Intelligent Design

[Pixel42]

No, I do not think the point made is the same one.

Then why did you say:

I was doing a "puddle" analogy to see how improbable something has to be to impress the skeptics on this site.

You are missing the point of the puddle analogy if you think it has anything to do with how improbable something needs to be in order to be impressive.

The puddle analogy is so over-the-top simplistic and childish that the point made is buried in fanciful imaginings. What was he smoking I wonder

It's a simple analogy to make a simple point, which - far from being buried - could not be more clear. Yet so many people still can't see it.

 

[Aridas]

But I still wonder if it feels that way to us because we are closer to it.

It's not the "distance." Seriously, if you compare the stories and narratives overall, it's pretty obvious. Again, the Mormon story pretty much screams out "guy pulling a con job," while the Jesus story(ies, really) reads as more of a standard heroic tale. Remember, Jesus pretty much constantly does what would likely be demonstrable miracles in the stories, if they were done during the present day. Joseph Smith? What did he actually do that couldn't be perfectly imitated by pretty much any random person?

 

[Aridas]

No data, you say?

Insufficient data, not no data. A sample size of 1 is entirely insufficient to establish a range of viable possibilities, let alone the likelihood of various possibilities.

Smolin is a scientist, and I have not seen an argument that his logic is incorrect. Your bland statement does nothing to refute it.

The argument here isn't that he's necessarily incorrect, after all, but rather that we don't have good reason to take his calculations as fact, given the very notable weakness of what he's basing them on and the plethora of other options that, objectively speaking, are on roughly even ground for their trustworthiness. He's one theoretical physicist among many that are trying to solve various problems, frequently in mutually exclusive ways. You've rather notably failed to give any reason for why we should give his attempts special treatment. Even in the quote of that link that you provided for the calculated number, it emphasized that it was a big "if," yet you want us to just uncritically accept and work with that number as definite fact. That's quite clearly not critical thinking.

 

[Aridas]

I say the puddle analogy is a bad one. Posters here say my statue analogy is a bad one.

Bad in that it's completely wrong to try to treat it as if it were the puddle analogy. It works just fine to highlight a completely different principle, much as that principle's largely self-defeating. We could just as easily propose that our universe could have been created in situ at some point in the future and that our "current" experience of existing is little more than the rebound of a ripple caused by the creation.

The puddle has a clear and simple point. My statue had a clear and simple point.

They're not even remotely the same point at all, though, which makes you calling it your "puddle" analogy entirely false.

Notice that I did not use the "watch-on-the-beach" or "Boeing-in-the-desert" examples. I used something that is at least possible by the nature we know.

Self-defeating as your analogy is for any practical purposes when omniscience is not actually available to us.

I did not say that the statue came to life after it was struck by lightning and wondered why it was standing in the desert and what remarkable circumstances of chance led to it's existence.

Hmm - that would have made it a better analogy than the puddle. Instead of marble the material could be some kind of sandstone matrix with complex elements in it. Then one would have an intelligent entity marveling at the odds of its creation. At least it has some elements of creation that are more appropriate that a mindless blob of a puddle in a hole.

Gee, thanks for the criticism permitting a refinement of the analogy.

You still haven't realized that the "puddle" could easily and simply be the human race and the hole can be our little bit of the universe, if you're going to keep trying to make jabs that wander far away from the point like that? Either way, no, your "refined" analogy isn't even close to as good at demonstrating the points actually made with the puddle analogy. It's almost embarrassing to watch you fail so badly with such simple principles, though. It's like you're afraid that actually understanding and accepting that the principles are valid would force you to give up your cherished beliefs, rather than just show that some of the arguments that you're trying to use to justify your beliefs don't actually work.

 

[Aridas]

This site does a pretty good job.

In that it feeds your confirmation bias? You've seen fit to highlight claims that were already addressed and shown to not actually fit the narrative that you and the site that you linked are trying to push, after all.

 

[Donn]

PS quotes: "The fine-tuning argument per se, when it just comes to pointing out the extraordinary special character of the laws of nature which appear to be balanced on the knife’s edge, is not a religious argument, contrary to what many atheists claim."

Even if one were to grant all that: then what? How does "a bunch of laws" on a knife's edge get you one step closer to your God?

The only way is to employ imagination, fuel it by emotion and wring a story into fictional existence.

I look at the supposed knife edge of laws and admit that I am not up to the task of understanding a damn thing.

You look at it, jump to the simplest teleology that minds can mumble and erect a priapism to self congratulation.

It's safe to say I don't understand that either.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)
You still haven't realized that the "puddle" could easily and simply be the human race and the hole can be our little bit of the universe (snip)

I grasp that the puddle could be seen as the human race, and that the hole is the universe we are in, and observe.

I grasp the point that "this specific puddle would not exist if that specific hole did not exist".

The analogy is a bad one for many reasons.

Firstly, there is an implication that the puddle is not the human race, but the humans that think that the universe was made to suit them - fine tuned in fact just for them. The term "puddle-thinking" extends this as an insult to believers of fine-tuning.

Second, if the puddle was actually intelligent enough to know the laws of physics and how those laws applied to it, it would "know" that whatever the shape of the hole (another universe with a different attributes) it would be filled by a different puddle. The implication is that any hole gets filled by any puddle, and that it is possible for all holes to have puddles.

Our universe is not like a hole. It is more like a a sharp steep mountain ridge, and the human race is more like a massive boulder that finds itself balanced on the ridge. Assuming the boulder is also intelligent and can assess the situation it finds itself in, it says "If anything changed even slightly, I would not be here." And it would say that it is highly unlikely that there are any other boulders that would find themselves in that situation.

If all ridges had pounding seas at the bottom, boulders could not survive. This boulder is right to think it is unique and that the conditions for its existence were "miraculous". Whether it attributes the uniqueness to a "God" is a different question.

 

[Wudang]

That’s because, unlike PS and some others, you are capable of accepting the idea that humans were not a desired outcome of the universe. For the proponents of ID and the fine tuning argument, it is vital that humans have some special place in the universe.

There's a quote I believe is from Bertrand Russell but which I can't track down. Basically and paraphrastically : "I and all my friends are incredibly wonderful and intelligent. Such wondrousness and intelligence could not have come about by chance but must have been created. The only thing that could have created anything as wonderful and intelligent as us must be a supreme being."

If anyone can find the original I would be most grateful. I am trapped in a maze of twisty little quote websites, all alike.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For some reason, can't imagine why, I've developed a pretty strong allergy to any argument that can be summed up as "Made up Number over a Bigger Made Up Number, Therefore Woo."

Yeah, that's how the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy works. "I have no idea how big this number is, or how big that number is, but it's just common sense that this number is much, much bigger than that number, therefore God / immortality / homeopathy / telepathy / 9-11 was a Government conspiracy."

Dave

 

[acbytesla]

You are not offending me. I have commented before on your propensity to use vulgar language. So unscientific and common. It seems to be a compulsion with you. Try the word ridiculous instead. You will look a little more educated and refined, and lend more credibility to your unthinking erroneous knee-jerk statement.

No data, you say? We have a huge amount of observation with equations that indicate the intricate fine balance of the state of the universe. What do you call that?

Smolin is a scientist, and I have not seen an argument that his logic is incorrect. Your bland statement does nothing to refute it.

I have argued that it is possible to make an analysis of chance based on the state of a system. He clearly has done so - and has not been scientifically refuted. Or has he? Show me a credible argument - either your own, or show me a website link.

Sorry, there is no data about what it was like before the Big Bang. We can only guess which is what Smolin is doing based on models he has no idea are accurate. I also believe you are taking his work out of context. I'd bet nowhere in Smolin's books or research papers does he say 'God did it'.

I respect Smolin as a scientist but he like a lot of other theoretical physicists do one hell of a lot of guessing.
Personally, I have no desire to sound more refined when discussing excrement regardless of the hole it exited.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Our universe is not like a hole. It is more like a a sharp steep mountain ridge, and the human race is more like a massive boulder that finds itself balanced on the ridge.

Bare assertion fallacy; we don't have any other reason than our own constructs to suppose that to be the case.

Dave

 

[acbytesla]

It's not the "distance." Seriously, if you compare the stories and narratives overall, it's pretty obvious. Again, the Mormon story pretty much screams out "guy pulling a con job," while the Jesus story(ies, really) reads as more of a standard heroic tale. Remember, Jesus pretty much constantly does what would likely be demonstrable miracles in the stories, if they were done during the present day. Joseph Smith? What did he actually do that couldn't be perfectly imitated by pretty much any random person?

I'll surrender because I agree for the most part. Joseph Smith wasn't the only one creating religions in the Burned over district at that time. William Miller started a few different religions.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I grasp that the puddle could be seen as the human race, and that the hole is the universe we are in, and observe.

I grasp the point that "this specific puddle would not exist if that specific hole did not exist".

Good.

The analogy is a bad one for many reasons.

Firstly, there is an implication that the puddle is not the human race, but the humans that think that the universe was made to suit them - fine tuned in fact just for them. The term "puddle-thinking" extends this as an insult to believers of fine-tuning.

While there is no reason for any part to insult the other, possible insults are completely irrelevant to the discussion. If I tell you a fact in an insulting way, it remains a fact.

Second, if the puddle was actually intelligent enough to know the laws of physics and how those laws applied to it, it would "know" that whatever the shape of the hole (another universe with a different attributes) it would be filled by a different puddle.

That is not a fault with the analogy, it is the most important point in the analogy.

The implication is that any hole gets filled by any puddle, and that it is possible for all holes to have puddles.

No that is not an implication. The implication is that any puddle in a hole will find it fits the hole perfectly.

Our universe is not like a hole. It is more like a a sharp steep mountain ridge, and the human race is more like a massive boulder that finds itself balanced on the ridge.

We are a very adaptable species on a planet that supports life. Hardly a boulder on a ridge.

However, how does the fine-tune argument match a boulder on a ridge? That is hardly a fine-tune scenario.

Hans

 

[Meadmaker]

We all know that a statue carved by natural forces MAY be even more improbable that the odds of the constants being what they are.

I was doing a "puddle" analogy to see how improbable something has to be to impress the skeptics on this site. And guess what? Some people said they would be impressed - then added that not only has it never happened, it will not happen.

They are saved by their law of impressively large numbers which says miracles do not happen naturally.

Of course I happen to think that 10 to the power 229 is seriously impressive!

Again with the probabilities. What's the deal with that? What is the probability that momentum ought to be conserved? What is the probability that the speed of light ought to be a fundamental speed limit for the universe? Such questions are nonsense.

Now, what is the probability that light ought to travel at 3x10¹⁰ cm/sec, plus or minus some small margin for measurement error? What is that probability? That question doesn't "feel" as nonsensical as asking what is the probability that there ought to be a speed of light at all. Nevertheless, the two questions are equally nonsensical. Both the existence of the speed of light and the actual value of that speed are observations of the universe as it is. You can't meaningfully talk about probability in such a case.

Numbers aren't impressive. As for what those numbers represent, that could be impressive, in some sense of the word, but this is a case where I would want the fellow to show his work. If I could see the derivation of that number, it might mean something, but all by itself, it just seems made up.


Let's go with 10 to the 235th power instead. That's an even more impressive number.

 

[Fudbucker]

Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life. I just find it impossible to be astonished by the fact that a universe that has me in it has universal constants with values in the right range to have me in it.

That's a problem then. One of the elegancies of cosmic inflation is how nicely it deals with the fine-tuning problem.

 

[Fudbucker]

No offense but he's pulling those numbers from his ass. There is absolutely no way any human can come up with the probability since we simply don't have the data.

But what is really hilarious about your citation is that it sort of suggests we should have encountered alien life if the universe is teeming with life. Consider that it took life on our own planet more than 4 .5 billion years to visit our own moon which is 1.3 light seconds from the earth. By contrast the nearest star to the Earth besides our Sun is Proxima Centauri which is 4.22 light years from Earth. It took Apollo 11 4 days to reach the moon. At that speed it would take man only 1,458,432 years to get to that star system.

And that is only 1 of 400 billion stars in our own galaxy and that the observable universe is estimated to contain 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies. You do the math 2 trillion x 400 billion and that is just what is presently observable.

It is not "hilarious" to think that, if the universe is teeming with life, we should have encountered/heard something. See Fermi Paradox.

 

[Aridas]

I grasp that the puddle could be seen as the human race, and that the hole is the universe we are in, and observe.

I grasp the point that "this specific puddle would not exist if that specific hole did not exist".

That's the closest that you've come to accurately assessing the analogy! Progress! There's still a bit more, though, such as the implication that there's likely more than one possible shape that the puddle could be and still be wondering about how it fit so well.

The analogy is a bad one for many reasons.

Firstly, there is an implication that the puddle is not the human race,

The puddle represents any beings in a similar position to humans, not just humans, after all. A similar view is quite expectable to arise in pretty much any intelligent species.

but the humans that think that the universe was made to suit them - fine tuned in fact just for them. The term "puddle-thinking" extends this as an insult to believers of fine-tuning.

Ahh. You just don't like accepting uncomfortable labels, no matter how accurate. That's not a failure of the analogy, though.

Second, if the puddle was actually intelligent enough to know the laws of physics and how those laws applied to it, it would "know" that whatever the shape of the hole (another universe with a different attributes) it would be filled by a different puddle. The implication is that any hole gets filled by any puddle, and that it is possible for all holes to have puddles.

Sure. Of note, though, it does not imply that all puddles are sapient. Rather, it simply points out that that all sapient puddles would be in a position where they find that the hole perfectly matches the puddle.

Our universe is not like a hole. It is more like a a sharp steep mountain ridge, and the human race is more like a massive boulder that finds itself balanced on the ridge. Assuming the boulder is also intelligent and can assess the situation it finds itself in, it says "If anything changed even slightly, I would not be here." And it would say that it is highly unlikely that there are any other boulders that would find themselves in that situation.

If all ridges had pounding seas at the bottom, boulders could not survive. This boulder is right to think it is unique and that the conditions for its existence were "miraculous". Whether it attributes the uniqueness to a "God" is a different question.

Again, your attempt to reframe things just doesn't work. This is, again, not a failure of the analogy, given that you're trying to invoke entirely different principles, and ones that are not validly backed up, at that. Again, a sample size of 1 does not give sufficient data to reasonably make any conclusions about a range of potential values. The "scientific" calculations that you want to invoke are the products of attempts to figure out how things work and the overwhelming majority of the attempts are simply wrong, and we don't know which, if any, of the current options are reasonable to actually consider to be right.

Got any real objections?

 

[Aridas]

It is not "hilarious" to think that, if the universe is teeming with life, we should have encountered/heard something. See Fermi Paradox.

It is a bit "hilarious" to try to rest one's case on the Fermi Paradox, though, given that there are many viable solutions to it, even assuming that our universe is "teeming" with life.

 

[acbytesla]

No offense but he's pulling those numbers from his ass. There is absolutely no way any human can come up with the probability since we simply don't have the data.

But what is really hilarious about your citation is that it sort of suggests we should have encountered alien life if the universe is teeming with life. Consider that it took life on our own planet more than 4 .5 billion years to visit our own moon which is 1.3 light seconds from the earth. By contrast the nearest star to the Earth besides our Sun is Proxima Centauri which is 4.22 light years from Earth. It took Apollo 11 4 days to reach the moon. At that speed it would take man only 1,458,432 years to get to that star system.

And that is only 1 of 400 billion stars in our own galaxy and that the observable universe is estimated to contain 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies. You do the math 2 trillion x 400 billion and that is just what is presently observable.

It is not "hilarious" to think that, if the universe is teeming with life, we should have encountered/heard something. See Fermi Paradox.

I shouldn't have said 'thinking'. 'Presuming' would have been better word.

The Fermi Paradox has been widely criticised. Also BTW, Fermi never wrote any papers proposing this paradox.

'[I]The Fermi paradox has been criticized as being based on an inappropriate use of propositional logic. According to a 1985 paper by Robert Freitas, when recast as a statement in modal logic, the paradox no longer exists, and carries no probative value.'[/I]

The Hart Tipler argument expands on Fermi Paradox taking the seemingly obvious fact they are not here as evidence that a premise ‘‘technological extraterrestrials exist’’ must be false, because if they did exist, the colonization argument leads to the conclusion they are here,

This is a reductio ad absurdum argument. It depends on every statement being true—yet the argument consists of many speculations which are not known to be true. While we can envision the possibility of interstellar travel, the presumption of it is a leap.

 

[Thor 2]

Again with the probabilities. What's the deal with that? What is the probability that momentum ought to be conserved? What is the probability that the speed of light ought to be a fundamental speed limit for the universe? Such questions are nonsense.

Now, what is the probability that light ought to travel at 3x10¹⁰ cm/sec, plus or minus some small margin for measurement error? What is that probability? That question doesn't "feel" as nonsensical as asking what is the probability that there ought to be a speed of light at all. Nevertheless, the two questions are equally nonsensical. Both the existence of the speed of light and the actual value of that speed are observations of the universe as it is. You can't meaningfully talk about probability in such a case.

Numbers aren't impressive. As for what those numbers represent, that could be impressive, in some sense of the word, but this is a case where I would want the fellow to show his work. If I could see the derivation of that number, it might mean something, but all by itself, it just seems made up.


Let's go with 10 to the 235th power instead. That's an even more impressive number.

I agree with you that "such questions are nonsense".

Now if we were to discover that the speed of light was precisely 300,000,000 m/s not 299,792,458 m/s, and the distance from the equator was precisely 10,000,000 m*, as measured by those French scientists a couple of centuries ago, that would be impressive and perhaps evidence of the "finger of God" being involved.

* For those unfamiliar with the origin of the metre, the length of one degree along a median arc was measured by French scientists and that length multiplied by 90 the get the length from the equator to the North Pole. As it turned out they were wrong by a small margin, because the Earth is not a perfect sphere as they assumed, but flattened at the poles. The metre is now more precisely defined.