Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rogernme · 07-20-2005, 08:25 AM

Howdy Ashaman

Most of what I know about all this stuff I’ve learned from Roger Penrose.

I’m guessing Roger knows a bit more about this stuff than y’all, Ashaman, so, with all due respect, think I’ll be paying more attention to what Roger has to say about these things.

In fact Ashaman, you might want to read some of Roger’s stuff yourself, seeing as how some your own arguments seem to be, IMHO, somewhat, using your own word, “worthless.�?

Office Monkey · 07-20-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha'man

Are you willing to learn?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogernme

I think you’d agree that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads: The universe began about 14 billion years ago; beginning entropy was inexplicably low (and it only increases); and the laws of physics that we know of (except for the unexplained measurement problem) are deterministic. In other words, the available science and evidence indicates that the universe and we aren’t here by chance.

I suspect that your mistake, Stinger, is in your assessment that Einstein, Plank, Penrose, and I “give up and say that God must have done it.�? Rather Stinger, I’d suggest you look at things another way—not that “God must have done it,�? but that chance almost certainly couldn’t have.

I'll take that as a No. :banghead:

Peez · 07-20-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Rogernme:
Can't find none?

No, can find none.

Quote:

The science and evidence currently tells us that the beginning was around 14 billion years ago;

Yes.

Quote:

and that beginning entropy was inexplicably low

And inexplicably high. The fact is that we cannot explain the origin of the universe at all, so there is no expectation of any particular level of entropy.

Quote:

—with no explanation and/or natural law(s) explaining how/why.

Natural laws, by definition, exist within the universe and so cannot possibly explain the origin of the universe.

Quote:

I'd say that strongly implies first cause, no?

No.

Quote:

Additionally, all the known natural laws are deterministic, except for that irritating measurement problem at the quantum level, and that's probably due to our lack of knowledge/understanding of things at that level.

Translation: all know natural laws are deterministic except the ones that aren't, and I am hoping that we are wrong about those but not about the deterministic ones. In any event, once again, you are trying to apply the laws of this universe to something outside of this universe, namely the origin of this universe.

Quote:

So I find it hard to believe that the universe and we are the result of accident/chance;

I don't even know what you mean by "accident/chance" in this context.

Quote:

although I suppose one might believe in many universes, but that's a big leap—no real evidence for such.

No evidence for "first cause" either.

Quote:

And great scientists have said interesting things—

As previously pointed out, great scientists have said stupid things as well. If you had some actual evidence you would not be forced to employ this logical fallacy. However, since you seem to think that the opinions of great scientists are worth noting:

Albert Einstein:

Quote:

Do you believe in immortality? No, and one life is enough for me.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Max Planck

Quote:

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

Steven Hawking:

Quote:

Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.

The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.

Quote:

Although it may not be completely clear what these particular scientists have precisely believed, I doubt they are/were atheists.

I don't see why we should be concerned about whether or not they were atheists. Many people who accept evolution are theists, and some creationists are atheists.

Peez

Y.B · 07-20-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peez

and some creationists are atheists.

Come again?

With respect to other gods than their own, sure, but...

Quetzalcoatl · 07-20-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogernme

I think you’d agree that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads: The universe began about 14 billion years ago; beginning entropy was inexplicably low (and it only increases); and the laws of physics that we know of (except for the unexplained measurement problem) are deterministic. In other words, the available science and evidence indicates that the universe and we aren’t here by chance.

Penrose has some ideas about what entropy implies about the time asymmetry of the universe. Penrose ideas are not science. Science is not a religion with priests. Got that. Penrose ideas are not evidence.

The available evidence indicates that our understanding of the universe breaks down as we go back in time. We have no accepted theory of quantum gravity.

Have any other evidence?

Rogernme · 07-20-2005, 11:29 AM

Ashaman writes:

Quote:

Again, you are providing an argument from ignorance, specifically your ignorance. You apparently know nothing of the mathematics of chaos in the macroscopic world (Hint: weather), nor anything about modern quantum mechanics. (Hint: It’s not just a measurement problem.)

Ahhh, Ashaman, speaking of ignorance, your weather hint, among other things, suggests your own.

Unless the results of the quantum wave function collapse are truly actually random, and unless such actually influence macroscopic weather, the known underlying laws of nature that affect weather are nevertheless deterministic—it’s just that complexity and chaos make it virtually impossible to predict weather very far into the future, although short-term we don’t do too badly.

I think your problem, Ashaman, is your misunderstanding of probabilities. For example, I’d guess that you believe that the 50/50 probability of a coin being heads/tails is an intrinsic property of the coin and/or the physics involved. But of course that’s wrong—Once the coin is released, whether it comes up heads or tails is completely deterministic (and even before it’s released if indeed free will is an illusion)—it’s just that our knowledge of all the variables affecting the toss is limited.

So anyway Ashaman, the point is this: Don’t think of the 50/50 heads/tails probability of a coin toss as being your knowledge of the intrinsic properties of the physics/coin—rather think of it as being an indication of your “lack of knowledge.�?

Quetzalcoatl · 07-20-2005, 11:39 AM

Unless the results of the quantum wave function collapse are truly actually random

There are no hidden variables. It has nothing to do with lack of knowledge. Please update your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics.

Peez · 07-20-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Y.B:
Come again?

With respect to other gods than their own, sure, but...

It becomes a bit of a semantic issue: what exactly is a creationist, what exactly is an atheist? However, there are the:

Raelians
Scientologists
Sitchinites

I admit that whether these qualify as "atheists" and/or "creationists" is open to debate.

Peez

Aegeri · 07-20-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peez

It becomes a bit of a semantic issue: what exactly is a creationist, what exactly is an atheist? However, there are the:

Raelians
Scientologists
Sitchinites

I admit that whether these qualify as "atheists" and/or "creationists" is open to debate.

Peez

Why can't we just call them nutters and be done with any semantics? Put them all in one big looney bin.

Worldtraveller · 07-20-2005, 12:11 PM

Is there a bin big enough to hold all the looneys?

If so, can it be launched into space? :devil3:

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

07-20-2005, 08:25 AM	#31
Rogernme Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 331	Howdy Ashaman Most of what I know about all this stuff I’ve learned from Roger Penrose. I’m guessing Roger knows a bit more about this stuff than y’all, Ashaman, so, with all due respect, think I’ll be paying more attention to what Roger has to say about these things. In fact Ashaman, you might want to read some of Roger’s stuff yourself, seeing as how some your own arguments seem to be, IMHO, somewhat, using your own word, “worthless.�?

07-20-2005, 11:39 AM	#37
Quetzalcoatl Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Caribbean - land of beach sun and party Posts: 1,204	Unless the results of the quantum wave function collapse are truly actually random There are no hidden variables. It has nothing to do with lack of knowledge. Please update your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics.

07-20-2005, 12:11 PM	#40
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	Is there a bin big enough to hold all the looneys? If so, can it be launched into space? :devil3:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.