The second law of thermodynamic

[Bread_of_Life]

Dude,

The examples I gave above are far from irrelevant. They formed a mode of argument called "reductua ad absurdum".

A reductua ad absurdum argument can works by presuming an argument to be true, and then showing that it has absurd consequences. There are two forms of reductua ad absurdum.

The first assumes an argument or theory to be true and shows that, by taking it to its logical conclusion, we reveal something absurd. For example:

Theory: The pavement is made out of molten rock

Reductua ad absurdum: Given that the pavement is made of molten rock I should be unable to walk on the pavement. I know that I can walk on the pavement. Reductua ad absurdum.

The second form of reductua ad absurdum takes a specific argument, and applies it to another situation that is better known to us, to show that that particular mode of argument concludes something absurd. For example:

Argument: The most popular theory is always right. Theism is more popular than atheism, therefore theism is right.

Reductua ad absurdum: The most popular theory is always right. Flat earth used to be the most popular theory. The earth is round. Reductua ad absurdum

In the above example, we see that our reductua ad absurdum actually invalidates a whole form of argument, the argument from popularity, not just one particular argument.

My previous post contained 2 of the latter type of reductua ad absurdum arguments.

Your argument: You argue that the universe cannot (or is unlikely to) have been randomly selected, because certain objects within this particular universe are unlikely to arise in any random universe.

My Reductua ad absurdum: I am very very unlikely to have been randomly selected out of sperms and eggs, because it is unlikely (mathematically impossible in fact in 3 generations) that I would have been selected randomly from so many sperm and so many eggs. I was selected randomly. Reductua ad absurdum.

This reductua ad absurdum is a particular case of a more general argument:

General reductua ad absurdum: Any one outcome of a random process with many equally possible outcomes is extremely unlikely to arise. Random processes with many possible outcomes do occur, and do have outcomes. Therefore it is invalid to argue that the low probability of occurence of that one outcome prior to the random process occuring means that the process of selection was not random.

In layman's language, my theory is that a random universe arose, with a random cosmology, it doesn't matter which universe or which cosmology. There were, as far as I can see, infinite choices as to which universe did occur. We are the lucky benefactors of this occurence. The universe that was picked could have contained almost anything - as it happened, it unfolded to contain us. Lucky us.

You argue that because our universe was unlikely (in fact, it was 1 or infinite possible universes, only a tiny proportion of which will look anything like this one), that this is not a good explanation for our particular universe existing. This is a fallacious argument - random processes that have many or infinite possible outcomes are always going to generate something that was, prior to the choice being made, extremely unlikely.

Therefore the argument "this particular universe was unlikely out of a random pick of universes, therefore it is unlikely to have been generated randomly" is fundamentally flawed. Random processes with many possible outcomes will *always* pick an outcome which was, at the outset, unlikely. Therefore to point to the fact that this one was unlikely out of a random pick does not discredit the idea that it was randomly picked. It doesn't make it more unlikely that it was randomly picked. It doesn't mean that a random pick cannot fully characterise and explain all the facets of this universe. You are wrong, basically.

The reason you are wrong is probably psychologically quite simple. You assume that DNA has some sort of special importance, and that therefore it had to be picked. This is of course because DNA has special importance to you - because without it, you wouldn't exist. Therefore you use unconditional probability to assess the chances of its creation - you assume that DNA *had* to be when you calculate the odds of a random universe occuring. You calculate P(Random Universe given than DNA must be in the random universe).

However, objectively, DNA has no real importance, it is just a particular oddity of this particular universe. Every random universe is odd though, every one different from the next, every one with different features and occurences from the next. The fact that the random universe we got had DNA has no importantance other than to us - it could have been any universe - and goodness knows what oddities another might have thrown up. In other words, you're still wrong.

[Old Timer]

Romans 1:20-22.

[Bread_of_Life]

If your arguments were so good Old Timer, then you wouldn't have to insult me to make them. You can call me a fool all you like my dear man, it doesn't make me wrong and you right.

[Old Timer]

Well, SA, I simply quoted what Paul had written. You don't believe any of that stuff anyway, do you?

[JLW001]

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine anything more absurd than the argument you are making.

The reasons:

1.) Occam's razor, by definition must use "unconditional" probability. Although I like how you did indeed write a long post and try to evade this very fact. We are still talking about the probabilities used in Occam's razor aren't we? Or, are you conceding the fact that Occam's razor does not disprove God, but proves his existence and that you must move on to this other argument to explain the universe?

In layman's language, my theory is that a random universe arose, with a random cosmology, it doesn't matter which universe or which cosmology. There were, as far as I can see, infinite choices as to which universe did occur. We are the lucky benefactors of this occurence. The universe that was picked could have contained almost anything - as it happened, it unfolded to contain us. Lucky us.

2.) One HUGE assumption, on your part, is that there are or were infinitely many universes generated in the big bang or whatever. Man, you can't go on making assumptions that aren't empirically based and expect me to consider your "arguments" anywhere near scientific.

random processes that have many or infinite possible outcomes are always going to generate something that was, prior to the choice being made, extremely unlikely.

3.) This is indeed a thought that most people have, but it is indeed false. There is a mathematical zero level at 10^-50. That means zero! Nadda, nuthin, zilch. And not only are we discussing single events that make what we see possible, but each and every extremely low probability must be multiplied to get the resulting life we see. So you get something like 10^-50 * 10^-50*...and so on.

I'm in no way conceding that there are infinitely many universes and we live in one of them. That is one of those arguments...aahh..what do you call them...can't be proven, but can't be disproven...you get the picture.

Btw, if there are infinitely many universes, then there are infinitely many with life in them. You see infinity is a kind of funny thing. No matter what you multiply it by you still get infinity. So, when you say infinitly many,universes then each universe would be exactly the same and would have everything possible in it and that means that in a group or whatever you would call it, of infinitely many universes then nothing would be impossible. Everyone would always be winners of the lottery, everyone would continually be struck by lightning, everything would...well you get the picture.

The reason you are wrong is probably psychologically quite simple. You assume that DNA has some sort of special importance, and that therefore it had to be picked. This is of course because DNA has special importance to you - because without it, you wouldn't exist. Therefore you use unconditional probability to assess the chances of its creation - you assume that DNA *had* to be when you calculate the odds of a random universe occuring. You calculate P(Random Universe given than DNA must be in the random universe).

4.) How have you indeed proven me wrong? No it has no special importance to me..Its just necessary for life, that's all. Now, as I have reiterated often, DNA is only one of the extremely low probability (if it was generated by random) occurrences that cause the idea of a random universe to crumble. No I don't calculate P(Random Universe given than DNA must be in the random universe), but I do calculate P(DNA in a random universe). Do you see the difference. I haven't said that DNA would exist in a ramdom universe. I have completely said the opposite, that it wouldn't exist in a random universe. Therefore because DNA exists in our universe, our universe can't be random.

However, objectively, DNA has no real importance, it is just a particular oddity of this particular universe. Every random universe is odd though, every one different from the next, every one with different features and occurences from the next. The fact that the random universe we got had DNA has no importantance other than to us - it could have been any universe - and goodness knows what oddities another might have thrown up. In other words, you're still wrong.

5.) I'm still wrong? You have not proven anything, other than the fact that Occam's razor only proves God's existence, not disproves it.

Every random universe...hmm. On what knowledge do you base your belief in infinitely many random universes? There's no empirical data, these's certainly no lofty logic of man that says because of XYZ then we must have infinitely many universes...in our....uhhh...something.

Your running in circles SA. I don't know who is feeding you this garbage or where your getting it, but its garbage. It wouldn't last a second under scientific scrutiny by anyone.

Your saying that your theory is true, therefore its true. There's no deductive reasoning, there's no math, no science.

I'm at the point of laughing, but at the same time, your resistance to sticking on topic, your in ability to say, "I was wrong." astounds me. Why are you so resistant to the truth. You would rather delude yourself that there's nothing out there rather than investigate (truthfully) whether God does exist and what God can do for you.

In summary...And please don't copy and paste stuff from Atheists R US sites for a reply, but consider each of my points this time

1) Occam's razor requires the use of unconditional probabilities. Why? Because we are trying to distinguish two theories about OUR universe, not some abstract garbage about infinitely many universes.

2) Because the probabilities are different between a created and a random universe, you can not cancel probabilities between each OR equation. In addition, the probabilities for all the uncharacterized processes are so minute for a random universe, when multiplied they bring the product to zero for a random universe.

3) Infinite random universes is one of those unprovable ideas. If I told you there was a planet that was made of chocolate and had faries dancing around on it and then I stated that it was so far away that we can't reach it by space ship and that it has an atmosphere that absorbs and emits just like open space. I couldn't prove to you it exists, but you couldn't prove me wrong either. And that at one time at band camp, I visited that planet and ..well, you get the picture, right?

If your beliefs require you to believe in infinitely many universes, then why don't you just believe in God and live a much happier life. You think there's no proof of God and there's certainly no proof of infinitely many universes. So, you could just believe the one that at least would make you happy in this life. Ohhh, I almost forgot, to be true to God you would have to try to stop sinning and would have to try to go to church and try to treat people like you would want to be treated.

I was being a little mean in the above statements, but God offers so much more than what people who do not know him think. Why not consider Jesus? He died for your sins if you believe, trust, and adhere to him. He gave us two commandments: Love God above everything else and love our neighbors as we love ourselves. That's not really a burden. It frees you from so much of the pain and sorrow that this world has to offer. All you have to do is choose Jesus and repent of your sins. Repent is just a fancy way of saying that your sorry for the way you have lived and that you want to change.

Edited February 20, 2005 by JLW001

[JLW001]

If your arguments were so good Old Timer, then you wouldn't have to insult me to make them. You can call me a fool all you like my dear man, it doesn't make me wrong and you right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think Old Timer called you a fool, but it is God who called you a fool. These writings are the inspired word of God.

[Bread_of_Life]

And please don't copy and paste stuff from Atheists R US sites for a reply

When have I ever done this?

1.) Occam's razor, by definition must use "unconditional" probability. Although I like how you did indeed write a long post and try to evade this very fact. We are still talking about the probabilities used in Occam's razor aren't we?

No, we've moved on from our discussion on Occam's Razor. Remember, Occam's razor is meant to distinguish between theories that are equally based in evidence. Occam's razor does this by comparing the probability of existence of each of the objects within these theories that we do not already know existed.

However, what we are now discussing is the evidential basis. You are arguing that the idea of a random universe does not characterise or explain the contents of the universe as we see it. The fact that you are using a probabilistic argument does not make this a discussion on Occam's Razor.

Only once we have established that there is no evidential difference between the two theories in question can we rely on Occam's Razor, and at that point, clearly, theism will lose out, as it will posit the existence of a very complex object that we do not know exists.

2.) One HUGE assumption, on your part, is that there are or were infinitely many universes generated in the big bang

Where did I posit this? I said:

"There were, as far as I can see, infinite choices as to which universe did occur."

This is true, but it doesn't state that infinite actualities occured. In fact, the word "universe" is singular, it implies that only one universe actually occured, out of infinite possible choices of universe.

3.) This is indeed a thought that most people have, but it is indeed false. There is a mathematical zero level at 10^-50. That means zero! Nadda, nuthin, zilch. And not only are we discussing single events that make what we see possible, but each and every extremely low probability must be multiplied to get the resulting life we see. So you get something like 10^-50 * 10^-50*...and so on.

I think you misunderstand the mathematical zero level. Perhaps it's time to ask you a question. Remember my calculation on the likelyhood of my own birth. Within only 3 generations, excluding every improbable event other than sperm meeting egg, there is a chance of less than 10^-50 of my birth.

In other words, there were more than 10^50 potential babies that might have been born instead of me. But I was born. 100 years ago, the probability of my birth was less than 1 in 10^50 - but I was born. How is this possible, according to you?

4.) How have you indeed proven me wrong? No it has no special importance to me..Its just necessary for life, that's all.

who says that life had to exist within the random universe? Perhaps you are only assuming this because it is of special importance to you, in that you are alive.

You see, the random universe generated in the random cosmology that we call the big bang did not have to have life in it. It could have had anything, any number of different universes with any number of different weird and wonderful objects. It just happens that we got this one, with a particular sort of weird and wonderful object called "life".

but I do calculate P(DNA in a random universe).

This is still assuming DNA to be particularly important. I mean, I could calculate P(Haley's Comet) in a random universe, it'd probably be pretty low too - but that would assume that there just *had* to be haley's comet flying around. There didn't.

Every random universe...hmm. On what knowledge do you base your belief in infinitely many random universes?

I'm still talking about potential random universes, not existent random universes.

[JLW001]

Only once we have established that there is no evidential difference between the two theories in question can we rely on Occam's Razor, and at that point, clearly, theism will lose out, as it will posit the existence of a very complex object that we do not know exists.

Really? Then why were you saying that Occam's razor proves that God does not exist if you didn't know that there were other ways of distinguishing between the two "theories"? That was what you were saying a few pages back, wasn't it?

This is true, but it doesn't state that infinite actualities occured. In fact, the word "universe" is singular, it implies that only one universe actually occured, out of infinite possible choices of universe.

Ok, that's fine. Now where is your proof that the universe had infinite choices for its "state". Btw, in believing this you are throwing away all the determinsim in Physics and everything we've learned about the universe so far.

Physics says "if you give me a set of governing laws and initial conditions, then I will tell you each state of the universe after those initial conditions". Quantum mechanics says that there are zones of probability. Even an electron is bounded by a probability distribution.

In other words, there were more than 10^50 potential babies that might have been born instead of me. But I was born. 100 years ago, the probability of my birth was less than 1 in 10^50 - but I was born. How is this possible, according to you?

First, you are assuming that all of you father's sperm would be used for mating purposes. It turns out that only a tiny amount of sperm is used for mating as most are either absorbed and reconverted or happen to exit the body through masturbation. Second, I think at any point in time there are around 10^5 sperm available. Out of these, a fairly large percentage are misshapen and misformed. This means that a baby is born as 1/10^-6 at most for any given generation. Now according to my calculations I get 1/10^-18. Which means that we are quite the miracles, but not quite impossible for three generations. However, if we follow your logic back 10 generations, then it does seem that we are quite the miracles. This also means that every living thing is a miracle, because the chances of your dog, Joy, being born from his wolf ancestors.

Wait a second, perhaps some outside forces were at work that favored your dog being born. Perhaps there was some breeding that took place to get just the right stock. Does this happen with humans? Sure. People are attracted to certain individuals and not to others. How do these factors play into the probability of your birth? Was your father attracted to brunettes instead of blonds? Was your mother looking for an athelete or an artist.

So is the probability of your birth simply related to how many generations back we consider? Or, is your logic somehow flawed?

Is this what I was talking about when I said

This is indeed a thought that most people have, but it is indeed false. There is a mathematical zero level at 10^-50. That means zero! Nadda, nuthin, zilch. And not only are we discussing single events that make what we see possible, but each and every extremely low probability must be multiplied to get the resulting life we see. So you get something like 10^-50 * 10^-50*...and so on.

The answer is no. When I said low probability events being multiplied I was talking about being multiplied in the Occam's razor equation. You see, I was talking about events that were not interdependent from a generational aspect.

********************************************************************************

*******************************************************

However, let's look at the possibility of getting to where we are today. Let's forget just looking at the generational aspect of humans and animals, let's go from the big bang to now with cascading probabilities.

Let's start with the big bang. It was a uniform spherical explosion. Why spherical? Why uniform? Was free energy minimization necessary. Ok, let's say not uniform or spherical. Why? What caused it to be non-uniform? Let's go with spherical and uniform given that we have a bit of empirical evidence that says the cosmic background radiation is uniform. OK, the big bang was uniform and spherical. Why? Where did the governing laws of the universe come from that "told" the big bang to be uniform? Was the big bang subject to a set of governing laws? If the answers yes, then the big bang is not the first cause. If the answer is no, then your theory may still be right. So, for the sake of argument we'll say that the big bang was uniform by accident.

What were the possible shapes? Did it also have infinitely many choices for its shape? If yes, then the probability of it being spherical was zero. The big bang was a miracle! After all, any number divided by infinity is zero. If no, then why did it have a set of possible shapes? OOps, were back to governing laws and therefore, it can't be the first cause if there were laws that existed that governed what shape the big bang could have.

Is there need to go any farther? I will continue to multiply any probability you want by zero, but well that means that the big bang was a miracle:An occurrance with little or no chance of occurring. And we know who's in the miracle business!

This is still assuming DNA to be particularly important. I mean, I could calculate P(Haley's Comet) in a random universe, it'd probably be pretty low too - but that would assume that there just *had* to be haley's comet flying around. There didn't.

I've told you that I'm not assuming that DNA is important. I'm just saying, look it exists. So, knowing that it exists, and postulating that our universe is random, what is the probability of DNA existing out of all these wild and wonderful, infinite possibilities. Let's not say infinite choices cause you know where that leads... However, I was estimating the probability of DNA occurring by examining the possibility that the information storage and transfer mechansim occurred randomly. Sorta like the chimp typing the britannica.

[JLW001]

Hey, SA. I went to the website on carbon dating and found a link to a sight that had the name for the infinite choices idea of the random universe. It turns out that I was right to ask you for your evidence of infinite choices. It seems that your argument is called the "gamblers fallacy". I've done the copy and paste thing below for you.

Another argument claims that there is nothing remarkable about the fine-tuning of the universe if an infinitude of universes exist, each with a different set of characteristics. In this case, chance could dictate that at least one would manifest the characteristics necessary for human life.

The fallacy in this appeal represents a form of the gambler's fallacy. A gambler might conclude that an ordinary coin could land on heads a hundred thousand consecutive times if he rationalizes that 2^100,000 coins exist (though he cannot see them), each being flipped 100,000 times by 2^100,000 coin flippers. Statistically, one of these coins could come up heads 100,000 times. Such thinking is considered fallacious, however, because the gambler has no evidence for the existence of the other coins, coin flippers, or distinct results. With a sample size of one, the only rational conclusion to draw is that someone "fixed" the coin to land on heads. In the case of the universe, no evidence can be found for the existence of other universes. In fact, the principles of relativity dictate that the space-time envelope of a universe that contains observers can never overlap that of any other universe(s). Thus, the sample size for human observers is one and always will be one, and the conclusion that Someone purposed, or fixed, the universe for human existence remains compelling.

excerpted from Dr. Hugh Ross, www.reasons.org

Edited February 22, 2005 by JLW001

[JLW001]

bump