GPLindsey

Imagine a billion people each flipping a coin ten times. If we assume all of the coin tosses were truely random, then most people would have heads or tails about 50 percent of the time. However, there will be many people who get nearly all heads or all tails, and likely at least one person who tosses all heads or all tails. Now imagine that none of these billion people were aware that the other people were also flipping coins. Let's also say that getting tails is bad and getting heads is good.

I define "Luck" as events beyond your control that break either in your favor or against your favor. The person in the above example who got all heads is "lucky," although under the laws of probability it was no miracle. The same for the "unlucky" person who got all tails. In everyday life, we run across all sorts of people who seem to be either lucky or unlucky when it comes to events beyond their control. To me, it's just like the coin tosses--with billions of people on the planet, there will always be some people who always seem to benefit by random events that just break their way. We don't think about the fact that people all over the world are experiencing "coin tosses" themselves, so the Lucky or Unlucky person seems more extraordinary than they really are.

I bring this up in this Forum because I've heard many Christians pooh pooh the idea of luck or chance and interpret everything as evidence of Design. How to explain a beautiful Sunday for the Church picnic, after it's been raining all week? Not chance or luck, but Design. Why did the tornado knock over the church the following week, but leave the other homes in the neighborhood standing? Design--God is testing the faithful OR punishing sin that has crept into the church OR has a Plan for even a greater church OR.... But surely not chance or bad luck.

Anti-Materialist

Your billion coin toss concept is an excellent example of the many worlds theory, and the Anthropic Principle.

If there are billions of parallel universes, then it would not seem so odd that we are in the universe that has life in it. Only the universes that have life in them would be the ones to give rise to creatures who can make such observations.

Thus, it seems to me, that in order to be an accidentalist (just made that word up) - that is, in order to believe that the universe is not designed, but rather is here by accident - you would have to believe that there are probably billions of other universes.

It seems to me you have to go with one or the other. Or both. I actually think both seems like a more likely scenario - that it is designed, and that there are other universes. My reasons for this are outside of the Anthropic Principle, however.

As for the church goers who wish to find a reason for everything that happens to them - personally, I think they are just deceiving themselves. But that's ok, they would think I am deceiving myself on many of my perspectives.

In order to believe in the accident theory, you have to believe in getting something from nothing. How do you do that?

If you don't believe in getting something from nothing, then you have to get into concepts like a looped chain of cause and effect (not necessarily looped time - two different concepts). Or, you have to believe in a chain of cause and effect that goes backwards forever. If that chain of cause and effect goes backwards forever, it must somehow be capable of defying entropy.

My intuition tells me that a complex system with an infinite history that did not end in maximum entropy would have eventually given rise to a supreme force with supreme intelligence. Note that I did not say all powerful - just supreme. I say this, because all complex systems that we observe, that involves entities capable of making decisions, gives rise to a top dog over time.

It is a gigantic leap to go from applying observations of complex systems with intelligence in this world, to applying it to a multiverse. Thus, I can only call it intuition. It feels right, but I couldn't prove it for all the bananas in South America.

yguy

Luck is not an explanation for anything, it's just a way of expressing ignorance with respect to the cause of the event in question without admitting it. And to an egotistical mind, it is comforting to think the cause can't possibly be known by anyone.

Chiron

Luck, luck, luck...
Flipping a coin? Perhaps that can be predicted while it is still in the air, so maybe luck isn't an inherent property of that example.
But have you ever heard of Brownian motion? Or quantum mechanics?

-Chiron

yguy

Umm...yeah

GPLindsey

Why do you need billions of universes in order for life to evolve?

Let's say that, in order for live to arise on a planet, the planet has to have just the right atmosphere, be just the right distance from its sun, have just the right amount of gravity, have just the right amount of water, etc. etc. etc. Well, our sun is a very ordinary, mid-range star. This ordinary star has nine planets and dozens of moons. One planet has life, another is a strong candidate for life (Mars) and another was a near miss (Venus--right size, but a little too close to the sun). We also have a couple of moons (Europa and Titan) in the outer solar system that may harbour life of some kind. All of this around one very ordinary star, and there are TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of stars in our universe.

We don't need multiple parallel universes for life, only lots of stars where lots of different mixes of planetary conditions can occur. I'm sure there are stars out there with no planets, stars with lots of planets but with the wrong conditions, and stars with solar systems similar to our own. The odds favor life popping up all over our universe, just because there are so many stars where so many different solar system variations can be tried out.

And you don't need a Designer. If there is only a one in a zillion chance that Life can evolve on a planet, it begs the question--why would this Designer who set out to create Life pointlessly make it difficult by making the odds against it so high?

Anti-Materialist

You need to study the Anthropic principle...

There is no reason why the fundamental forces of our universe have to be set the way the are.

Physicists have calculated the odds of a universe forming into one with just the right settings to form stars, and heavy elements, and quite a few other things necessary for life to develop. The odds of that happening are very very very small.

In order to have life, you have to have the right set of physical laws. In fact, you have to exactly the right set of physical laws. Seriously - look up the Anthropic principle on the web, it is really fascinating stuff.

Atheists use it as justification for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Theists use it as justification for saying the universe was created.

I would like to point out, however, that if you reject the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, that does not mean you have to accept the Judeo-Christian version of a creator. Convincing ourselves that the world is created does not tell us much about who did the creating.

GPLindsey

I'm familiar enough with this principle to know its rubbish. First, all we know about life comes from observations on the one place where we know it exists--Earth. All these supposed "constraints" on the conditions necessary for Life flow from that. It is possible that Life must always be carbon-based and require the presence of water, but we haven't proved that yet. We don't know because we haven't landed laboratories on all the other rocks out there to see what other kind of exotic life forms may be possible. This anthropic principle is akin to a group of intelligent moss at the bottom of the ocean saying, "Well, we know that for Life to exist requires the total absence of light, thermal springs for heat, millions of tons of water pressure, etc. etc."

Second, the universe is made up of 95 percent dark matter and dark energy, and another 4 percent of other nonluminous junk. The stars, galaxies, nebulai, etc., make up less than 1 percent, and only a fraction of that might be hospitable environs for Life (which would still be enough for millions of Life-filled planets). Couldn't a Designer have done better than this--if his intention was to create Life, why fill up the Universe with alot of useless dark matter and dark energy? Was he trying to impress us by first making the Universe overwhelming hostile to life, and then performing a miracle to overcome those odds?

As for all the physicists out there who say the odds for Life are very very small, I've read enough Scientific American to know that that is not a universal opinion.

Jesse

GPLindsey:
I'm familiar enough with this principle to know its rubbish. First, all we know about life comes from observations on the one place where we know it exists--Earth. All these supposed "constraints" on the conditions necessary for Life flow from that. It is possible that Life must always be carbon-based and require the presence of water, but we haven't proved that yet. We don't know because we haven't landed laboratories on all the other rocks out there to see what other kind of exotic life forms may be possible.

But it's hard to imagine how you could have life without some stable complex structure akin to DNA, and as far as I know only carbon and silicon can form these sorts of enormous complex molecules. It's conceivable that in certain circumstances you might have other sorts of complex formations of particles akin to molecules but not made out of atoms--there was a science fiction story about life on a neutron star based on 'molecules' made up of chains of bound nucleii--but there's no reason to think this is especially likely.

GPLindsey:
Second, the universe is made up of 95 percent dark matter and dark energy, and another 4 percent of other nonluminous junk. The stars, galaxies, nebulai, etc., make up less than 1 percent, and only a fraction of that might be hospitable environs for Life (which would still be enough for millions of Life-filled planets). Couldn't a Designer have done better than this--if his intention was to create Life, why fill up the Universe with alot of useless dark matter and dark energy? Was he trying to impress us by first making the Universe overwhelming hostile to life, and then performing a miracle to overcome those odds?

This is only an objection to using anthropic coincidences to support the notion of a humanlike designer (and to me it's not a very convincing one, since it depends on the assumption that the designer is just interested in creating as much life as possible). If one is using anthropic coincidences to support the idea of a larger universe or multiverse containing different regions/universes where the physical constants take on different values, the objection doesn't work.

Anti-Materialist

I absolutely love speculating on why the creator would do this that or the other. It's great fun.

It doesn't prove anything, but it is much fun.


I challenge you guys to come up with anything about the nature of our reality that is inherently conflicting with the concept of a loving God.


I bet you that for any explanation of how a loving God wouldn't allow this, that, or the other to happen - I can come up with an explanation of how in fact a loving God could allow such a thing to happen.


It wouldn't prove that I am right. It is just speculation. However, it would prove that a loving God is not incompatible with the world we live in.



Now - I know you guys are going to start throwing the holocaust and plagues at me, and things like that - so, just be nice when you do it.


Peace,

JL