitability of matter, not the cause of it.
DF
Dr. Collins is a deist, and he is paraphrased on his Wiki site as saying: Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
If the properties for life were tuned, there must have been a tuner whose intent was to make a universe capable of life. Is it reasonable to think that all of the universe exists so that life can exist only on Earth? Especially if life is the intent of the universe maker, shouldn't life therefor exist all over it?
It does not follow that an entire universe, created to support life, would only support it here, in this fashion.
It is also possible, likely even, that the values of the strong and weak nuclear forces are the result of the inevitability of matter, not the cause of it.
DF
quote:Whoah. You just finished eloquently defending your stance of multiverse with evidence-based conjectures and educated opinions. Then you make the quantum leap to the "fact" that there is a God.
I should have made it more clear. I forgot to specify that "A" and "B" were options, and I didn't mean to imply I believed both were true. I lean more toward A than I do B.
quote:You are, of course, welcome to a faith in god based on no evidence, but you can't use non-evidence as proof of god. Please explain.
I am not trying to espouse a belief in a God. As I said above, I believe either A or B must be accepted. I don't have enough data either way to make a firm conclusion, but I lean towards A.
quote:If you are using the "finely tuned universe" as proof of god, then you will need to explain the abundance of gamma radiation, the purposelessness of dark energy, the bareness of life in our own solar system, the lack of radio signals indicating that we are not Alone.
If the laws of the two nuclear forces were changed at all, there would be no stars, no planets, and no galaxies (because the binding energy of the atomic nucleus would not hold atoms together). Most importantly, no humans or ANY life as we define it. Life would be impossible everywhere. This has nothing to do with the abundance of life or the "harshness" of outer space. It's true we are a sample of one, so it may be tempting to say "life is rare, therefore the universe is not finely tuned for life." But that reasoning is flawed for a couple of reasons.
First, we are not sure as to the abundance of life "out there." SETI has only scanned a very small number of the stars, even within our our own galaxy. There is no guarantee they are scanning the proper frequency range, though their reasoning of utilizing the hydrogen line is probably the best option given what we know (the hydrogen line is 1420.40575 MHz and is likely where an advanced civilization would broadcast). If you reason that the average galaxy has 100 billion stars and that there are over 100 billion galaxies (which is a conservative estimate and would mean we'd have to cover 10^20 stars), then you will realize we haven't even begun to reach the tip of the first atom in the tip of the iceberg. There is still debate within the scientific community whether microbial life exists locally on Mars and Titan, much less whether life exists 100 million light years away in a galaxy "far far away."
Secondly, astronomers are finding smaller and smaller extrasolar planets that are more and more earth like. I believe the total number of extrasolar planets found as of now is over 250. It's just a matter of time before these planets are found in "habitable zones" very similar to the zone earth is in here in our own solar system. When that occurs, we will see that the conditions for life are not rare at all. However, if after all of these observations and experiments, we see that even though the conditions conducive to life are common, yet there is no life found -- this would seem to run counter to the Copernican principle and put us humans in a "special place." My opinion, however, is that we will eventually find microbial life and later find intelligent life.
quote:Heck, you even need to explain the vacuum of space. It's just not friendly at all to the formation of life.
But life, as we know it, does not exist in the vacuum of space.
quote:Someone had to be the first intelligent life in the universe. We humans could be it. However, our understanding of evolution is that life gets more complicated, more "intelligent" given enough time. If life is possible in the rest of the universe, then the odds are nearly overwhelming that it will be eventually intelligent.
Actually evolution doesn't say that. There really is no "advantage" (from a survival standpoint) to the level of intelligence humans have and really no good reason for us to have it. There are other species much older than us that have nowhere near the intelligence but have managed to survive and thrive. The crocodile for instance is 200 million years old, whereas humans in current form are only between 100 and 200,000 years old. Which species is more intelligent? The point is, just because there is life does not necessarily mean life will evolve "intelligence" as humans define it.
That said, I do think that the odds are good that intelligent life is not uncommon relative to the sheer number of stars and planets that are out there. But I think "non-intelligent life" is much more common.