infinite monkey theorem

[AnotherAtheist]

The point is that there seems to be only two options. Either Intelligent design however you define that or random chance. Given that option his vote is for design. If you reject design then the only option seems to be random chance.

No, the universe as we see it could be an inevitable consequence of the physical laws that exist.

E.g. let's put a half full bottom of water on a still table. There is no chance that the water and air will be randomly distributed in the bottle, the water will be neatly at the bottom, and the air at the top. Not because anyone human or supernatural made it happen, but because of the action of the laws of physics, here gravity.

There is some suggestion that there might be other universes and the laws of physics might be different there. However, since all we know is our universe we are limited in saying where these other universes might be, or even if they are anywhere. Our whole definition of 'anywhere' might have to be changed dramatically. I'm not sure that these have reached the level of theories, they might still be conjectures.

Schroeder then goes on to say that we can "argue with God". So if we are not happy with the universe and feel there is a injustice then we are free to talk to God and ask Him to correct what we feel is an issue. It seems to me that at times there are atheists that are unhappy with the Creation and thus the Creator. Yet they do not want to dialogue directly with God. Rather they want someone to intercede for them so they can register their complaint.

Thats an interesting view in a way as it suggests that one reason for religion is that people feel there should be someone to talk to about the universe.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hmmph. They admire God's creation, which is more than some around here do.

Some schools believe that man remains a partner of God in the ongoing creative process. We must distinguish between two Hebrew synonyms for creation: beri’ah and yetzirah. The former refers to creatio ex nihilo and hence can only be used of God. The latter describes creation out of some preexistent substance, and hence may be used both of God (after the initial act of genesis) and man.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, the universe as we see it could be an inevitable consequence of the physical laws that exist.

That seems to be the point That the laws could have created the universe but where do the laws come from? Is it possible that somehow someway the laws came about through a random process?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That seems to be the point That the laws could have created the universe but where do the laws come from? Is it possible that somehow someway the laws came about through a random process?

Why would the laws have to come from somewhere? Could there ever bee a universe that (e.g. ) doesn't have gravity or where the spin on a quark is different? It could be that laws have always been, and never came from anywhere. They aren't physical things.

I'm not fully up on the research concerning why and how the universe came into being, but I think we have evidence for a big bang, but not much more than that.

Here are some reasons it is claimed that we might be in a multiverse. http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html I'm very far from convinced, but it is possible that due to my ignorance of the theories and evidence. This page seems to be listing conjectured models of multiverses, rather than giving us any strong reasons for believing them to be true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wait -- when did talkorigins reject God? As far as I know, the site only rejects creationism, not God.

Really? As far as I know there are lots of different contributors. So I suppose all sorts of things are represented on there. Why would they "reject creationism"? Perhaps they lack understanding or discernment.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why would the laws have to come from somewhere? Could there ever bee a universe that (e.g. ) doesn't have gravity or where the spin on a quark is different? It could be that laws have always been, and never came from anywhere. They aren't physical things.

You have to have gravity, the spin could be different though. The spin we have is a part of the unique features of our Galaxy. This is reflected in Pi and in things like the Fibonacci Sequence.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You have to have gravity, the spin could be different though. The spin we have is a part of the unique features of our Galaxy. This is reflected in Pi and in things like the Fibonacci Sequence.

How could the Fibonacci sequence be different in a different universe? I can't see how a different universe would have different integers, and the Fibonacci sequence comes from integers.

BTW: By "unique features of our Galaxy" do you mean "our universe"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. The chance of this happening is one in 10:500. So there would be 500 zeros. If this were the case then there would be many many many failed attempts. What happened to all the failed attempts at making a universe?

Assuming that you are talking about the idea that some kind of multiverse has a potential of infinite, or as good as infinite, "attempts" at creating universes...

The answer to your question is that we are in the universe in which we can live.
We can't "leave" our universe and look for the other ones in which we cannot exist.

So your question seems kind of silly to me.

Are they in the failed attempt bucket in the sky somewhere? The universe is filled with natural laws that makes it all work and nothing seems to be a failed attempt, at least on that level. Nothing failed until self awareness came along. Then people began to question if there is a God then how could he make such a mess. Even though they do not believe in God they feel this God that they do not believe in made a mess out of the universe that He created.

I cannot make any sense of these sentences.

But the same people feel that random process is doing a fine job of creation

What random process would that be? Are we still talking about the universe? Space-time?

and does not make a mess at all or if it does it cleans up after itself. Still with so many failed attempts then the mess to clean up must be huge.

What mess? What are you talking about?

 

[pshun2404]

1. TalkOrigins is reputable in scientific circles and is disparaged only by theists.
2. TalkReasons is the site that contains the critiques I have been referring to. I have pointed this out to you previously and you still conflate the two sites. This does not speak well for your reading and comprehension skills.

Here are some other sites that you will no doubt dislike.
http://www.judaismandscience.com/science-and-judaism-the-strange-claim-of-dr-schroeder-part-i/
http://creation.com/response-to-a-gerald-schroeder-fan#response


Why don't you point me to some websites that support Schroeder?

Talk origins is the Atheist equivelent of Answers in Genesis

 

[Goonie]

 

[pshun2404]

Nothing about Sagittarius A* can be proven, P.

It's estimated to be 26,000 light years away - so we are seeing it as it was 26,000 years ago.

All we can do is make logical inferences and deductions about what it might be.

Are these deductions and inferences 'things' you can accept as the best explanation of what it is?

Thanks,

E.I.

Ah...er...deductions about what might have been would be more correct, and yes I can accept them as one possibility of what might have been 26,000 years ago...but as for the best explanation? Well I suppose it is the best we can do in light of this degree of retrospect...in other words it is the best we can conjecture from this vantage point.

 

[sfs]

Really? As far as I know there are lots of different contributors. So I suppose all sorts of things are represented on there.

So what did you mean when you said that they reject God?

Why would they "reject creationism"? Perhaps they lack understanding or discernment.

Or perhaps they know something about science. (Or Biblical scholarship or Christian theology, for that matter.)

 

[sfs]

Talk origins is the Atheist equivelent of Answers in Genesis

Not seeing the equivalence. One rejects established science, the other defends it. One is explicitly theist, the other has no religious position.

 

[quatona]

My answer for that was a failed attempt would either fail or be deformed to the point where it could not reproduce.

That was Darwin's claim. Natural selection gives purpose and intent and becomes a guiding force for selections that are produced through a random process.

1. Well, you would have to cite Darwin on saying that natural selection acts intentionally. I strongly doubt you find such a quote.
2. I find it interesting that you appeal to Darwin´s authority.
3. I was under the impression that this thread was about the coming into being of the universe. Last time I checked the universe didn´t reproduce.

 

[pshun2404]

AA premised "No, the universe as we see it could be an inevitable consequence of the physical laws that exist"

a) Laws do not do anything, they are not a force...laws are obeyed and submitted to...matter energy had to follow these laws to be formed and function just as we experience

b) Laws preceded the forms and functions

c) Laws are consistent

So if there were only these two scenarios to choose from as a source explanation for the Universe as we see it, which one fits best...do laws just BECOME or is their intent and purpose involved....?

 

[joshua 1 9]

How could the Fibonacci sequence be different in a different universe? I can't see how a different universe would have different integers, and the Fibonacci sequence comes from integers.

BTW: By "unique features of our Galaxy" do you mean "our universe"?

There are two theory's, one is the universe is very standard and wherever you go everything is the same. Then you have people like Harvard's Gould that says everything is chance and if you were to start all over again at the beginning then everything would be totally different. Schroeder says the laws are all uniform but the conditions are very unique here on earth. For example is is rare to have a earth with as many of the elements that we have here on our planet. It would appear that others do not agree with him and they seem to believe that the conditions do not have to be as exact as they are to the earth to duplicate the life that you find here on Earth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

1. Well, you would have to cite Darwin on saying that natural selection acts intentionally. I strongly doubt you find such a quote.
2. I find it interesting that you appeal to Darwin´s authority.
3. I was under the impression that this thread was about the coming into being of the universe. Last time I checked the universe didn´t reproduce.

I got tired of waiting for someone to come along and explain that evolution is NOT a random process that Natural Selection is very oriented to making a selection. Or whatever it is they believe. There is no need for me to try to represent evolutionists and from what I see they seem to be poorly represented on this board.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So what did you mean when you said that they reject God?

Atheists seem to put a lot of energy into being anti God. If you love or if you hate they both take a commitment of energy. It is the Agnostic that has invested nothing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

some kind of multiverse has a potential of infinite,

The theory is that there would have to be a infinite number of universes.

I cannot make any sense of these sentences.

The question is what do we do with all the infinite number of failed universes that are not able to support life? Even if you shrank the entire Universe down to the size of a mustard seed then were would you put an infinite number of mustard seeds. I would think it would be a little bit difficult to carry infinity around in your back pocket.

 

[ecco]

You have to be careful with the word Eternal, that said God is outside of time.

Of my entire post, you only responded, cryptically, to the first line. Please respond to:
I'll leave it to you to decide if god just did nothing or if god made other universes, failed, successful or otherwise.

The entire post (for the third time)...

Common christian belief is that "God is Eternal"
Common christian belief is that "God created the universe between 6000 years ago and 13+ billion years ago"

For the sake of discussion let's use the max...13+ Billion.
For the sake of discussion let's say that Eternity = Infinity.

For ease of discussion let's represent:
EternityInfinity as EI
Maximum age of our Universe as AU

Therefore, God created the (known) universe no more than AU years ago.

Apparently God did other things or no things for EI - AU (EI minus AU) years.

That's a verrrrrrrry long time. Almost as long as Eternity.

I'll leave it to you to decide if god just did nothing or if god made other universes, failed, successful or otherwise.​