Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rogernme · 07-21-2005, 05:10 AM

Ridgebe writes:

Quote:

Years ago Monty Hall’s producers said they never told Monty which door had the prize so he would be as astounded as his contestants were.

And yet, Ridgebe, somehow, whenever Monty eliminated one of the remaining doors for a contestant, he always managed to eliminate a door that did not have the big prize . . . astounding indeed. And thanks for that grammar check regarding the missing question mark—you got me you clever fellow.

Reddish says:

Quote:

To me, reality looks completely consistent with a lack of creator and lack of design. It is all very thoughtless (in case of physics) and cruel (in case of nature).

I fail to see how [Rogernme’s] remarks address the question I posed. Could you give it one more shot?

Well Reddish, apparently folk like Penrose, Einstein, & Plank (not necessarily terribly “religious people�?) see/saw things differently. But your problem is not uncommon—many simply don’t/can’t comprehend/acknowledge/appreciate the implications of a universe beginning with such inexplicably low beginning entropy (and some that do comprehend the implications, rather than acknowledging the likelihood of first cause, instead conjure up the rather inelegant and unlikely infinite universes scenario).

And I fear that I’m unable to enhance what Penrose, Einstein, and Plank have already indicated.

But I agree with you that nature often does seem to be cruel, or at least indifferent. All the best, Reddish.

Rogernme · 07-21-2005, 05:47 AM

The Atheist formerly known as Spencer writes:

Quote:

And who the fuck cares what Roger Penrose has to say?

Good, if I may use that pointless word, point, The. I sense that you truly understand/acknowledge the implications of your worldview. And I can’t disagree—in your world, nobody could possibly truly care.

Peez · 07-21-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Peez:
I see that you are utterly unwilling (or unable) to actually argue for such ideas yourself.
Rogernme:
The science and evidence telling us that the beginning was around 14 billion years ago and that beginning entropy was inexplicably low, along with the lack of explanation and/or natural law(s) explaining how/why, is fairly self-evident—it's really not much of an issue unless you don't, more or less, agree with BB.

Apparently, this is meant to be an argument. However, it looks much more like a simple (and unsupported) assertion. Note: repeating something does not actually support it, it just makes you look like you have no argument.

Quote:

However, I do provide more info/explanation on this in my several posts in the "Do all causes precede their effects" thread in the "Science and Skepticism" forum—and if you find those to be inadequate, your best bet is to read Penrose.

Thanks for the link, that made the thread, and in particular your posts among the 480 there, much easier to find.

read... read... read...

Interesting thread, but I could find nothing about the origin of the universe, or why the starting conditions were as they were. The thing that is clearest in that thread is that your points are nowhere near "fairly self-evident".

Peez

Roland98 · 07-26-2005, 01:56 PM

Physics derailment split to here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2005, 01:56 PM	#54
Roland98 Contributor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Gilead Posts: 11,186	Physics derailment split to here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.