The origins of existance

[Eudaimonist]

My observaiton of natural matter (insofar as I am empowered to observe) has led to my concluding that the forces of the universe are chaotic and fluxuating. They change so quickly and repture so widely; who can understand how the universe works? Who can ponder its inner machinery?

I have no idea what you mean here. What fluxuations are you referring to?

Can gravity, a natural force (and nature is always decaying and collapsing to form new things) have always existed, can gravity never change?

Hm, I thought I read recently some speculation that the gravitational constant of the universe may have changed slowly over time. Perhaps gravity can change.

[Gravity] is a universal law that profoundly affects and governs

Laws do not affect or govern anything. They describe something that happens. It may be incorrect to describe gravity as governing the actions of entity A and entity B. Rather, when A accelerates towards B, and B towards A, we call this effect "gravity". So, perhaps we should say that A affects B, and B affects A, not that "gravity", as some third entity, affects them both.

the passions of all things.

Passions?

Furthermore, it never changes, never collapses, and never ceases to exist.

It may be incorrect to refer to gravity as an "it", as if it were an entity unto itself. We should perhaps say that entities that possess mass always exhibit what we describe as "gravity". As long as entities with mass exist, then the effect we know as "gravity" exists. If entities with mass were to cease to exist, then "gravity" would no longer exist. IOW, gravity is not something "extra" that is over and beyond the existence of such entities.

Is, the, gravity a being, or a god? [or machine]

And this is why I think this sort of speculation is unwarranted.

Both kinds of beings would be subject to emotions and passions that would motivate them to alter the uniformity of their nature.

I fail to see the connection between these subjects. You seem to be equivocating on the meaning of the word "uniform".

What I see in the natural matter is decay and chaos, what I see in the anatural matter is machinery created for a purpose, which can only exist to fufill it's purpose.

Anatural matter?

I apparently see something very different from you. You may want to consider that "chaos" is really not much different than a synonym for "not understood". Something appears chaotic when we don't understand it, and when we get a glimpse as to what is happening we consider it very orderly. The motion of winds in atmosphere may seem chaotic to you... until you understand aerodynamics, at which point it suddenly seems much more orderly.

You may want to consider that what you "see" may say more about you than what is actually out there.

But what I see in supernatural matter

Supernatural matter?

that is Gods or a God, is a thing which can indeed have existed before the beginning and after the end. For this, indeed, is the nature of supernatural things; or so I think. Is this not sound?

No, not to my reasoning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sojourner<><]

And since all "possible states of the universe" would have had the same chance to come into being, I don´t see how the result would tell us anything useful. Hence I suggest you spare your statistics class the effort.
I see problems with statistical calculations based on one single sample, anyways. I don´t even know how you would possibly determine the amount of hypothetical outcomes, to begin with.

You don't have to take samples in order to calculate the relative probability of an event. Actually, I think that if we consider the number of possible outcomes of the universe's initial state to be infinite, it should form a continuous probability distribution. Whether it would be normal, uniform or otherwise, I don't know, but when dealing with infinites the probability of a universe that supports life on earth coming into being should be roughly 0+ or 0%, even if there are more than one possible states that can do so. (of course, this is assuming that I've been doing my homework, in which the probabilities of such an event is questionable to say the least. I did get an A on my last test though )

 

[quatona]

You don't have to take samples in order to calculate the relative probability of an event. Actually, I think that if we consider the number of possible outcomes of the universe's initial state to be infinite, it should form a continuous probability distribution. Whether it would be normal, uniform or otherwise, I don't know, but when dealing with infinites the probability of a universe that supports life on earth coming into being should be roughly 0+ or 0%, even if there are more than one possible states that can do so. (of course, this is assuming that I've been doing my homework, in which the probabilities of such an event is questionable to say the least. I did get an A on my last test though )

If you want to look at it this way, the chance that the universe turned out to be as it did was exactly as high or low as any other outcome.
Every combination of numbers from a 6 out of 49 lottery is extremely unlikely to be drawn. The fact that in the end one combination has been drawn does not allow the conclusion that it is in some way special, or that this outcome is of any more significance than any other.
(Even if it seems particularly significant because it is e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6, or because they are our favourite numbers, btw.).

 

[MartinM]

A sound scientific precept teaches that (according to the laws of nature) matter cannot be created, or destroyed.

No, it doesn't. There is no global conservation of mass-energy in general relativity.

When we ask a scientist what happenend before the big bang, all he can tell us is "I don't really know."

Depending on context, he might tell you that the phrase 'before the big bang' is meaningless gibberish.

 

[Sojourner<><]

If you want to look at it this way, the chance that the universe turned out to be as it did was exactly as high or low as any other outcome.
Every combination of numbers from a 6 out of 49 lottery is extremely unlikely to be drawn. The fact that in the end one combination has been drawn does not allow the conclusion that it is in some way special, or that this outcome is of any more significance than any other.
(Even if it seems particularly significant because it is e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6, or because they are our favourite numbers, btw.).

You have a point here, but you're missing mine. In a continuous distribution (as opposed to discrete where possibilities are finite like 1,2,3,4... etc), the chances of any one exact outcome is 0. This is because there are an infinite amount of outcomes. For example, the chances that a random number selection between the continuous set of 0 through 10 will be exactly 2.57891 is 0%. This is where it appears that what I'm proposing about the universe is misleading. When we're dealing with continuous distributions we have to use ranges of numbers to generate any useful probability. E.g. the possibility that a random number between the equally likely continuous values of 0 through 10 will fall between 3 and 5 is 2/10 or 20%. As it applies to the formation of the universe, the anthropic principle is what determines this 'range' with the capability to support life as the limiter. The question is now: does the absense of this required trait allow for a broader range of possible outcomes? If it does, how much broader is the range of possibilities? I suspect that in theory, the range would be infinitely more broad, rendering the possibility that the outcome of the universe's state should fall into the range of 'that which supports life as we know it' infintesimal in comparison.

My point? The truth of the anthropic principle is a statistically significant concept when pondering the idea of the universe randomly coming into being as it is and it suggests that mere chance is highly unlikely, mathematically speaking.

 

[MartinM]

Well, if gravity existed as a machine, before natural matter (which must have come into existance, owing to it's constant state of decay) then what was it then?

Ah, of course. No cosmological argument is complete without silly second law misinterpretations.

 

[MartinM]

I suspect that in theory, the range would be infinitely more broad, rendering the possibility that the outcome of the universe's state should fall into the range of 'that which supports life as we know it' infintesimal in comparison.

...and you suspect this why?

In any case, it's entirely irrelevant. If naturalism is true, the only Universe we could possibly observe is one which supports life as we know it, else we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thus, the observation that the Universe does support life as we know it at worst tells us nothing whatsoever about naturalism, and at best supports it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

...and you suspect this why?

In any case, it's entirely irrelevant. If naturalism is true, the only Universe we could possibly observe is one which supports life as we know it, else we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thus, the observation that the Universe does support life as we know it at worst tells us nothing whatsoever about naturalism, and at best supports it.

Because life is a complicated, fragile thing and it rules out possible states that are too extreme to support life. I think that it is a very good question to ask for anyone who values truth more than winning an argument.

 

[quatona]

. As it applies to the formation of the universe, the anthropic principle is what determines this 'range' with the capability to support life as the limiter.

Before I continue reading and considering your post, could you explain what this "anthropic principle" is and how you arrive at the conclusion that life is a particularly significant outcome (other than that it is the current outcome?).

 

[Sojourner<><]

Before I continue reading and considering your post, could you explain what this "anthropic principle" is

First, see my original post on the subject and see if that is sufficient.

and how you arrive at the conclusion that life is a particularly significant outcome (other than that it is the current outcome?).

I admit, it's an abstract concept but I'll try to explain in more depth.

Let's talk numbers first... Within the set of continuous values of 0 through 10, there are an infinite amount of values. Within the set of 2 and 3, there are an infinite amount of values. Even though we are dealing with an infinite amount of values, the set of 2-3 is 1/10th the size of 0-10 whereas 0-5 is 1/2 of 0-10 and 6-9 is 3/10th's of 0-10 and so on. The only reason why we can calculate a size or ratio of a particular set to the whole is because the whole is limited or it has upper and lower bounds. The possible states of the universe outside of the anthropic principle are, in theory, boundless.

Here's some more numbers as to better apply probabilities...

Where 0...X...10 N=[0...10] p=P(x>4 and x<6)= 2/10

Now if we remove the bounds of 0 and 10:

Where -&#8734;...X...&#8734; N=[-&#8734;...&#8734;] p=P(x>4 and x<6)= 2/&#8734; = 0

It does not matter how broad the range used in p is, its proportion to N will always = 0 because it has bounds and N is boundless.

In the same way, where N is the total # of possible states the universe could have come into being and the range used in p is the total # of states the universe could have come into being that support life on earth:

where -&#8734;...X...&#8734; N=[-&#8734;...&#8734;] p=P(x>? and x<?)= ?/&#8734; = 0

Of course, we can't calculate any unknowns, but we can theorize that one has bounds and the other does not, or at least has bounds much larger than the other. I think that the former is more likely.

EDIT:

Correction. N must be boundless. And we know that the other set of possible states that support life must in fact have bounds.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Of course, we can't calculate any unknowns, but we can theorize that one has bounds and the other does not, or at least has bounds much larger than the other. I think that the former is more likely.

Correction, N must be boundless. And we know that the other set of possible states that support life must in fact have bounds.

 

[quatona]

First, see my original post on the subject and see if that is sufficient.

No, I couldn´t seem to find an explanation of the anthropic principle.
I looked for explanations in the internet, and so far I found it a pretty shaky, tautological argument.

I admit, it's an abstract concept but I'll try to explain in more depth.

Let's talk numbers first... Within the set of continuous values of 0 through 10, there are an infinite amount of values. Within the set of 2 and 3, there are an infinite amount of values. Even though we are dealing with an infinite amount of values, the set of 2-3 is 1/10th the size of 0-10 whereas 0-5 is 1/2 of 0-10 and 6-9 is 3/10th's of 0-10 and so on. The only reason why we can calculate a size or ratio of a particular set to the whole is because the whole is limited or it has upper and lower bounds. The possible states of the universe outside of the anthropic principle are, in theory, boundless.

Here's some more numbers as to better apply probabilities...

where X=[4...6]
0...X...10 N=10 P(x>4 and x<6)= 2/10

Now if we remove the bounds of 0 and 10:

where X=[4...6]
&#8734;...X...&#8734; N=&#8734; P(x>4 and x<6)= 2/&#8734; = 0

It does not matter how broad X is, the proportion of X to N will always = 0 because X has bounds and N is boundless.

In the same way, where N is the total # of possible states the universe could have come into being and X is the total # of states the universe could have come into being that support life on earth:

where X=[?...?]
&#8734;...X...&#8734; N=&#8734; P(x>? and x<?)= ?/&#8734; = 0

Of course, we can't calculate any unknowns, but we can theorize that one has bounds and the other does not, or at least has bounds much larger than the other. I think that the former is more likely.

I commend you on your command of mathematics. I couldn´t follow. But to me it seems like you have demonstrated that the probability of life in the universe is 0. Is that correct? If so, reality proves that there must be something wrong with this calculation.

To be honest, I would like to avoid to have to learn to understand this mathematical part if unnecessary.
Am I right in assuming that the "anthropic principle" and this mathematical calculation are independent arguments? Am I right in assuming that the sole purpose of the latter is to show that the chance of the outcome of a certain defined property in the universe is extremely low? Am I right in assuming that - for purpose of this mathematical part - we could replace "life" by any other concrete characteristic that can be found in the universe, and get to the same result?
If that is so, I´ll give you this part. I have long conceded this, and I think I have shown its irrelevance for the question at hand.
The crucial point - without which the mathematical part is pointless - seems to be this "anthropic principle" - for the investigation of which we don´t need to know exactly how extremely low the probability of a particular property in a universe is.

 

[MartinM]

The possible states of the universe outside of the anthropic principle are, in theory, boundless.

You don't know that.

And we know that the other set of possible states that support life must in fact have bounds.

Or that.

 

[Sojourner<><]

You don't know that.



Or that.

what's outside of your house?

 

[Sojourner<><]

No, I couldn´t seem to find an explanation of the anthropic principle.
I looked for explanations in the internet, and so far I found it a pretty shaky, tautological argument.

here's some info on it:

Stephen Hawking in The Universe in a Nutshell -
"Roughly speaking, the anthropic principle says that we see the universe the way it is, at least in part, because we exist. It is a perspective that is diametrically opposed to the dream of a fully predictive, unified theory in which the laws of nature are complete and the world is the way it is because it could not be otherwise."

Wikipedia -
"In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle begins with the observation that the universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life, even complex multicellular life, in at least one particular place and time, namely the Earth. Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang, the friendliness of the universe to complex structures such as galaxies, planetary systems, and biology, is unexpected by any normal model of turbulence driven structuring that we have ever been able to derive. The anthropic principle is a convenient heading for physical and cosmological reasoning that takes into account the existence of a biosphere on Earth in an essential way."

I commend you on your command of mathematics. I couldn´t follow. But to me it seems like you have demonstrated that the probability of life in the universe is 0. Is that correct? If so, reality proves that there must be something wrong with this calculation.

Yes, sort of. My reasoning is that the probability of a universe that can support life coming into being by chance is zero. And I agree with you that there is something wrong with the idea that it could have since I don't believe that it did. BTW, I had to change the math a little bit since I am still new with statistics. It might make more sense now.

To be honest, I would like to avoid to have to learn to understand this mathematical part if unnecessary.
Am I right in assuming that the "anthropic principle" and this mathematical calculation are independent arguments? Am I right in assuming that the sole purpose of the latter is to show that the chance of the outcome of a certain defined property in the universe is extremely low? Am I right in assuming that - for purpose of this mathematical part - we could replace "life" by any other concrete characteristic that can be found in the universe, and get to the same result?
If that is so, I´ll give you this part. I have long conceded this, and I think I have shown its irrelevance for the question at hand.
The crucial point - without which the mathematical part is pointless - seems to be this "anthropic principle" - for the investigation of which we don´t need to know exactly how extremely low the probability of a particular property in a universe is.

I disagree that we could replace life with any other characteristic and produce the same results because life is extremely fragile. It's the most fragile thing in the universe that I can think of and I think of it as more of a phenomenon rather than just another characteristic. Turn the heat up or down by a tiny fraction and it will vanish. Or tweak some physical laws of the universe just so and it could be destroyed in an instance. If the universe was really a hellish place with nothing but chaos and disorder, I would agree that it probably originated by chance. But the existence of life isn't even the end of it. We know that life has led to intelligence and thought and societies, language, music, poetry, philosophy and science. Compound those probabilities and mere chance starts to fade way out of the picture. In fact, if you don't like where that's leading why not just throw out statics in general... who needs probabilities anyways?

 

[quatona]

here's some info on it:







Yes, sort of. My reasoning is that the probability of a universe that can support life coming into being by chance is zero. And I agree with you that there is something wrong with the idea that it could have since I don't believe that it did. BTW, I had to change the math a little bit since I am still new with statistics. It might make more sense now.



I disagree that we could replace life with any other characteristic and produce the same results because life is extremely fragile. It's the most fragile thing in the universe that I can think of and I think of it as more of a phenomenon rather than just another characteristic. Turn the heat up or down by a tiny fraction and it will vanish. Or tweak some physical laws of the universe just so and it could be destroyed in an instance. If the universe was really a hellish place with nothing but chaos and disorder, I would agree that it probably originated by chance. But the existence of life isn't even the end of it. We know that life has led to intelligence and thought and societies, language, music, poetry, philosophy and science. Compound those probabilities and mere chance starts to fade way out of the picture. In fact, if you don't like where that's leading why not just throw out statics in general... who needs probabilities anyways?

It´s not so much that I don´t like statistics - it´s more that I doubt that it is a valid approach, if only having one result and an infinite amount of hypothetical outcomes (including those that, being part of the result ourselves) are unthinkeable for us. I guess, one of the problems I sense here is that, from the perspective from within a singular result, it always and necessarily must appear to be the greatest thinkeable. The amazement in view of the greatness of the result is founded in the fact that, of all the other hypothetical outcomes, we can only think of those that are less structured, organized. If talking about those infinite alternative outcomes, we would also have to include the infinite hypothetical outcomes that would prove "life" to be a comparably poor result, those outcomes that have much greater things to offer than "life".
I do not really see what´s so remarkable about the fact that a system, if looked at it from within, will be considered meaningful, organized, structured and the greatest possible outcome. Actually, I think that´s self-suggesting, no matter what the result is.
Unless we start from the assumption that "life" has been the purpose of the universe (which actually is question-begging and would lead to circular argumentation), I fail to see how the watchmaker or "anthropic principle" has any bearing.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It´s not so much that I don´t like statistics - it´s more that I doubt that it is a valid approach, if only having one result and an infinite amount of hypothetical outcomes (including those that, being part of the result ourselves) are unthinkeable for us. I guess, one of the problems I sense here is that, from the perspective from within a singular result, it always and necessarily must appear to be the greatest thinkeable. The amazement in view of the greatness of the result is founded in the fact that, of all the other hypothetical outcomes, we can only think of those that are less structured, organized. If talking about those infinite alternative outcomes, we would also have to include the infinite hypothetical outcomes that would prove "life" to be a comparably poor result, those outcomes that have much greater things to offer than "life".
I do not really see what´s so remarkable about the fact that a system, if looked at it from within, will be considered meaningful, organized, structured and the greatest possible outcome. Actually, I think that´s self-suggesting, no matter what the result is.
Unless we start from the assumption that "life" has been the purpose of the universe (which actually is question-begging and would lead to circular argumentation), I fail to see how the watchmaker or "anthropic principle" has any bearing.

When you say the 'greatness' or 'amazement' that is the product of our universe can't be used to narrow down the probability of it's occurrence, I think you're right (if I'm understanding you correctly). However, I'm not taking only sheer complexity into consideration. It's the fragility of an extremely complex phenomenon that I'm more concerned about. In my reasoning, when fragility is taken into account, it should mean that a dull, nonsensical universe should be more probable since a state of chaos does not depend on perfect conditions. Any condition of the universe that could result in any level of fragile complexity would then be less likely than a chaotic condition. So then the probability of a universe more grand than can be imagined coming into existence by chance would be even more improbable than that of our own. Even lumping all such complex configurations together into one category and comparing that to the remainder wouldn't improve these odds much at all because chaos depends on nothing. The implications of this kind of reasoning is that pure coincidence can't be a factor. This leadsto either a grand unification theory or God and as far as I know such a theory hasn't been found.

 

[quatona]

When you say the 'greatness' or 'amazement' that is the product of our universe can't be used to narrow down the probability of it's occurrence, I think you're right (if I'm understanding you correctly). However, I'm not taking only sheer complexity into consideration. It's the fragility of an extremely complex phenomenon that I'm more concerned about. In my reasoning, when fragility is taken into account, it should mean that a dull, nonsensical universe should be more probable since a state of chaos does not depend on perfect conditions. Any condition of the universe that could result in any level of fragile complexity would then be less likely than a chaotic condition. So then the probability of a universe more grand than can be imagined coming into existence by chance would be even more improbable than that of our own.
Even lumping all such complex configurations together into one category and comparing that to the remainder wouldn't improve these odds much at all because chaos depends on nothing. The implications of this kind of reasoning is that pure coincidence can't be a factor. This leadsto either a grand unification theory or God and as far as I know such a theory hasn't been found.

So any result other than absolute chaos would suggest you the idea of a creator, because it´s "greater" than what you picture as the most stable condition?
I don´t really seem to get the fragility part. Firstly, we do not know for how long the phenomenon "life on the planet earth" will indeed exist. So if we assume it to be fragile, it may well have the appropriate fate (of being unsuccessful, since too fragile).
I don´t find it so remarkable that somewhere in this universe a thing as "fragile" as life exists. There are billions of stars, and one simply happens to have the very distance from a sun that gives a chance for life. Every other star has its unique phenomena that are equally unique in that their existence is dependent on the position it has in the universe, it´s just that we don´t perceive it as similarly significant (the 1,2,3,4,5,6 lotto thing).

On another note: Hadn´t we agreed that the entire probability thing is not a valid argument?

 

[Sojourner<><]

So any result other than absolute chaos would suggest you the idea of a creator, because it´s "greater" than what you picture as the most stable condition?

The existence of the universe does suggest to me the idea of God, but that's not what I said. I'm talking about the probability of coincidence.

I don´t really seem to get the fragility part. Firstly, we do not know for how long the phenomenon "life on the planet earth" will indeed exist. So if we assume it to be fragile, it may well have the appropriate fate (of being unsuccessful, since too fragile).
I don´t find it so remarkable that somewhere in this universe a thing as "fragile" as life exists. There are billions of stars, and one simply happens to have the very distance from a sun that gives a chance for life. Every other star has its unique phenomena that are equally unique in that their existence is dependent on the position it has in the universe, it´s just that we don´t perceive it as similarly significant (the 1,2,3,4,5,6 lotto thing).

I don't know about you but I think that the probability of the existence of some fragile but simple ice crystals around some obscure unknown planet should pale in comparison to life on earth and all of its consequences.

On another note: Hadn´t we agreed that the entire probability thing is not a valid argument?

I don't think so.