A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[pitabread]

If the values have to stay what they are otherwise they will not produce the right conditions isn't that telling us the odds.

No, because we still don't know the probability space and we don't have the necessary information to determine that.

An example is the lottery. The odds of any given ticket winning a jackpot is extremely slim. But the probability of a particular individual changes depending on how many tickets one has. The more tickets, the greater the odds of winning. It's even possible (depending on the type of lottery) to guarantee a win by buying every possible ticket.

Without knowing the relative probability space of an individual winning the lottery, we cannot calculate the odds they would win.

Same thing with the universe. We don't know the total probability space therefore no viable probability calculation is possible. It could be the chance of our universe was extremely slim. It could be that it's an inevitability.

We just don't know.

No I am just trying to work out why they would bother doing the experiments if they didn't mean anything. On the one hand they make claims that the findings are correct and valid but on the other they mean nothing.

Just learning about the nature of our universe has meaning. That's the whole purpose of science. It's about trying to understand the universe in which we live.

Is that not enough?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Just learning about the nature of our universe has meaning. That's the whole purpose of science. It's about trying to understand the universe in which we live.

Is that not enough?

It might also help narrow down that pesky probability space.

 

[stevevw]

I don't recognise that quote - it's not in the Telegraph newspaper clipping you linked. Perhaps you could give me the relevant link.

I have attached the full quote and article in a previous post.

This is very confused - children are humans too, so their attributions are human attributions. However, they are predisposed to attribute hidden agency which is a pre-rational trait, an innate survival heuristic. So it is not like the generally more rational thought of mature adults.

Sorry I meant to say they don't make attributions about God than they do about humans.
The paper states that researchers assumed that children based their attributions for God on the same ones used for human agency. But research showed this was wrong because children use different reasoning for God and humans. Rather they have unique and special ways for reasoning about God.

Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence
“Scholars have long assumed that children first acquire concepts of human agency and then use them as templates to understand all non-human agents.”
“children do not reason in the same way about the agency of humans and God since early on in development.”
“young children do not reason about God’s beliefs in human terms.”
Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence - ScienceDirect

No, they really do have imaginary friends and heroes.

yes I agree but what I said was that the imaginative friends and heroes are the way pre 5 year old's express their ability to think in terms of attributing things with supernatural powers and abilities beyond humans. At around 5 but even as young as 3 children will then have more sophisticated expression of this ability by reasoning in divine concepts. Then understand the difference in human made things and things that exist beyond humans, they understand about life beyond death and duality which they attribute to a creative agent and it has not come from being taught or indoctrinated.

You just posted a whole bunch of stuff that simply confirms the thesis that an innate predisposition to attribute teleological agency develops into more sophisticated concepts, from potentially unlimited agency by around a year, to more explicit ideas of the divine by four and above.

I think you have misread and understood the paper. The fact that Barrett keeps stating that children are born believers should clue you onto the thesis. The fact that the papers differentiate between the broader human made attributions and the special and unique ones children use about divine concepts and God should tell you that this is not the case.

It's worth repeating that these concepts develop through early childhood in a cultural context, and that different cultures have beliefs in many different types of non-human agency, not all of which are divine or God-like. In some cultures, they don't develop any such beliefs. This suggests that cultural priming determines the kind of hidden agency beliefs that result.

The papers state that children think in different terms about God than for humans with attribution of agency. It is the human made attributions that evolution, culture and society promote that have been found to be different from the way children reason and attribute agency about God. It is not the result of indoctrination or teaching from culture or society.

In fact studies have found it is the other way around. Studies have been based on trying to capture children before this innate divine thinking sets in and teach to not think this way. But it is going against their natural way of thinking and is harder to grasp and takes a long time. In fact this is Barrett's main point that it is more likely that children are taught and indoctrinated with things like evolutionary thinking than divine concepts.
See Jane Evolve: Picture Books Explain Darwin

What it is saying is that children are born believers, natural theists in their thinking, can latch onto these ideas naturally and that this is the default mode, intuitive like it is part of them and not something that comes from an outside source. Something that happens well before anyone acculturates or teaches them. If the papers were saying that children's beliefs are the result of the attributions taught or influenced by culture or society why would they say

If a child was brought up in an atheist home they will still have this natural theist thinking or if they brought themselves up on a desert Island they would have this divine thinking and believe in God.

It happens naturally and that is why the articles state that children are natural born believers. You just have to read the entire paper to understand the context.
Dr Barrett
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
Children are born believers in God, academic claims[/quote]

 

[stevevw]

No, because we still don't know the probability space and we don't have the necessary information to determine that.

OK the only mention of figures I have found in a quick re-reading is this which was based on research by Oberhummer, Csoto & Schlattl. So if things cannot change by more than 0.04% in the strength of [nucleon-nucleon] force otherwise carbon based life would be impossible then the probability that our universe would not produce life for this constant if not the exact value it has now 99.96%.

We need to ask how the properties of the resonance level, and thus stellar nucleosynthesis, change as we alter the fundamental constants. Oberhummer, Csoto & Schlattl (2000a)25 have performed such calculations, combining the predictions of a microscopic 12-body, three-alpha cluster model of 12C (as alluded to by Weinberg) with a stellar nucleosynthesis code. They conclude that: Even with a change of 0.4% in the strength of [nucleon-nucleon] force, carbon-based life appears to be impossible, since all the stars then would produce either almost solely carbon or oxygen but could not produce both elements.

An example is the lottery. The odds of any given ticket winning a jackpot is extremely slim. But the probability of a particular individual changes depending on how many tickets one has. The more tickets, the greater the odds of winning. It's even possible (depending on the type of lottery) to guarantee a win by buying every possible ticket.

But that is different to how the paper stated how much variance there could be when it said only a very slight difference. If we are generous and say slight is many 2% either way which I think it being very generous as most usually mean as the above 0.05%. So applying this to the lottery if the winning number was for simplistic terms was 50 then the only possible numbers that could win would be 2% either side of 50. That excludes 96% of all other ticket holders.

[/quote] Without knowing the relative probability space of an individual winning the lottery, we cannot calculate the odds they would win.

Same thing with the universe. We don't know the total probability space therefore no viable probability calculation is possible. It could be the chance of our universe was extremely slim. It could be that it's an inevitability.

We just don't know.[/quote] Well some of the findings state only very slight changes were enough to produce no life for some constants. So we have limited down to at least some constants if the experiments are valid.

Just learning about the nature of our universe has meaning. That's the whole purpose of science. It's about trying to understand the universe in which we live.

Is that not enough?

I agree we are still discovering things and science is an ongoing process. The problem is today compared to the past when all the major theories were discovered like gravity, relativity, inflation, big bang, standard model and quantum physics is that things have slowed down and it is becoming harder to establish theories. Ideas often involve a lot of speculations and it is harder to verify. There is more theoretical physics involved and some ideas are being promoted as valid based on theory and math rather than direct observation. Some ideas like string theory and multiverses may never be verified but still are held up as valid ideas because they are so descriptive and help support establish ideas about reality. So it seems that we are hitting a brick wall and there may never be any answers.

"All of the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s has not produced a single successful prediction,"
This doesn't mean physicists aren't busy; the journals are publishing more research than ever. But Turok says all that research isn't doing much to advance our understanding of the universe — at least not the way physicists did in the last century.
And if string theory so far has resisted experimental verification, the so-called multiverse — the idea that our universe is but one of many and perhaps an infinite number of universes — seems to some scientists more like science fiction than a description of reality.
In a new book entitled "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," Hossenfelder argues that many physicists working today have been led astray by mathematics — seduced by equations that might be "beautiful" or "elegant" but which lack obvious connection to the real world.
"I can't believe what this once-venerable profession has become," she writes. "Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed.
Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails

 

[pitabread]

OK the only mention of figures I have found in a quick re-reading is this which was based on research by Oberhummer, Csoto & Schlattl. So if things cannot change by more than 0.04% in the strength of [nucleon-nucleon] force otherwise carbon based life would be impossible then the probability that our universe would not produce life for this constant if not the exact value it has now 99.96%.

That's not how probabilities work. The % by which something can vary is not necessarily the same thing as the probability of variance.

As an example, consider a six-sided die. At first glance, you might think that the probability of rolling a "6" is 1 in 6 or ~17%.

However, if the die is not evenly weighted then the probability rolling a particular number may change. It may be that the die is weighted to roll a six each time, and that the probability of doing so is actually 80% rather than only 17%. This is despite the fact there are still 6 possible outcomes from rolling the die.

Without additional information about that die, you would not be able to determine that.

This again goes back to the universe. We don't know what the probability distribution for different variables leading to different outcomes is. We just don't have that information.

But that is different to how the paper stated how much variance there could be when it said only a very slight difference.

Variance is not the same as probability. You appear to be conflating different concepts here.

So it seems that we are hitting a brick wall and there may never be any answers.

Sure. I think it would be incredibly naive to think otherwise. There may be things we just never learn about our universe.

And that's okay.

 

[stevevw]

If you know that it is an unfalsifiable proposition, this automatically disqualifies it from being a reasonable hypothesis, and SHOULD be rejected out of hand.

Not really. The same can be said about string theory, multiverse and dark matter to name a few which cannot be directly verified scientifically and probably never will yet many seem to think they are valid scientific ideas that need further investigation.

 

[stevevw]

That's not how probabilities work. The % by which something can vary is not necessarily the same thing as the probability of variance.

As an example, consider a six-sided die. At first glance, you might think that the probability of rolling a "6" is 1 in 6 or ~17%.

However, if the die is not evenly weighted then the probability rolling a particular number may change. It may be that the die is weighted to roll a six each time, and that the probability of doing so is actually 80% rather than only 17%. This is despite the fact there are still 6 possible outcomes from rolling the die.

Without additional information about that die, you would not be able to determine that.

This again goes back to the universe. We don't know what the probability distribution for different variables leading to different outcomes is. We just don't have that information.

Yes I agree there is more to determine to know the full situation. But this is the same for other well accepted ideas being touted. This comes back to me saying that the idea of fine tuning is reasonable to have as an option as some data lends support but further information is needed. If the fine tuning idea can gain more informed support then this builds the case. It is the same for ideas like dark matter. We have some indirect support which warrants a continued investigation to further verify whether it exists.

The point is also that even for well accepted ideas like gravity and relativity there is some missing and conflicting evidence so the theory has been verified completely. It was only recently that gravitational waves were confirmed as a prediction of relativity 100 or so years after the theory was accepted. Still we could end up finding support that these theories are wrong or need revising as there are some fundamental issues especially for theories like Inflation. It is because of these issues and conflicts that we should be open to other ideas and it is because there are other ideas that may fit that we cannot say existing theories are definite.

Variance is not the same as probability. You appear to be conflating different concepts here.

I would say the amount of variance allowed would contribute to the probability. After-all if fine tuning proves valid it is the specific values that constants have as opposed to any other variance on the scale that makes the probability that they all happen to fall in this way unlikely to happen by chance.

Sure. I think it would be incredibly naive to think otherwise. There may be things we just never learn about our universe.

And that's okay.

I agree but even so how long can we go on waiting to verify existing ideas or find new evidence that will give more understanding and open up a new line of investigation. The LHC was suppose to be the great new hop but it has been a let down. All they found was the Higgs Boson. It was hoped that support for super-symmetry would be found but this has not happened as yet. I am not sure there is anything left to find. Scientists have been trying to detect dark matter for 20 years now and still this has not found it.

I wonder if there will be a time where science will have to turn to philosophy and take a different approach looking beyond the standard mode and the scientific method of verification. Some scientists want to reduce the criteria for verification now as some ideas are proving to hard to validate. At the end of the day I agree that we need more investigation and evidence for how our universe came into existence. Hopefully in time we will gain more insight.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm talking about whether scientists can calculate the probability of our universe's existence.

I believe that number in ‘1’

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have attached the full quote and article in a previous post.

Sorry I meant to say they don't make attributions about God than they do about humans.
The paper states that researchers assumed that children based their attributions for God on the same ones used for human agency. But research showed this was wrong because children use different reasoning for God and humans. Rather they have unique and special ways for reasoning about God.

Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence
“Scholars have long assumed that children first acquire concepts of human agency and then use them as templates to understand all non-human agents.”
“children do not reason in the same way about the agency of humans and God since early on in development.”
“young children do not reason about God’s beliefs in human terms.”
Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence - ScienceDirect

yes I agree but what I said was that the imaginative friends and heroes are the way pre 5 year old's express their ability to think in terms of attributing things with supernatural powers and abilities beyond humans. At around 5 but even as young as 3 children will then have more sophisticated expression of this ability by reasoning in divine concepts. Then understand the difference in human made things and things that exist beyond humans, they understand about life beyond death and duality which they attribute to a creative agent and it has not come from being taught or indoctrinated.

I think you have misread and understood the paper. The fact that Barrett keeps stating that children are born believers should clue you onto the thesis. The fact that the papers differentiate between the broader human made attributions and the special and unique ones children use about divine concepts and God should tell you that this is not the case.

The papers state that children think in different terms about God than for humans with attribution of agency. It is the human made attributions that evolution, culture and society promote that have been found to be different from the way children reason and attribute agency about God. It is not the result of indoctrination or teaching from culture or society.

In fact studies have found it is the other way around. Studies have been based on trying to capture children before this innate divine thinking sets in and teach to not think this way. But it is going against their natural way of thinking and is harder to grasp and takes a long time. In fact this is Barrett's main point that it is more likely that children are taught and indoctrinated with things like evolutionary thinking than divine concepts.
See Jane Evolve: Picture Books Explain Darwin

What it is saying is that children are born believers, natural theists in their thinking, can latch onto these ideas naturally and that this is the default mode, intuitive like it is part of them and not something that comes from an outside source. Something that happens well before anyone acculturates or teaches them. If the papers were saying that children's beliefs are the result of the attributions taught or influenced by culture or society why would they say

If a child was brought up in an atheist home they will still have this natural theist thinking or if they brought themselves up on a desert Island they would have this divine thinking and believe in God.

It happens naturally and that is why the articles state that children are natural born believers. You just have to read the entire paper to understand the context.
Dr Barrett
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
Children are born believers in God, academic claims

I've said all I have to say about this, I'm not going to repeat it.

 

[stevevw]

I've said all I have to say about this, I'm not going to repeat it.

Thanks for your input it was thought provoking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for your input it was thought provoking.

You're welcome. I didn't expect you to agree, but was hoping you'd show some sign of grasping the basic point. Maybe next time.