# whywontgodhealamputees.com

## Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: One Above All on May 18, 2010, 08:08:26 AM

Title: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 18, 2010, 08:08:26 AM
First of all, my name is Blaziken. You may call me Blaziken; Z; Blaz; Lucifer; Fallen Angel; Bringer of Light or Lightbringer

Now as we all know, some theists make the argument that life is just too unlikely for it to just have happened. In this short post I will refute it.

Instructions:
Grab a 52 card deck;
Grab another deck;
Grab 18 more decks;
Shuffle them all together.

Now the odds that you will get an ace of spades belonging to the first deck while drawing just a single card are 1/1040. Seems impossible, right?
However, if you keep drawing a card, putting it back and shuffling the deck, eventually you WILL get the ace of spades, even if it takes you an infinite amount of time

My point is: The mere fact that you say "the odds of _____" means it CAN happen on its own, no matter how unlikely it seems. Given an infinite amount of time (or a few million years), that thing WILL happen eventually
As an example I created a program for the TI-83+ which generates a random number between 1 and 1000 and if the number is 257[1] you win. It will keep generating numbers until hitting 257, no matter how long it takes. It also records how many tries it took and registers that number
At first I got it after about 1200 tries. I kept trying until I got it in only 25. Then I got it in over 3300 tries. Then I got it in two tries
So once again, no matter how unlikely something seems, the fact that you even say that the odds of it happening exist, means it CAN happen
 1 Blaziken's pokédex number, although that has nothing to do with it  &)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Anfauglir on May 18, 2010, 08:24:23 AM
So once again, no matter how unlikely something seems, the fact that you even say that the odds of it happening exist, means it CAN happen

Quite right.  Odds of winning the lottery are 14 million to one.  But it happens every week!

The example I like to use is this:

There are billions of women in the world, billions of men.  Over his lifetime, your father produced billions of sperm.  The odds of your father meeting your mother, and of the one particular sperm actually fertilising your mothers egg, are trillions to one.  But you exist.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Dominic on May 18, 2010, 08:32:09 AM

The odds of self aware consciousness arising in any randomly selected universe is (let's say for argument sake) 1 in a trillion.

Now how many universes do we know of ?  Just one.  Not millions of universes till we get the right one.   Not lots of picks from the deck.   No, just one universe.  Just one pick from 20 billion decks of cards.

Rebuttal 1:

Answer: If this universe is not special then a combine harvester coming together by chance is not special.

Rebuttal 2:
Tautology.  Only in a universe where intelligent consciousness arises can we even discuss these questions.

Answer:  But it is the only universe that we know of.  The combine harvester (an analogy for life and intelligent consciousness) has come together by chance in the only universe that we know of.

Rebuttal 3:
There may be many universes.  Infinite in fact.  All with different conditions.

Answer:  Unscientific.  Untestable.  Unobservable.  As much a matter of faith as any religion.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 18, 2010, 08:35:42 AM
One universe, true. Also true is that there are more planets than we can count (at this moment). Each of those planets has a one in a trillion chance of having life in it and let's face it, there are trillions of galaxies, each with billions of planets. Life HAS happened by chance once (as far as we can be sure, although I believe there is life besides here on Earth) and it WILL happen again (if it hasn't already)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Odin on May 18, 2010, 08:36:38 AM
Blaz,

I like better the analogy of the number of deals in a deck of 52 cards.  There are something like 8.065......x 10^67 deals in a deck of 52 cards, when all 52 are dealt.

Based on the definition of a miracle, each shuffled deal is a miracle.

It would take this to deal all the possible deals.

1 trillion worlds, each with 1 trillion people, each person owning 1 trillion computers, each computer dealing 1 trillion mutually exclusive deals per second, starting at the big bang 13 billion years ago.  And all that would have to exist in 197 parallel universes for all the deals to have been dealt.

So, low probability is not an issue.  It happens every day, millions of times on Earth, when bridge hands are dealt.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Anfauglir on May 18, 2010, 08:55:27 AM

The odds of self aware consciousness arising in any randomly selected universe is (let's say for argument sake) 1 in a trillion.

Now how many universes do we know of ?  Just one.  Not millions of universes till we get the right one.   Not lots of picks from the deck.   No, just one universe.  Just one pick from 20 billion decks of cards.

And Dominic, as I said, there is only one of YOU.  One pick from billions of sperm and parent combinations.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Mooby on May 18, 2010, 04:15:46 PM
The probability of something that has already happened is always 100%, because there is a 0% chance of history changing.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 18, 2010, 04:20:13 PM
The probability of something that has already happened is always 100%, because there is a 0% chance of history changing.

We don't know if time travel is possible or if there's free will yet so you can't know that
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: mrbiscoop on May 18, 2010, 04:45:23 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Anfauglir on May 19, 2010, 12:56:51 AM
The probability of something that has already happened is always 100%, because there is a 0% chance of history changing.

Exactly.  Just like the universe being here!
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: sammylama on May 19, 2010, 05:44:55 PM
The probability of something that has already happened is always 100%, because there is a 0% chance of history changing.

Yes!  Whenever something "weird" happens and someone asks me, "What are the odds of that happening?" I say, "Oh, about 100 percent."  Why?  Because it did happen.  (And yes, I'm aware that percentage points are different than "odds," but the point is the same.)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Positiveaob on May 24, 2010, 06:31:46 PM

The odds of self aware consciousness arising in any randomly selected universe is (let's say for argument sake) 1 in a trillion.

Now how many universes do we know of ?  Just one.  Not millions of universes till we get the right one.   Not lots of picks from the deck.   No, just one universe.  Just one pick from 20 billion decks of cards.

No.  There are are trillions (more likely trillions of trillions) of stars with many many times more planets.  The odds of just the right setting happening for the building blocks of life to come together in just the right environment and given the process of natural selection and genetic drift, to arrive at what we have now...probably much less.  There are probably many trillions of places and times in the universe where this almost took place.  those of us who were on the time and planet with just the right circumstances are of course going to feel like luck couldn't have explained it.  Just like those who win the lottery feel like more than coincidence is involved, ignoring all the millions of losing tickets.

Dominic you've been on this site for some time now.  Do you honestly believe those "rebuttals" you listed are what non-believers think?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 25, 2010, 12:20:53 AM
I would say that the odds INCREASE because in certain systems things do not react randomly.  Someone once used the analogy of chemistry and pointed out that it works because there are rules to it.  If it was just a matter of tossing ingredients into a box and shaking it till a kitten popped out then that would be a different story.'

True, a surprising number of events happened that allowed for us to evolve as we did, but it pays to remember that had we NOT evolved, then it's just as possible something else would have.  In a few million years we'll probably be gone and something else will be in our place.  Sentient Cuttlefish maybe? Who knows, they'll probably have the same argument about probability, only tailored to them.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Gordon Freeman on May 25, 2010, 01:37:51 AM
I don't like statistics used in the way to count probability to something. It's just guessing. Counting percentages for something to happen? Well, what's the percentage that a celestial rock will collide with Earth? But what's the percentage that it will not collide with earth? During what period? Blah, blah, blah...

I watched a documentary about infinity. According to those scientists (I can't name them now) there is a probability that there is the same me somewhere who is exactly like me, or it's me who can fly, it's me who is poor or successful... If we count a probability taking an infinity into account (who can say that there is no infinity or that there is?) there is a probability for many things. There is even a probability for god or gods.

Statistics and probability arguments fail many times. I see creationists use them to support their claims. That's why I pay a little attention to statistics arguments for or against something.

But I generally agree with Baziken.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: kcrady on May 25, 2010, 02:39:25 AM
The odds of self aware consciousness arising in any randomly selected universe is (let's say for argument sake) 1 in a trillion.

Two things here:

1) No one, least of all scientists, is proposing that a self-aware consciousness arose by a feat of random chance, like a monkey banging on a piano just happening to play a perfect Mozart concerto.

2) If the odds of ordinary self aware consciousness arising in a randomly selected universe is 1 in a trillion, what are the odds of an omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely complex self-aware consciousness just happening somewhere?

1. Richard Dawkins has a wonderful analogy for the evolutionary process: "Climbing Mt. Improbable."  Imagine you're standing at the base of an enormous, sheer cliff.  No matter how hard you try, you can't leap up there, and there are no handholds.  So you decide that only a God, or maybe a superhero could ever hope to reach the summit of Mt. Improbable.  In like manner, the idea of a self aware intelligence, or even a fully-developed eukaryotic cell just falling together by random chance is such a high improbability cliff that it cannot be scaled.

But if, instead of trying to leap to the top in one go, you walk around the back, you'll find that behind the cliff there's a long, gentle slope you can walk up easily.  Thus, without any divine magic or super powers, or even any mountain-climbing skills, you can walk right up to the top of Mt. Improbable.  In like manner, through a long process of evolution by natural selection, small, slightly-improbable steps (mutations) that "work" (at the job of perpetuating themselves) are able to survive, reproduce, and repeat the process with the next step until the Mt. Improbable of self aware intelligence is reached.  It doesn't even take a full-blown modern cell to start, just a kludge of chemicals inside a lipid bubble (like what you see if you try to mix oil with water) in an environment where the chemicals can start an autocatalytic reaction.  As soon as you've got something surviving and reproducing, the non-random ratchet of natural selection kicks in, and evolution is off to the races.

2. Any god or goddess is far more complex--and thus more improbable--than the first protocell, the Boeing 747 made by a tornado sweeping through a junkyard, or the most amazing human being who ever lived.  So, before you start hunting the speck of improbability in our world view, better get the plank of improbability out of yours first.

Now how many universes do we know of ?  Just one.  Not millions of universes till we get the right one.  Not lots of picks from the deck.   No, just one universe.  Just one pick from 20 billion decks of cards.

But we don't know there's just one Cosmos, either.  One of the multiverse cosmologies could be right.  Furthermore, virtually all of this Cosmos is barren of life.  Earth is statistical noise.  But let's take your one in a trillion odds.  There's about 100 billion to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way.  Let's take the lower number.  There's about 100 billion galaxies of comparable size (some smaller, some larger) within the extent of the Cosmos that we can see.  There could be more over the Cosmic horizon.[1]  There is some evidence that objects that we can see are being gravitationally pulled toward objects we can't see.  The unseen objects would be within the Cosmic horizon of the objects they're attracting, but not ours, since we are further away.  This is called "Dark Flow."

So, I think we would have a solid basis for thinking that the Cosmos is bigger than what we can see, but let's take the conservative figure of 100 billion galaxies.  100 billion galaxies x 100 billion stars in each = 10,000 billion, or 10 trillion chances for life.  Given your proposed one in a trillion probability, this means the "ace" of life is going to come up about ten times.  And this doesn't count multiple tries per star, when it probably should.  Each star has multiple planets and moons, and a Cosmic age of about 14 billion years.  Life on Earth started about 3.8 billion years ago, not too long after the meteors stopped falling and the surface solidified.  Such a quick start could imply the odds aren't nearly as bad as 1 in a trillion.  Since there are solar systems far older than ours, life in those systems would have had even longer to "get lucky" and start evolving.

Furthermore, we've discovered fairly recently that life can survive in surprisingly harsh environments.  Bacteria and little critters called water bears can even survive in the vacuum of space.  So, life may not even require an Earth-like world to get started, which could give it many more chances.  At any rate, even with your exaggerated probability number, we would expect at least ten planets with self aware intelligent life emerging randomly.  And guess what: we are one!

Rebuttal 1:

Answer: If this universe is not special then a combine harvester coming together by chance is not special.

The Boeing 747 (or Combine) Argument bites you harder than it bites us, since you have to explain how an infinitely complex superduperbeing "just happened to exist."  All we need is some chain molecules in a bubble of fat.

Rebuttal 2:
Tautology.  Only in a universe where intelligent consciousness arises can we even discuss these questions.

Answer:  But it is the only universe that we know of.  The combine harvester (an analogy for life and intelligent consciousness) has come together by chance in the only universe that we know of.

Combine harvesters don't reproduce, and they don't have ancestors.  That means evolution by natural selection doesn't apply to them as it does to living beings.

Quote
If watches could but tiny watchlings breed,
Their offspring on minutest clocksprings feed,
And win their loves by telling truest time,
Of watchmakers then, we would have no need.

--Blake Stacey

Rebuttal 3:
There may be many universes.  Infinite in fact.  All with different conditions.

Answer:  Unscientific.  Untestable.  Unobservable.  As much a matter of faith as any religion.

If stated as a certainty without any evidence, yes.  But then, as I've already shown, this Cosmos is big enough.  You have to move the goalposts by an order of magnitude before we're even down to a probability of 1 in 1 for life to emerge randomly.  And again: no matter how much you move the goalposts, they move further for you, because you're asserting that an infinitely complex form of self aware life "just happens to exist."

We, at least, have a theory (evolution by natural selection) supported by literal mountains of evidence, that shows us how to climb to the top of Mt. Improbable.  You have no explanation at all for the emergence of self aware life, except to posit an infinite amount of it somewhere else.  You can't plug a hole in understanding with an infinitely larger hole.
 1 As the Cosmos expands, the relative recession velocity of the furthest objects can exceed the speed of light, so that light from there could never reach us, and vice versa.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 25, 2010, 10:41:37 PM

I watched a documentary about infinity. According to those scientists (I can't name them now) there is a probability that there is the same me somewhere who is exactly like me, or it's me who can fly, it's me who is poor or successful... If we count a probability taking an infinity into account (who can say that there is no infinity or that there is?) there is a probability for many things. There is even a probability for god or gods.

The usual example of improbably statistics is the million monkeys hitting typewriters example.  Given a million monkeys and the statistical odds of them hitting the right letters in the exact right combination to type the complete works of William Shakespear seem utterly impossible. [1]

If you were to increase the number from a million to 'infinite' then suddenly not only is it possible, but you could say that it is inconceivable that it WOULDN'T happen.  An infinite amount of monkeys would not only produce Shakespear, but also every other work of litterature ever made, that ever will be made.  This, of course makes the whole intellectual excercise useless.  If we use the infinite example then there will have developed exact duplicates of us somewhere at sometime that read the same stuff on a screen.  We know this because it's possible.  Since it's possible then that means that in the infinite array of possibility that means it will have happened.

It is only the IMPOSSIBLE that can't happen in an infinite array of options.  Is it 'possible' that a human civilization (exactly like ours), along with cars, tvs, and boats developed on the surface of a sun?  No, for a number of obvious reasons.  It may be possible for something else to develop, but not 'us'.

This begs two obvious questions, first, *is* there an infinity of variety?  For example are we in a multiverse with each universe that sits next to another, like bubbles of foam?  Does our universe 'restart' every so often?  Are there other dimensions that exist in parallel with us?  These sorts of things can give rise to the possibility of an infinite, obviously we don't know yet though.

The second question, that of the diety.  Firstly, it helps to define what 'god' is.  To our cavemen ancestors, we're gods.  We control the elements, we fly through the air and live a really long time.  Once we define that elusive 'god' then we can determine whether or not it falls within the realm of possible or impossible.  In the infinite, there is probably a YOU with super powers of some sort, but that doesn't make him a god, or does it?
 1 If you take a small sampling then mostly you just get keyboard destruction, and a lot of monkey pee.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Gordon Freeman on May 26, 2010, 03:28:08 PM
^^ I have no other option but to agree with you. I don't have a final thought regarding infinity (it's not crucial for my understanding of the world). Like you pointed out, infinity raises many questions and most of them don't have a solid answer. I don't spend time answering tough questions like those regarding infinity, for instance. I don't say that we shouldn't pursue them, I just say that I don't pursue them. There are, let's say, intellectually more superior people than me who do that, and since some of tough questions are not significant for my understanding, I don't break my head with them.
Similar is with statistics. Statistics can support many claims regardless of truth. So, let's talk about real thing. That's my opinion about statistics.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: nogodsforme on May 26, 2010, 03:53:46 PM
This is such a good thread! I have to remember the part about a magical superperson's existence being even more improbable than a regular ordinary person's existence....especially if such a being supposedly needs nothing to create it!

That is the same as saying that god is created out of nothing. Like, huh? Evolution says that you have to start with something to get something else. It is the creationists who say you can get something (god) from nothing.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 27, 2010, 05:27:07 PM
I think the whole issue of probability is a red herring. It's not 'what are the odds that you'll pull the Ace of Spades', it's 'what are the odds you'll pull the Ace of Mirrored Kaleidoscopes'.

There's no reason I can think of that life should even be a possibility if you only consider a strict materialist causality. It's not in the cards at all. Only because we can sit here and reverse engineer the actuality of living consciousness being realized can we imagine that such a thing is the result of groupings of inert matter.

I don't care how long a string of pearls you have, or how varied the pearls are on them, the only way that some arrangement of them would suddenly begin to make copies of itself or begin to want, with all it's 'heart', to survive is if that potential was an inherent property of the pearls themselves, and string of pearls, and piles of strings of pearls.

I think that's exactly the case. Atoms aren't pearls. They aren't necessarily sentient either but they carry sentience. How can you deny it? We are sentient and we are made of nothing but atoms. Atoms electronically carry information, energy, visible light, chemical substance, molecular order - from the inside. I don't think this is a theistic perspective, since the idea of a God deciding to create these laws of life and consciousness doesn't explain anything at all, and just moves the first cause to pre-theism.

So, random? Sure. Random arrangements of matter - but random appearances of phenomenon which fundamentally redefine the cosmos? Hm. I'm skeptical.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: shnozzola on May 27, 2010, 07:41:44 PM
I disagree, Immed.  I think the positive and negative charges that pretty much rule everything from anions and cations in plant roots and soil, to male and female animals,  to protons and electrons, very easily explain the matter of the universe and how life can develop.  I love Kcrady’s  “kludge of chemicals inside a lipid bubble” and I think it’s right on.  Time is the thing that people don’t give credit to.

I personally think the universe is teeming with life, from amoeba’s being snuffed out right now by a star going nova, to vastly intelligent tree like things, to talking sand, to wars on other worlds that totally annihilate life on  those worlds.  You name it – it’s going on.  With the size and time involved, it is one big experiment that is totally going bonkers. (on it’s own – which is actually far more cool than a god doing it)

Lets see – out of 9 planets (you go Pluto)and a sun, we have 10% of the solar system planets with life, and maybe mars and venus both have had life before.  Not bad odds, from the little we really know.  I vote for teeming – but hey, I could be wrong.  All the universe and life may only exist based on carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and a temperature that we can survive at on this one little planet.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 27, 2010, 08:55:05 PM
I personally think the universe is teeming with life, from amoeba’s being snuffed out right now by a star going nova, to vastly intelligent tree like things, to talking sand, to wars on other worlds that totally annihilate life on  those worlds.  You name it – it’s going on.
I agree completely. I just don't think that life could ever had developed had the potential for life not been built in to the universe. Otherwise, how many pearls would you need to string before they start remembering the order they're in and reproducing.

The fact that life is a relatively ordinary phenomenon in the universe doesn't explain how mathematics could possibly make it inevitable. The likelihood of an amoeba existing seems just as likely as Cthulhu and the Elder Gods autopoesisizing out of a bag of sand, given enough time.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: RaymondKHessel on May 27, 2010, 08:57:08 PM
The likelihood of an amoeba existing seems just as likely as Cthulhu and the Elder Gods autopoesisizing out of a bag of sand, given enough time.

Um... It does?

Why?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 27, 2010, 09:07:08 PM
The likelihood of an amoeba existing seems just as likely as Cthulhu and the Elder Gods autopoesisizing out of a bag of sand, given enough time.

Um... It does?

Why?

If through the course of blind duration, the forces of randomness alone cause protons to turn into atoms, atoms to molecules, and molecules to living, self-replicating cells, then why not sand to polysandharides to Evil Godcells?

What mathematical principle makes amoebas more likely than Cthulhu to come out of inanimate, inorganic matter?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 27, 2010, 09:11:59 PM
Quote
If through the course of blind duration, the forces of randomness alone cause protons to turn into atoms, atoms to molecules, and molecules to living, self-replicating cells, then why not sand to polysandharides to Evil Godcells?

Who has ever claimed this, other than creationists?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: RaymondKHessel on May 27, 2010, 09:20:33 PM
If through the course of blind duration, the forces of randomness alone cause protons to turn into atoms, atoms to molecules, and molecules to living, self-replicating cells, then why not sand to polysandharides to Evil Godcells?

I was under the impression that it was because science as we know it doesn't work that way, and because H.P. Lovecraft was a fiction writer that just made s**t up.

I'm not trying to be snide or whatever, and I mean no disrespect... But I guess I'm not seeing the validity of the comparison.

I'm also not familiar with "forces of randomness". What are those?

What mathematical principle makes amoebas more likely than Cthulhu to come out of inanimate, inorganic matter?

I don't know. I suck at math. I'm more a History/Language Arts kinda guy. But in my limited understanding of biology, amoebas are simpler in their make up than specific and fictional tentacle-faced demon god things.

Is this a philosophical or metaphorical question? Maybe that's why I'm not really getting it? :shrug

I got the impression that you're actually speaking literally... Like, why do trees grow fruit and not monkey wrenches... But... Phew. I don't know man. I don't think I can follow you down that bunny trail if that's the case. Unless you think the point is important enough that you're willing to hold my hand through it? I mean, I'm game, if you think it's worth your time... Though I'd humbly suggest that things would move faster if the answers didn't take the form of questions, because that sort of thing tends to confuse me even more when I'm not really clear on the original premise.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: William on May 27, 2010, 10:13:02 PM
So once again, no matter how unlikely something seems, the fact that you even say that the odds of it happening exist, means it CAN happen

Although this is true in statistics, it is not necessary to explain how life evolved - and is too easily hijacked by creationists to their advantage (dealing with gullible audiences) by pointing to multiple examples of "irreducible complexity".

Molecular "life" emerged and evolved through conditional probabilities - which are far lower than conventional probabilities of complexity (final product) happening by random chance.

Each incremental step has only a minimal probability hurdle to overcome.  It did not need one highly improbable event to get a lot of molecules just right by accident or chance.  It took simple highly probable (even spontaneous) molecular polymerization processes to carry on routinely as they do until one auto-catalytic polymer dominated the others in acquisition of shared raw materials, and then simply went on improving one little easy step at a time for billions of years.

Coming at the problem from the angle of conditional probabilities negates the entire "improbability of life argument" pushed by creationists.  There is no need to fight them on their chosen ground.  ;)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: xphobe on May 27, 2010, 11:54:02 PM
Rebuttal 3:
There may be many universes.  Infinite in fact.  All with different conditions.

Answer:  Unscientific.  Untestable.  Unobservable.  As much a matter of faith as any religion.

Not exactly: It doesn't take faith to say "there may be".  Religions invariably claim "there is".
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 01:36:14 AM
So, random? Sure. Random arrangements of matter - but random appearances of phenomenon which fundamentally redefine the cosmos? Hm. I'm skeptical.

"Redefine the cosmos"? I don't even know what you mean by this but:

If it can happen, given an infinite (or really big) amount of time, it WILL happen
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: kcrady on May 28, 2010, 03:01:56 AM
I think the whole issue of probability is a red herring. It's not 'what are the odds that you'll pull the Ace of Spades', it's 'what are the odds you'll pull the Ace of Mirrored Kaleidoscopes'.

There's no reason I can think of that life should even be a possibility if you only consider a strict materialist causality. It's not in the cards at all.

What else do you suggest?  What evidence (apart from your assertion that it's necessary for life) do you have for its existence?

Life self-evidently exists.  We've drawn the Ace of Mirrored Kaleidoscopes from the deck and placed it face up on the table in front of us.  How can you say the AoMK was not "in the cards?"  There is a great deal of evidence that life and consciousness are matter/energy phenomena, and no credible evidence (that I know of) that "spirit" or "pixie dust" or some other non-energy energy or non-material stuff is either necessary or present.  To test the claim that your consciousness is a neuro-chemical phenomenon, you can simply sit down with a bottle of Scotch--a perfectly mundane chemical fluid--and start drinking.  I am quite confident that sooner rather than later your consciousness will be rather profoundly affected.  How is this possible if consciousness is something other than matter/energy?

Only because we can sit here and reverse engineer the actuality of living consciousness being realized can we imagine that such a thing is the result of groupings of inert matter.

I don't get this.  "Only because we can sit here and reverse engineer the actuality of an automobile engine being realized can we imagine that such a thing is the result of groupings of inert parts."  Do you think there must be some metaphysical essence of engine-ness in order to make it possible for a collection of chunks of metal, rubber, and plastic to turn gasoline into kinetic energy?

I don't care how long a string of pearls you have, or how varied the pearls are on them, the only way that some arrangement of them would suddenly begin to make copies of itself or begin to want, with all it's 'heart', to survive is if that potential was an inherent property of the pearls themselves, and string of pearls, and piles of strings of pearls.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.  Sure, sub-atomic particles have certain properties that give them the potential to be organized into an incredibly complex entity called "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart."  Are you saying that such a thing is only possible if every particle has some "inherent property of Mozart-ness" within it?

I think that's exactly the case. Atoms aren't pearls. They aren't necessarily sentient either but they carry sentience. How can you deny it? We are sentient and we are made of nothing but atoms. Atoms electronically carry information, energy, visible light, chemical substance, molecular order - from the inside. I don't think this is a theistic perspective, since the idea of a God deciding to create these laws of life and consciousness doesn't explain anything at all, and just moves the first cause to pre-theism.

I'm not sure of the precise boundaries of your disagreement with "materialism" here.  Are you suggesting something like this (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1474.msg28009#msg28009)?  The link goes to a proposed model I wrote in another thread arguing for a "consciousness all the way down/all the way up" way of looking at Universe that could lead to a concept of "God" without supernaturalism.

So, random? Sure. Random arrangements of matter - but random appearances of phenomenon which fundamentally redefine the cosmos? Hm. I'm skeptical.

The "random" element in evolution is vastly overstated in the popular "understanding" of the theory.  Mutations and copying errors in the genes are random, but which organisms survive and reproduce is not.  Natural selection is not any more random than artificial selection (human breeding, e.g. breeding original wolf-type "dog" stock into Chihuahuas and St. Bernards.).  The difference is that in natural selection it is the integration of all environmental conditions (climate, predators, prey, competitors for the same food, etc.) that determines which organisms are most likely to succeed at survival and reproduction, rather than a human breeder.  Analogy: If you pour ping pong balls over an open, empty egg carton, ping pong balls will eventually nest in the pits in the carton.  Even though the motion of the ping pong balls is basically random, the result is a non-random array of 12 ping pong balls arranged 6 x 2.  It's the shape of the egg carton that provides a non-random arrangement of ping pong balls within it.  Likewise, it's the conditions of a given environment that create niches for some creatures, and drive others to extinction.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on May 28, 2010, 05:08:28 AM
randomness is a purely mathematical concept.

It is possible that every event that occurs/has occurred/will occur  in the universe can be determined by a set of laws.

So, maybe,  mutations are not random in the pure sense but are only following rules more fundamental then those that have been discovered in nuclear physics.

How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?

Lottery draws are a very very good approximation of randomness at a human level but there are still physical laws in place.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 06:46:55 AM
"Redefine the cosmos"? I don't even know what you mean by this but:
Redefine the cosmos, as in, if you've got a universe of clouds of inanimate debris which has all the possibility and potential of dust on the moon or a sea of ball bearings (bb's btw...little trivia break there), but then suddenly you've got a molecule that's replicating itself and creating other complex molecules, then your cosmos is no longer what it was before life emerges - the cosmos, and it's possibilities have been redefined.

Quote
If it can happen, given an infinite (or really big) amount of time, it WILL happen

Cool. I look forward to Cthulhu manifesting out of a 50 gallon drum of pingpong balls in the far future.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 06:49:07 AM
How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?

Yes.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 07:03:38 AM
How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?
Yes.

Is this a reading error on your part, or are you just trolling/stonewalling now?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 07:32:31 AM
What else do you suggest?  What evidence (apart from your assertion that it's necessary for life) do you have for its existence?
I suggest that life is an irreducible phenomenon, for which the possibility exists in certain organic molecules a priori.The potential for life has always existed under the proper conditions. Life itself did not need to 'evolve', but rather the conditions for it's evolution had to be present.

Evidence? I just have logic that says you can only make life out of very specific ingredients so that randomly we should observe life showing up elsewhere in the universe. Galaxies. Buckets of nails. If it's random, why just organic molecules turn into cells?

Quote
Life self-evidently exists.  We've drawn the Ace of Mirrored Kaleidoscopes from the deck and placed it face up on the table in front of us.  How can you say the AoMK was not "in the cards?"
That's what I'm saying. All the draws from all decks in the world won't help you pull the AoMK unless it's already in one of the decks to begin with.

Quote
There is a great deal of evidence that life and consciousness are matter/energy phenomena, and no credible evidence (that I know of) that "spirit" or "pixie dust" or some other non-energy energy or non-material stuff is either necessary or present.
Life and consciousness is a matter/energy phenomenon. From the exterior. From the interior, as we ourselves are evidence, it's a meaning/feeling phenomenon. They are the same coin. Two different sides.

Quote
To test the claim that your consciousness is a neuro-chemical phenomenon, you can simply sit down with a bottle of Scotch--a perfectly mundane chemical fluid--and start drinking.  I am quite confident that sooner rather than later your consciousness will be rather profoundly affected.  How is this possible if consciousness is something other than matter/energy?
Most definitely. (see above). If consciousness was ONLY matter/energy then scotch wouldn't exist because there's no nutritional point in consuming the distilled fluids of spoiled grains if it didn't cause you to feel something.

Quote
I don't get this.  "Only because we can sit here and reverse engineer the actuality of an automobile engine being realized can we imagine that such a thing is the result of groupings of inert parts."  Do you think there must be some metaphysical essence of engine-ness in order to make it possible for a collection of chunks of metal, rubber, and plastic to turn gasoline into kinetic energy?
I might if I myself was an engine and was contemplating my origins.

Quote
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.  Sure, sub-atomic particles have certain properties that give them the potential to be organized into an incredibly complex entity called "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart."  Are you saying that such a thing is only possible if every particle has some "inherent property of Mozart-ness" within it?
The particle doesn't have to make Mozart, it just has to make organic molecules. The organic molecules have to be able to make cells, the cells have to precipitate organisms, organisms to animals, mammals, primates, homo sapiens, homo sapiens with exceptional atypical neurologies. Mozart is an interior phenomenon, at this point, a celebrity-archetype in our Western European historical schema, but in his life, we presume, he was a sentient being who inhabited/sourced from an exceptional brain and whose identity intersected with the zeitgeist in a particularly memorable and effective way.

Mozart's identical twin today might be working at WalMart and may never have the opportunities that Mozart had. Different times, different conditions.

Quote
I'm not sure of the precise boundaries of your disagreement with "materialism" here.  Are you suggesting something like this (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1474.msg28009#msg28009)?  The link goes to a proposed model I wrote in another thread arguing for a "consciousness all the way down/all the way up" way of looking at Universe that could lead to a concept of "God" without supernaturalism.
I think it's still an objective model of consciousness which leaves out the most important parts. Feeling, seeing, thinking, valuing. I like the part about "The electron could be viewed as having an extremely low level of consciousness." and that's precisely what I'm saying although it's pretty hard to speculate on the interiority of an electron, however the visible spectrum seems like it could be fairly isomorphic to that. It's beauty and order on the inside, whizzing particle/wave thing on the outside. I'm in agreement that supernaturalism is unnecessary but I see consciousness as infra/ultra to material.

Quote
Analogy: If you pour ping pong balls over an open, empty egg carton, ping pong balls will eventually nest in the pits in the carton.  Even though the motion of the ping pong balls is basically random, the result is a non-random array of 12 ping pong balls arranged 6 x 2.  It's the shape of the egg carton that provides a non-random arrangement of ping pong balls within it.  Likewise, it's the conditions of a given environment that create niches for some creatures, and drive others to extinction.
That's a great analogy. If taken back to the dawn of life though, it supports my point of the need for a priori egg cartons for self-replication, organization, and sentience.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 07:36:49 AM
Cool. I look forward to Cthulhu manifesting out of a 50 gallon drum of pingpong balls in the far future.

That can't happen since the odds of that happening are 0

And you're comparing the appearance of a fictional character from stuff that it's (supposedly) not made of to the odds of life appearing from stuff that it IS made of
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 07:39:36 AM
But I guess I'm not seeing the validity of the comparison.
Yes. You're not seeing the validity of the comparison.   :)

Quote
I'm also not familiar with "forces of randomness". What are those?
Ok, 'implications of randomness'.

What mathematical principle makes amoebas more likely than Cthulhu to come out of inanimate, inorganic matter?

Quote
Like, why do trees grow fruit and not monkey wrenches...
Yeah, I'm just pointing out that there is a reason that there's no wrench trees which pure randomness and probability doesn't explain. The cosmos is order. Why pretend random chaos is the only possible source of order?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 07:47:55 AM
That can't happen since the odds of that happening are 0
What were the odds of life happening before life happened? Why wouldn't it be 0?

Quote
And you're comparing the appearance of a fictional character from stuff that it's (supposedly) not made of to the odds of life appearing from stuff that it IS made of
I'm comparing the odds of sentient life springing from a kind of inanimate matter to the odds of any kind of sentient life springing from any kind of inanimate matter to reveal how improbably it really would be.

It's easy to see life and say 'it must have developed this way', but if you go back to the beginning and drop all of your assumptions about what happens, you can see that randomness alone doesn't create order. Randomness is part of order, but order is not part of randomness.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 07:51:16 AM
Ok, 'implications of randomness'.

If through the course of blind duration, the implications of randomness alone cause protons to turn into atoms, atoms to molecules, and molecules to living, self-replicating cells, then why not sand to polysandharides to Evil Godcells?

The substitution doesn't make sense when actually used, does it?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Dragnet on May 28, 2010, 07:51:22 AM
Evidence? I just have logic that says you can only make life out of very specific ingredients so that randomly we should observe life showing up elsewhere in the universe. Galaxies. Buckets of nails. If it's random, why just organic molecules turn into cells?

Neither logic nor science say that.
Science states that life as we have been able to observe so far was constructed out of available materials. NOTHING is preventing life from forming out of different materials.
You are not using logic. You are using contrary position.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 07:51:36 AM
How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?
Yes.

Is this a reading error on your part, or are you just trolling/stonewalling now?

I have never trolled or stonewalled.

I'm just agreeing with him. Yes. 'How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?', as in, how can you presume that life has any odds whatsoever of emerging if you don't know allow the pre-existence of underlying factors to support life?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Dragnet on May 28, 2010, 07:53:12 AM
Who is arguing that conditions did not exist prior to life emerging?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 07:56:07 AM
Neither logic nor science say that.
Science states that life as we have been able to observe so far was constructed out of available materials. NOTHING is preventing life from forming out of different materials.
You are not using logic. You are using contrary position.
No, I'm mocking the position that position. I think it should be obvious that there is something which prevents life from emerging out of different materials. Maybe not every possible material, but surely most materials don't have the potential to assemble themselves into a living organism, right?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 07:56:30 AM
I have never trolled or stonewalled.

I'm just agreeing with him. Yes. 'How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?', as in, how can you presume that life has any odds whatsoever of emerging if you don't know allow the pre-existence of underlying factors to support life?

Immediacracy, your response to relativetruth didn't answer his question.  It wasn't a yes-or-no question.  If you meant to say "you're right, I can't" - then that would have answered his question.  "Yes" doesn't do it.  Nex ttime, why not give an answer that addresses the question actually being asked, instead of giving an answer that addresses a question that was not being asked?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 07:58:10 AM
Who is arguing that conditions did not exist prior to life emerging?

If you have life potentiating conditions, who needs randomness? Why have this thread? The whole OP is to prove that odds aren't as long as you might think and that it's not so outrageous to claim the emergence of life through randomness alone.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 07:58:40 AM
Quote
If through the course of blind duration, the forces of randomness alone cause protons to turn into atoms, atoms to molecules, and molecules to living, self-replicating cells, then why not sand to polysandharides to Evil Godcells?

Who has ever claimed this, other than creationists?

This should be easy to answer, Immediacracy.  From who did you hear this characterization?

EDIT:  Looking at your last post, it seems you think that the OP said this.  Yet, I can't find such an assertion from the OP, nor does the OP describe that to which you refer.  Do you misunderstand the OP, or are you lying about it?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:02:22 AM
Immediacracy, your response to relativetruth didn't answer his question.  It wasn't a yes-or-no question.  If you meant to say "you're right, I can't" - then that would have answered his question.  "Yes" doesn't do it.  Nex ttime, why not give an answer that addresses the question actually being asked, instead of giving an answer that addresses a question that was not being asked?
He wasn't asking me a question as far as I know. I just saw his comment on the thread and wanted to give him props. Next time, why don't you read who they asked before you accuse me of not answering.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Do you misunderstand the OP, or are you lying about it?
Are you perpetrating a loaded question fallacy, or are you a pseudoskeptic?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 08:05:39 AM
He wasn't asking me a question as far as I know. I just saw his comment on the thread and wanted to give him props. Next time, why don't you read who they asked before you accuse me of not answering.
He didn't indicate anyone as the target for his question.  You volunteered to be that target when you pretended to answer.  If you meant to say "good question!", or "good point!", then that would have made sense as a response as well - and made it clear that you had no intention of answering the question.  "Yes" made no sense in context.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 08:08:15 AM
Are you perpetrating a loaded question fallacy, or are you a pseudoskeptic?
Those two are the only reasonable options I can think of.  If you can think of another, then by all means give it.  I asked the loaded question because you had loaded it for me, so to speak:  If you think that the OP made the claim to which you are responding in that quote, then you are either misunderstanding the OP, or you are misrepresenting (lying about) the OP.

Now, do you have an answer to the simple question that I had posed to you on the first page, and which I have now re-quoted to you?  You seem to be using the "loaded question" issue as an excuse to avoid the question I had asked (and have re-quoted).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:12:08 AM
"Yes" made no sense in context.
It made sense to me. Maybe not everyone got it, but it's standard English. He posed a good question. I say 'yes'. So what? I guess that makes me guilty of some kind of crimes against vocabulary.

I'm sure glad that you are here to point out that important fact, while taking no responsibility for your misinterpretation.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Wootah on May 28, 2010, 08:16:34 AM
First of all, my name is Blaziken. You may call me Blaziken; Z; Blaz; Lucifer; Fallen Angel; Bringer of Light or Lightbringer

Now as we all know, some theists make the argument that life is just too unlikely for it to just have happened. In this short post I will refute it.

Instructions:
Grab a 52 card deck;
Grab another deck;
Grab 18 more decks;
Shuffle them all together.

Now the odds that you will get an ace of spades belonging to the first deck while drawing just a single card are 1/1040. Seems impossible, right?
However, if you keep drawing a card, putting it back and shuffling the deck, eventually you WILL get the ace of spades, even if it takes you an infinite amount of time

My point is: The mere fact that you say "the odds of _____" means it CAN happen on its own, no matter how unlikely it seems. Given an infinite amount of time (or a few million years), that thing WILL happen eventually
As an example I created a program for the TI-83+ which generates a random number between 1 and 1000 and if the number is 257[1] you win. It will keep generating numbers until hitting 257, no matter how long it takes. It also records how many tries it took and registers that number
At first I got it after about 1200 tries. I kept trying until I got it in only 25. Then I got it in over 3300 tries. Then I got it in two tries
So once again, no matter how unlikely something seems, the fact that you even say that the odds of it happening exist, means it CAN happen
 1 Blaziken's pokédex number, although that has nothing to do with it  &)

OK so what can't happen according to this logic?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 08:17:26 AM
It made sense to me. Maybe not everyone got it, but it's standard English. He posed a good question. I say 'yes'. So what? I guess that makes me guilty of some kind of crimes against vocabulary.

Well, when someone poses a question, and someone else responds "yes", it is generally taken to be a response to the question.  Is that a strange idea to you?  (FYI:  This is a yes-or-no question)

I'm sure glad that you are here to point out that important fact, while taking no responsibility for your misinterpretation.

I am not responsible for misinterpreting your post.  You are responsible for typing a nonsense-answer.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:20:09 AM
If you think that the OP made the claim to which you are responding in that quote, then you are either misunderstanding the OP, or you are misrepresenting (lying about) the OP.
I don't know or care whether or not someone makes a claim. I don't do debate. I'm only interested in the truth of the idea. The OP had to do with randomness and it's role in the origin of life, so that's what I'm commenting on. If that's ok with you. I don't need to make the OP wrong to satisfy my ego, I agree with him that randomness is easy to underestimate, I'm just saying that it's still not enough to generate life...which, if that's not what he said, I'm pretty sure it's what a lot of people want to believe.

Quote
Now, do you have an answer to the simple question that I had posed to you on the first page, and which I have now re-quoted to you?  You seem to be using the "loaded question" issue as an excuse to avoid the question I had asked (and have re-quoted).
Asked and answered. The defense rests and motions that the case be thrown out of court on the grounds of logical fallacy and badgering the witness.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 08:22:12 AM
OK so what can't happen according to this logic?

What almost-can't happen are unlikely things that become less likely as time goes on.  Life doesn't fit into that category.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 08:26:00 AM
What were the odds of life happening before life happened? Why wouldn't it be 0?

No. Look at my deck of cards example in the OP

I'm comparing the odds of sentient life springing from a kind of inanimate matter to the odds of any kind of sentient life springing from any kind of inanimate matter to reveal how improbably it really would be.

No, you're comparing the odds of sentient life springing from inanimate matter that isn't involved in its composition to the odds of any life springing from matter which is involved in its composition. As an example: Carbon is probably the most important element in life. If it did not exist, life as we know it could not exist

It's easy to see life and say 'it must have developed this way', but if you go back to the beginning and drop all of your assumptions about what happens, you can see that randomness alone doesn't create order. Randomness is part of order, but order is not part of randomness.

Randomness can create order from chaos by being random
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 08:26:57 AM
OK so what can't happen according to this logic?

Things which are impossible. For example, drawing a card that is missing from the deck, getting a grade above the max etc
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:29:37 AM
OK so what can't happen according to this logic?
What can't happen is that this logic can ever fail to be relied upon to explain the existence of anything.

It's 'God's Will' logic in reverse. 'Randomness' Pristine Lack of Will'.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 08:33:21 AM
I don't know or care whether or not someone makes a claim. I don't do debate. I'm only interested in the truth of the idea.
Oh, get off your high horse and stop lying through your teeth.

The OP had to do with randomness and it's role in the origin of life, so that's what I'm commenting on. If that's ok with you. I don't need to make the OP wrong to satisfy my ego, I agree with him that randomness is easy to underestimate, I'm just saying that it's still not enough to generate life...which, if that's not what he said, I'm pretty sure it's what a lot of people want to believe.
Your comment responded to the idea that "the forces of randomness alone" are responsible for generating life.  This is, indeed, not what he said.  And answering my question with the bolded text above shows that you have no clue who actually holds to the idea against which you were arguing, other than "a lot of people".  Well, who are these people?  Do you think that any of them are present in that thread?  If not, then why didn't you just start your own thread, or make it clear that you weren't writing on-topic?

Quote
Now, do you have an answer to the simple question that I had posed to you on the first page, and which I have now re-quoted to you?  You seem to be using the "loaded question" issue as an excuse to avoid the question I had asked (and have re-quoted).
Asked and answered. The defense rests and motions that the case be thrown out of court on the grounds of logical fallacy and badgering the witness.

The answer is vaguely "A lot of people", which is a dodge of my question again.  Where did you come across the idea to which you objected in that post?  Does it exists strictly in your mind, or was it presented to you from elsewhere?

EDIT:  By the way, you're really a slippery one.  Getting intellectual honesty from you is like trying to squeeze a tomato seed between one's fingernails.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:33:37 AM
Things which are impossible. For example, drawing a card that is missing from the deck, getting a grade above the max etc

What determines what things are impossible?
Couldn't they be working through and around randomness?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 08:35:04 AM
To those who don't seem to understand my point:

If the odds of something happening are greater than 0, it CAN happen. That's all. No need for jebus' will or god's will or whatever
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
What determines what things are impossible?
Couldn't they be working through and around randomness?

Can you draw a 2 of spades from a deck that is missing that two of spades? Obviously not. It is impossible. Is this really so hard to understand?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:40:43 AM
Where did you come across the idea to which you objected in that post?  Does it exists strictly in your mind, or was it presented to you from elsewhere?
Gee, I don't know. The title of the post is "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted.

You're desperate to make me wrong in any way possible to divert attention from the fact that what I'm saying refutes the refutation successfully. Desperation tends to lead people into semantic nitpicking and gotcha strategies. Yawn. Ask me something about what what you or I or the thread is about and I'm happy to discuss. As for anyone's opinions of how I communicate or 'make claims' or debate, I really have no interest. No high horse, I just don't see the point of argumentative d*** measuring.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on May 28, 2010, 08:41:23 AM
The odds of self aware consciousness arising in any randomly selected universe is (let's say for argument sake) 1.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 08:43:20 AM
Can you draw a 2 of spades from a deck that is missing that two of spades? Obviously not. It is impossible. Is this really so hard to understand?
Obviously. So I ask you, what determines whether there is a two of spades in the cosmic deck or not?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 08:52:20 AM
Obviously. So I ask you, what determines whether there is a two of spades in the cosmic deck or not?

Whether it exists or not determines where there is one or not >_>. We humans do not yet possess the technology to determine that, if that's what you were asking
As I said in an earlier post (slightly modified and assuming there is only life on Earth), without carbon, life could not have existed
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 09:16:28 AM
Gee, I don't know. The title of the post is "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted.

That doesn't present the idea to which you objected.  Nor is such an idea put forth in the OP.  This is disingenuous of you.

You're desperate to make me wrong in any way possible to divert attention from the fact that what I'm saying refutes the refutation successfully.

It only refutes the strawman you constructed, which is why I object to it.

Desperation tends to lead people into semantic nitpicking and gotcha strategies. Yawn. Ask me something about what what you or I or the thread is about and I'm happy to discuss. As for anyone's opinions of how I communicate or 'make claims' or debate, I really have no interest. No high horse, I just don't see the point of argumentative d*** measuring.

How is it a matter of semantics, Immediacracy?  The reason I'm pressing this is because in that response to Blaziken, you engaged in a the kind of strawman-construction so prevalent among creationist literature.  It ticks me off when creationists misrepresent the views to which they object, in order to make them easier to "refute".  Blaziken never said or suggested that life arose only from randomness.  That is your invention, a strawman that's easier to refute.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on May 28, 2010, 09:28:48 AM
As I said in an earlier post (slightly modified and assuming there is only life on Earth), without carbon, life could not have existed
Without carbon life could not have existed as we know it. Carbon shares a lot of its properties with silicon.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 09:33:12 AM
Without carbon life could not have existed as we know it. Carbon shares a lot of its properties with silicon.

Is there any point to the bold part? Silicon is still not carbon. It's silicon
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on May 28, 2010, 09:39:57 AM
Yes, because that means that silicon can take over a lot of the functions carbon has in our bodies. And silicon life forms cannot be ruled out (at least not that I'm aware of).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 09:40:38 AM
Without carbon life could not have existed as we know it. Carbon shares a lot of its properties with silicon.

^^ Relevant:

... As an example: Carbon is probably the most important element in life. If it did not exist, life as we know it could not exist
...
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 09:43:49 AM
Yes, because that means that silicon can take over a lot of the functions carbon has in our bodies. And silicon life forms cannot be ruled out (at least not that I'm aware of).

A lot=Not all
So once again, life as we know it would not have existed
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on May 28, 2010, 09:55:23 AM
Excuse me for not reading the entire topic. I responded to your post where you claimed that life would not have existed in that case. I'm sorry.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on May 28, 2010, 10:15:26 AM
I'm not blaming you here, Str82Hell - it was buried on a previous page in an unlinked-to post.  I was just clarifying that one of the points which you were driving home to Blaziken is one with which he is already familiar, and with which he agrees.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on May 28, 2010, 11:16:30 AM
I know. I thought an apology for not reading the entire thread would be in place.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on May 28, 2010, 11:18:54 AM
I know. I thought an apology for not reading the entire thread would be in place.

Nah. It's okay
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on May 28, 2010, 01:18:11 PM
How can you calculate odds when you do not know even what all the underlying factors may be?

Yes.

So you agree with me that nobody can use a mathematical argument to state that the odds of life are too low to occur naturally.

Do you also agree with me that randomness may not actually occur in the physical world but these are mathematical approximations.

If you take all the dice ever made in the world it may be that the side with one spot scooped out is slightly heavier than the side with six spots which may give a slight bias for some numbers over millions and billions of throws.

Given the right initial conditions and enough events at the subatomic level maybe abiogenesis is inevitable and is nothing to do with randomness
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:06:11 PM
Whether it exists or not determines where there is one or not >_>. We humans do not yet possess the technology to determine that, if that's what you were asking
But you see where I'm going with this.. The potential for life to exist is the deciding factor, not the randomness. You need to shuffle cards to play the game, but the game has to have cards which can be shuffled to begin with. The shuffling is kind of a 'who cares' compared to this all-important set of ordered pre-existing possibilities.

Quote
As I said in an earlier post (slightly modified and assuming there is only life on Earth), without carbon, life could not have existed
Yes, and without hydrogen's capacity to acquire remarkably different characteristics just by adding five more protons and electrons, carbon could not have existed. The acquisition of emergent properties, and the ordered integration of their functions in the physical cosmos is a metaphysical (as far as we know) logos. Randomness is sort of a symmetrical-reciprocal partner to this logos in creation all the way up the line, from atoms to molecules, to cells, organisms, sentient beings, and symbols. Messages, mediums, containers, entropy throughout.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 02:13:58 PM
Yes, and without hydrogen's capacity to acquire remarkably different characteristics just by adding five more protons and electrons, carbon could not have existed. The acquisition of emergent properties, and the ordered integration of their functions in the physical cosmos

Ok, sorta.

Oh.. here's the woo.

Quote
is a metaphysical (as far as we know) logos. Randomness is sort of a symmetrical-reciprocal partner to this logos in creation all the way up the line, from atoms to molecules, to cells, organisms, sentient beings, and symbols. Messages, mediums, containers, entropy throughout.

Non-sequitir, nothing logically follows in necessity or explanation.  The statement doesn't inform, doesn't explain, and isn't reliant on any previous information.

Here is something that briefly covers what we can know.. followed by  ,"SMURFS EXIST IN MY EARS!"

"as far as we know" know what? From what? Where? How?

Logos what?

Creation what?

Notice that the effort is not to explain yourself and instead the effort is to combine your woo claim with an earlier admission of 'a little' scientific merit.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Dragnet on May 28, 2010, 02:16:31 PM
Yes, and without hydrogen's capacity to acquire remarkably different characteristics just by adding five more protons and electrons, carbon could not have existed. The acquisition of emergent properties, and the ordered integration of their functions in the physical cosmos is a metaphysical (as far as we know) logos. Randomness is sort of a symmetrical-reciprocal partner to this logos in creation all the way up the line, from atoms to molecules, to cells, organisms, sentient beings, and symbols. Messages, mediums, containers, entropy throughout.

So what you are saying then is that Hydrogen is god.

Nice try but your logic is still not working.

You are jumping off to a supernatural. Why is that needed? Logos? seriously?

Cosmological argument re-packaged...
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:22:03 PM
So you agree with me that nobody can use a mathematical argument to state that the odds of life are too low to occur naturally.
Yes, it's not a matter of odds, it's a matter of conditions. The odds aren't too low, they just don't exist at all, unless you take the fact that life does exist now and reverse engineer it's origin to exclude all other possibilities but long odds.

Quote
Do you also agree with me that randomness may not actually occur in the physical world but these are mathematical approximations.
randomness is just a word. it stands for a category of ideas. which are also just words, categories, and ideas. if you want randomness not to occur in the physical world, you can demonstrate that, if you want to describe some of what occurs in the physical world as random, you can support that as well.

Quote
Given the right initial conditions and enough events at the subatomic level maybe abiogenesis is inevitable and is nothing to do with randomness
It doesn't even have to be inevitable. I'd be happy with just possible. Initial conditions are everything. Their consequences can be random, inevitable, or a combination thereof (and since we are talking about the UNIVERSE afterall, I would put my money on all three) and it doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:27:44 PM
Quote
So what you are saying then is that Hydrogen is god.
No, Hydrogen is an expression of the laws of physics. 'Laws'/order is 'god' in the sense of supreme executive authority, but not in the sense of consolidating teleology into a single unified narrative.

Quote
Why is that needed? Logos? seriously?
You can call them the laws of physics if you want, but that limits them to a physical ordering. I don't see why that's needed.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 02:29:13 PM
If it were truly random it would never produce anything and its sum would inescapably be zero in all situations.  That's why it is so absurd and dishonest to describe 'evolution' as random or even the processes that allow life to develop at all.  Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate, having nothing compelling to its own existence from other matter.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 02:33:17 PM
Quote
So what you are saying then is that Hydrogen is god.
No, Hydrogen is an expression of the laws of physics. 'Laws'/order is 'god' in the sense of supreme executive authority, but not in the sense of consolidating teleology into a single unified narrative.

Quote
Why is that needed? Logos? seriously?
You can call them the laws of physics if you want, but that limits them to a physical ordering. I don't see why that's needed.

You obfuscated and dodged the question.

What physical ordering?

Limit physical ordering in comparison to what?

You are also not using 'logos' as laws of physics, you are instead using it interchangeably with the nonsensical and it is little more then a use of confusing rhetoric.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:34:01 PM
It ticks me off when creationists misrepresent the views to which they object, in order to make them easier to "refute".  Blaziken never said or suggested that life arose only from randomness.  That is your invention, a strawman that's easier to refute.
Who's a creationist? I'm just saying that life has nothing to do with randomness. It's an irreducible phenomenon which, although composed of subordinate elements, is not a random synergy of those elements. The elements have to be inherently synergistic beforehand. Not saying that someone created them to do that, just that it's a built in potential of this universe.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 02:36:45 PM
It ticks me off when creationists misrepresent the views to which they object, in order to make them easier to "refute".  Blaziken never said or suggested that life arose only from randomness.  That is your invention, a strawman that's easier to refute.
Who's a creationist? I'm just saying that life has nothing to do with randomness. It's an irreducible phenomenon which,

Any kind of matter can be reduced to its component atoms, sub atomic particles, etc.

"Life" possesses nothing that separates it from other matter and you're not even trying to explain how beyond trying to plead your claim incessantly.

So, what now?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:39:46 PM
If it were truly random it would never produce anything and its sum would inescapably be zero in all situations.  That's why it is so absurd and dishonest to describe 'evolution' as random or even the processes that allow life to develop at all.  Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate, having nothing compelling to its own existence from other matter.
O M F G
I actually completely agree...with my uber nemesis!

The only thing I would suggest that you consider is this:
"Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate"
can't be true unless
"Matter itself is nothing less than life made inanimate"
is also true.

If you can accept that second part, then you should apply that understanding to the other areas where you accuse me of lying or making things up or whatever other skullduggery I'm supposed to engage in.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:43:32 PM
"Life" possesses nothing that separates it from other matter and you're not even trying to explain how beyond trying to plead your claim incessantly.

So, what now?

Life is just another kind of order. So is matter. The cosmos is made of order. Matter doesn't cause order, order is expressed as matter.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 02:46:45 PM
If it were truly random it would never produce anything and its sum would inescapably be zero in all situations.  That's why it is so absurd and dishonest to describe 'evolution' as random or even the processes that allow life to develop at all.  Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate, having nothing compelling to its own existence from other matter.
O M F G
I actually completely agree...with my uber nemesis!

No, you don't.  Since most of what you claim is totally dependent on make believe and defended by nothing more then your own endless pleading.

Quote
The only thing I would suggest that you consider is this:

There is nothing to consider.  Matter is simply a subjective label in a context of understanding an observation, there is no opposite statement to be made or to be understood.  It is meaningless and it also doesn't follow to any other absurd claim you've made.

Plus, if you agree with me then you agree with the fact that the universe could exist today and the total sum of everything in the universe could be 0, therefore the universe is nothing and comes from nothing.  Meaning, no logos, no god, no smurfs, nothing.

Plus, there is no more reason to signify our existence as we understand it to be anymore special then the possibility it could exist in another state.  In fact, there probably are other states that exist slightly different from this one if we are going to consider existence as truly extending as 'wave function'.

Which again.. no gods.. no logos.. no smurfs.

Quote
If you can accept that second part, then you should apply that understanding to the other areas where you accuse me of lying or making things up or whatever other skullduggery I'm supposed to engage in.

Your dishonest, you obfuscate, and you purposefully excuse yourself from responsibility from your own assertions.  There is nothing you said that is relevant to being accepted or understood, as it is nothing.  There isn't even a relevant explanation to follow from it in the conclusion you just made in this second paragraph.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 02:50:55 PM
"Life" possesses nothing that separates it from other matter and you're not even trying to explain how beyond trying to plead your claim incessantly.

So, what now?

Life is just another kind of order. So is matter.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

Life isn't anything.

Matter is matter.

If you're going to claim otherwise, you need to provide a qualifier for making that assertion. This is a logical requirement.

Quote
The cosmos is made of order.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

There is no logical need to presume order, we can't say the cosmos is made of order because we can't begin at the cosmos being made of order.  Your logic doesn't follow and you make no effort to qualify the claim being made.

There is also contradiction in that if you accept that random=0 and the universe=0, then there is nothing to call 'order'.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 02:52:23 PM
You obfuscated and dodged the question.

Quote
What physical ordering?
the physical universe is ordered according to laws. laws of physics. principles of material mechanics. These aren't human laws, and it could be argued that they are just the appearance we give our observations, but it doesn't matter, they are functionally identical to literal, if idealized laws.

Quote
Limit physical ordering in comparison to what?
In comparison to ordering of all observable phenomena - subjective contents, meaning, coherence.

Quote
You are also not using 'logos' as laws of physics, you are instead using it interchangeably with the nonsensical and it is little more then a use of confusing rhetoric.
No, I'm just hypothesizing that internal coherence is related to external coherence.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 03:00:43 PM
Life isn't anything.

Matter is matter.
Once again, you demonstrate the pathology of OMM.

Quote
If you're going to claim otherwise, you need to provide a qualifier for making that assertion. This is a logical requirement.
Pseudoskeptical. I don't need to 'claim' that life is something. Your logic is invalid and highly prejudiced.

Quote
Quote
The cosmos is made of order.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

There is no logical need to presume order, we can't say the cosmos is made of order because we can't begin at the cosmos being made of order.  Your logic doesn't follow and you make no effort to qualify the claim being made.
:buzzer:

You're wrong. The word cosmos means order. If you want to give your imaginary universe of patternless, orderless matter a name, you're welcome to make one up, but cosmos is taken. But beyond the definition, the Greeks were astute to observer that in fact, the Universe is a multiplicity of ordered relations. This isn't a wacky way of looking at things, it's a literal fact. The Cosmos is order. Ordered matter, ordered thought, ordered disorder. Not the other way around. Order doesn't come from 0.

Quote
There is also contradiction in that if you accept that random=0 and the universe=0, then there is nothing to call 'order'.
Not sure what you're saying here. Sounds like mystical woo.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 03:08:09 PM
You obfuscated and dodged the question.

No, its yours, one not looked upon favorably on the forum.  A member asked you direct question, which you responded by redefining your term and adding more unsubstantiated pleading to the mix.  Hence, you didn't answer the question.

Quote
Quote
What physical ordering?
the physical

What? The 'physical'? That's a qualification that doesn't follow.  What else is there? Not physical? Where is it? What is it? How do you know?

OH!  You're creating a qualification that doesn't follow.

Quote
universe

Ok, minus 'physical', I can accept 'universe'.

Quote
is ordered

Wait what!?

Ordered? According to what? who? how? When?

Again, another qualification that doesn't follow.

Quote
according to laws. laws of physics. principles of material mechanics.

I can accept that.

Quote
These aren't human laws,

Irrelevant, they arn't 'laws' at all, but no one is arguing this.

Quote
and it could be argued that they are just the appearance we give our observations,

The first honest thing you've said.

Quote
but it doesn't matter, they are functionally identical to literal, if idealized laws.

It matters, because it tells us nothing of any precondition relevant to the existence of what is observed.  Just like you don't have a basis for which to demand or decry it as 'ordered'.  It simply is what it is.

Quote
Quote
Limit physical ordering in comparison to what?
In comparison to ordering of all observable

That doesn't even logically follow.  I'm asking you beyond existence, what else are you comparing your claim to as if the person you responded to was 'limiting' anything.  So you answer me, by claiming its in comparison to everything observed to exist.

The observation of the laws of physics IS comparison to everything we observe.

Yet you claimed we were limiting something, i asked in comparison to what?

So what is it!?  What is being limited to what? Compared to what?

Quote
Quote
You are also not using 'logos' as laws of physics, you are instead using it interchangeably with the nonsensical and it is little more then a use of confusing rhetoric.
No, I'm just hypothesizing that internal coherence is related to external coherence.

.. Mindless rhetoric.

Are you talking about coherence as it relates to waves?

See Imm, you move randomly from concepts that are actual valid in terms of being scientific.. then you fall back on absurd woo.  You make assertions that range from the subjectively nonsensical to the being purely ludicrous ( we might as well be talking about smurfs ).   Your language has to be broken down and when we do that we find nothing but the use of rhetoric.

So are you going to have a discussion that offers to explain anything or are you going to move randomly around pleading your way deeper into incoherence?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 03:08:53 PM
No, you don't.
nothing more
There is nothing to consider.
there is no opposite statement to be made or to be understood.
It is meaningless and
the universe is nothing and comes from nothing.  Meaning, no logos, no god, no smurfs, nothing.
there is no more reason
no gods.. no logos.. no smurfs.
There is nothing you said
There isn't even
No substance.
Wow. I must be really double, extra wrong. I must be nobody in your awesome non-universe of nothingness.
OMMM

Seriously, I'm afraid you are going to have a seizure. Gotta go for an Omen time out now. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: screwtape on May 28, 2010, 03:12:06 PM
Immediacracy, I have a couple questions for you.

1. How old are you?
2. Are you high?
3. What the fuck does "irreducable phenomenon" even mean?
4. Can you please be more clear in what you are saying?  Right now I have no idea whether you are a creationist, theist, or what.  You seem to throw a lot of mumbo-jumbo together and try to pass it off as deep thought.  Reading your posts is like reading Ekhart Tolle.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 03:18:37 PM
Life isn't anything.

Matter is matter.
Once again, you demonstrate the pathology of OMM.

Special pleading dismissal without explanation, which doesn't answer the problem of the 'rhetoric' being used in your language.

If you want to claim 'life' is something, then you have to actually make a logical argument to demonstrate your point.  How hard is that?

Apparently hard enough that you need to dismiss anyone that doesn't first agree to every baseless assertion you make.  Hell, I don't even need to say I am OMM ( I'm not since all of your OMM shit is a giant ridiculous strawman ), since all I need to is elaborate upon the use of mindless appeals and abusive use of language.

Quote
Quote
If you're going to claim otherwise, you need to provide a qualifier for making that assertion. This is a logical requirement.
Pseudoskeptical.

Quote
I don't need to 'claim' that life is something. Your logic is invalid and highly prejudiced.

You've already claimed 'life' to be something special, your implication has already been made.  You've already made the defacto assertion.  Are you now going to deny ever made any claim?  Is this really the kind of thing you want to do again Imm?

Quote
Quote
The cosmos is made of order.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

There is no logical need to presume order, we can't say the cosmos is made of order because we can't begin at the cosmos being made of order.  Your logic doesn't follow and you make no effort to qualify the claim being made.
:buzzer:

You're wrong. The word cosmos means order.[/quote]

Its a word, it doesn't logically follow to be anything.

Quote
If you want to give your imaginary universe of patternless, orderless matter a name, you're welcome to make one up, but cosmos is taken.

How does a label have anything to do with what something is or is not?

Quote
But beyond the definition, the Greeks were astute to observer that in fact, the Universe is a multiplicity of ordered relations.

An evaporating puddle that constantly shrinks in size is 'ordered', but it doesn't mean the puddle is 'ordered' for the hole it exists in.

The relationship of order in a thing doesn't entail it was first ordered, just like the puddle wasn't ordered into the dimensions of the puddle.

Quote
This isn't a wacky way of looking at things, it's a literal fact.

No it is not, its an absurd use of fuzzy language, trying to avoid the fact that you're making a circular assumption about 'order' before their was an existence to exist.  The universe was not 'ordered' before and falling into place is not the same thing as being 'ordered'.

Quote
The Cosmos is order. Ordered matter, ordered thought, ordered disorder. Not the other way around. Order doesn't come from 0.

Actually, order can come from 0 as long as the total sum of order and disorder is 0.  That's the point of saying that the total sum of random is 0 and that if the total sum of 'everything' in the universe is 0 then the universe isn't anything but 0.

Quote
Quote
There is also contradiction in that if you accept that random=0 and the universe=0, then there is nothing to call 'order'.
Not sure what you're saying here. Sounds like mystical woo.

See above.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 03:21:34 PM
No, you don't.
nothing more
There is nothing to consider.
there is no opposite statement to be made or to be understood.
It is meaningless and
the universe is nothing and comes from nothing.  Meaning, no logos, no god, no smurfs, nothing.
there is no more reason
no gods.. no logos.. no smurfs.
There is nothing you said
There isn't even
No substance.
Wow. I must be really double, extra wrong. I must be nobody in your awesome non-universe of nothingness.
OMMM

Quote
Seriously, I'm afraid you are going to have a seizure. Gotta go for an Omen time out now. Have a nice day.

Gotta go beat off to Deepak Chopra?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 03:24:54 PM
Immediacracy, I have a couple questions for you.

1. How old are you?
2. Are you high?
3. What the f**k does "irreducable phenomenon" even mean?
4. Can you please be more clear in what you are saying?  Right now I have no idea whether you are a creationist, theist, or what.  You seem to throw a lot of mumbo-jumbo together and try to pass it off as deep thought.  Reading your posts is like reading Ekhart Tolle.
1. 42

2. Nope

3. Irreducible phenomenon is something that can't be meaningfully broken down to subordinate parts. An element. A fundamental law or characteristic. A primary color is irreducible. I'm just saying that life is like that - it's contains various precursors and requires certain materials, but it's not the same thing as those materials. It's a different level of organization which reduces only to cells and cellular processes and not any further.

4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because some of it is obviously true and some of it sounds crazy. I'm not a creationist at all. In fact, I'm more skeptical than most of you here. Conventional wisdom is as dogmatic as religion. I like Ekhart Tolle but am not generally into guru figures.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 03:27:42 PM
Gotta go beat off to Deepak Chopra?
Mm. Classay.
Reported, again.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 03:28:37 PM
Gotta go beat off to Deepak Chopra?
Mm. Classay.
Reported, again.

You do know that you can be reported for stonewalling and avoiding questions, right?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Omen on May 28, 2010, 03:34:05 PM
Irreducible phenomenon is something that can't be meaningfully broken down to subordinate parts. An element. A fundamental law or characteristic. A primary color is irreducible. I'm just saying that life is like that - it's contains various precursors and requires certain materials,

As exampled by?

Like?

<blank> is a precursor of 'life'.

Life requires materials that can't be irreducible such as <blank>

Notice that.. you don't tell us, you don't even offer to explain, and your entire answer is a mindless pleading of NEW qualifications that beg the same questions!

Do you NOT know what special pleading is?

Do you NOT know how special pleading pertains to being a fallacy?

Quote
but it's not the same thing as those materials.

And it is..... ?

Quote
It's a different level of organization which reduces only to cells and cellular processes and not any further.

And its different how......?

Try this, try to answer a question without using another question or another qualifier that is as unexplained as the previous qualifier.

Quote
4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because some of it is obviously true and some of it sounds crazy.

No, it is primarily because you use rhetoric, do not offer to explain anything in satisfactory detail, and dismiss having it pointed out.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: RaymondKHessel on May 28, 2010, 03:36:00 PM
Immediacracy, I have a couple questions for you.

1. How old are you?
2. Are you high?
3. What the f**k does "irreducable phenomenon" even mean?
4. Can you please be more clear in what you are saying?  Right now I have no idea whether you are a creationist, theist, or what.  You seem to throw a lot of mumbo-jumbo together and try to pass it off as deep thought.  Reading your posts is like reading Ekhart Tolle.

Oh thank Odin! <hugs Screwtape in gratitude> And here I was thinking maybe I had just gone stupid. I haven't understood half of what this guy has tried to say since he signed up. I know the words, I know what they mean, but it's often like reading

The Squareroot of 5+K = Sailboats! Doesn't that not seem to be the way things aren't before they never think were undone right!?

Which leaves me pretty much going  :-\  :'( :shrug And then leaves me feeling bad about myself that I can't make sense of things.

At first I thought maybe it was just that their Avatar was brainwashing me or something, making things out to be more complex than they really were.

I'm sooooo glad I'm not alone!

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Operator_A25 on May 28, 2010, 03:42:00 PM
Immediacracy,

Just skimming over the posts, it looks to me like you are just as guilty of making provocative comments and snide remarks, so I don't see how the staff can honestly act on Omen's remark and ignore your replies.

If the thread has reached a point where it is serving no purpose beyond you guys trading insults then I'm likely to just lock it up and not worry about it. Especially as this seems to be turning into a grudge match.

-A25
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 05:07:48 PM
Irreducible phenomenon is something that can't be meaningfully broken down to subordinate parts. An element. A fundamental law or characteristic. A primary color is irreducible. I'm just saying that life is like that - it's contains various precursors and requires certain materials,

As exampled by?
Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen
molecular arrangements of same which have emergent properties of self replication and phenomic (as opposed to genomic) expression.
Water.
Sunlight, or indirect forms of solar energy.
A biologist might mention several more.

Quote
Life requires materials that can't be irreducible such as <blank>
Life is a quality of matter which is irreducible. Like a corpse is materially similar to a living body, but once it's dead, it's not a living body anymore by any meaningful description. It may have functioning tissues for a while, but as a living organism, it has ceased to host any conscious needs or wants, feelings or thoughts associated with that organism.

I don't know what requiring materials that can't be irreducible means.

Quote
Do you NOT know what special pleading is?

Do you NOT know how special pleading pertains to being a fallacy?
You can tell me all about it if you like, but I'm not interested in philosophy.

Quote
Quote
but it's not the same thing as those materials.

And it is..... ?

The potential for growth, reproduction, metabolism, consumption, excretion, sensation, perception, agency/sentience/subjective orientation, healing, taking action, dying...lots of things are associated with a living organism which is not associated with it's component materials (a dead organism contains all the components of a live one, but it's not alive, hence not performing the functions and having the characteristics of a living organism).

Quote
And its different how......?
See above - it has the signature functions we associate with living organisms.

Quote
What's wrong with asking? How am I supposed to anticipate all of everyone's questions?

Quote
No, it is primarily because you use rhetoric, do not offer to explain anything in satisfactory detail, and dismiss having it pointed out.
I'm very happy to provide details whenever they are asked of me in a civil, patient manner. I'm offering now. One or two questions at a time, preferably.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 05:22:21 PM
And then leaves me feeling bad about myself that I can't make sense of things.
Sorry. That's not my intention. All I can do is try to describe what sense I'm able to make out of the world. I'm mainly trying to reconcile the existence of mind and matter in a way which puts them in the same universe without having to depend on the cop-out that one is 'simply not real'...and I think that it's actually not that hard to do once you orient yourself to the fact of it first, and then to the explanation second instead of the other way around.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on May 28, 2010, 05:28:24 PM
Immediacracy

Do you believe that abiogenesis is impossible and if so why do you think that way?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 06:16:26 PM
Do you believe that abiogenesis is impossible and if so why do you think that way?
No, I think that abiogenesis is a fact. Life does come from 'inanimate' matter, I just think that matter is very different on the 'inside' than it appears on the outside.

Consider a photon. That's energy. If you have enough photons emitted into your eye, your brain will show you the colors corresponding to that electromagnetic energy stream. Your eye samples the stream, your optic nerve transduces that into various neurological analogs, which your brain samples and sums up for you as the qualia of color.

The photon must have an inherent 'knowledge' of how the electromagnetic spectrum works. They are, in fact one and the same thing. Photons are electromagnetic phenomena, electromagnetic phenomena have a photo-logical dimension.

This is just an example of how the behavior of energy precipitates an inherent order. A visible spectrum to us. A mathematical continuum of measurement to our instruments.

Keep in mind that this just demonstrates orderliness in energy which supercedes or inheres to an exterior form. It's still technically exterior. We can't be inside an electron so we don't know what it's interior is like at all, so the visible spectrum is just a hint, a clue at what the interior of energy might be like or what it expresses.

All we can comment on the interior of is the interior of the part of our brain that we experience - the limbic system, the cortex, etc, and what we do know is that this experience is very different from the exterior appearance of the brain. We are the interior of the functioning of our brain in the same way that this sentence is the interior of your computer's functioning.

I'm sure that sounds crazy to everyone, but I don't know how else to explain it. The brain is neurochemical activity on the outside, images, thoughts, desires, experiences, memories on the inside. Take it down a level and you can imagine that brain cells, like photons, transmit meaning much like the visible spectrum is transmitted - as part of an order of possible human neurological states/human experiences.

Life enables a whole new level of vocabulary for the cosmos. If you're familiar with the OSI networking model, Layer 1 is physical, Layer 2 is data link (switches, frames), 3 is network (routing, IP), 4 transport (TCP), 5 session, 6 presentation (GUI), 7 application. We are an application. The psyche is a presentation layer phenomenon precipitated on but different from the layer 5 (physiology), 4 (biochemistry), 3 (chemistry), 2 (astrophysics), 1 (existence). That's on the exterior.

A hypothetical model of the corresponding subjective continuum might go 1-essence, 2-archetypes, 3-meanings, 4-words/communication, 5-icons/symbols 6-images 7-perceptions. Our subjective stack is defined by our objective stack, since they are really two sides of the same thing. If you get down to the level of an amoeba, it may have not much more subjectivity than a bunch of photons, but since it moves and eats and divides and dies as a coherent organism, that organism has a larger vocabulary of sentience to work with.

It's a theory anyways. I'm not 'claiming' anything. Jeez.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: screwtape on May 28, 2010, 09:24:26 PM
4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because ...

stop right there.  For sure you are saying some weird things.  But I do not think it is about acceptance.  I think the problem is you are not being understood.  At least, I sure don't understand you.  I think part of that is you sound like you could be full of woo.  I cannot tell whether you are or you are not.  I think another part of that is other have to make assumptions.  They are filling in the blanks as best they can, but that might not be to your benefit.

My recommendation is you spend a little more time communicating clearly without using such opaque language.  Like "Irreducable phenomenon".  I would like to see you stick around.  I've read some posts that showed promise.  However, at the rate things are going, I think you are not going to want to.

And I fucking hate Tolle.  I think he should be kicked in the junk three times every hour of every day.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: wright on May 28, 2010, 09:57:23 PM
screwtape:
Quote
For sure you are saying some weird things.  But I do not think it is about acceptance.  I think the problem is you are not being understood.  At least, I sure don't understand you.  I think part of that is you sound  like you could be full of woo.  I cannot tell whether you are or you are not.  I think another part of that is other have to make assumptions.  They are filling in the blanks as best they can, but that might not be to your benefit.

My recommendation is you spend a little more time communicating clearly without using such opaque language.  Like "Irreducible phenomenon".  I would like to see you stick around.  I've read some posts that showed promise.  However, at the rate things are going, I think you are not going to want to.

That pretty much sums up my view too, Imm. You're polite and have a pretty thick skin, which is more than could be said for most of the theist posters and some of the atheists. I follow your posts with interest, but sometimes your phrasing is difficult to understand.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 09:58:59 PM
4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because ...

stop right there.  For sure you are saying some weird things.  But I do not think it is about acceptance.  I think the problem is you are not being understood.  At least, I sure don't understand you.  I think part of that is you sound like you could be full of woo.  I cannot tell whether you are or you are not.  I think another part of that is other have to make assumptions.  They are filling in the blanks as best they can, but that might not be to your benefit.

My recommendation is you spend a little more time communicating clearly without using such opaque language.  Like "Irreducable phenomenon".  I would like to see you stick around.  I've read some posts that showed promise.  However, at the rate things are going, I think you are not going to want to.

And I fucking hate Tolle.  I think he should be kicked in the junk three times every hour of every day.
Sounds like decent advice. I didn't realize that there was that much of a language barrier or that people would react so emotionally to it.

Filling in the blanks strikes me as particularly important because I would say that one of the keys to understanding where I'm coming from is to start from a more thoroughly blank starting point. A cosmos where nothing is taken for granted - as if you had to write a computer program for it. There's not going to be consciousness, thought, feeling, and emotion if you only write code for electrical brain behaviors. There's not going to be any colors to look at unless you write code that invents colors. Not to say there's a code writer, just that the metaphor helps explain why the materialist perspective is so lacking, and why that lack is an obstacle to moving beyond archaic theistic models.

That you hate Tolle so much suggests to me that your worldview is diametrically opposed to his, or his personality reminds you of someone you don't like or something. Which is fine. Like Depak and all those guys, I appreciate their effort to create an opportunity for people to change their awareness, but I have to ignore the 'release the giant within' type of life coaching positivity (not because it's b.s., worse, it's potentially psychotic - in a literal, not figurative way).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 28, 2010, 10:01:03 PM
That pretty much sums up my view too, Imm. You're polite and have a pretty thick skin, which is more than could be said for most of the theist posters and some of the atheists. I follow your posts with interest, but sometimes your phrasing is difficult to understand.
Fair enough. I'll at least try to do a concise summary when I can. It's just not as much fun to limit myself to that only.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Operator_A25 on May 28, 2010, 11:17:21 PM
Well, it's your call. I don't mind snide remarks about the topics being discussed, but I don't think that personal attacks are appropriate. There is a difference.

I don't think this is appropriate:

Wow. I must be really double, extra wrong. I must be nobody in your awesome non-universe of nothingness.
OMMM

Seriously, I'm afraid you are going to have a seizure. Gotta go for an Omen time out now. Have a nice day.

So I guess that makes you even.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Operator_A25 on May 28, 2010, 11:51:01 PM
If it's your judgment that my retort of his Tourette's-like torrents of insult and negation grievances aimed at me, then I have to take your word for it. Seems unfair to me, but I can't claim to be impartial. I feel like I've been pretty restrained, to be honest.

If you think I'm being unfair, then I suggest you PM an admin about it.

Forum rules state:

Quote
In-thread discussion of staff instructions is not allowed.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: kcrady on May 29, 2010, 04:42:51 AM
Immediacracy, could you please specify what, exactly, you would like to add to our understanding that does not exist according to the "materialist" paradigm as you understand it?  So far you have been using terms that are very open to misunderstanding.  Example: "Logos."  Within the context of Pythagorean/Hermetic/Platonic and neo-Platonic thought, "Logos" has a specific and detailed meaning: a harmonizing proportion that integrates the material world with the World of Forms/the higher realm that exists outside of Plato's Cave.  The Logos is the principle of "divine intelligence" or "universal order" responsible for making the Cosmos an ordered, "lawful" (as in natural "law") realm rather than a formless chaos.

I'm guessing that most of the atheist posters here would likely reject the existence of a World of Forms or the idea that our experience of "reality" is nothing but shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave, a collection of imperfect projections of the perfect Forms in the higher realm.  So, people who are familiar with this concept of the Logos would see your use of the term as advocating this sort of world view and reply that you're asserting all sorts of woo.  You may or may not be using "Logos" in this fashion.  If you're not, then the term is basically undefined and we have no way of knowing what you're actually talking about.

Now, I'm going to try to offer my best "translation" of what I think you might be saying.  Please correct me where I'm wrong:

>ahem<

The materialist-reductionist paradigm operates on the principle that a complete understanding of reality can be gained by breaking things down to their smallest component parts.  With a complete understanding of the component parts ("matter") we can in principle gain a complete understanding of all material entities (such as life forms, people, and symphonies) without needing to apply any terms or principles that do not refer directly to the fundamental particles of matter, such as "meaning" "consciousness" "purpose" "experience" "thought," and so on.  Given a Grand Unified Theory that explains the nature of the very most fundamental component/s of matter/energy/spacetime--the sought-after "equation that fits on a T-shirt," we could basically understand "Life, the Universe, and Everything" without making reference to any non-material terms or principles.  We will have succeeded in reducing everything to matter-in-motion, and the language of consciousness is rendered irrelevant.

This paradigm is incorrect.  There are principles and properties that can be demonstrated to exist, but which cannot be reduced to the behavior of fundamental particles--or alternatively, these properties and principles must, in some sense, be inherent within the fundamental particles.  An analogy demonstrated by Buckminster Fuller:

Take a cotton rope, and braid one end into a nylon rope, which is in turn braided into a hemp rope, which is in turn braided into a PVC rope, so that you have one rope composed of several different materials.  Tie a slip knot in one end.  Then, move the knot down through the various materials--through the cotton, nylon, hemp, and PVC until it has passed through the whole combined rope.  What is the knot made of?  It should be apparent that the knot is not reducible to any of the materials of the combined rope.  The knot could be embodied in a wide range of materials, as a 3-D computer graphic, or even a set of topographical equations on a blackboard.  Each material embodiment of the knot is a special-case manifestation of the knot which, regardless of the material being used, possesses certain properties such as shape and the ability to "slip" along the material (with some variation in ease depending on a material's flexibility and friction coefficient).

The knot itself is a pattern integrity, a generalized operating principle that transcends but includes all special-case manifestations of it in matter.  It is non-material, yet it "governs" the behavior of matter whenever it appears physically in a special-case manifestation.  The behavior of the knot cannot be predicted by observation of fundamental particles in reduced isolation.  There are many examples of such generalized operating principles which apply to all special-case manifestations but cannot be reduced to any particular special-case manifestation or to fundamental particles.  "Triangles are self-bracing" applies to all special-case manifestations of "triangle" whether they're made of wood, metal, or toothpicks and gumdrops.  This principle cannot be deduced from observation of a single piece of metal, wood, a lonely gumdrop, or a hydrogen atom.

Instead, the principle emerges from the synergetic[1] integration of multiple material components, and it is irreducible.  "Life" is a self-perpetuating pattern integrity that maintains itself in a non-equilibrium state by tapping into an entropic gradient (such as that between the Sun and empty space, mediated by the atmosphere, water, and land of the Earth) to create a localized, special-case anti-entropic region of higher order.  While it is not in any sense supernatural, life also cannot be understood completely by the reductionist methodology of breaking it down to, and isolating, its material sub-components.  If we knew nothing about life, we would not be able to deduce its existence by observing the behavior of a hydrogen atom, or superstrings, or whatever ultimate fundamental entities the hydrogen atom is composed of.

Therefore, higher-order synergetic pattern integrities such as conscious life forms cannot be fully understood within the limits of materialist reductionism, but must be approached on their own terms.  The language of consciousness--"meaning" "purpose" "qualia" "experience" "love" and so on--is genuinely meaningful and refers to real properties of higher-order pattern integrities.  They are not mere illusions fostered by a Cosmos that is really only of fundamental matter-particles in motion.  The fact that these things cannot be dissected with reductionist methodology does not make them any less real.  Rather, the inability of reductionism to make sense of them demonstrates the limits of the reductionist approach.

Furthermore, these generalized operating principles of Universe (known and unknown), and the synergetic integration of all of them, are, as far as we can tell, metaphysically "necessary" or in some sense "built in" to Universe.  Taken in total, they form an inventory of real "things" that are embodied in, but not made of, matter, yet also not "supernatural" or "magical."  They are demonstrably real, yet they do not fit within the OMM paradigm.  Therefore, the OMM paradigm is limited/flawed, and a different paradigm must be applied if we are to have an accurate understanding of Universe, especially of non-material, emergent, synergetic realities such as consciousness.

----

So: is that pretty much what you're getting at?

Everyone else: Does the above attempted interpretation/explanation make any more sense to you than what Immediacracy has been saying?
 1 This is a neologism invented by Buckminster Fuller which integrates "synergistic" with "energetic"
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 09:10:16 AM
So: is that pretty much what you're getting at?
Yes, outstanding! Thank you. I especially like "the fact that these things cannot be dissected with reductionist methodology does not make them any less real.  Rather, the inability of reductionism to make sense of them demonstrates the limits of the reductionist approach."

That covers at least the portion that this audience seems more likely to be interested in, as opposed to my speculations on the relation of ACME to OMM, symmetries, etc. There's some finer points I would mention: It's not that subjective phenomena can't be correlated with or caused by material, (ie brain activity causes consciousness, and 'is' consciousness in one sense) but that the brain activity is the least subjective aspect about consciousness. To reduce subjective consciousness to objective brain activity would be analogous to considering hydrogen sulfide, 'simply rotten egg smell' and leaving it at that. No chemistry, no biological interaction, just 'a smell'. Consciousness isn't just what the brain 'smells like' when it's switched on.

My occasional use of 'logos' differs from the Platonic in that I'm not positing that there is a world of perfect forms, but that there are forms at all. Perfection, divine order, harmony, beauty; those are, as you might say, higher order categories or qualities of synergetic pattern integrities which I don't have a solid opinion on but I have a hunch they have to do with bootstrap/self-extracting/isomorphic modalities of the existence-essence integration.

Translation: We know that things aren't necessarily good just because they might look good to us. We can assume that this, (along with all of our material science that demonstrates the behavior of matter as counter-intuitive, asymmetrical, ugly, etc) tells us that the idea of perfect forms which govern existence is simplistic when applied to the Cosmos in general - the exterior, material, physical part of the cosmos in particular. Intestinal flora isn't winning any beauty contests but it gets the job done.

Still, it seems that the manifest orderliness of physical phenomenon and subjective human experience is enough to consider a logos-like concept as useful when describing pattern integrities, particularly as we find them hierarchically nested in things like communication, understanding, and imagination. To me, logos is just a casual way of making concrete the notion that disorder, chaos, or randomness is a category of order and not the other way around.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: shnozzola on May 29, 2010, 09:55:09 AM
To simplify it further (I have to be careful here to not wade in over my head, but it looks to me you guys are both saying):

Quote
life also cannot be understood completely by the reductionist methodology of breaking it down to, and isolating, its material sub-components.

Is this an example:
- because the element hydrogen exists and can be understood to fit into a non intelligently created universe, it still seems a stretch to expect the order (life) that we see in the universe possibly based on hydrogen as one of the building blocks. (understanding hydrogen itself has to have an order)

If this is correct, Immed, how do YOU think the order is achieved?
Quote
Keep in mind that this just demonstrates orderliness in energy which supercedes or inheres to an exterior form. It's still technically exterior. We can't be inside an electron so we don't know what it's interior is like at all, so the visible spectrum is just a hint, a clue at what the interior of energy might be like or what it expresses.

If you are saying something like a god is necessary to explain the energy inside an electron, or to explain “Perfection, divine order, harmony, beauty,” just say it.  Let’s say an organizer exists, what is your own view of the details of this organizer’s involvement?

edir:  insert  (understanding hydrogen itself has to have an order)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 12:37:35 PM
Is this an example:
- because the element hydrogen exists and can be understood to fit into a non intelligently created universe, it still seems a stretch to expect the order (life) that we see in the universe possibly based on hydrogen as one of the building blocks. (understanding hydrogen itself has to have an order)
I'm not sure if I'm getting your drift here, but let me see. To me an intelligently created universe is totally out of the question, however not because it wouldn't explain cosmic order, but because it doesn't explain the creator. Intelligence is too narrow and anthropomorphic a category of pattern recognition to describe the totality of the cosmos. The universe supports intelligence, defines intelligence, operates intelligence, etc, but it isn't defined purely by intelligence.

The stretch, as far as life emerging from mathematical odds against an inanimate cosmos is that either the possibility is in the cards from the beginning or it wouldn't be able to happen no matter what the odds. If it was in the cards from the beginning, then the mathematical odds can't be said to have given rise to life - that possibility was already in the deck - all we can say is that the odds direct the where and the when and how of it's initial instance of physical existence.

Quote
If this is correct, Immed, how do YOU think the order is achieved?
Quote
Keep in mind that this just demonstrates orderliness in energy which supercedes or inheres to an exterior form. It's still technically exterior. We can't be inside an electron so we don't know what it's interior is like at all, so the visible spectrum is just a hint, a clue at what the interior of energy might be like or what it expresses.

If you are saying something like a god is necessary to explain the energy inside an electron, or to explain “Perfection, divine order, harmony, beauty,” just say it.  Let’s say an organizer exists, what is your own view of the details of this organizer’s involvement?
The god idea is not only unnecessary, it's 1) a misdirection, because it just moves the problem of the origin of order to the origin of the creator of order and 2) obviously an interior archetype rather than a physical agent. God doesn't exist, but the idea of teleological potency being personified as a mighty patriarchal archetype is a universal or near universal anthropological theme. As an archetype, the god idea does actually influence consciousness and the shaping of human civilization, families, and individual personalities whether people know it or not. God is just a reflection of one aspect of human agency projected (mistakenly as it turns out) outward.

To get at a legitimate theory of the origin of order, that's when it gets more crazy sounding (I expect because we ourselves and our world are made of order, so it's like a fish trying to grasp water). I think that what it comes down to is that order doesn't need an origin because it informs time, space, matter and energy rather than the other way around.

I would model the Cosmos as sort of a polymorphously perverse pattern integrity generating machine/organism/field. That it is composed of order doesn't mean that it's composed of one order - it's composed of countless orders, all rolling and wrestling, revealing and concealing each other in countless nested hierarchies of layered schemas. Who knows, maybe sentient beings eventually develop the technology to become godlike and then create the universe in the distant past - a kind of mobius loop of sentience, teleology, and timespace?

Imagination and intelligence is amazing but the universe is even more mind-bogglingly amazing. It contains imagination and intelligence within it - as a side dish. More creative than simply generating all possibilities forever, it generates certain possibilities in certain ways and other possibilities in other ways or not at all. It's better than any God - God is  an invisible cartoon robot that knows everything and does only the Right thing. The universe invents things it only half understands and then invents a new understanding to patch up the leak...or not. It does anything, everything, not everything, not anything, all at once, in order, in no order, in random order...it's the Universe, there will never be anything else but what it is.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Dragnet on May 29, 2010, 12:47:59 PM
From a purely observational position it would appear that an overly exuberant verbosity is what seems to be an attempt to appear erudite, when in fact what has transpired is an impression of philosophizing.  :D
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 01:21:35 PM
"Joe was able to understand them but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them." Narrator - Idiocracy
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 29, 2010, 02:37:59 PM
Quote
Analogy: If you pour ping pong balls over an open, empty egg carton, ping pong balls will eventually nest in the pits in the carton.  Even though the motion of the ping pong balls is basically random, the result is a non-random array of 12 ping pong balls arranged 6 x 2.  It's the shape of the egg carton that provides a non-random arrangement of ping pong balls within it.  Likewise, it's the conditions of a given environment that create niches for some creatures, and drive others to extinction.
That's a great analogy. If taken back to the dawn of life though, it supports my point of the need for a priori egg cartons for self-replication, organization, and sentience.

@Immedicracy: Do you recall that I noted earlier about chemistry, how it is non-random?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 29, 2010, 02:58:12 PM
Who is arguing that conditions did not exist prior to life emerging?

If you have life potentiating conditions, who needs randomness? Why have this thread? The whole OP is to prove that odds aren't as long as you might think and that it's not so outrageous to claim the emergence of life through randomness alone.

Oh, wait, nevermind it appears that you already understand that the preconditions for abiogenesis were likely not random.
Perhaps a clarification on your part as to what you are arguing might help me understand what you're trying to say here.

Can you draw a 2 of spades from a deck that is missing that two of spades? Obviously not. It is impossible. Is this really so hard to understand?
Obviously. So I ask you, what determines whether there is a two of spades in the cosmic deck or not?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.[1]

It is one thing to talk about a known and finite set of conditions, in this case a deck of cards.  It is impossible, for example to pull a fully functional drill press from a deck of cards, since that isn't part of what a "deck of cards" consists of.  If you were to include fully functional drill presses  as a part of a deck of cards then you would need to redefine what 'deck of cards' means.

Where we are talking about the topic of abiogenesis, we 'know' most of the cards, but not all of them.  In any case, what we don't know is what the exact combination was that resulting (if you'll indulge the metaphor a bit more) in a winning hand that produced life, which then fit into the non-random natural selection matrix.  It is quite possible that there are many combinations that are sufficient to that purpose, but as yet those are uknown.
 1 Donald Rumsfield
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 03:55:42 PM
Where we are talking about the topic of abiogenesis, we 'know' most of the cards, but not all of them.  In any case, what we don't know is what the exact combination was that resulting (if you'll indulge the metaphor a bit more) in a winning hand that produced life, which then fit into the non-random natural selection matrix.  It is quite possible that there are many combinations that are sufficient to that purpose, but as yet those are uknown.
Right, sure, but even knowing most of the cards doesn't explain them, and that missing explanation I think would be the true origin of life, rather than deck shuffling. Without the cards which provide for the possibility of cells, cell division, etc on the outside and feeling, thriving or dying on the inside any possible combination that could come up wouldn't really be much like life.

That's why I'm saying that the randomness plays a minor role in the development of life and consciousness, with the major role being played neither by accidental or deliberate creation but rather by the preexisting architecture of the Cosmos that makes it all possible. That architecture is expressed in timespace to us, but being outside of timespace itself, it has no limitation of causality or dependence on physical substance or force. It's back-end programming; timespace is runtime.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 29, 2010, 06:04:39 PM
There are a lot of pre-existing conditions that apply.  As with KCradys egg crate metaphor, the ingredients maybe more or less random, but the way that they interact with each other is mostly fixed.

It's possible that we area actually in agreement with each other, but stumbling over terminology.

Quote
Right, sure, but even knowing most of the cards doesn't explain them, and that missing explanation I think would be the true origin of life, rather than deck shuffling. Without the cards which provide for the possibility of cells, cell division, etc on the outside and feeling, thriving or dying on the inside any possible combination that could come up wouldn't really be much like life.

Highlited: I agree with this statement.  The rest I'm not so sure about, 'specially the part about cells having feelings.

http://flint.sdu.dk/research/protocell.html
Not a lot of feeling happening here, also note how all of the actions and interactions happen on a basic mechanical level?  Again, we but up against the idea of a system with limitations and rules.

*edit: changed eg to egg.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 06:55:26 PM
I agree with this statement.  The rest I'm not so sure about, 'specially the part about cells having feelings.

http://flint.sdu.dk/research/protocell.html
Not a lot of feeling happening here, also note how all of the actions and interactions happen on a basic mechanical level?  Again, we but up against the idea of a system with limitations and rules.
Certainly cells don't have human-like or animal-like feelings, but since our feelings either originate in cellular processes or actually are cellular processes themselves I have no reason to rule out some rudimentary sense in single celled organisms.

Because our sense organs are specialized cells and tissues which carry signals to 'us' in the brain, it seems likely to me that stem cells could have a weak generalized sensitivity to energy such as electromagnetic and acoustic vibration, matter such as nutrients and toxins, and orientation to gravity. The cells of the retina would need to get the idea that electromagnetism exists from somewhere.

My hunch is that inanimate patterns make no such footprint in the subjective feeling dimension, but it's possible that the duration of a pattern over time acts as a kind of 'feeling' that the universe has. Total speculation, but I consider life to be a functional fifth dimension, which recapitulates the first four and superimposes them on a secondary level of abstraction. A cell is a kind of microcosm - a bubble of life-time in space-time.

In any case, we have no direct experience of our physical body, it's all mediated through neurological simulation (stimulation simulation, hah). That simulation could just as easily be an amplification and focusing of aggregate cellular states rather than it's own purely neurological recipe. The nervous system could be thought of as a political network which organizes and represents the conditions of billions of cells into a primitive language 'we' can understand.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: screwtape on May 29, 2010, 07:11:52 PM
My hunch is that inanimate patterns make no such footprint in the subjective feeling dimension, but it's possible that the duration of a pattern over time acts as a kind of 'feeling' that the universe has. Total speculation, but I consider life to be a functional fifth dimension, which recapitulates the first four and superimposes them on a secondary level of abstraction. A cell is a kind of microcosm - a bubble of life-time in space-time.

In any case, we have no direct experience of our physical body, it's all mediated through neurological simulation (stimulation simulation, hah). That simulation could just as easily be an amplification and focusing of aggregate cellular states rather than it's own purely neurological recipe. The nervous system could be thought of as a political network which organizes and represents the conditions of billions of cells into a primitive language 'we' can understand.

Dude, you just took kcrady's gift, the lifeline he threw to you, and swam away from it as fast as you could.

Good luck.  I give up.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 07:23:38 PM
Dude, you just took kcrady's gift, the lifeline he threw to you, and swam away from it as fast as you could.
Good luck.  I give up.
I guess the lifeline was for you, not me.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 29, 2010, 07:47:22 PM
I'm sorry, how is that stuff relevant?

I thought we were discussing the idea that abiogenesis fit within a reasonable framework to occur, and that the idea that just because all of the potential combinations to create a living cell are theoretically immense; that it is still quite possible since all of the protiens and chemicals required follow some basic patterns of interaction rather than simple random bumpings.

By the time natural selection gets to the point of eyes and brains we're way past abiogenesis as a concept.  Natural selection as an engine of change is substantially proven conceptually.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on May 29, 2010, 08:50:17 PM
I'm sorry, how is that stuff relevant?

I thought we were discussing the idea that abiogenesis fit within a reasonable framework to occur, and that the idea that just because all of the potential combinations to create a living cell are theoretically immense; that it is still quite possible since all of the protiens and chemicals required follow some basic patterns of interaction rather than simple random bumpings.

By the time natural selection gets to the point of eyes and brains we're way past abiogenesis as a concept.  Natural selection as an engine of change is substantially proven conceptually.
You were making the statement that there wasn't a lot of feeling happening in a simple organism, so I was explaining that that's not necessarily true at all.

Neither abiogenesis nor natural selection is sufficient by itself to explain qualia, feeling, subjectivity, consciousness, etc. Neither is intelligent design for that matter.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MadBunny on May 29, 2010, 09:22:07 PM
Fair enough.
I disagree[1]., but that's fine, we can have that other conversation about protocellular feelings some other time.

 1 though I do agree that abiogenesis, creation, etc, do not expalin subjectivity, and concousness
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Graybeard on July 10, 2010, 03:13:33 PM
The probability of something that has already happened is always 100%, because there is a 0% chance of history changing.
Quoted for truth... carry on...
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 12, 2010, 04:34:10 PM
Neither abiogenesis nor natural selection is sufficient by itself to explain qualia, feeling, subjectivity, consciousness, etc. Neither is intelligent design for that matter.
It doesn't explain how eyes, brains or hearts work either, but it does explain that it exists.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: RaymondKHessel on July 12, 2010, 04:46:34 PM
Fair enough.
I disagree[1]., but that's fine, we can have that other conversation about protocellular feelings some other time.

 1 though I do agree that abiogenesis, creation, etc, do not expalin subjectivity, and concousness

Nooooo! Raymond demands it NAO!!! Not later! What if the Rapture comes or something? Don't put off until tomorrow what can be laughed about today!!!

For realz. I'm a little dissapointed. I was seriously liking the direction that was going.  :P
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 13, 2010, 05:56:47 AM
Neither abiogenesis nor natural selection is sufficient by itself to explain qualia, feeling, subjectivity, consciousness, etc. Neither is intelligent design for that matter.
It doesn't explain how eyes, brains or hearts work either, but it does explain that it exists.
Sure, yeah I like abiogenesis, I'm just saying it doesn't account for awareness. In the model I'm working with now, awareness begins at the quantum level...basically electromagnetism is an awareness-like property of the interior of matter while gravity is the automatic, exterior force of spacetime.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 13, 2010, 06:07:21 AM
I understand what you're saying (i.e. abiogenesis and evolution don't explain how things work), but I disagree that it is a valid argument against either one of both theories.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 13, 2010, 06:20:48 AM
I understand what you're saying (i.e. abiogenesis and evolution don't explain how things work), but I disagree that it is a valid argument against either one of both theories.
Oh I agree with you. I think that both theories make the most sense as far as explaining physical origins of what we think of as life, I'm just saying they don't go far enough on the subjective side to explain the origin of awareness...which they don't have to, since it's an entirely different side of the equation, it's just that I want my equation to include both sides. I'm not a Creationist by any means, although I think that creativity is expressed within evolution. Mutation exists on the genetic level but I think qualitative variation exists on the level of the individual organism as well, and quality is an interior, creative ecological symbiosis.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 13, 2010, 07:20:32 AM
I think it does explain the origin of awareness. It either originated from evolution as a byproduct of enhanced brains or as an advantageous trait. How it exactly happened is difficult, if not impossible, to tell and how awareness works. Fact is that all organisms have a different level of awareness while humans are probably somewhat at the top of the list of most aware beings.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 13, 2010, 07:46:33 AM
I think it does explain the origin of awareness. It either originated from evolution as a byproduct of enhanced brains or as an advantageous trait. How it exactly happened is difficult, if not impossible, to tell and how awareness works. Fact is that all organisms have a different level of awareness while humans are probably somewhat at the top of the list of most aware beings.
In my model it's not difficult to tell how awareness happens or it works, because it takes place within matter itself. If you allow that matter recognizes itself and that it shares it's qualitative state (two atoms fusing would be a maximally excited state, for example. The brightness in your retina is your retina's attempt to recreate that distant experience - in it's own behavior, which is the same behavior that the electrons of your consciousness use to interpret it.). Organisms and humans do have different sorts of awarenesses, because they are different configurations of cells, tissues, organs, bodies. Same matter though. Same electromagnetism, and I think, same fundamental units of qualitative-cooperative-imitative subjectivity.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 13, 2010, 06:20:58 PM
Matter does not recognize itself. I'm curious what you actually mean by awareness. If you consider awareness a simple input/reply process, then yes, matter does have awareness; the laws of the universe. Awareness in human beings, however, is of an entirely different order, since we're not only able to process stimuli, but also be aware of our environment, of our wishes, of our inner feelings, etc.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 14, 2010, 06:54:45 AM
Matter does not recognize itself. I'm curious what you actually mean by awareness. If you consider awareness a simple input/reply process, then yes, matter does have awareness; the laws of the universe. Awareness in human beings, however, is of an entirely different order, since we're not only able to process stimuli, but also be aware of our environment, of our wishes, of our inner feelings, etc.
I think that matter on the atomic level does likely have some elementally simple 'experience' of it's own condition and, given the proper spatial range, and nature of the behavior that condition inspires, matter shares it's condition with separated instances of itself - whether physically adjacent or when separated by a vacuum.

Awareness in human beings is of course of an entirely different order. Comparing the 'awareness' of an atom to even a single celled algae would be like comparing 1+1=2 to (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/e/e/0ee62cfde36da9805add9557e1a739b8.png). The subjectivity of algae compared to that of a human brain is like a single note of music to every version of every piece of music that can ever be composed.

It's still just notes, but the patterns and meta patterns of notes are what we experience as a trillion cell human body. Our self-awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system, organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition the cellular nano selves it represents. Cells communicate with each other in tissues, tissues communicate collectively in organs, and organs function synchronistically as the body, including the brain.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 15, 2010, 06:01:42 AM
I don't understand what a random formula from Wikipedia has to with awareness, but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?

"Our self awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system", true, but "it is not organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition of the cellular nano selves it represents", but in such a way that we have some of the best tools to understand and interact with other human beings and our environment.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 06:29:24 AM
I don't understand what a random formula from Wikipedia has to with awareness, but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?

Immediacracy displays argumentation styles that is similar to a crank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29), on this specific topic. He has this theory (e.g. this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14277.0)) that science cannot cope with parts of reality and that this special theory of his can. His theory is senseless and unfalsifiable, however. The funny thing is, that within other discussions he is using proper reasoning, but this is also a quality seen in cranks.

I've known people like Immediacracy before, and discussions with cranks about their topics are typically senseless.

I just learned about this term yesterday in another thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14968.msg333068#msg333068) in a response to someone else that was using similar discussion patterns.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 06:59:50 AM
I don't understand what a random formula from Wikipedia has to with awareness,
I'm comparing the complexity of the proposed subjectivity of individual atoms with the subjectivity we are familiar with, to show that it's orders of magnitude greater while still being based on the same fundamental principles.

Quote
but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?
Neuroscience shows us, through an MRI for example, that consciousness is associated with the electrical activity of a living brain. Electrical activity governs the function of the heart. Electrical activity underlies all chemical changes in every cell, tissue, and organ of the body.

Where do we get our consciousness from? What are we if not electrical activity in a fantastically elaborate pattern?

Quote
"Our self awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system", true, but "it is not organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition of the cellular nano selves it represents", but in such a way that we have some of the best tools to understand and interact with other human beings and our environment.
They are the same thing. In order to be able to understand not only other human beings, but our own body - it's needs, the physical status of it's tissues and organs, the emotional status of it's complex inner states - it seems entirely unavoidable that there be a common language, and that such a language would be electromagnetic. At what point does a reality of automatic billiard balls suddenly become able to experience a feeling and why?

A nervousness in our stomach is a 'recapitulation of the inner condition of the cellular-tissue level nano-micro level experience' of that area of our body which are understood by areas of the brain and nervous system associated with the stomach. The nervous system reports the news and carries feedback from limbic and cortex, which can issue electromagnetic commands to parts of the body which are under voluntary control.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 07:22:49 AM
Immediacracy displays argumentation styles that is similar to a crank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29), on this specific topic. He has this theory (e.g. this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14277.0)) that science cannot cope with parts of reality and that this special theory of his can.
It's not my special theory, it's just just one idea of many theories and observations going back to Taoism and Vedanta, and it's similar to contemporary theories like David Bohm's Implicate Order, Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, etc. The idea that the contemporary scientific worldview in it's current form is inadequate to explain subjectivity is by no means limited to myself, and may, if you count religious people, be an overwhelming majority of the world.

Is this guy a crank? If so, then sure, please call me a crank too.

Quote
His theory is senseless and unfalsifiable, however. The funny thing is, that within other discussions he is using proper reasoning, but this is also a quality seen in cranks.
It's also seen in the Creative Personality (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1770224/11_traits_of_the_creative_personality_pg4.html?cat=72) (Trait Number 8 - Conservation and Rebellion)

My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow. (The idea that it is the sharing of experience between observers that makes it real makes more sense to me.)

Quote
I've known people like Immediacracy before, and discussions with cranks about their topics are typically senseless.
I've known pseudoskeptics before, and discussions about any topic other than reaffirmations of conventional wisdom are typically frustrating and amusing.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 07:49:27 AM
To be clear, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe what I'm saying. I'm trying to get you to ask yourself if what I'm saying could be true. I want you to help me confirm or deny the truth of the idea. Does the idea of light being a phenomenon that your nervous system imitates locally make sense? Might it explain the sticky issues of quantum mechanics, consciousness, and cosmology?

At this point it appears to me to be that way. A couple weeks ago, my line of thinking was that color is produced locally to consciousness and that the nuomena of color was unknowable. This new view describes consciousness as a behavior of matter in direct communication with other matter. Color as a shared direct experience of material expression and locality, not intangible energy units from physics to biology, to neurology through transduction.

Of course I could be wrong. I don't know enough about electronics to run the theory through every relevant invention. It seems like the math shouldn't change whether particles imitate each other or whether a wave/particle is launched from one to another (or all others in range...somehow). It would require someone with electrical engineering skills to really sit down and reverse engineer the 20th century from this perspective to see what it would look like. Not a debunking pseudoskeptic, but a true skeptic pioneer who is willing to temporarily forget they ever heard the last 50 years of physics and impartially look at the devices. How would television 'really' work under this theory, etc.?

I may have no choice but to gradually try to do it myself. I'm trying to let it simmer on it's own for a while, maybe it will prove itself flawed in some way I haven't noticed yet.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: xphobe on July 15, 2010, 07:54:17 AM
My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow. (The idea that it is the sharing of experience between observers that makes it real makes more sense to me.)

Regardless whether the QM model makes intuitive sense to us, QM does allow us to make specific mathematical predictions about the behavior of the real world, which turn out to hold up.  Does your theory do the same?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 08:00:31 AM
It's not my special theory, it's just just one idea of many theories and observations going back to Taoism and Vedanta, and it's similar to contemporary theories like David Bohm's Implicate Order, Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, etc.

You take a 2000 year old religion (Taoism), which like every religion is based on nonsense, connect it to a pseudo-scientist (Wilber) that translated the religion into new-age stuff, which makes it not anything more truthful and then say there is a relation with a real scientist (Bohm) to give it credibility, with just your own added ingredient of non-science. That is a strange mixture of ‘tradition’, ‘authority’, and ‘revelation’ (http://www.rationalresponders.com/richard_dawkins_letter_to_his_10_year_old_daughter_how_to_warn_your_child_about_this_irrational_world). It shows that you are clever. Not that what you say holds any merit at all.

Quote
The idea that the contemporary scientific worldview in it's current form is inadequate to explain subjectivity is by no means limited to myself, and may, if you count religious people, be an overwhelming majority of the world.

Are your sure that, on this specific forum, you want to claim that your 'theory' is supported because many people believe something similar? Moreover, you don't say in any way why a scientific world view is inadequate, even though you throw in 'contemporary' and 'current form' to hide behind vagueness.

Quote
Is this guy a crank? If so, then sure, please call me a crank too.

No, he is not. He is a scientist. Quantum mechanical theory is supported by countless evidence. Your 'theory' is not. Comparing yourself to a scientist is nice, but it doesn't mean your ideas are not 'cranky'.

Quote
My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow.

But the big difference is, again, that it is supported by evidence. You can do the simple experiments yourself and verify that the theories predictions come true every time. So quantum mechanics is not unfalsifiable. At all.
Your theory is. What predictions do you make that we could verify and isn't explainable by any other scientific theory?

Quote
I've known pseudoskeptics before, and discussions about any topic other than reaffirmations of conventional wisdom are typically frustrating and amusing.

It's ironic that you are smart enough to see this trait in others, but not enough to see it in yourself.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 15, 2010, 08:03:16 AM
My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow. (The idea that it is the sharing of experience between observers that makes it real makes more sense to me.)

Quantum mechanics is highly falsifiable, but it has a track record of highly accurate
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 08:17:15 AM
Regardless whether the QM model makes intuitive sense to us, QM does allow us to make specific mathematical predictions about the behavior of the real world, which turn out to hold up.  Does your theory do the same?
My ideas don't change any of the predictions of QM, but they do seem to point to a resolution of QM's counter-intuitive paradoxes. My theory allows for the prediction of order, purpose, intelligibility, and the possibility of life in the Cosmos. Which is a proven fact, utterly untouched by QM. My QC (Qualitative Cooperative) model doesn't diminish the predictive power of the exteriorized QM model, but it makes the two-slit experiment make a lot more sense.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 08:22:40 AM
Quantum mechanics is highly falsifiable, but it has a track record of highly accurate
To me QM has been falsified already, with it's accurate predictions being based on mutually exclusive ontologies of particle and wave. QM is like a meticulous study of traffic patterns without noticing that cars have drivers. Add drivers, and it makes a lot more sense, even though the predictions remain the same.

Quote
What new thing does your view predict?
Subjectivity, communication, expression, order, negentropy, teleology, perception, creativity, the possibility of life, the possibility of consciousness, qualia...etc.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2010, 08:27:25 AM
Ontologies are ways of intuitively understanding something.  As such, ontologies can't falsify anything, though they can themselves be falsified sometimes.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 08:33:48 AM
To me QM has been falsified already, with it's accurate predictions being based on mutually exclusive ontologies of particle and wave.
...
Subjectivity, communication, expression, order, negentropy, teleology, perception, creativity, the possibility of life, the possibility of consciousness, qualia...etc.

Quantum Mechanics have been falsified by you, because you think it is counter intuitive? Because YOU don't understand it?
Let me quote from the Crank wikipedia page description that can be directly applied to your reasoning in previous discussions with me.

Quote
- Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
- Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
- Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
- Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs.. and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Quote
They typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods.
Quote
cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

Quote
- seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
- stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error
- ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

and especially

Quote
In addition, cranky scientific "theories" do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank "theories" in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
Immediacracy, because I'm sure you will come up with a long confusing nonsensical reply that explains that you really are totally right and we just don't understand, again.... please look into the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). Every positive number resulting from a test indicates a cranky theory. I think you score points for item numbers 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 34 and 36.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 08:59:13 AM
You take a 2000 year old religion (Taoism), which like every religion is based on nonsense, subjectivity.

Quote
It shows that you are clever. Not that what you say holds any merit at all.
I'm not trying to be clever, I'm just exposing your accusation that these ideas our 'my special theory' as a an argument from authority fallacy. I don't say that these ideas hold any merit at all, I'm asking whether there's anything in particular that can be said about their merit one way or another based on the realities of our experience of nature (rather than on personal intolerance or conventionalism).

Quote
Are your sure that, on this specific forum, you want to claim that your 'theory' is supported because many people believe something similar?
No, I'm just saying that it's not "my special theory"...because that was "your special objection".

Quote
Moreover, you don't say in any way why a scientific world view is inadequate, even though you throw in 'contemporary' and 'current form' to hide behind vagueness.
I'm not hiding any vagueness, I just want to be crystal clear that I'm not opposed in any way to a scientific worldview (in fact, my whole point here is to extent it's coherence), but the worldview of the moment, which I consider in many ways to reflect a hypertrophied empirical pseudo-detachment and an atrophied sense of subjective awareness. This imbalanced perspective projects it's own bias onto the cosmos, which it conceives as being automatic, and devoid of inner content.

Quote
No, he is not. He is a scientist.
I guess you've never heard of Robert Anton Wilson. He's an author with a PhD in Psychology, but he's not a scientist as far as Quantum Physics goes. My OMM/ACME polarity has it's roots on Wilson's ideas about left brained vs right brained reality tunnels.

Quote
Quantum mechanical theory is supported by countless evidence.
Or, maybe QM is a fractured, ambiguous non-theory custom tailored to explain conflicting evidence.

Quote
Your 'theory' is not. Comparing yourself to a scientist is nice, but it doesn't mean your ideas are not 'cranky'.
I'm not saying what my ideas are, because I don't know myself. That's for others to decide. I don't rely on categories and labels to tell me what is or is not real. Like RAW says, all perception is a gamble.

Quote
But the big difference is, again, that it is supported by evidence.
The two slit experiment, to me, shows that it my not supported by evidence. Science is rife with the history of accepted doctrines which someone pokes a hole in. (You've seen James Burke's outstanding series 'The Day the Universe Changed' I presume?) This is the story of science. It's never been anything else. Evidence is misleading. So is intuition.

Quote
What predictions do you make that we could verify and isn't explainable by any other scientific theory?
again, "Subjectivity, communication, expression, order, negentropy, teleology, perception, creativity, the possibility of life, the possibility of consciousness, qualia...etc."

Quote
It's ironic that you are smart enough to see this trait in others, but not enough to see it in yourself.
I'm not reaffirming conventional wisdom though. I'm not trying to shoot down QM because I don't like it - I think it's cool.. muon-neutrinos, quark charm... I love it. I just love the unmistakable validity of consciousness and subjectivity more. If I had to bet whether an antiparticle of a W Boson was real or Bozo the Clown was real, I would probably have to go with the evidence of the tv show of the Clown.

Everything that QM tells us seems to be related to what we are using to measure it...so why not just admit that it's the activity within the measuring device that we are measuring?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 09:15:43 AM
The two slit experiment, to me, shows that it my not supported by evidence. Science is rife with the history of accepted doctrines which someone pokes a hole in. (You've seen James Burke's outstanding series 'The Day the Universe Changed' I presume?) This is the story of science. It's never been anything else. Evidence is misleading. So is intuition.

I have had enough of this fruitless discussion. Just one thing, please note that quantum mechanics did not only explain the results of current results, but also correctly predicted properties of matter that were not known at the time, but later have been fully confirmed. Like Quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement). How does your semi-theory explain that?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 09:26:11 AM
Immediacracy, because I'm sure you will come up with a long confusing nonsensical reply that explains that you really are totally right and we just don't understand, again.... please look into the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). Every positive number resulting from a test indicates a cranky theory. I think you score points for item numbers 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 34 and 36.

Quote
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
I'm not contradicting results, I enthusiastically support them, I'm just providing an alternate interpretation of them.

Quote
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
I only use all caps when it's an acronym. That's not what they're talking about. This (http://www.timecube.com/) is a what a crank looks like.

Quote
14. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
I admit that my idea qualifies there, but I think the very fact that QM is believed to be misguided have to do with the possibility that in some way...it is.

Quote
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
I have never, to my knowledge, looked at or expressed well-established theories on the grounds that it's "only a theory".

Quote
17.  10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism"
I don't fault QM for not explaining why phenomena occur. I just see QM as a phenomenon which is shared by matter, not by space.

Quote
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
I don't claim that, but my ideas are along the same lines as a lot of others who do claim a paradigm shift. It would be great if there was a paradigm shift, but I tend to think people will go on digging themselves into a deeper hole with the current paradigm until it's too late.

Quote
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
Do I talk about 'how great my theory is'? I try to explain it as well as I have the patience to. I can't say whether it's great or not, I wouldn't know. It seems plausible to me, and that makes it interesting to me.

Quote
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
Pfft. Really? I've never attributed any conspiracy or well-deserved fame to my ideas. I've only had the chance to present them to who I thought might be an expert one time - who did became angry at me personally, but didn't give me any reason to see the idea as less plausible.

Quote
36  40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
Haha. The odds of my theory ever being known are obviously pretty remote, but it does seem possible that at some point someone's theory will supersede the current model, and that the new model may take a similar approach to mine.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 09:30:03 AM
Like Quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement). How does your semi-theory explain that?
Quantum entanglement is exactly what my theory is based on. Shared, cooperative communications between particles (real particles, with mass, positions, and velocities).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 09:38:27 AM
Quantum entanglement is exactly what my theory is based on. Shared, cooperative communications between particles (real particles, with mass, positions, and velocities).

So you can provide a mathematical background for your theory, predict verifiable results of measurements and build quantum computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer) with it? When will you send your paper to a physics journal?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 09:39:23 AM
Quantum Mechanics have been falsified by you, because you think it is counter intuitive? Because YOU don't understand it?
ME is all I have. Do you not think that it's counter intuitive?

Cranky, like Quantum, is in the eye of the beholder. The more pseudoskeptical the accuser, the more like a crank others will seem to them. It's a measure of intolerance, not invalidation.

All I ask is that one person give me one specific example of why my idea is invalid. Why is it so hard for someone, even an angry Physics professor to think of a single counter-example?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2010, 09:45:23 AM
Immediacracy,

Have you considered that your failure to understand QM intuitively might be the result of a common failure of human intuition, rather than a failure of QM as a theory?

EDIT:  Spelling
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 09:49:34 AM
All I ask is that one person give me one specific example of why my idea is invalid. Why is it so hard for someone, even an angry Physics professor to think of a single counter-example?

You're now going towards item 13 in the crackpot index? It's because you presented us with an ill defined theory of nothing, that doesn't define anything science doesn't explain, nor does the explanation you account to it lead to any predictions, tests or possible examples that can be used to in any sense validate nor invalidate your theory.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 09:49:43 AM
So you can provide a mathematical background for your theory, predict verifiable results of measurements and build quantum computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer) with it? When will you send your paper to a physics journal?
My idea isn't mathematical. It has to to with awareness, expression, and communication. Math is an exterior, objective descriptive language. I would love to partner with a physicist with a mathematical background and see if it's possible to submit the idea to a physics journal (along with a prologue which explains the dynamics of pseudoskepticism and the psychology of scientific materialism and predicts it's own rejection).

But I don't need any formal consensus on this idea. It makes sense to me, whether I like it or not. If others get something out of it, great. It would be amazing if it turned out to be possible to validate conclusively by an experiment, but with the prevailing model based on the chimera of quantum, it seems like any result that QM can't explain will just get patched up with an obscure theoretical kluge. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 09:55:04 AM
It's because you presented us with an ill defined theory of nothing, that doesn't define anything science doesn't explain, nor does the explanation you account to it lead to any predictions, tests or possible examples that can be used to in any sense validate nor invalidate your theory.
How is it ill-defined? I'm saying that light doesn't travel through space, it's a phenomena of matter communicating with itself. Matter has internal energy states which it can detect in matter regardless of separation by a vacuum. Light is a quality of matter and location not a projectile of any form.

Is it really that crazy to you all?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2010, 09:56:46 AM
Not crazy, just poorly-defined and of no practical explanatory value.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 09:58:54 AM
Immediacracy,

Have you considered that your failure to understand QM intuitively might be the result of a common failure of human intuition, rather than a failure of QM as a theory?

EDIT:  Spelling
Of course I have. I don't think QM fails as a theory, it just maps everything as going on exclusively outside of matter rather than inside. I don't make that assumption.

Tell me how you intuitively grasp the two slit experiment? What happens in that room that causes light to suddenly expand into a wide bar?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 15, 2010, 09:58:58 AM
But I don't need any formal consensus on this idea.

It isn't even possible, because there is nothing in your theory that is in some way connected to formality or observation.

Quote
I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

I'm sure it does. I don't doubt your sincerity at all. The point is that your argument and reasoning are inherently flawed, because there is nothing that can substantiate or unsubstantiate your claims in any way.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 10:06:07 AM
The point is that your argument and reasoning are inherently flawed, because there is nothing that can substantiate or unsubstantiate your claims in any way.
Those are two separate issues. Consciousness can't be substantiated or refuted either, and that's what I'm talking about. Subjectivity as part of the Cosmos at a fundamental level. If the only flaw in my argument and reasoning is that they can't be confirmed or denied, then it may not be a flaw at all - just an accurate description of those phenomena, like consciousness, which cannot be objectively modeled.

Find me a real flaw - a real world observation inconsistent with my idea, and I'm more than happy to drop the whole thing. Believe me, it does me no particular service to have some big idea that everyone who isn't bored by hates me for and with which I can't do anything with. I just happen to think that there's a chance it could be somewhat true.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2010, 10:06:49 AM
Immediacracy,

Have you considered that your failure to understand QM intuitively might be the result of a common failure of human intuition, rather than a failure of QM as a theory?

EDIT:  Spelling
Of course I have. I don't think QM fails as a theory, it just maps everything as going on exclusively outside of matter rather than inside. I don't make that assumption.

Tell me how you intuitively grasp the two slit experiment? What happens in that room that causes light to suddenly expand into a wide bar?

Sorry for the ambiguity - I meant "common" in the sense of "common to humans" - myself included.  My point is that we don't need to intuitively understand it.  Intuitive understanding is emotionally gratifying, but it isn't necessary.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: screwtape on July 15, 2010, 10:07:12 AM
Is it really that crazy to you all?

If we said "yes", then what?  Would you seriously consider the possibility that you are a crank?  Would that change your mind about anything?  Or would it just reinforce what you already believe (that we just don't get it)?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 10:09:00 AM
Not crazy, just poorly-defined and of no practical explanatory value.
What kind of practical explanatory value is there in exclusively perpetuating a worldview which neglects to find consciousness, life, or meaning even when that view is itself sourced in said subjective living phenomena?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 10:25:08 AM
If we said "yes", then what?  Would you seriously consider the possibility that you are a crank?  Would that change your mind about anything?  Or would it just reinforce what you already believe (that we just don't get it)?
If you all said yes then I would know that you're telling the truth, and that we are just very different people. I don't believe that you just don't get it, I think that maybe you might get it but you just don't want to be a fool who is willing to entertain ideas which diverge so far from the mainstream. Which is ok, that's the experience of all pioneering ideas.

What I think that you (as a group) may not get is that I don't expect people to accept this. I'm only interested in whether people come up with anything interesting that I haven't heard before. The fact that all I get is people's personal opinions of my opinions, criticizing them for their personal nature (in the most personal and aggressive way, of course).

Why would you think that your opinions of me would matter more to me than my opinions about nature? I have no agenda. I'm not selling anything here. I'm being completely honest and above board in my observations about the Cosmos. You don't like them? Fine. I expect that. But how do my observations not make sense? What are the flaws you see in the ideas themselves other than they being a different take on things which have appeared to be settled science for a couple of generations?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Grimm on July 15, 2010, 10:26:45 AM
Immediacracy:

I think you're falling victim to what a professor of mine recently called "the problem of 'if' in science."  It's something theoretical scientists have to be careful of, and I'm sure his definition of it is more than a bit subjective, but he's right as far as his point goes.  The "problem of 'if'" happens when creative, imaginative people get carried away with the ramifications of a possibility before determining the truth of that possibility.  The major problem in science is that you end up wasting lots of potential research time determining what something means far before you've determined if it's even true.

A little speculation is fine - it keeps the excitement flowing.  It makes people amped up to be a part of a project, or to work on increasingly incomprehensible mathematics.  If the speculation takes over, however, then all of your work is aimed at something that (like most science, actually) may turn out to be flawed so fundamentally that it doesn't matter.

Thus your theory.  It's an intriguing though about the ramifications if matter has a certain consciousness of itself.  If we allow that, to use your own statement of fact.  Yet, you've no prima facie evidence that your fundamental assertion is true beyond your own sense that it may likely be so.  I agree with you that the what-if is quite interesting.  Until, however, you devise a way to test your core assumption, well - you've not got much but wild speculation, no matter how grounded in your version of reality it may seem.

What these guys are trying to point out is that the difference between a crackpot 'theory' like, for instance, homeopathy and reality is the validation of the core assertion behind the theory.  QM isn't really at all what you think it is, and without a thorough understanding of things like Heisenberg, concepts like a 'quantum probability foam' seem awfully esoteric.  The Two-Slit experiment and the collapsing waveform based on observation are well-known, and these days, fairly well understood - even if, like gravity, we don't know the mechanism, we can predict behavior based on the influence of the phenomenon.  Scientists aren't just measuring their own instruments, as you've asserted.

It's good that you don't believe them.  In fact, it's so important to say this that I should say it again:

it's good that you don't believe them.

Go and find out.  Learn the math.  Really see what they're talking about and what predictions have been made.  Your characterization of the theory is typical of laymen - QM is neither intuitive nor intellectually easy.  Taking it on, trying to understand it, to see why it has gained prevalence despite the brain-bendyness that has made scientists twitch for generations and to fight it at every turn?  That's incredibly valuable.

Unfortunately, your own current theory, as I've gleaned the edges from reading what I have in this thread, rests on a fundamental assertion that - scientifically - is utterly unproven, if not completely falsified.  The ramifications - the what-ifs - that you're presenting are incredibly fun to speculate upon, certainly, but your baseline asssertions cannot be given a free pass.

Look at String Theory, for example.  It is elegant, mathematically.  It sews up all of the problems between QM and the Standard Model so neatly that it would be an utter shame if it weren't true.  Scientists are utterly excited about it because its ramifications are far-reaching - it would mathematically explain everything from the Big Bang ('brane' theory!) to Entanglement, the cause of the speed of light limit to a new unified field equation that could - in theory - let us harness gravity the same way we do EM radiation these days.  Thrilling, no?  The reason, however, you've not seen more scientists jump on the bandwagon is that its core assertion - that matter's fundamental particle is actually vibrating strings of intradimensional probability - is absolutely untestable.  Unverifiable.  If you /allow/ that this is true, then you solve the Unified Field problem.  You discover the shape of the universe.

Fortunately for all of us, no one gets a pass on 'allowing' things in science.  The LHC - one of the great scientific endeavors ever attempted by man - will either prove or disprove the Standard Model in the coming decade or so (by the hopeful discovery of the Higgs Bosun and Supersymmetry).  If it does not, then we will have learned that everything we know is wrong, and String Theory has a chance.

Now.  Your theory?  Neat notion.  How do you propose to verify that matter has knowledge of itself?   Neither I nor anyone else - nor even should you yourself! - should accept your speculation until you prove the bit that we have to 'give' you for that speculation to be true.  So.  How can we do that?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 10:38:46 AM
Sorry for the ambiguity - I meant "common" in the sense of "common to humans" - myself included.  My point is that we don't need to intuitively understand it.  Intuitive understanding is emotionally gratifying, but it isn't necessary.
See, that's the thing though. If a Christian said that to you about the Trinity or something, you'd excoriate them. Have you ever considered that maybe intuitive understanding is necessary to make sense of something? Is it possible that that's what the point of a theory is?

When an established orthodoxy tells me that it's not necessary to understand, what's left is for me to believe. Faith over understanding. I'm willing to accept that QM is useful, and possibly true, but I don't give up my skepticism about it just because it's popular among our best and brightest scientists.

I've never heard anyone describe the possibility that anything is going on 'inside of matter' - (except maybe String Theory in a weird way) so part of me wonders if that's such a simple possibility that it's been left unimagined and unexplored all this time, even though the condition of being inside our body is an everyday experience. Perhaps this idea is unpalatable because we'd like to think of ourselves and our subjective consciousness as somehow far more sophisticated than 'the universe' and at the same time, far less deserving of the attention. Maybe the idea that our inner worlds are completely separate from the inside of all worlds is the illusion?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2010, 10:50:00 AM
If the Trinity was a theory that made accurate, testable predictions, then I would give the idea serious thought.  That's the difference, and one you're glossing over.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 11:14:05 AM
I think you're falling victim to what a professor of mine recently called "the problem of 'if' in science."  It's something theoretical scientists have to be careful of, and I'm sure his definition of it is more than a bit subjective, but he's right as far as his point goes.  The "problem of 'if'" happens when creative, imaginative people get carried away with the ramifications of a possibility before determining the truth of that possibility.
I do agree with that, although I try to make it clear that this is just the sprout of an idea. I haven't had time to do much with it at all except for trying to get it down in some written forms.

If you haven't seen the main thread on the idea as it came together, here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14866.msg332333#msg332333) it is.

Quote
How do you propose to verify that matter has knowledge of itself?
I would start from ourselves and move out. We are bodies and we have knowledge of ourselves. Our bodies are made of cells which seem to act, like us, in a cooperative and synchronized manner. Cells are made of molecules which seem to act to facilitate the operation, healing, and regulation of living cells. Molecules seem to be nothing more than configurations of atoms.

To me it seems that it's only us that doesn't have knowledge of matter, but matter seems to know what it's doing with itself.

Quote
Neither I nor anyone else - nor even should you yourself! - should accept your speculation until you prove the bit that we have to 'give' you for that speculation to be true.  So.  How can we do that?

I completely agree. Has anyone done two slit experiments with a human eye instead of a screen? Seems simple enough. That alone could tell us something unexpected. Light takes place on your retina. We know this. It is a screen and it is an observer. What does it look like when you close one eye and shoot a laser at it through two slits? Does it need to be in a vacuum? Maybe a camera works just as well?.

I could imagine maybe some experiments using transcranial magnetic stimulation - basically do quantum mechanical experiments inside a living, conscious human brain. Any volunteers? :)

Thanks for the comments though. I don't know ultimately if there is a way around observer ambiguity. I think there is a 'Law of Conservation of Mystery' which may keep the interior phenomenon partitioned existentially from the exterior, such that the subject must always choose which side of the fence they are on for themselves. The voluntary aspect, the gamble of perception may be an immutable characteristic of the fabric of subjectivity itself while the subjective surrender to exterior evidence is an act of nontrivial consequence in any possible experiments. The placebo effect is a requirement for this level of cosmic integration.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
If the Trinity was a theory that made accurate, testable predictions, then I would give the idea serious thought.  That's the difference, and one you're glossing over.
That's a good point, and it makes perfect sense, but the criteria of accurate, testable prediction is by definition an empirical standard. What I don't always think that people see when they use this approach is that reliance on those criteria exclusively opens the door to a different kind of confirmation bias - one which reflexively projects automatic, deterministic solutions onto all phenomena, even when the self plainly exhibits unpredictable, volitional, and inaccurate behaviors, and the self is at the heart of all of out understanding of the universe.

To true believers on the religious end of the spectrum, their truth requires faith in spite of a lack of evidence. They see empirical reason as being susceptible to spiritual corruption. For them, the proof is in the pudding of increasing alienation and immorality in society.

So I still say, science gets no pass from skepticism. If it cannot be understood intuitively, it may point to a reality not comprehensible to us, or it may simply be exactly what you might expect if you try to explain a universe which is half subjective in completely objective terms.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 15, 2010, 12:42:34 PM
To me QM has been falsified already, with it's accurate predictions being based on mutually exclusive ontologies of particle and wave.
Things are not "false" because they don't fit your preconceived notion of the way the
universe works.

Quote
QM is like a meticulous study of traffic patterns without noticing that cars have drivers. Add drivers, and it makes a lot more sense, even though the predictions remain the same.
What if the next fool says the idea that the planets orbit because invisible angels push them around "makes a lot
more sense" then gravity?  If we can just pull theories out of our asses anytime we want and call it science,
where do we draw the line.

Quote
Quote
What new thing does your view predict?
Subjectivity, communication, expression, order, negentropy, teleology, perception, creativity, the possibility of life, the possibility of consciousness, qualia...etc.

Please describe an experiment I can perform to validate your new predictions.  With QM it's easy: I have a laser
on my bench, and it works.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on July 15, 2010, 01:47:46 PM

So I still say, science gets no pass from skepticism. If it cannot be understood intuitively, it may point to a reality not comprehensible to us, or it may simply be exactly what you might expect if you try to explain a universe which is half subjective in completely objective terms.

Science is supported by
The Scientific Method
which  relies heavily on intuition.

Human has a brainwave!!
What if ..... (maybe your thoughts, Immediacracy, could fall into that category).

Then human scientists apply their knowledge of mathematics and science to create an hypothesis.

Then after many years of experimentation, with positive results agreeing with the hypothesis, they come up with a theory.

The scientists who are remembered are not those who had just the 'Eureka' moment but those that also followed it up with evidence (like Darwin).

Science requires the insight first and then  followed up by detailed rational logical thinking to join up all the pieces.

Scientists understand intuitively but when describing the phenomena to other scientists they need cold hard precise language.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 01:50:44 PM
Things are not "false" because they don't fit your preconceived notion of the way the
universe works.
I agree, that's true, but if someone tells me that the way the universe works is based on square circles which know when you're looking at them, then other possibilities seem appealing.

Quote
What if the next fool says the idea that the planets orbit because invisible angels push them around "makes a lot
more sense" then gravity?
I would say that gravity is pretty straightforward and explains everything the pushy angels explains and much, much more.

Quote
If we can just pull theories out of our asses anytime we want and call it science, where do we draw the line.
I agree, although I don't think that the question of where we draw the line in the future should be determined a priori, depending on the nature of what's being considered. A proposed medical treatment or pesticide for example, should be scrutinized with a very conservative approach. A cosmology, in the absence of a completely satisfying model, should receive more latitude if it addresses some compelling issues in possibly a new way. Not as a conclusion, but as a direction worth beginning to explore or research.

Quote
Please describe an experiment I can perform to validate your new predictions.  With QM it's easy: I have a laser
on my bench, and it works.
If you want to set up a two slit experiment shooting the laser into the lens of a camera, that might be provide some information. I don't suggest that anyone shine a laser into someone's eyes but maybe through a protective lens, it would be worthwhile to see how someone's perception differs from one slit vs two. Does two slits compel you shift your visual focus back and forth from one source to the other horizontally?

Really I would have to be familiar with the control experiments. What happens when you change the frequency of the laser? What happens if you use an image from a slide projector instead? My only prediction would be some similarity in the way the experience of the light is experienced subjectively which may help us understand more about what is going on on the screen. If you shoot toward a camera lens instead, does the lens flare change in an unexpected way between one slit and two? What would you expect it to do? I don't know enough about optics to say - like I can draw an object with three dimensional perspective, but I don't know that I could tell you verbally how I think it should look.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 02:35:22 PM

Then after many years of experimentation, with positive results agreeing with the hypothesis, they come up with a theory.

The scientists who are remembered are not those who had just the 'Eureka' moment but those that also followed it up with evidence (like Darwin).

Science requires the insight first and then  followed up by detailed rational logical thinking to join up all the pieces.

Scientists understand intuitively but when describing the phenomena to other scientists they need cold hard precise language.
I agree with you except for the part about experiment, hypothesis, and theory always following in that sequence. It's not always that way. The scientific method is an idealized sorting of steps that doesn't occur in real life. Hypotheses are revised, experiments are repeated, theories begin new rounds of experimentation, etc.

I've never said that I expect this idea to be accepted by science as is, I'm just saying that it could be a beginning of a worthwhile investigation - or it could be a philosophical curiosity.

The thing is, what if it's right? Whether it's science or not, it still makes a lot of sense to me. Why does it need to be something other than that at this point? If I had already thoroughly researched and experimented this, I'd be on the news right now and not defending the possibility of the theory online.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: nogodsforme on July 15, 2010, 02:48:18 PM
Immediacracy, because I'm sure you will come up with a long confusing nonsensical reply that explains that you really are totally right and we just don't understand, again.... please look into the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). Every positive number resulting from a test indicates a cranky theory. I think you score points for item numbers 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 34 and 36.

I dig that "crackpot index". I will borrow it next time we get a genius who "doesn't believe" in evolutionary theory, or tries to convince us that some impossible biblical event actually happened, despite no actual evidence of it. Just substitute Darwin or some other scientist for Einstein, Newton or Feynman. 8)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 15, 2010, 03:52:35 PM
I agree, that's true, but if someone tells me that the way the universe works is based on square circles which know when you're looking at them, then other possibilities seem appealing.
Who cares what seems appealing?  What matters is results, and QM works.

Quote
I would say that gravity is pretty straightforward and explains everything the pushy angels explains and much, much more.
Your opinion isn't helpful.  We need objective and repeatable standards to differentiate useful and predictive models from uninformed fantasy.  QM gained popularity using the scientific method as a standard.  Is
there a reason we should reject that in favor of you opinion regarding what is appealing?

Quote
I agree, although I don't think that the question of where we draw the line in the future should be determined a priori, depending on the nature of what's being considered.
We already use different confidence intervals where appropriate.

Oh and "try something like this and see what happens" isn't the sort of experiment I was asking about.
You have a theory, tell me something specific it predicts that isn't already predicted by QM.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 15, 2010, 04:01:15 PM
I'll respond to your first reply to me, without reading all the posts posted in the last couple of hours. I will read them after I replied.

I'm comparing the complexity of the proposed subjectivity of individual atoms with the subjectivity we are familiar with, to show that it's orders of magnitude greater while still being based on the same fundamental principles.
To me it is a simple, but random, formula and I wonder why you used it. It only indicates arbitrary complexity. It's like a theist saying "I can't understand how evolution works, so God did it".

Quote
but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?
Neuroscience shows us, through an MRI for example, that consciousness is associated with the electrical activity of a living brain. Electrical activity governs the function of the heart. Electrical activity underlies all chemical changes in every cell, tissue, and organ of the body.

Where do we get our consciousness from? What are we if not electrical activity in a fantastically elaborate pattern?
First of all, electrical activity does not not underlie all chemical changes, hormonal activity and diffusion is at least as important. It's also meaningless, because it's saying something like "our existence underlies our awareness." So what?

Quote
"Our self awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system", true, but "it is not organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition of the cellular nano selves it represents", but in such a way that we have some of the best tools to understand and interact with other human beings and our environment.
They are the same thing. In order to be able to understand not only other human beings, but our own body - it's needs, the physical status of it's tissues and organs, the emotional status of it's complex inner states - it seems entirely unavoidable that there be a common language, and that such a language would be electromagnetic. At what point does a reality of automatic billiard balls suddenly become able to experience a feeling and why?
What do you mean with inner states and how can your inner states be in an emotional status? Molecules or cells don't have an inner status. And know, they are not the same thing. The way I phrased it is according to what it does and why it is there (which the theory of evolution explains), while you incorrectly describe how it is built up by repeating a common internal structure.

A nervousness in our stomach is a 'recapitulation of the inner condition of the cellular-tissue level nano-micro level experience' of that area of our body which are understood by areas of the brain and nervous system associated with the stomach. The nervous system reports the news and carries feedback from limbic and cortex, which can issue electromagnetic commands to parts of the body which are under voluntary control.
What do you mean with a nervousness in your stomach?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on July 15, 2010, 04:14:44 PM
Immediacracy, you don't seem to understand that electricity and electromagnetism in themselves are not conscious. They are just a means to send information from point A to B. Like CDs etc
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 15, 2010, 04:45:06 PM
I don't think that Immediacracy is a crank, but that he doesn't understand quantum mechanics very well (neither do I). You also don't clearly illustrates what your theory is more than "matter is aware of its inner self" and what that means because of what.

The video you just posted appeals to a thought experiment that does not have any scientific relevance and which probably most of us already know, namely that it is impossible to determine what we observe is what we think we observe. Of course that may be correct, but the scientific method has demonstrated that when we interpret an observation the way it logically should be interpreted, that it works. At first quantum mechanics sounds counter-intuitive, but as soon as you really understand it, it is really intuitive. That's why it is a scientific theory. Your (unscientific) theory may make it sound more intuitively for laymen, but for experts it probably doesn't.

This reminds me of someone existing that I explain to him what colour electrons have when we would be able to see them with our naked eyes, because we are able to detect them with various instruments. Fact is that they don't have any colour and that they're invisible because of that.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 05:52:37 PM
Who cares what seems appealing?  What matters is results, and QM works.
The idea that results are what matters is what appeals to you. I see that as only one half of the story. Results are very important. So is meaning. That's what appeals to me.

Quote
I would say that gravity is pretty straightforward and explains everything the pushy angels explains and much, much more.
Your opinion isn't helpful.  We need objective and repeatable standards to differentiate useful and predictive models from uninformed fantasy.[/quote]
What if having only objective and repeatable standards destroys important information about the nature of subjectivity and creativity. Not everything in the cosmos is repeatable on command.

Quote
QM gained popularity using the scientific method as a standard.  Is there a reason we should reject that in favor of you opinion regarding what is appealing?
Who is saying we should reject QM? I'm just saying that if we question this one single assumption about it, we tie up all of it's apparent paradoxes and potentially get a handle on consciousness, life, and a cosmology which explains them all. Changing that assumption shouldn't change any of it's predictions as far as I can think.

Quote
Oh and "try something like this and see what happens" isn't the sort of experiment I was asking about.
You have a theory, tell me something specific it predicts that isn't already predicted by QM.
It predicts life, subjectivity, order, purpose, and consciousness. Since we can't escape any of these things to test them, it makes it different from other categories of phenomena. It seems to me that in a QM universe filled with every imaginable virtual particle and interfering wave-ray propagation, consciousness would be more likely to evolve in the vacuum of space rather than in a physical organism. My idea places consciousness in matter - as a function of matter. Seems better. :)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Grimm on July 15, 2010, 06:07:10 PM
I completely agree. Has anyone done two slit experiments with a human eye instead of a screen? Seems simple enough. That alone could tell us something unexpected. Light takes place on your retina. We know this. It is a screen and it is an observer. What does it look like when you close one eye and shoot a laser at it through two slits? Does it need to be in a vacuum? Maybe a camera works just as well?.

Just because it's wholly astounding to me - I have to say:  yes.  The very first time this experiment was done, it was done completely manually, with poor, horrifically overworked interns playing the role of observer.

*Grins*  Hey, if you can't get an unpaid intern to do something mindnumbingly boring for weeks on end -

But, yup.  All of these permutations, and dozens more besides, have been tried.  The nature of the observer is immaterial - and the concept of observing the observer is also immaterial.  To try to make that make sense:  just the virtue of having a camera trained at the right place even if the feed of that camera is utterly unwatched and unrecorded causes the probability waveform to collapse rather dramatically.

It sure as heck ain't humans that are important.  We just noticed. :)

Quote
I could imagine maybe some experiments using transcranial magnetic stimulation - basically do quantum mechanical experiments inside a living, conscious human brain. Any volunteers? :)

There are a couple going on like this now - mostly by behavioral psychologists who have discovered that application of magnetic stimulation across certain areas of the brain can short-circuit morality... among other things.  The ramifications there, of course, are that 'moral consciousness' is a function of brain structure, which is intriguing in its own right, and exceedingly damaging to the idea that morality flows from God exclusively.

One more Gap.

So far, they haven't done anything crazy like shut down optic nerves, but it would be intriguing.  Not sure how you could use that in an observational sense.

You have hit on one of the more intriguing problems in physics - which roughly translates into "why does one proton, one neutron, and one electron make such a huge difference?"  There's a quantum explanation I don't have my head around yet - but the difference between, say, Carbon (6) and Nitrogen(7) is rather extreme.  In a way, this is what you're addressing - what makes Carbon have its 'carbonness'?  is it really just the energy state of the atom?

(the answer, oddly enough, really is 'yes'.  Visually, it's difficult to tell one carbon atom from one nitrogen atom, but that missing electron on the carbon atom allows structures that are not possible to the Nitrogen atom.  And, since, basically, both of those materials are starstuff...  well, it's just neat.)

There also may be an anthropomorphic fallacy in the mix here.  Carbon doesn't have a 'perception' - in fact, it has far less perception than even the simplest virus, though both respond at a chemical level to the reality around them.  Until one can define 'consciousness' and show how it applies to atoms, you're going to have difficulty.  After all, all evidence points (right now) to the notion that Consciousness is not at all separate from the brain, and is in fact a function of the brain itself.  Your uniqueness has to do with your cranial wiring, and your curiosity about yourself is a function of evolution.

Until 'brain' and 'consciousness' can be divorced, there will be trouble with saying an electron has some kind of 'awareness', even one as dim as presented.

Quote
Thanks for the comments though. I don't know ultimately if there is a way around observer ambiguity. I think there is a 'Law of Conservation of Mystery' which may keep the interior phenomenon partitioned existentially from the exterior, such that the subject must always choose which side of the fence they are on for themselves.

Define 'interior' and 'exterior' phenomenon?  If interior phenomenon relate to consciousness - like, for instance, a sense of 'oneness', then that's quite biochemical in nature, and oddly well understood (even if the root reasons and causes are not quite yet in the bag).  You are, after all, a chemical slave to your brain - a misfiring neuron will have you seeing people that aren't there.  Is that an internal or external phenomenon?

Quote
The voluntary aspect, the gamble of perception may be an immutable characteristic of the fabric of subjectivity itself while the subjective surrender to exterior evidence is an act of nontrivial consequence in any possible experiments. The placebo effect is a requirement for this level of cosmic integration.

I see the words.  I see how you fit them together - but I'm not entirely sure I grok here.  "gamble of perception?"  The "fabric of subjectivity itself?"  "Subjective surrender to exterior evidence?"  If I read this correctly, it translates to the fact that you wish people to be able to surrender their internal disbelief in the face of incontrovertable evidence to the contrary.

I like that.  People should do that.  Creationism would get the heck out of schools then.

But I have a feeling we're not on the same page there.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 15, 2010, 07:44:03 PM
But, yup.  All of these permutations, and dozens more besides, have been tried.  The nature of the observer is immaterial
I wasn't expecting there to be a difference, but I'm curious what the subjective vantage point looks like from the two slit test. You're staring into a slit with a laser behind it - what happens to your view when you add another slit? Do you see a horizontal band in your field of vision instead of a laser flare? What if you look through a double concave lens to zero out the optical effect of your cornea?

I'm sure that there's been every conceivable experiment done with the assumption of light traveling through space, but have any been done to test the possibility of it Not traveling through space at all?

Quote
- and the concept of observing the observer is also immaterial.  To try to make that make sense:  just the virtue of having a camera trained at the right place even if the feed of that camera is utterly unwatched and unrecorded causes the probability waveform to collapse rather dramatically.
I'm saying that's because the atoms of the camera's ccd or film is an observer - as is the lens. Everything that isn't blocked by some form of nontranslucent matter is an observer.

If this is the conventional view of light,
(red arrows indicate the prospective launching of individual photons through space)

my view is something like this:
(N0ton meaning no photon. The double arrows represent mutual 'awareness' and communication between the source, the target, and the targets among each other.)

Quote
It sure as heck ain't humans that are important.  We just noticed. :)
Yeah, especially on this layer of reality. Matter made of atoms are the main action.

Quote
You have hit on one of the more intriguing problems in physics - which roughly translates into "why does one proton, one neutron, and one electron make such a huge difference?"  There's a quantum explanation I don't have my head around yet - but the difference between, say, Carbon (6) and Nitrogen(7) is rather extreme.  In a way, this is what you're addressing - what makes Carbon have its 'carbonness'?  is it really just the energy state of the atom?

Thanks. Yes, I mean, I can see that the functionality of 6 vs 7 from a chemical process standpoint can account for some of that in the simple ranges, but it doesn't account for why the cosmos chooses to represent those purely quantitative characteristics with such distinct and aesthetic qualities. Why is 79 precious gold and 82 pedestrian lead? What's so special about 79?

I think the answer is because we share a history with every atom in the cosmos, and all atoms speak the same electromagnetic language to express internal electromagnetic conditions.

Quote
There also may be an anthropomorphic fallacy in the mix here.  Carbon doesn't have a 'perception' - in fact, it has far less perception than even the simplest virus, though both respond at a chemical level to the reality around them.
Absolutely. I don't want to give the impression that I think carbon has Nitrogen dreams and Boron nightmares or something, I'm just saying that these suckers cooperate to make molecules (which are involved in phenomena one order of magnitude more complex, with the attendant complexity of 'memorized' responses and reactions), which cooperate to make organic molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, brains, etc.

Quote
Until one can define 'consciousness' and show how it applies to atoms, you're going to have difficulty.
At the atomic level, I guess I could go with just 'the capacity to detect and express its own resonant qualities' - which would be qualities appropriate to an object of that scale and morphological simplicity.

Quote
After all, all evidence points (right now) to the notion that Consciousness is not at all separate from the brain, and is in fact a function of the brain itself.
That's what I'm saying. Consciousness is the activity of a living brain. The intercommunication of billions of specialized cells which specifically facilitate electrochemical resonance management for the organism.

Quote
I agree.

Quote
Until 'brain' and 'consciousness' can be divorced, there will be trouble with saying an electron has some kind of 'awareness', even one as dim as presented.
I think it's precisely because human consciousness can't be divorced from the electronic activity of the human brain that we have to look to the brain's electronic basis as the underpinnings for sentience. We are the evidence.

Quote
Define 'interior' and 'exterior' phenomenon?  If interior phenomenon relate to consciousness - like, for instance, a sense of 'oneness', then that's quite biochemical in nature, and oddly well understood (even if the root reasons and causes are not quite yet in the bag).  You are, after all, a chemical slave to your brain - a misfiring neuron will have you seeing people that aren't there.  Is that an internal or external phenomenon?
The external phenomenon is the misfiring neuron, it's internal, subjective correlate is the hallucination.

Quote
you wish people to be able to surrender their internal disbelief in the face of incontrovertable evidence to the contrary.
Not surrender, but doubt the incontrovertibly of evidence from time to time, as a thought experiment. Run scenarios you know to be impossible, just to try to see it from the other perspective. Not in the middle of surgery or something, but certainly when pondering the imponderable.

Quote
I like that.  People should do that.  Creationism would get the heck out of schools then.
But I have a feeling we're not on the same page there.
I agree. Religious dogma is far more dangerous than pseudoskeptical cynicism. Corporate economism is, I think, another form of the same thing, and it is arguably just as oppressive to the world's population as religions are.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 15, 2010, 10:08:08 PM
The idea that results are what matters is what appeals to you. I see that as only one half of the story. Results are very important. So is meaning. That's what appeals to me.
On what basis do you assume there is a meaning?  (Evidence please, not more wild speculation.)

Quote
What if having only objective and repeatable standards destroys important information about the nature of subjectivity and creativity. Not everything in the cosmos is repeatable on command.
Any crank can make up "what ifs" all day.  Show me evidence that suggests this is the case.  (In QM unusual features
like the uncertainty principle are clearly predicted by the math and apparent in observations, why should your fantasy
get a moments consideration without similar evidence?)

Quote
It predicts life, subjectivity, order, purpose, and consciousness.
That isn't prediction.  That is seeing things in the world and making up a fantasy that explains them.  To
be a prediction, you need to tell us something new we don't already know.  To be a useful prediction,
you need to assert something new that we can put to the test.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Dragnet on July 15, 2010, 10:14:15 PM
Yeah, especially on this layer of reality. Matter made of atoms are the main action.

I thought matter is what made atoms. (particle physics would suggest you might have your equation reversed)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 16, 2010, 04:32:52 AM
Those are two separate issues. Consciousness can't be substantiated or refuted either, and that's what I'm talking about. Subjectivity as part of the Cosmos at a fundamental level.

It is a meaningless theory, with no real world consequences. It's like saying that gravity works as it works, except for it is unverifiably assisted by an unmeasurable amount of Santa Claus at the basis of reality. Your theory is just as meaningless.

Quote
If the only flaw in my argument and reasoning is that they can't be confirmed or denied, then it may not be a flaw at all - just an accurate description of those phenomena, like consciousness, which cannot be objectively modeled.

It is a fundamental flaw as it makes your statements completely void of any meaning. Your 'theory' is not a theory at all in any scientific terms, but rather a description of your fantasy of how reality works.
As for consciousness, there might not be complete perfect models consciousness, yet, but consciousness and aspects of consciousness can be measured and tested, which is the field of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. That's were it differs from your theory.

Quote
Find me a real flaw - a real world observation inconsistent with my idea, and I'm more than happy to drop the whole thing.

We just agreed that your idea doesn't predict nor describe anything in the real world that is measurable. That is the real flaw.

Quote
Believe me, it does me no particular service to have some big idea that everyone who isn't bored by hates me for and with which I can't do anything with. I just happen to think that there's a chance it could be somewhat true.

I don't think anyone will hate you because of your ideas. I think most of them will just ignore your, because it is useless to them to discuss useless ideas.

How is it ill-defined? I'm saying that light doesn't travel through space, it's a phenomena of matter communicating with itself. Matter has internal energy states which it can detect in matter regardless of separation by a vacuum. Light is a quality of matter and location not a projectile of any form.

This is the first time I hear you say this (part of your?) theory. The problem with it is that it doesn't hold up with observation. We can actually measure the distance light travels. Using a flashlight you can detect from a distance the light it emits. This means that light travels by our definition of travel, i.e. it moves from point A to point B.
As for you theory of matter communicating. If you look at relativity theory, it says that both light and matter are manifestations of energy and they are all equivalent. Quantum Mechanics gave rise to a standard model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model), which even gave a predictive model how all types of matter, including photons and 'regular' particles are naturally ordered by its characteristics. This model has been verified by all kinds of particle accelerator experiments as well as cosmic experiments. Thousands of top scientist worked on it, including many noble price winners.

So what predictions does your idea make that we could verify? And could you please indicate what gave you the idea that these thousands of scientists were flat wrong, even though every experiment agrees with them, and why your thought-experiment without any scientific nor measurement backup would be, or even could be, right?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 16, 2010, 04:53:25 AM
I would start from ourselves and move out. We are bodies and we have knowledge of ourselves. Our bodies are made of cells which seem to act, like us, in a cooperative and synchronized manner. Cells are made of molecules which seem to act to facilitate the operation, healing, and regulation of living cells. Molecules seem to be nothing more than configurations of atoms.

This reminds of a well known Dutch crank called Harrie Weggelaar (http://members.ziggo.nl/r.f.dezwart/Frame-engels.html). He follows the same reasoning. Atoms have complex behavior, just like us. Therefore.... they must be made of spaceships. Oh, and he is the new Jesus too. Read all about it (http://members.ziggo.nl/r.f.dezwart/atoms.are.built.up.from.spaceships.html). And he proved it (http://members.ziggo.nl/r.f.dezwart/can.I.prove.it.html) too.

Even though this guy takes his ideas to much more extreme heights than you do, his reasoning mistakes are similar. He also believes his own theory as it is totally intuitive to him. I hope it makes you see that your own intuition is not important when defining a theory. It's fine to use it as a creative source, but eventually you need to come up with predictions, supporting evidence and explanation of measurements. Without it, you only are stuck in your own intellectual black hole (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14285).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 04:59:37 AM
If this is the conventional view of light,
(red arrows indicate the prospective launching of individual photons through space)

my view is something like this:
(N0ton meaning no photon. The double arrows represent mutual 'awareness' and communication between the source, the target, and the targets among each other.
This is how light actually works. First of all, light doesn't have any mass and it is neither a particle nor a wave until observed. In the double slit experiment, it will behave as a wave, but when a single photon is targeted on a screen on the other side of one of both slits, it will always go through that slit and reach the screen where targeted. This doesn't mean that photons have inner awareness.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 05:00:35 AM
Harrie is my hero:)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 05:09:33 AM
It predicts life, subjectivity, order, purpose, and consciousness. Since we can't escape any of these things to test them, it makes it different from other categories of phenomena. It seems to me that in a QM universe filled with every imaginable virtual particle and interfering wave-ray propagation, consciousness would be more likely to evolve in the vacuum of space rather than in a physical organism. My idea places consciousness in matter - as a function of matter. Seems better. :)
It does not predict life, subjective subjectivity, order, subjective purpose and consciousness better than what our current set of theories does, it is already perfectly explained. Absolute subjectivity or purpose does not exist.

Your theory raises one very big question; if matter would be selfconscious and nano cooperation would be possible, what would be the point? Why would it cooperate? Why does it care that complex life arises? Etc.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 06:40:10 AM
I thought matter is what made atoms. (particle physics would suggest you might have your equation reversed)
I could sort of agree with that. I was using 'matter' in the sense of it being a category of phenomena. There's no form of matter which isn't associated with particles - no freefloating matterness that gives rise to atoms as far as I know but if you want to say that in the early universe, there was mass but no atoms, then okay, that makes sense to me.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 06:58:23 AM
On what basis do you assume there is a meaning?  (Evidence please, not more wild speculation.)
On the basis of the existence of meaning. We are having a conversation, are we not? It's different than noise...there is coherence. How does this coherence get from your brain to mine if not through electromagnetism?

Quote
Any crank can make up "what ifs" all day.  Show me evidence that suggests this is the case.  (In QM unusual features like the uncertainty principle are clearly predicted by the math and apparent in observations, why should your fantasy get a moments consideration without similar evidence?)
Every meaningful idea is a "what if" first. That's how imagination works. Hypothesis = what if. Didn't QM evolve in response to the observation of uncertainty rather than predating and predicting it? I don't care whether anyone gives my ideas a moments consideration. That's up to them. I'm talking to several people at length about this btw, and none of them have any problem with it. The focus on evidence exclusively is a function of a particular worldview, not an absolute truth.

Quote
That isn't prediction.  That is seeing things in the world and making up a fantasy that explains them.  To
be a prediction, you need to tell us something new we don't already know.  To be a useful prediction,
you need to assert something new that we can put to the test.
It's not a useful prediction, it's a meaningful prediction. QM handles the useful side of it - the exterior, QC explains the primary branching of the Cosmos into subjective and objective sides. As such, I can assert that subjective qualities about light carry through to our language about it: Enlightenment. Illumination. Brilliance. Bright. Clarity. Transparency. Note that clarity is a quality of both unobstructed communication lines and coherence of understanding.

Light isn't a neutral quality for us, it's intuitively and routinely identified as the source of intelligence in our language. Are these synonyms meaningless coincidence? Are we forever in the...dark?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 16, 2010, 07:03:15 AM
Didn't QM evolve in response to the observation of uncertainty rather than predating and predicting it?

Yes, it started with observation. Then it provided an explanation and made predictions, everything fully checked with additional experiments.

Your ideas fail in both aspects. Your ideas are not based on new unexplained observations, nor do they make testable predictions.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Graybeard on July 16, 2010, 07:25:16 AM

Light isn't a neutral quality for us, it's intuitively and routinely identified as the source of intelligence in our language. Are these synonyms meaningless coincidence?
Yes.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 16, 2010, 07:33:02 AM
^^ It's not entirely a coincidence.  The word "light" is used in that way because of the usefulness of light in helping us to see in the dark.  Light allows us to gain information through our eyes.  Hence "to shed light on the topic" -> "to reveal what was previously hidden about the topic".

I too fail to see the relevance to the current subject matter, though.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 07:40:52 AM
It is a meaningless theory, with no real world consequences.
Just like personal opinions about theories.

Quote
It's like saying that gravity works as it works, except for it is unverifiably assisted by an unmeasurable amount of Santa Claus at the basis of reality. Your theory is just as meaningless.
Your opinion of my theory is just as meaningless to me as my theory is to you (or it would be if it didn't exactly fit my model of OMM psychological bias - I plan on using the repetitive, robotic objections I'm getting in whatever published form this may ultimately take. I won't name names, but I think it will be helpful to people to see the commonality of expressions of intolerance, cynicism, and absolutism).

Quote
It is a fundamental flaw as it makes your statements completely void of any meaning.
There is no such thing as a statement completely void of any meaning. Even a non-sequitur indicates linguistic communication and the lack thereof. My statements would have to be the most amazing artifacts every produced to accomplish the feat of evacuating themselves all all information. Your exaggeration betrays reckless sentimentality and intent to dominate and control as well as insecurity about your position. In every accusation you make, I see only your own insecurity...otherwise, why continue? You know that I will never give up my position - why argue with a crazy person?

Quote
As for consciousness, there might not be complete perfect models consciousness, yet, but consciousness and aspects of consciousness can be measured and tested, which is the field of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. That's were it differs from your theory.
I've explained my thoughts on this to you in the past. What can be measured and tested is not consciousness, it's the effects of consciousness. Awareness is, as Roger Penrose says, beyond all computation.

Quote
We just agreed that your idea doesn't predict nor describe anything in the real world that is measurable. That is the real flaw.
It does describe things in the real world, among them, the possibility for order, life, and consciousness. Getting tired of repeating this.

Quote
I don't think anyone will hate you because of your ideas. I think most of them will just ignore your, because it is useless to them to discuss useless ideas.
How does your theory apply to your behavior? Are you ignoring me because it is useless to you to discuss useless ideas? Sounds like, um, falsehoods and hyprocrisy to me.

Quote
This is the first time I hear you say this (part of your?) theory. The problem with it is that it doesn't hold up with observation. We can actually measure the distance light travels. Using a flashlight you can detect from a distance the light it emits. This means that light travels by our definition of travel, i.e. it moves from point A to point B.
It doesn't mean that at all. If you see a friend on the street and you recognize each other simultaneously and both spontaneously smile - is there a smile traveling through space between you? Is there a wave of recognition? I'm saying that light doesn't travel - it's a simultaneous, instantaneous, shared communication among material objects. Not that this communication doesn't take time to be accomplished over large distances but that's not necessarily due to the inertia of having to be physically transported - that could be proportionally related to increasingly low probability of a signal handshake, or else a proportional seek time to source a common memory closer to the Big Bang, or a combination, or something else. It's an information process of object locations communicating, not a physical process of transportation. That's the idea anyhow.

Quote
As for you theory of matter communicating. If you look at relativity theory, it says that both light and matter are manifestations of energy and they are all equivalent. Quantum Mechanics gave rise to a standard model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model), which even gave a predictive model how all types of matter, including photons and 'regular' particles are naturally ordered by its characteristics. This model has been verified by all kinds of particle accelerator experiments as well as cosmic experiments. Thousands of top scientist worked on it, including many noble price winners.
I think the Standard Model may prove to be analogous to the Ptolemaic Epicycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle). It takes a lot of brilliant, dedicated minds to create a theory which works strictly on the evidence you have.
(http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/09/07/49847_closeup.jpg)

Quote
So what predictions does your idea make that we could verify? And could you please indicate what gave you the idea that these thousands of scientists were flat wrong, even though every experiment agrees with them, and why your thought-experiment without any scientific nor measurement backup would be, or even could be, right?
They're not flat wrong at all. They're just not 100% right. They got the math so that it predicts exterior behaviors, I'm just saying what they're measuring may be going on in the material of their instruments rather than an effect outside of them.

As for what some of my predictions are, as I mentioned, the common language we use to describe light characterizes our subjective experience of it in agreement with my idea of consciousness being rooted in electromagnetism. Enlightenment. Illumination. Brilliance. Bright. Clarity. Transparency.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 07:48:26 AM
^^ It's not entirely a coincidence.  The word "light" is used in that way because of the usefulness of light in helping us to see in the dark.  Light allows us to gain information through our eyes.  Hence "to shed light on the topic" -> "to reveal what was previously hidden about the topic".

I too fail to see the relevance to the current subject matter, though.
Well, our sense of smell reveals what was previously hidden too. We don't say that great thinkers or ideas 'smell great'.

That anyone can say that the metaphorical connection of light to consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge is a coincidence with a straight face is staggering to me. I can only explain it by remembering that the when you are at the far OMM extreme of the continuum, the psychology gives no creedence to truth, only 'fact'.

(http://android21a.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/lightbulb_idea.jpg)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 16, 2010, 07:49:34 AM
On the basis of the existence of meaning.
Don't be dense.  The original comment wasn't about information exchange.

Quote
Every meaningful idea is a "what if" first.
But usually it's in response to a real problem, not a fantasy in search of a problem it solves.

Quote
Didn't QM evolve in response to the observation of uncertainty rather than predating and predicting it?
No.

Quote
I'm talking to several people at length about this btw, and none of them have any problem with it.
Who cares? Lots of people believe stupid things.

Quote
It's not a useful prediction, it's a meaningful prediction.
So it's useless and not scientific--glad you cleared that up.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 16, 2010, 07:54:04 AM
I've explained my thoughts on this to you in the past. What can be measured and tested is not consciousness, it's the effects of consciousness. Awareness is, as Roger Penrose says, beyond all computation.
Playing the mystery card (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/playing-mystery-card.html).

Quote
I think the Standard Model may prove to be analogous to the Ptolemaic Epicycle. It takes a lot of brilliant, dedicated minds to create a theory which works strictly on the evidence you have.

You forgot its predictive part, which Ptolomaic Epicycle didn't have. Nor did it correctly describe the observations.

You know that I will never give up my position - why argue with a crazy person?
Good point. I will stop now.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 08:02:10 AM
Don't be dense.  The original comment wasn't about information exchange.
What else is meaning about? What is your original comment referring to specifically as meaning?

Quote
But usually it's in response to a real problem, not a fantasy in search of a problem it solves.
It is in response to a real problem. The failures of QM to support a coherent cosmology with the possibility of order, life, and consciousness. The Uncertainty Principle and Observer Effect are real problems. Huge.

Quote
Quote
Didn't QM evolve in response to the observation of uncertainty rather than predating and predicting it?
No.
Then please explain how QM evolved before it.

Quote
Who cares? Lots of people believe stupid things.
Except you, apparently.

Quote
So it's useless and not scientific--glad you cleared that up.
Do you deem life and human consciousness useless and not scientific?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 16, 2010, 09:06:03 AM
Sorry, yet some more discussion, because I just can't stand your never ending stupidity.

It doesn't mean that at all. If you see a friend on the street and you recognize each other simultaneously and both spontaneously smile - is there a smile traveling through space between you?

Two unrelated events, except for the recognition which involves traveling photons and brain activity.

Quote
I'm saying that light doesn't travel - it's a simultaneous, instantaneous, shared communication among material objects. Not that this communication doesn't take time to be accomplished over large distances but that's not necessarily due to the inertia of having to be physically transported

Well, at least something needs to travel, doesn't it? In your case it is "communication". Except that you dismiss that we can measure and analyze light. What is it that we measure then? You know that we can measure and count photons (http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2010-news/Burrows7-2010), right?

Quote
- that could be proportionally related to increasingly low probability of a signal handshake, or else a proportional seek time to source a common memory closer to the Big Bang, or a combination, or something else. It's an information process of object locations communicating, not a physical process of transportation. That's the idea anyhow.

Blablabla. Wild, senseless speculation, not based on research, nor measurement. Your observations are again scientifically meaningless.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on July 16, 2010, 09:55:51 AM
Light does travel. That's why we know the SPEED at which light travels across the vacuum of the universe and through different materials like glass, water, air etc
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 11:43:07 AM
Two unrelated events, except for the recognition which involves traveling photons and brain activity.
I'm using the example as a model or metaphor, not as a literal explanation. On the level which we are consciously aware, we have no experience of any kind projectile being fired between people's faces to accomplish recognition.

We know that a single electron doesn't travel down the length of a wire, it's passed from atom to atom. I have not seen any evidence that there are a such thing as photons or that they travel through space. As far as I can tell, it could just as easily be atoms detecting and imitating one another in an orderly fashion, rather than massless intangible particle-waves transacting in a vacuum.

Quote
Well, at least something needs to travel, doesn't it?
No, I don't think it does. Does light look like it travels to you or does it look like you are seeing it right where it is? As living members of the cosmos, are we not obligated to consider our own direct experience of phenomena as a factor in explaining that experience? Not to say that everything actually how it seems to us, but I would say that quite a bit can be explained better though first hand observation. It should not be disqualified.

Quote
In your case it is "communication". Except that you dismiss that we can measure and analyze light. What is it that we measure then?
We measure the behavior of the materials which we are using to do the experiment and their interactions with each other. Light doesn't have to physically leave the atom doesn't mean it can't be measured, understood, and predicted as if it did.

Quote
You know that we can measure and count photons (http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2010-news/Burrows7-2010), right?
Yes. I probably know most of the same things that you know about photons, I'm just interpreting that knowledge a different way. I see photons as quantum events within matter, as ideas are electromagnetic events within a living cortex.
Quote

Blablabla. Wild, senseless speculation, not based on research, nor measurement. Your observations are again scientifically meaningless.

Sorry, yet some more discussion, because I just can't stand your never ending stupidity.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 16, 2010, 11:50:29 AM
Light does travel. That's why we know the SPEED at which light travels across the vacuum of the universe and through different materials like glass, water, air etc
We only know how long it takes distant sources to detect each other. The speed in a vacuum is c - which really means instantaneous as far as the cosmos is able to produce any phenomenon separated by that much distance. It doesn't prove light traveling in a physical form between particles. A photon is inconceivable. It's like a square circle. You can talk about it, and give it a name, but you can't really imagine what it actually is in any kind of tangible way.

What we see in different physical mediums is a measure of the properties of that substance and how it treats the inhibition or amplification of the qualities being communicated.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on July 16, 2010, 12:22:29 PM
We only know how long it takes distant sources to detect each other. The speed in a vacuum is c - which really means instantaneous as far as the cosmos is able to produce any phenomenon separated by that much distance. It doesn't prove light traveling in a physical form between particles. A photon is inconceivable. It's like a square circle. You can talk about it, and give it a name, but you can't really imagine what it actually is in any kind of tangible way.

What we see in different physical mediums is a measure of the properties of that substance and how it treats the inhibition or amplification of the qualities being communicated.

IIRC there was an experiment proving protons. Basically there were two lasers colliding and you could literally see tiny red thingies in the place where they were hitting each other which, according to the guy conducting the experiment, were photons
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 16, 2010, 12:35:18 PM
What else is meaning about? What is your original comment referring to specifically as meaning?
You brought up "meaning".

Quote
It is in response to a real problem. The failures of QM to support a coherent cosmology with the possibility of order, life, and consciousness. The Uncertainty Principle and Observer Effect are real problems. Huge.
I've studied a hell of a lot of QM, but I must have missed the part where life is impossible. Also, uncertainty ect. aren't problems--they are results. They are only problems if you have a preconceived notion that reality should not be that way.

Quote
Then please explain how QM evolved before it.
It started with Max Planck trying to explain black body radiation.  An early model he proposed failed experimentally, so he added quantization of energy to fix the problem and the new model worked.  The oddities that people associate with QM were first mathematically predicted as consequences of Planck's law.

Quote
Quote
Who cares? Lots of people believe stupid things.
Except you, apparently.
The point was that finding people who believe stupid things does not make
them any more likely to be real.  What counts is evidence.

Quote
Do you deem life and human consciousness useless and not scientific?
No, you have admitted your posts on the matter were useless and not scientific.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on July 16, 2010, 03:36:32 PM
We know that a single electron doesn't travel down the length of a wire, it's passed from atom to atom.
True. That's why the light speed in a wire is lower than the light speed in a vacuum.

Quote
I have not seen any evidence that there are a such thing as photons or that they travel through space.

Light is emitted by sources and exists in the form of electromagnetic waves, or photons. Even though the latter is the name for the quantitzed elements that we measure when absorbed. It doesn't matter. What matters is, light somehow bridges the gap in a vacuum between object A and measurement device B. This exactly coincidences with our definition of travel. Somehow denying this, and coming with some absurd philosophical point of view that this doesn't include traveling is absurd. What you can doubt, which is even part of relativity, is that any time passes from the frame of reference of the 'photon'. Because there doesn't. But that's not the discussion right now, the one thing that is clear is that light travels. How else, could light be bended by a gravitational field?

Quote
As far as I can tell, it could just as easily be atoms detecting and imitating one another in an orderly fashion, rather than massless intangible particle-waves transacting in a vacuum.

In a vacuum there are no atoms. And if I follow you in your ridiculous standpoint, what you call "detecting one another" is called light, and this needs to bridge an amount of space, which is what we call travel.

Denying obvious real world results is a serious symptom of crankyness. Not that you will ever admit this, even to yourself.

Quote
Does light look like it travels to you or does it look like you are seeing it right where it is?
Measurements show it starts and point A and can detected at point B. We call this phenomenon "movement".

Quote
As living members of the cosmos, are we not obligated to consider our own direct experience of phenomena as a factor in explaining that experience?

No. Our experience is a separate phenomenon.

Quote
Not to say that everything actually how it seems to us, but I would say that quite a bit can be explained better though first hand observation. It should not be disqualified.

Human observation or experience isn't disqualified. It is a separate phenomenon that is studied in a separate field, called psychology. There is no need whatsoever to connect two totally unrelated phenomena. Our bodily detection and interpretation devices are not fundamentally different from the mechanical ones that we created.

Quote
We measure the behavior of the materials which we are using to do the experiment and their interactions with each other. Light doesn't have to physically leave the atom doesn't mean it can't be measured, understood, and predicted as if it did.

Maybe nothing happens or exist at all, and we are connected to some sort of super computer that just make it 'as if' things are happening while physically they are not. Might be true, probably isn't. It's just another unprovable crackpot theory.

Quote
Yes. I probably know most of the same things that you know about photons, I'm just interpreting that knowledge a different way.

Yes, in a totally nonsensical way, not related to science nor reality.

Quote
I see photons as quantum events within matter

Here you prove you don't know that photons are matter and both are forms of energy.

Quote

Blablabla. Wild, senseless speculation, not based on research, nor measurement. Your observations are again scientifically meaningless.

Sorry, yet some more discussion, because I just can't stand your never ending stupidity.

Striping it doesn't make it any less true. Not my problem if you don't like those observations.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 04:44:36 PM
We only know how long it takes distant sources to detect each other. The speed in a vacuum is c - which really means instantaneous as far as the cosmos is able to produce any phenomenon separated by that much distance. It doesn't prove light traveling in a physical form between particles. A photon is inconceivable. It's like a square circle. You can talk about it, and give it a name, but you can't really imagine what it actually is in any kind of tangible way.

What we see in different physical mediums is a measure of the properties of that substance and how it treats the inhibition or amplification of the qualities being communicated.

IIRC there was an experiment proving protons. Basically there were two lasers colliding and you could literally see tiny red thingies in the place where they were hitting each other which, according to the guy conducting the experiment, were photons
Technically this is true since there's no such thing as time at the speed of light. At the speed of light, light always travels from A to B instantaneously.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on July 16, 2010, 04:47:23 PM
Light does travel. That's why we know the SPEED at which light travels across the vacuum of the universe and through different materials like glass, water, air etc
We only know how long it takes distant sources to detect each other. The speed in a vacuum is c - which really means instantaneous as far as the cosmos is able to produce any phenomenon separated by that much distance. It doesn't prove light traveling in a physical form between particles. A photon is inconceivable. It's like a square circle. You can talk about it, and give it a name, but you can't really imagine what it actually is in any kind of tangible way.

What we see in different physical mediums is a measure of the properties of that substance and how it treats the inhibition or amplification of the qualities being communicated.

When I was about 13 (over 40 years ago) we did a simple physics experiment which showed how by moving a magnet inside a coiled wire one could produce an electric current. We also showed that an electric current through coiled wire could produce and electromagnetic field.

It was then explained to us that that is how electromagnetic waves (like light) TRAVEL through space. i.e a moving magnetic field creates an electric current which in turn creates another magnetic field slightly further away than the first magnetic field.

This explanation may be flawed but it seems intuitively better than your theory of all particle being aware of each other.

Also if photons do not travel how do you explain gravitational lensing?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on July 16, 2010, 05:34:25 PM
Technically this is true since there's no such thing as time at the speed of light. At the speed of light, light always travels from A to B instantaneously.

No, it travels at 3000000 kilometers per second[1] from A to B. Even if A and B are only a micron apart, it still takes a very short amount of time
If it were instantaneous, it wouldn't make any sense in talking about "speed of light". If it's so instantaneous, how do you explain people slowing down light?[2] Or black holes distorting and absorbing light[3] instead of it just continuing on with its path instantaneously? And the fact that black holes can even distort light, due to their massive gravity, proves that light has some mass, even if only a very small amount
 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) 2 http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html) 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Photon_sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Photon_sphere)
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 16, 2010, 06:06:35 PM
Str82hell is correct.  At the speed of light, light always travels from A to B instantaneously.

You misread him, Blaziken.  He wasn't claiming that light travelled instantaneously when viewed from a reference frame that is not travelling at c, but that it travels instantaneously from a reference frame that is itself travelling at c.  Do the math.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: One Above All on July 16, 2010, 06:27:13 PM
You misread him, Blaziken.  He wasn't claiming that light travelled instantaneously when viewed from a reference frame that is not travelling at c, but that it travels instantaneously from a reference frame that is itself travelling at c.  Do the math.

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how that's correct
Mind explaining it to me?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 16, 2010, 06:30:55 PM
In a simple example without quantum entanglement...

Lets say at some point in space called "A" we have some sort of event that
generates a photon. Some time later (no faster than distance/c) a photon
collides with something (maybe our detector) at point B. Whenever we measure
this sort of thing, we find that the total energy in  the system at point A drops by
exactly the same amount of energy that  arrives at point B. If we assume a force
carrying particle traveled from A to B, this makes perfect sense.

Now lets turn to your view where the particle at B just senses the event at A
and imitates A:

How does A know when to start acting like it has a lower energy state, and
How does B know when to start acting like it has a higher energy state?

Does B have to transmit information back to A to let it know it was detected?
If that is the case, doesn't that make the speed of the information exchange
at least twice the speed of light?

But wait. What if a particle at C senses the event at A as well. Do B and C
negotiate to detect where the energy shows up?  How long does that take?
Do they have to come to an agreement before they let A know, or to they
both let A know they are willing to take the energy and let A pick who gets it?
If that is the case, doesn't A need to communicate the fact back to B that it
wins and C that it looses?  What if B and C are on opposite sides of the universe?
clearly this communication would need to take place much faster than c. If
this information can be exchanged much faster than c, what is so special about
c anyway? Why is it never exceeded?

Of course that is ridiculous. It could take billions of years for another particle
to decide to imitate the particle at A, and we have never seen any indication that
A will wait to drop in energy state.  So, A drops to a low energy state right
away, does that solve anything?  Nope.  In reality, the energy could show up in
the form of a collision with almost any other particle in the universe, so B, C,
and countless billions of other particles would need to be chattering back and
forth to decide what to do with the energy.

This gets interesting...  Not just any point can take the energy.  It is only ever
taken at a point that is distance * c away from point A.  It's like a three dimension
version of a stone dropped in a pond.  You can picture a ring propagating away from
point A at the speed of light, and only particles in that ring may take the energy.

So in a time t = distance divided by c, all the particles in a sphere of  circumference
2 * pi * c * t need to finish their negotiation and pick one to take the energy or pass
to the next ring. But, if they take the energy, they still have to pass on the
information to the next ring, so none of them decide to take it too.

We also have the little problem that not any particle in a ring can take the energy.
Some may be in the shadow of a particle in an earlier ring.  Considering most particles
are in motion with respect to each other, that would require that every particle in a ring
know the position and velocity of a vast number of particles in every inner ring and
calculate where all the shadows will fall to verify that it isn't moving into the shadow.

Clearly this new view would take a shitload of communication and calculation to sort out
who gets the energy.  That leaves me wondering: Where does all the energy for that
communication come from? How come we aren't missing any?

Your view mandates an undetected energy source that powers superluminal communication
between particles and all sorts of other effects that have never been seen.

Now back to science...

Since even your view suggests that a wave of some sort must propagate through space
carrying information, isn't the idea of the photon a lot simpler?

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 07:00:57 PM
I don't entirely get what you're trying to say, but information doesn't always need to be transmitted in all directions.

@blaziken: The theory of relativity (I don't know whether it's the special or general theory) states that from the perspective of a certain frame it's impossible to know whether that frame is moving or things outside that frame are moving. For example, when you're driving a car, you technically can't know whether you or the car is moving. If you're driving west on the equator with the speed of the circumference of the earth divided by 24 hours, you may seem to be driving very fast, but you're actually standing still and the earth is moving under you. This is also true for a photon. A photon, travelling at the speed of light, can't know whether it is standing still or not. Now comes the funny part; the speed of light, c, is the fastest speed possible (I don't know whether this follows from relativity or v.v., but both are true), but a photon travelling at the speed of light can't know whether it is moving or standing still. This means that, when the photon is carrying a gun, it could fire a bullet in any direction and should see it travelling with a speed of, let's say, 1000 metres a second, no matter which direction it is fired. This means that when the photon is firing the bullet in the direction it is travelling, the bullet is exceeding the speed of light, which is impossible. If this wouldn't happen, the photon would know that it already reached the speed of light and it would have reached certainty about it's speed, which is impossible as well. v=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2)/(c^2)) is a result of this problem. It also has many other specifications, such as that space is decreasing and time is slowing down (which is actually the same).

Wikipedia says the mass of a photon is 0 (<1×10?18 eV), which means that when the theories are correct is zero, and that the most advanced equipment has correctly established its weight at less than 1×10?18 eV. The reason light is captured by black holes is not because of light's mass, but because the black hole's mass curves the space around itself and thereby causing light to travel towards it.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 16, 2010, 07:06:04 PM
I don't entirely get what you're trying to say, but information doesn't always need to be transmitted in all directions.

Not in reality, but it's implied in Immediacracy's claim about particles sensing and imitating each other.

If particle B senses and event at A,  C needs to know about it so it doesn't imitate A as well and go to a
high energy state in violation of the conservation of energy.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 07:10:09 PM
I think blaziken wanted to know why this is true in the real world, not in Immediacracy's model.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 16, 2010, 07:38:34 PM
I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how that's correct
Mind explaining it to me?

An object travelling at c with respect to us would be shortened along the vector parallel to its velocity by 100% - a sphere would essentially be a disc, from our perspective.  Similarly, from the object's perspective, the rest of the universe would be shortened along the same vector, and thus would not appear to have any forward distance to travel through.  From the perspective of the object, the entire universe would be traversed in literally no time at all.

Since light travels at c, it experiences the same thing.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 16, 2010, 07:58:40 PM
Since light travels at c, it experiences the same thing.

Or, from the perspective of the observer ....

time for an inertial observer: t
time for a moving observer: t'
speed: v
speed of light: c

Einstein determined:   t' = t / sqrt( 1 - (v^2/c^2))   <--- This is actually easy to derive.

At low speeds, the (v^2/c^2) term is practically zero so t' is very close to t
At one half c  t' = t/ 0.5  so it take 2 ticks of the observers clock for the moving clock to tick once.
As you approach c, the number of clock ticks on the observers clock per one tick of the moving
clock approaches infinity. Basically, we see time stopped for moving observers.

We really observe this... in particle accelerators we produce particles with very short
half-lives, but from the labs reference frame, they stick around longer the faster
they are moving. We also need to make this correction for GPS satellites.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on July 16, 2010, 08:08:52 PM
^^ All true.  I figured that length-contraction would express the idea more graphically, which is why I went with that (after deleting my post on time-dilation halfway through).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Str82Hell on July 16, 2010, 08:15:32 PM
You're right, I forgot to include the square root.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: MockTurtle on July 16, 2010, 08:47:48 PM
^^ All true.  I figured that length-contraction would express the idea more graphically, which is why I went with that (after deleting my post on time-dilation halfway through).

To this day, I think the closest thing I have had to a religious experience
was back in high school when I first derived time dilation, length contraction,
mass expansion, and mass-energy equivalence for the first time.  (with some
nudges in the right direction from my physics teacher).

It was a shocking realization that anyone could take a couple of basic ideas
and really understand amazing things about the world.

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: xphobe on July 16, 2010, 11:18:46 PM
To this day, I think the closest thing I have had to a religious experience
was back in high school when I first derived time dilation, length contraction,
mass expansion, and mass-energy equivalence for the first time.  (with some
nudges in the right direction from my physics teacher).

It was a shocking realization that anyone could take a couple of basic ideas
and really understand amazing things about the world.

I had exactly the same experience, although it was in college, not high school.  Special relativity could have been derived several hundred years before Einstein if the speed of light had been determined to be constant.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on July 20, 2010, 07:07:22 PM
Lets say at some point in space called "A"...

Sorry I missed this part of the thread - continuing here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14866.msg336176#msg336176).
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Cyberia on August 18, 2010, 04:39:30 PM
Immediacracy, are you familiar with Many World Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)?

Quote from: Wiki
• MWI removes the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement process by replacing wavefunction collapse with quantum decoherence. Since the role of the observer lies at the heart of most if not all "quantum paradoxes," this automatically resolves a number of problems; see for example Schrödinger's cat thought-experiment, the EPR paradox, von Neumann's "boundary problem" and even wave-particle duality. Quantum cosmology also becomes intelligible, since there is no need anymore for an observer outside of the universe.

• MWI is realist, deterministic, local theory, akin to classical physics (including the theory of relativity), at the expense of losing counterfactual definiteness. MWI achieves this by removing wavefunction collapse, which is indeterministic and non-local, from the deterministic and local equations of quantum theory.[45][46]

• MWI (or other, broader multiverse considerations) provides a context for the anthropic principle which may provide an explanation for the fine-tuned universe.[47][48]

• MWI, being a decoherent formulation, is axiomatically more streamlined than the Copenhagen and other collapse interpretations; and thus favoured under certain interpretations of Ockham's razor.[49] Of course there are other decoherent interpretations that also possess this advantage with respect to the collapse interpretations.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 18, 2010, 07:37:12 PM
Immediacracy, are you familiar with Many World Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)?

Yes, in a general way but I find it unsatisfying. To me it explains observation and it's relation to the coherence of a single universe by conjuring an observerless, decoherent, multi-universe. I'm not sure what interpretation of Ockham's razor they are talking about, but to me MWI is egregiously unparsimonious. Not to say that I think it's impossible, just that I still like my interpretation better ;)

It makes sense to me that there is an observer effect because all observers and phenomena they observe are made of the same basic thing - atoms. They share the same atomic properties, the same atomic language. If you put the math behind your eye instead of in front of it, there isn't an observer effect, there is just observation - no flying photons, just an illuminated retina.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 18, 2010, 07:46:40 PM
Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 18, 2010, 08:02:38 PM
Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM.
If my interpretation of QM is a statement about me, the the MWI interpretation of QM is a statement about Bryce DeWitt. I prefer mine.

What is your promotion of your interpretation of my satisfactions a statement of? Evidence of an egoless vessel of scientific impartiality which you speak for?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 18, 2010, 08:15:53 PM
Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM.
If my interpretation of QM is a statement about me, the the MWI interpretation of QM is a statement about Bryce DeWitt. I prefer mine.

No, your interpretation of QM is not a statement about you.  I didn't say it was.  I said something different.  Why did you respond to something I did not say, instead of responding to something that I did say?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 18, 2010, 09:03:26 PM
Why did you respond to something I did not say, instead of responding to something that I did say?
Because my interpretation of what you said is different than what yours is.

What you said sounds to me like I'm not allowed to express an interpretation QM, and that if I do, and if I find it more satisfying than other interpretations I've understood, that it's a 'statement about me - and what satisfies me'.

So you are saying that it's not my opinions of QM interpretations that bother you but that my promotion of my own (I guess because I say I like it?) disqualifies me personally somehow.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 18, 2010, 10:02:20 PM
One can interpret what I said according to the rules of English grammar, or one can not.  It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose.

I didn't say that anything bothered me, Immed.  Try English.  The words are right there.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 18, 2010, 10:33:43 PM
One can interpret what I said according to the rules of English grammar, or one can not.  It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose.

I didn't say that anything bothered me, Immed.  Try English.  The words are right there.
I guess I don't speak English then. I guess nothing bothered you at all. That's why you're going on about your opinion of my promotion of my opinion of QM. Who cares? What does this have to do with MWI, QM, QC, or the Odds of Life?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 19, 2010, 12:59:32 AM
Is being bothered about something the only reason to post a reply to it?  Are all of your posts on this forum due to you having been "bothered" by something?  What a strange idea.  The reason I posted was because I saw an opportunity to convey an important point to others, one that is often missed in discussions about interpretations.  And your post was a wonderful example of it.

You directly said that you reject the MWI because you find it unsatisfying, because you like your interpretation better, and because it makes sense to you.  There are others who don't find it unsatisfying, who don't like another one better, and to whom it makes sense.  Satisfaction is subjective.  It is an attribute of you, the person, not of the thing you're (un)satisfied about.  If you are unsatisfied about something, then saying so is a statement about you.  And if you prefer one thing over another due to personal (un)satisfaction, then that preference - that choice - says something about your preference, more than about the thing being preferred.

I would have expected someone who harps on subjectivity as much as you do to understand this already.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 07:45:11 AM
Is being bothered about something the only reason to post a reply to it?
You didn't post a reply to what I said, you just obliquely claimed that my phrasing reveals something about me personally. People do that when other people bother them. It's an accusation rooted in personality conflict, not in any point that is 'often missed in discussions and interpretations'. What point is that? That I suck? That my point of view is subjective but that somehow your point of view about me is objective? That 'point' is brought up continually in every discussion with me on here, so I don't see why you act as if it's interesting news flash.

Quote
You directly said that you reject the MWI because you find it unsatisfying, because you like your interpretation better, and because it makes sense to you.  There are others who don't find it unsatisfying, who don't like another one better, and to whom it makes sense.  Satisfaction is subjective.  It is an attribute of you, the person, not of the thing you're (un)satisfied about
I deliberately used phrases like unsatisfying, 'like it better', and 'sense to me' to underscore the unsettled and theoretical nature of these cosmologies and my relation to them as someone who is subjectively involved in trying to formulate one.

There is no objective criteria for metaphysics other than our own perception of the degree to which it satisfies our questions about the cosmos. That's why we are discussing it. To exchange ideas and opinions, not to recite encyclopedias to each other. I'm not relaying knowledge of how to disassemble a transmission, where I wouldn't use those kinds of terms at all. So satisfaction is not a purely subjective attribute of me, since I would apply it to theoretical cosmology but not to auto mechanics. I don't have an inside view of auto mechanics. If I was trying to build an engine from scratch, I might find the Diesel design to be satisfying or not, but since I don't, I have no subjective investment in it.

Quote
If you are unsatisfied about something, then saying so is a statement about you.  And if you prefer one thing over another due to personal (un)satisfaction, then that preference - that choice - says something about your preference, more than about the thing being preferred.
Yes, it says that I know I'm just a person who doesn't know the ultimate metaphysical truth of the cosmos and that I approach these things with a sense of proportion, rather than presume that I speak for science or the universe.

Quote
I would have expected someone who harps on subjectivity as much as you do to understand this already.
That's why I expressly made it subjective, because I understand that these Theories of Everything exist to answer our subjective questions. I use the subjective language so that others don't need to make the point to that I have no evidence. The fact is that anyone who claims that their preference of a particular worldview isn't subjective is deluded. To imagine that one is possessed of pure and universal logic which transcends subjectivity, is to me, a fallacy of inverted narcissism. Perhaps my pointing that out is what is not-at-all-bothering you?

Can we stop the inquisition now? Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of MWI or the Odds of Life, or is it just going to be more armchair psychoanalysis and argumentation about me personally?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Agga on August 19, 2010, 08:01:03 AM
Is being bothered about something the only reason to post a reply to it?
You didn't post a reply to what I said, you just obliquely claimed that my phrasing reveals something about me personally. People do that when other people bother them. It's an accusation rooted in personality conflict, not in any point that is 'often missed in discussions and interpretations'.
A question does not constitute an "accusation".

Quote
That 'point' is brought up continually in every discussion with me on here, so I don't see why you act as if it's interesting news flash.
Why do you think so many members have the same exact problem with you?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 10:00:43 AM
A question does not constitute an "accusation".
If "Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM." is a question, then that would apply. It isn't though.

Quote
Why do you think so many members have the same exact problem with you?
Because this is a forum that specializes in a particular range of ideas. When people express ideas which are outside of that range, it is perceived as a threat, and the response is predictably targeted at discrediting the source of the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. It's the same emotional dynamic as you would find in a Christian forum when presented with scientific arguments, or a philosophy forum when presented with psychology.

I have only gotten this reaction here and with a Physics professor so far. Most people I know and have talked to them about it are not threatened or outraged at all, and I have had several people PM me from hear to voice appreciation and encourage me to keep trying.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on August 19, 2010, 11:26:49 AM
Because this is a forum that specializes in a particular range of ideas. When people express ideas which are outside of that range, it is perceived as a threat, and the response is predictably targeted at discrediting the source of the ideas rather than the ideas themselves...Most people I know and have talked to them about it are not threatened or outraged at all, and I have had several people PM me from hear to voice appreciation and encourage me to keep trying.

I think you misinterpret the reactions here. The worst emotions I have seen directed towards you are not of a threatened or outraged nature at all. What I have seen are critical questioning, dismissing, and at most annoyance or impatience because of the stubborn perseverance that you use to defend your ideas, despite lack of support for your ideas to make sense at all. Maybe you are overreacting because our reactions are not supportive enough?

The reason that we are so critical is because you just pull a theory out of thin air and then say that in your 'experience' the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong or at least not complete.  You don't have any support for your ideas and you also fail to really explain what your theory or set of ideas precisely are and what's wrong with the scientific method as it is. You've also demonstrated that you only have a limited understanding of actual scientific theories and no experience with mathematics at all. What do you expect? That we let everything fall from our hands, dismiss the entire scientific community that has been so successful for hundreds of years including the greatest minds ever alive, and applaud and just assume YOU are totally correct in your understanding, even though you have no hint of support for your ideas? Maybe you can easily impress 'most people you know and talk to', but I don't think you have found a scientist yet that was impressed with your ideas.

I must give it to you that you have a talent for debating and twisting arguments around, and demonstrating that our misunderstanding and dismissing of your ideas are intolerant, narrow-minded and based on fear. But in the end these are just variations of tactics that Christians use and have perfected over thousands of years for defending their ideas.

I think it is fine that you keep bringing up your offbeat ideas (as long as you don't hijack every thread), but you should be prepared to be met with criticism, rejection and boredom of the people you present it to. And no, that is not an indication that you're on to something and that people fear your brilliant work, or that we just fear novelty in general, it just means we think you are a crank. I think you are even lucky that we even take the time to criticize you. I am quite sure that in the academic world you will just be ignored because your ideas are just a waste of time. Of course, you can also go for befriending the simpletons and impress them with your deep sounding theories. But it doesn't really bring you anywhere, does it?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: screwtape on August 19, 2010, 12:33:37 PM
I have only gotten this reaction here and with a Physics professor so far. Most people I know and have talked to them about it are not threatened or outraged at all,

I would surmise that is because they have not a clue what you are talking about and they hope if they just smile and nod the crackpot will wander away.

Of course, you can also go for befriending the simpletons and impress them with your deep sounding theories. But it doesn't really bring you anywhere, does it?

Tell that to Kirk Cameron.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on August 19, 2010, 12:50:08 PM
Tell that to Kirk Cameron.
Touché. It's not really what I meant, but it's true, being a charlatan or evangelist is an easy way to make a living and even become a celebrity.  :)
What I should have said is that it won't get you any closer to 'the truth' or progression of humanity.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 01:26:57 PM
I like how you start out with this:

I think you misinterpret the reactions here. The worst emotions I have seen directed towards you are not of a threatened or outraged nature at all."

and end up with this:

Quote
"I think you are even lucky that we even take the time to criticize you. I am quite sure that in the academic world you will just be ignored because your ideas are just a waste of time. Of course, you can also go for befriending the simpletons and impress them with your deep sounding theories. But it doesn't really bring you anywhere, does it?"

Really? I'm lucky to be personally criticized? Not my ideas mind you, but me personally. I'm lucky to have people bestow their personal opinion upon me on behalf of the entire 'academic world' and that my lifelong friends, who I know from our times together attending class in Highly Gifted Magnet programs - some who are computer programmers with physics degrees, are simpletons who I've befriended to impress with my deep sounding theories? But that's not enough, you then have the nerve to tell me that I'm misinterpreting and overreacting. You suggest that these kind of blatantly personal remarks are to be interpreted as mere 'critical questioning, dismissing, and at most annoyance or impatience'?

Here, you try it on for size:

Your friends are simpletons that you have befriended to give you a receptive audience for your theories. That's not my opinion, I'm telling you that as a fact. Your friends are idiots and you only have them to feel like you are less of an idiot.

Do you interpret that my intention is to question you? To dismiss you? To express annoyance or impatience? Is my astute psychological evaluation of you not more important than discussing the nature of physical existence and consciousness?

Quote
Maybe you are overreacting because our reactions are not supportive enough?
I'm not looking for supportive reactions here. I might be looking for my ideas to be read by people who may benefit from a worldview which goes beyond devout physicalism but does not regress into theism. The reactions I get here only reinforce my OMM model which associates extreme objectivity or extreme subjectivity with intolerance and fear.

Quote
The reason that we are so critical is because you just pull a theory out of thin air
Thin air and a lifetime of experience, observation, and analysis.

Quote
and then say that in your 'experience' the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong or at least not complete.
I've never said that the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong. I'm saying that if we change a fundamental assumption about the nature of subjectivity and objectivity, then it seems like our most perplexing theoretical cosmological problems might begin to be resolved.

Quote
You don't have any support for your ideas and you also fail to really explain what your theory or set of ideas precisely are and what's wrong with the scientific method as it is.
The scientific method is fine. How can you say that my ideas don't have any support if you are saying that I've failed to explain what they are.

Mainly I'm saying that the cosmos is fundamentally composed of order, and that matter is a category of order rather than the other way around.

Further, I'm saying that the order we experience can be mapped on a continuum of external and objective at one end and subjective and internal at the other.

Finally I'm suggesting that light may be a property of matter in which matter is able to describe itself to some extent and sense that descriptive quality in matter outside of itself. There is precedent for this dynamic in bacterial quorum sensing, which to me, implicates sense on a molecular level.

Quote
You've also demonstrated that you only have a limited understanding of actual scientific theories and no experience with mathematics at all. What do you expect? That we let everything fall from our hands, dismiss the entire scientific community that has been so successful for hundreds of years including the greatest minds ever alive, and applaud and just assume YOU are totally correct in your understanding, even though you have no hint of support for your ideas?
I don't expect anything. I observe and respond.

Quote
Maybe you can easily impress 'most people you know and talk to', but I don't think you have found a scientist yet that was impressed with your ideas.
Impressing people is the furthest thing from my mind. I'm just trying to make sense of my own experience. All that I look for from others is corroboration - 'does it seem this way to you too? If not, how does your understanding differ?'
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 19, 2010, 01:50:00 PM
You didn't post a reply to what I said, you just obliquely claimed that my phrasing reveals something about me personally. People do that when other people bother them. It's an accusation rooted in personality conflict, not in any point that is 'often missed in discussions and interpretations'. What point is that? That I suck? That my point of view is subjective but that somehow your point of view about me is objective? That 'point' is brought up continually in every discussion with me on here, so I don't see why you act as if it's interesting news flash.

I was responding to your words, and the response pertained to them.  That makes it a "reply".  I even hit the "reply" button as I did it.

My "point" was not anything you've just listed.  I can see how it would be helpful for you to imagine those things, though.

I deliberately used phrases like unsatisfying, 'like it better', and 'sense to me' to underscore the unsettled and theoretical nature of these cosmologies and my relation to them as someone who is subjectively involved in trying to formulate one.

Fair enough.  That doesn't disagree with what I am saying.  Since there is no authoritative objective standard by which to choose between quantum mechanical ontologies, a statement our preference for one over another is a statement that contains information about ourselves - about our preference-opinions - rather than about QM.  This is not a denouncement of you.  It is true of anyone's belief in anything where an objective standard is lacking.  My own preference is for the Objective Reduction ontology proposed by Roger Penrose.  That says something about me, rather than about quantum mechanical ontologies.

There is no objective criteria for metaphysics other than our own perception of the degree to which it satisfies our questions about the cosmos. That's why we are discussing it. To exchange ideas and opinions, not to recite encyclopedias to each other. I'm not relaying knowledge of how to disassemble a transmission, where I wouldn't use those kinds of terms at all. So satisfaction is not a purely subjective attribute of me, since I would apply it to theoretical cosmology but not to auto mechanics. I don't have an inside view of auto mechanics. If I was trying to build an engine from scratch, I might find the Diesel design to be satisfying or not, but since I don't, I have no subjective investment in it.

So, you agree with me.  Why the objection, then?

Yes, it says that I know I'm just a person who doesn't know the ultimate metaphysical truth of the cosmos and that I approach these things with a sense of proportion, rather than presume that I speak for science or the universe.

Well, it says something more direct than that.  Most immediately, it says something about your preference.  One can do armchair psychology and extrapolate other things based on that, but such speculation is tenuous at best - at least based on such limited information.

Quote
I would have expected someone who harps on subjectivity as much as you do to understand this already.

That's why I expressly made it subjective, because I understand that these Theories of Everything exist to answer our subjective questions. I use the subjective language so that others don't need to make the point to that I have no evidence. The fact is that anyone who claims that their preference of a particular worldview isn't subjective is deluded. To imagine that one is possessed of pure and universal logic which transcends subjectivity, is to me, a fallacy of inverted narcissism. Perhaps my pointing that out is what is not-at-all-bothering you?

Actually, they exist to answer whatever questions we want to try to make them answer.  Purpose is subjective, after all.  Anyway, all theories are basically subjective, because they are the human understanding of reality.  I agree.  That doesn't mean that a theory (and I use the word loosely to describe any model for understanding anything at all) is subjective to its core.  Quantum mechanics, for example, is subjective to the degree that we manage to understand it intuitively.  But that doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is constrained by subjectivity at its root.  Only the selection between ontologies (understandings) of quantum mechanics is subjective.  And that is what I said in my first post on the subject in this thread.

Can we stop the inquisition now? Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of MWI or the Odds of Life, or is it just going to be more armchair psychoanalysis and argumentation about me personally?

You take things far too personally, Immediacracy.  My statement applies to myself as much as it does to you.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on August 19, 2010, 02:20:17 PM
I like how you start out with this:
..
and end up with this:
Thanks. As you can see, I am not outraged, nor threatening you. I just don't respect your ideas.

Quote
Really? I'm lucky to be personally criticized? Not my ideas mind you, but me personally.

It's better than blind agreement of stupidity of people that nod at anything that you say, I would say. But obviously, dealing with criticism is hard for some. Especially those that are not used being criticized.

Quote
I'm lucky to have people bestow their personal opinion upon me on behalf of the entire 'academic world' and that my lifelong friends, who I know from our times together attending class in Highly Gifted Magnet programs - some who are computer programmers with physics degrees, are simpletons who I've befriended to impress with my deep sounding theories? But that's not enough, you then have the nerve to tell me that I'm misinterpreting and overreacting. You suggest that these kind of blatantly personal remarks are to be interpreted as mere 'critical questioning, dismissing, and at most annoyance or impatience'?

You sound angry. Sorry for being honest. I don't know your friends of course, I didn't say I do, nor do I know the reason why they nod at your crank theories if they have a physics background. Maybe they are afraid to lose you as a friend when they would be honest to you. That's exactly why they invented anonymous peer review in science.

Quote
Your friends are simpletons that you have befriended to give you a receptive audience for your theories. That's not my opinion, I'm telling you that as a fact. Your friends are idiots and you only have them to feel like you are less of an idiot.

You don't know my friends, nor do I have crank ideas I want to persuade them of. I didn't pick any them as an audience for my ideas, apparently unlike you. I save my ideas for papers that submit to conferences and journals for anonymous peer review.

Quote
Do you interpret that my intention is to question you? To dismiss you? To express annoyance or impatience?

Yep, you sound pretty annoyed to me. And more outraged than I have ever reacted towards you.

Quote
I'm not looking for supportive reactions here. I might be looking for my ideas to be read by people who may benefit from a worldview which goes beyond devout physicalism but does not regress into theism. The reactions I get here only reinforce my OMM model which associates extreme objectivity or extreme subjectivity with intolerance and fear.

In other words, you're here to preach? Sorry, but you sound like any other religious nut we see out here.

Quote
Thin air and a lifetime of experience, observation, and analysis.

A lifetime of bullshitting around without formulating rigorous mathematical or formal background of some vague ideas are apparently not a good way to get anywhere. You're also positioning not only against me, but against the entire scientific community of thousands and thousands of the greatest minds who have been experimenting and truly analyzing and interpreting data for hundreds of years. And they had actual working results which lead to the current technological age. Thinking long and hard doesn't guarantee any kind of success.

Quote
I've never said that the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong. I'm saying that if we change a fundamental assumption about the nature of subjectivity and objectivity, then it seems like our most perplexing theoretical cosmological problems might begin to be resolved.

I don't see an incompatibility between what I say and what you say.

Quote
How can you say that my ideas don't have any support if you are saying that I've failed to explain what they are.

"I think that the immortality of spaghetti would be a good assumption to explain the existence of the flying spaghetti monster." You see, a vaguely expressed idea without support.

Quote
Mainly I'm saying that the cosmos is fundamentally composed of order, and that matter is a category of order rather than the other way around.

You try to invent entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) now?

Quote
Further, I'm saying that the order we experience can be mapped on a continuum of external and objective at one end and subjective and internal at the other.

Now you say that there is something like 'physics' and something like 'psychology'?

Quote
Finally I'm suggesting that light may be a property of matter in which matter is able to describe itself to some extent and sense that descriptive quality in matter outside of itself.

That just doesn't fit with reality. Light and matter are the consequence of the same thing.

Quote
There is precedent for this dynamic in bacterial quorum sensing, which to me, implicates sense on a molecular level.

Bacteria interacts with other bacteria using molecules. Matter reacts with other matter via electromagnetism and gravity. That's all well-known. What does this implicate precisely? What new thing do you exactly derive from this?

Quote
Impressing people is the furthest thing from my mind. I'm just trying to make sense of my own experience. All that I look for from others is corroboration - 'does it seem this way to you too? If not, how does your understanding differ?'

No, my understanding is that you have some vague ideas that fit to your mind. You are not prepared to step away from those ideas no matter what and proclaim them within almost every discussion you have on this forum. For me that's preaching. What your motives are? I don't know. Maybe you try to persuade people, so that you can safely believe what you believe. Maybe, you want to impress people and feel a really smart underestimated scientist. I don't know. One of them, I guess, why would you otherwise act in this way?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 02:40:59 PM
My own preference is for the Objective Reduction ontology proposed by Roger Penrose.
I like what I've read of Penrose's view, and I think that it interprets things in a similar way that my view does. The main difference, to me, is that it lacks the interiority of subjective experience. If consciousness is quantum processes within countless microtubules, why does it seem like we are experiencing something very different? What is our coherent, gestalt subjective experience made of?

Quote
So, you agree with me.  Why the objection, then?
Because what you said "Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM." was aimed at me personally - not at all a general or neutral statement about the subjective nature of interpreting QM. It was an obvious accusation of incompetence - an intimation of a personal inability on my part to render appropriately impersonal judgment.

Quote
You take things far too personally, Immediacracy.  My statement applies to myself as much as it does to you.
That's cool, then let's just make it "Hence, the promotion of y our interpretations of QM is a statement about you us - and what satisfies you us - rather than about QM."
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 03:47:03 PM
It's better than blind agreement of stupidity of people that nod at anything that you say, I would say.
Why would it be better? Nodding no in blind disagreement to anything that I say is superior to nodding yes?

Quote
But obviously, dealing with criticism is hard for some. Especially those that are not used being criticized.
Obviously condescending superiority is easy for some. Especially if they are used to their own hypocrisy.

Quote
I don't know your friends of course
is where it should end. Why go on to speculate about people you don't know? How does it further your argument to talk about my friends?

Quote
I save my ideas for papers that submit to conferences and journals for anonymous peer review.
That's a respectable thing to do. Do you tell them that their fake friends are simpletons? Maybe you should try it out?

Quote
In other words, you're here to preach? Sorry, but you sound like any other religious nut we see out here.
If I wanted to preach, I'd look for a group more likely to be converted. I'm just here to discuss issues that interest me that coincide with the topics of the forum.

Quote
A lifetime of bullshitting around without formulating rigorous mathematical or formal background of some vague ideas are apparently not a good way to get anywhere. Thinking long and hard doesn't guarantee any kind of success.

It's gotten me to the best Theory of Everything that I've come across - which is the only thing that I've been looking for. I don't need to get anywhere as far as I know. I'm already here. Success at what? Producing more consumer fetish objects and piles of waste? I think we could use a little more thinking long and hard and a little less 'success' in the world.

Quote
You try to invent entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) now?
No. Entropy is an automatic tendency toward disorder. I'm talking about order. Negentropy. Sequence. Coherence. Pattern. Who said anything about inventing it? I'm just saying that it's primary. Cosmos = order, not cosmos = matter.

Quote
Now you say that there is something like 'physics' and something like 'psychology'?
No, that's what you're saying. I'm talking about the phenomena which physics and psychology study and the relation between them.

Quote
That just doesn't fit with reality. Light and matter are the consequence of the same thing.
It seems to fit with the reality I experience. Better than projectile particle/waves of massless light that only exist when we choose to observe them. I agree that light and matter are the consequence of the same thing - I'm calling that thing sense. Order. Shared descriptive qualities.

Quote
Bacteria interacts with other bacteria using molecules. Matter reacts with other matter via electromagnetism and gravity. That's all well-known. What does this implicate precisely? What new thing do you exactly derive from this?
Quorum sensing implicates that interaction at a very primitive physical level is based on sense. Bacteria aren't just bumping around blind, they are coordinated in groups. The behave individually and respond socially. This places the roots of subjectivity much closer to the level of molecules and atoms than to the level of a human or other animal brain.

What I derive from this is that subjectivity is not that big of a deal to the universe. We know that small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity, and that DNA itself is only a configuration of atoms. Subjectivity can only exist then, if it's potential to exist can be found within atoms themselves. Where else does it come from? Why would a subjectivity arise spontaneously from inert components? Electromagnetism as atomic quorum sensing makes more sense to me than inert projectiles in a senseless universe.

Quote
Maybe you try to persuade people, so that you can safely believe what you believe.
Just the opposite. I want people to persuade me that I'm wrong so I can safely believe what they believe...except that so far nobody has given me anything to think about that I haven't gone over already many times.

Quote
Maybe, you want to impress people and feel a really smart underestimated scientist. I don't know. One of them, I guess, why would you otherwise act in this way?
Act what way? Stubbornly persisting in a way of looking at things that seems correct to me? Have you considered that maybe you're acting this way so that you can safely believe what you believe?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Operator_011 on August 19, 2010, 04:17:05 PM
Sigh. Another good thread being hijacked with the same issue.

This thread is no longer focused on the OP topic and has been moved to the Pit. Normal rules still apply here.

If it turns into a bitching-fest it'll be locked.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: penkie on August 19, 2010, 04:35:43 PM
Why would it be better? Nodding no in blind disagreement to anything that I say is superior to nodding yes?

Our disagreement is not blind, several of us have repeatedly compared your ideas with science and the scientific method and have explained to you that your ideas have nothing to do with it. Science is not blind. It is the only way known to understand nature.

Quote
Obviously condescending superiority is easy for some. Especially if they are used to their own hypocrisy.

Rejecting your ideas because they are senseless don't make me feel superior. I think science is superior, not me.

Quote
is where it should end. Why go on to speculate about people you don't know? How does it further your argument to talk about my friends?

As you claimed they do not openly reject your ideas. I came up with some possible ideas why they don't.

Quote
That's a respectable thing to do. Do you tell them that their fake friends are simpletons? Maybe you should try it out?

That's not relevant in that situation. I do no need to care about my or their friends. We are anonymous to each other. They will only evaluate my ideas. And if they reject them, I won't whine to them that my friends DO like my ideas and that they're too arrogant not to. See the difference?

Quote
If I wanted to preach, I'd look for a group more likely to be converted. I'm just here to discuss issues that interest me that coincide with the topics of the forum.

Fair enough. But given the way you defend your 'ideas', I don't have the feeling you really try to discuss anything, instead of preach to us. But we'll see how you behave in the future.

Quote
It's gotten me to the best Theory of Everything that I've come across - which is the only thing that I've been looking for.

Right. Thousands and thousands of the brightest scientists are working for decades on the theory of everything, including Einstein, and they didn't come up with anything useful yet. They are doing the hard work, generalizing the data, deriving theories, making tests for verification of those theories, building multi-billion dollar machines to do the actual tests, and spend years on interpreting the results. And they're still not there, nor know if such a theory of everything even exists. You, however, outwitted all those scientists by just sitting in your chair and making stuff up. You know what another such theory is? Creationism. You don't need to test anything, you just say 'God did it', think very long about it, agree with some other simpletons and have a bit of faith.

Quote
No. Entropy is an automatic tendency toward disorder. I'm talking about order. Negentropy. Sequence. Coherence. Pattern. Who said anything about inventing it? I'm just saying that it's primary. Cosmos = order, not cosmos = matter.

"Entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28order_and_disorder%29)"

Order and disorder are basically equivalent terms. Entropy is a measure. Your 'idea' is similar to entropy. The principles of entropy have been discovered. I call your ideas no discovery, because you do not derive them from facts, but just make them up.

Quote
I'm talking about the phenomena which physics and psychology study and the relation between them.

What is the relation between them? And how could we know if a certain relation indeed does exist or doesn't?

Quote
It seems to fit with the reality I experience. Better than projectile particle/waves of massless light that only exist when we choose to observe them.

You use intuition, or common sense, to reject particle / wave duality. As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The QM theory is not made up by just thinking about stuff. The explanation you know about particle/wave duality is nothing more than the explanation of what the consequence of QM mathematical formulas are. There is no real duality or paradox, it's just hard to put it into words what the QM formulas mean. But QM is not exactly baseless, it has been predicting many phenomena that have been countlessly verified to be correct. It flawlessly models every micro-scale experiment we can come up with. What is there to reject about that, what is there not to fit with reality? What does your everyday macro life has to do with it?

The fact that you don't intuitively understand GM reality doesn't matter in the least. Reality doesn't care. Just coming up with some explanation, without mathematical framework, that just 'sounds right' doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, usually that sort of explanations are very very wrong.

Quote
Quorum sensing implicates that interaction at a very primitive physical level is based on sense. Bacteria aren't just bumping around blind, they are coordinated in groups. The behave individually and respond socially. This places the roots of subjectivity much closer to the level of molecules and atoms than to the level of a human or other animal brain.

Groups of bacteria are cooperating, just like the entire human body consists of cooperating cells. This doesn't say they are 'aware' or that their behavior cannot be precisely modeled. Similarly atoms and quarks are interacting via the four known forces and in that sense coordinated. That doesn't attribute any 'awareness' to them either, and does not subscribe subjectivity to them either in a psychological sense.

Quote
What I derive from this is that subjectivity is not that big of a deal to the universe. We know that small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity, and that DNA itself is only a configuration of atoms. Subjectivity can only exist then, if it's potential to exist can be found within atoms themselves. Where else does it come from?

Small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity? Could you please define what subjectivity is, according to you?
Properties of complex systems need not come from any of their parts, but can be part from their configuration alone.

Quote
Why would a subjectivity arise spontaneously from inert components?

Again, it is not clear what you mean with subjectivity. And again, there is no need that a complex system's behavior is inherently inherited from one of its parts.

Quote
Electromagnetism as atomic quorum sensing makes more sense to me than inert projectiles in a senseless universe.

Might be. But truth does not equal whatever makes the most sense to you.

Quote
Just the opposite. I want people to persuade me that I'm wrong so I can safely believe what they believe...except that so far nobody has given me anything to think about that I haven't gone over already many times.

I don't believe that. You seem to purposely construct your ideas so that nothing much can be said about them, or measured by them. That was the reason you originally placed them outside the scientific field. I don't think that anything can change your mind. I've already said many times that without experimentation and validation your ideas about the universe are completely useless and senseless.

Quote
Act what way? Stubbornly persisting in a way of looking at things that seems correct to me? Have you considered that maybe you're acting this way so that you can safely believe what you believe?

That's a one-on-one copy of the Christian argument "but what if you are wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg)". You are the one assuming a self-made up theory, not I. My lack of belief and confidence in your intuition does not equate to a belief system in itself.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Graybeard on August 19, 2010, 04:54:11 PM
What I derive from this is that subjectivity is not that big of a deal to the universe. We know that small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity, and that DNA itself is only a configuration of atoms. Subjectivity can only exist then, if it's potential to exist can be found within atoms themselves. Where else does it come from? Why would a subjectivity arise spontaneously from inert components? [...]

What is the nature of this “subjectivity” particle/wave? How would you show its existence? How would you do the maths? Would it not be more reasonable to speculate that the presence of any large object (camera, person, etc.) has a quantum effect on space-time / earth's magnetic field / etc., which is shown in the behaviour of subatomic particles? Why would the particles (atoms) that are being observed have to have the quality you propose?

Was it the Ancient Greeks who believed that the eye transmitted rays. This explained why the horizon was there (the rays fell over distance) why there was poor vision (the organ emitting the rays was weak.) and blindness - the organ had failed.

But back to your speculation, as I look at a person and he cannot see me looking, are you suggesting that the person changes because all his electrons change their behaviour? Would that matter any more than if his blink rate rose from 10.451938392 per minute to 10.451938393?

If I and you both looked at that person and he cannot see us looking, how would he change? Would he change in 2 ways or would he change the same for both of us?

What would be the significance if you were right? What would be the significance if you were not?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 19, 2010, 05:16:11 PM
I like what I've read of Penrose's view, and I think that it interprets things in a similar way that my view does. The main difference, to me, is that it lacks the interiority of subjective experience. If consciousness is quantum processes within countless microtubules, why does it seem like we are experiencing something very different? What is our coherent, gestalt subjective experience made of?

I think that the answer to that question is found in the subjective idea of an individual.  On a certain physical scale, we are individuals.  On a smaller physical scale, we are no longer distinct individuals, but rather a colony of individual cells.  The question of why the body-scale of an object thinks of its body-scaled self as an individual is one that answers itself, I think.

Because what you said "Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM." was aimed at me personally - not at all a general or neutral statement about the subjective nature of interpreting QM. It was an obvious accusation of incompetence - an intimation of a personal inability on my part to render appropriately impersonal judgment.

I can see how it could very reasonably be taken that way.  That was not my intention.  I did mean for it to apply to your espousal of a certain QM ontology, but only because that was the subject immediately under discussion.  As a principle, it applies to everyone.  As a comment in this thread, it did apply to you, because you were the one who I saw engaging in the behaviour to which my comment applies.

That's cool, then let's just make it "Hence, the promotion of y our interpretations of QM is a statement about you us - and what satisfies you us - rather than about QM."

Totally agreed.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 07:50:03 PM
Our disagreement is not blind, several of us have repeatedly compared your ideas with science and the scientific method and have explained to you that your ideas have nothing to do with it. Science is not blind. It is the only way known to understand nature.
You are not science. You do not speak for science. 'Explaining' that an idea is not scientific is not the same as explaining why an idea is not a potential source of truth (scientific, philosophical, or otherwise). Anyone can say 'you have no evidence' or 'what you say doesn't make any sense'.

Quote
As you claimed they do not openly reject your ideas. I came up with some possible ideas why they don't.
Rather than accept the reality that my friends are normal, highly intelligent people such as yourself who do accept the possibilities of my ideas, you come up with some derogatory ideas about people you've never met...and you still see nothing wrong with that.

Quote
That's not relevant in that situation. I do no need to care about my or their friends. We are anonymous to each other.
We are anonymous here too, penkie. We don't need to care about our friends here either.

Quote
They will only evaluate my ideas. And if they reject them, I won't whine to them that my friends DO like my ideas and that they're too arrogant not to. See the difference?
There is no difference. I only brought up the fact that there are other people who are receptive to these ideas to counter the perception that the vocal members on my threads constitutes a typical reaction.

Quote
But we'll see how you behave in the future.
Is that your personal condescension/threat or are you speaking for science?

Quote
Order and disorder are basically equivalent terms. Entropy is a measure. Your 'idea' is similar to entropy. The principles of entropy have been discovered. I call your ideas no discovery, because you do not derive them from facts, but just make them up.
Entropy applies to physical measurement, not awareness subjectivity. My view of order encompasses all pattern, coherence, or identification, exterior or interior, subjective or objective. Order is not just a quantitative measure, it's qualities of experience.

Quote
What is the relation between them? And how could we know if a certain relation indeed does exist or doesn't?

The relation that I suggest is that physical phenomena are the exterior aspects of objects while subjective phenomena are experienced within the interiors of objects. We know that the brain is made of molecules and that it's electrochemical behaviors can be mapped to subjective experience but we also know that this subjective experience cannot be accessed directly or predicted from the electrochemical behaviors. The brain could behave the exact same way without there necessarily being a conscious person there at all, just as a computer could function just as it does with or without a monitor/keyboard/mouse.

Further, I suggest that this dualism is itself dualistic, such that brain behavior and subjective experience are essentially linked, but existentially separate. Like a tree has roots that go into the ground and it has branches and leaves that go into the air. They are two ends of the same phenomenon. The trunk is neither root nor branch but it unites and separates them.

Psychologically, I can observe in myself and in others, that attention to one side of the tree or the other can become habitual and shape a person's expectations about the world, and that categories of experience and observation make sense when organized along a continuum from purely physical to purely experiential.

Quote
There is no real duality or paradox, it's just hard to put it into words what the QM formulas mean.
I think it's just moving the paradox to reality so that the formulas make sense. The formulas do make sense, it's just that the reality they describe doesn't fully make sense of the reality we experience, and that's why they are hard not only to put into words, but to conceptualize at all.

Quote
But QM is not exactly baseless, it has been predicting many phenomena that have been countlessly verified to be correct. It flawlessly models every micro-scale experiment we can come up with. What is there to reject about that, what is there not to fit with reality?

You act as if I'm rejecting QM. I'm not. QM is critical to understanding the exterior behavior of matter. Matter does behave as if these things exist when we observe them certain ways, I'm just saying they can be interpreted just as well and maybe more accurately and meaningfully without the necessity of a substance-like energy conductor.

Quote
What does your everyday macro life has to do with it?
My everyday macro life is made of matter. Why would scale alone change the ontology completely?

Quote
The fact that you don't intuitively understand GM reality doesn't matter in the least. Reality doesn't care. Just coming up with some explanation, without mathematical framework, that just 'sounds right' doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, usually that sort of explanations are very very wrong.
That's fine, but someone has to tell me what I'm very very wrong about and not just state how improbable it is that I'm right. I know that it's improbable that I'm right. So what?

Quote
Groups of bacteria are cooperating, just like the entire human body consists of cooperating cells. This doesn't say they are 'aware' or that their behavior cannot be precisely modeled.
Just because something can be precisely modeled doesn't mean it has no capacity to detect. The cells of the human body have awareness too - that's where our awareness comes from. We are a logical abstraction layer that arises from the awareness of the cells of parts of our central nervous system. Why is that so noxious to entertain? Where else would our consciousness reside but inside of our brain?

Quote
Similarly atoms and quarks are interacting via the four known forces and in that sense coordinated. That doesn't attribute any 'awareness' to them either, and does not subscribe subjectivity to them either in a psychological sense.
It doesn't rule it out either. You really think that before life evolved there was no awareness in the entire cosmos? Just intangible silent processes in the dark for eons until suddenly out of nowhere, awareness happens to appear, along with, for the very first time, the entire rest of the cosmos? You take awareness for granted. I don't.

Quote
Small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity? Could you please define what subjectivity is, according to you?
I don't do definitions but how about 'Subjectivity is the ability to experience'.

Quote
Properties of complex systems need not come from any of their parts, but can be part from their configuration alone.

Only if there exists the possibility for the configuration to yield the particular property in the first place. You can't get lasagna from a diamond and you can't get self-replicating, conscious, living organisms from a universe of tiny billiard balls.

Quote
Might be. But truth does not equal whatever makes the most sense to you.
That's all I'm asking for. 'Might be'. I'm under no delusion that the few weeks I've been tossing this idea around constitutes truth, but no matter how many times I try to express that, I get slammed for trying to outwit every genius put together. 'Might be' is all these ideas deserve, but it's also all that they need to be to warrant further exploration.

Quote
I don't believe that. You seem to purposely construct your ideas so that nothing much can be said about them, or measured by them. That was the reason you originally placed them outside the scientific field. I don't think that anything can change your mind. I've already said many times that without experimentation and validation your ideas about the universe are completely useless and senseless.
I don't purposely construct my ideas at all. I didn't originally place them anywhere. I agree that it's hard to experimentally validate or measure them, but that's part of what I'm saying - subjectivity is hard to experimentally validate. Prove your beliefs exist. Does the fact that you can't make them useless and senseless?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 08:35:44 PM
What is the nature of this “subjectivity” particle/wave? How would you show its existence?
It's not a particle/wave, it's what takes place within particles and through waves. We show it's existence by experiencing it ourselves. We understand that the patterns of our brain appear to be one thing on the outside (DC potential flux patterns, neurotransmitter production, etc) and another thing on the inside (sensations, memories, ideas).

Quote
How would you do the maths?
The maths have been done. I'm just interpreting interpretations of the maths.

Quote
Would it not be more reasonable to speculate that the presence of any large object (camera, person, etc.) has a quantum effect on space-time / earth's magnetic field / etc., which is shown in the behaviour of subatomic particles? Why would the particles (atoms) that are being observed have to have the quality you propose?

We're made of atoms and any large object, recording device, detection instrument, and the Earth is also made of atoms. It makes more sense to me that each object has it's own way of imitating/relating to whatever phenomenon is introduced and that the way the matter of our brain interprets those relations reflects it's own reality as well as the nature of the phenomenon. When you look at the fundamental physical level of the cosmos, you get a fundamental sense of recognition of the reality of observation, of physical presence, etc. If anything has the qualities of consciousness, it's made of atoms. I see no reason why we should presume that sensation arises from a random interaction of atoms but not at all from atoms themselves.

Quote
But back to your speculation, as I look at a person and he cannot see me looking, are you suggesting that the person changes because all his electrons change their behaviour? Would that matter any more than if his blink rate rose from 10.451938392 per minute to 10.451938393?
I'm only suggesting that when you look at a person, the atoms in the photomolecules of your retina have and express an awareness of the outside surface of that person's body when that surface is sufficiently illuminated. It's direct awareness. There is no light stuff bombarding your eye - what you see is happening to the atoms of your eye and brain, not to the space in front of your eyes.

When you look at a picture of a person, the atoms in the photomolecules of your retina imitate an awareness of the atoms that make up the display of the picture that imitates a pattern of awareness of the film or ccd atoms in the camera during the exposure. The pattern is the thing. Not photons. Photons don't make a coherent image pattern, patterns and pattern recognition on the cellular, molecular, and atomic level make sense that we can understand because 'we' are made of these same kinds of patterns and pattern recognitions.

Quote
If I and you both looked at that person and he cannot see us looking, how would he change? Would he change in 2 ways or would he change the same for both of us?
I don't know that 'he' would change, although guys like Rupert Sheldrake will tell you that people can often feel that they are being looked at (and I have experienced that myself but I don't make a lot of it other than that perception is not always limited to ranges we consider possible). I'm just saying that our brains are forming a picture of the guy based on their actual detection of the guy or the illuminated guy. Everything that is illuminated under the same conditions is connected by virtue of sharing the same illumination. The degree to which it changes us varies from having a shadow pass by to being burned up in an atomic blast.

Quote
What would be the significance if you were right? What would be the significance if you were not?
If I'm right, then we live in a participatory cosmos where order, sense, life, and consciousness are sometimes supported and sometimes not. A cosmos which has different potentials that can be accessed through focusing one's attention on the appropriate kinds of phenomena and taking appropriate actions. If I'm wrong, there still could be a lot of other possibilities that would lead to the same view of the cosmos.

If strict mechanistic physicalism is right, however, then we live in an involuntary cosmos where order, sense, life, and consciousness are pure, unsupported accident and all meaning is illusory except for sterile mathematics divorced from any mathematician.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 08:57:04 PM
I think that the answer to that question is found in the subjective idea of an individual.  On a certain physical scale, we are individuals.  On a smaller physical scale, we are no longer distinct individuals, but rather a colony of individual cells.  The question of why the body-scale of an object thinks of its body-scaled self as an individual is one that answers itself, I think.
It's not a question of why it might make an obvious sort of sense that a body should perceive itself as a body (although that in itself might be little more than taking consciousness and order for granted), but what is this individual-body-level perception actually made of? Through what substance is it's presentation accomplished?

It's like explaining a monitor image as just a set of pixels, but understanding how the pixels work says nothing about the image those pixels make up, let alone the meaning of the experience of images in general. That's why I think that any explanation of the universe which fails to fully account for the ordinary experience of the explainer is critically flawed. Where are the alphabets, the odors, the jokes and the ironies in a world of micro quantum determinations?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 19, 2010, 09:04:06 PM
Asking what consciousness is "made of" falls into the trap of assuming that it is a "thing" that can be "made of" stuff.  It's like asking "what is math made of?"  Despite "math" being a noun, it is not evidentally meaningful to ask what it is "made of".

My own take on what consciousness "is", is that it's just a natural property of matter, expressed in different ways according to different arrangements of matter.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 19, 2010, 09:10:24 PM
Asking what consciousness is "made of" falls into the trap of assuming that it is a "thing" that can be "made of" stuff.  It's like asking "what is math made of?"  Despite "math" being a noun, it is not evidentally meaningful to ask what it is "made of".
That's how I feel about light. It's not made of anything, it's just our visual awareness of material processes.

Quote
My own take on what consciousness "is", is that it's just a natural property of matter, expressed in different ways according to different arrangements of matter.
I very much agree with that. I'm just taking it out on a limb by suggesting that the different arrangements of matter express consciousness by amplifying or focusing pre-existing potentials of matter itself, and that those potentials are local to the 'inside' of matter.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 19, 2010, 10:17:35 PM
I prefer to make fewer assumptions, rather than more.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on August 20, 2010, 05:09:01 AM

Quote
How would you do the maths?
The maths have been done. I'm just interpreting interpretations of the maths.

I am correct in assuming that you don't have a problem with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics , Relativity etc but more with the language used by scientists when they try and explain concepts like entanglement to the intelligent educated layperson?

I have only been partially following the threads where you have espoused your theory so please correct me on my understanding of what I think you are saying (using layman language).

1. Photons don't 'travel' through space.
2. Individual particles/energy/stuff communicate with other partiicles/energy/stuff when they feel the need. So when a person looks at an object the particles/energy/stuff in that persons brain sets up a link with the particles/energy/stuff of the object and they transfer data.

If my summary is vaguely correct I have a few questions.

1. Gravitational lensing has been observed. how do you explain it in your interpretation?
2. How do X-ray scans work? Do the outer body particles/energy/stuff say 'sorry mate!, too much information, I am not going to respond'. Whereas bones and such say 'yeah, I can talk to you.'

Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Immediacracy on August 20, 2010, 07:10:39 AM
I am correct in assuming that you don't have a problem with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics , Relativity etc but more with the language used by scientists when they try and explain concepts like entanglement to the intelligent educated layperson?

Not the language, but some of the interpretation. The assumption of a physical light substance.

Quote
1. Photons don't 'travel' through space.
Right. Unless by 'photon' you mean a logical pattern rather than a physical pattern. A 'beam of light' is a logical path which delineates an area subject to illumination, that's all. There is no physical 'beam', just self-illuminated particles in a beam shaped path.

Quote
2. Individual particles/energy/stuff communicate with other partiicles/energy/stuff when they feel the need. So when a person looks at an object the particles/energy/stuff in that persons brain sets up a link with the particles/energy/stuff of the object and they transfer data.
No, I'm thinking that there's no physical link although there is a physical chain reaction. There isn't 'data transferred' physically, although you could model a logical data transfer and be correct (is data ever transferred physically? maybe that's a semantic glitch...). You could model wave or particle behavior and be correct as well, which is exactly what I think QM is - like pre-Copernican astronomy, it's a logic based on observation, but it takes it's inferences from that observation only rather than jump to an unorthodox-seeming conclusion.

The conclusion that the behavior observed is local to the observer and the material observed seems unorthodox because we are not accustomed to working with phenomena on the very lowest level of substance so we have no precedent to model our own atomic-molecular-cellular-organic entanglement. I would not say that illumination occurs when objects 'feel the need', I'm not saying they have a choice about it exactly (though I wouldn't know), but that they participate in the local choreography whether they want to dance or not. It's the same as having a photon force the dance upon you, except there's no photon, just quorum sensing on an atomic level.

Quote
1. Gravitational lensing has been observed. how do you explain it in your interpretation?
For any of these kinds of questions you have to deconstruct the experiment and look only at what was actually used to make the observation and rethink the experiment without a photon stream. The observation of gravitational lensing undoubtedly tells us about how mass effects the logical characteristics of the effects on the objects we use to observer (our eyes and brains included) but it doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening in the space in between the observing objects and the observed. It's inferred, and there is more than one way to infer the result. Without the photon stream, nothing changes except the way that we think about what is going on. There's still a relativistic shift, but all that's bending is our expectation about the result. There may not be any physical 'bending of light'.

Quote
2. How do X-ray scans work? Do the outer body particles/energy/stuff say 'sorry mate!, too much information, I am not going to respond'. Whereas bones and such say 'yeah, I can talk to you.'
X-Ray scans work in the same way they always do, only the X-Ray isn't a physical 'ray', it's just that an electrified Tungsten or Molybdenum anode produces effects the tissues of the body differently according to their density. Bones rock out. Soft tissue, not so much. The areas of the film or ccd element which are exposed to the 'bone dance', are themselves excited in the same pattern, which we reproduce by exciting our own retina when we look at it.

EDIT: Not sure if an X-Ray image is a positive or a negative? Maybe it's the soft tissue that rocks out and the bones that chill?

Think of this example. When you listen to the radio, instead of imagining invisible radio waves, imagine that you are listening to an amplified analog of your antenna. Your antenna is 'listening' to the broadcast tower (and also whatever material conditions/obstacles presented by the atmosphere). Listening itself is the brain imitating the behavior of eardrum. It's all happening atom to atom and object to object. It's 'quantum jumping', not penetrating space physically.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 20, 2010, 10:18:32 AM
It is the bones that block the X-rays.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: relativetruth on August 20, 2010, 10:33:25 AM
I am correct in assuming that you don't have a problem with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics , Relativity etc but more with the language used by scientists when they try and explain concepts like entanglement to the intelligent educated layperson?
Not the language, but some of the interpretation. The assumption of a physical light substance.

Does mathematics use terms like 'physical light substance'? Scientists use human language phrases to explain their theories to a wider audience is this not the same as interpretation?

No, I'm thinking that there's no physical link although there is a physical chain reaction. There isn't 'data transferred' physically, although you could model a logical data transfer and be correct (is data ever transferred physically? maybe that's a semantic glitch...).

[...]

Whether there is a physical data transfer occurring or not there still is a 'state change' in the observer. i.e. 'I saw something'.
Gravitational lensing has been observed. how do you explain it in your interpretation?

For any of these kinds of questions you have to deconstruct the experiment and look only at what was actually used to make the observation and rethink the experiment without a photon stream. The observation of gravitational lensing undoubtedly tells us about how mass effects the logical characteristics of the effects on the objects we use to observer (our eyes and brains included) but it doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening in the space in between the observing objects and the observed. It's inferred, and there is more than one way to infer the result. Without the photon stream, nothing changes except the way that we think about what is going on. There's still a relativistic shift, but all that's bending is our expectation about the result. There may not be any physical 'bending of light'.

I am honestly trying to get an understanding of what you are trying to say.
I cannot see how the above gives me an explanation.
Gravitational Lensing is a phenomena observed by astronomers. If they saw it as a 'photon stream' or not is irrelevant. They observed what they observed.
Relativity predicted that such phenomena would occur.
Relativity explains using language that layman can understand how this could work.

Quote
X-Ray scans work in the same way they always do, only the X-Ray isn't a physical 'ray', it's just that an electrified Tungsten or Molybdenum anode produces effects the tissues of the body differently according to their density. Bones rock out. Soft tissue, not so much. The areas of the film or ccd element which are exposed to the 'bone dance', are themselves excited in the same pattern, which we reproduce by exciting our own retina when we look at it.

The language used above is similar to that used in the dodgy side of the cosmetic industry using pseudo-science to attract gullible clients.
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Azdgari on August 20, 2010, 11:00:14 AM
Immediacracy, have you ever examined something using X-ray diffraction?  Do you know what it is?
Title: Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
Post by: Operator_011 on August 20, 2010, 11:27:27 AM
This thread has been locked. The staff have agreed that it's time to stop discussing Immediacracy's ideas at WWGHA.

Thank-you.