tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post3741552601997179292..comments2023-10-26T03:12:48.945-07:00Comments on Dorkman's Blog: How to Convert an AtheistDorkmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-71853446580079227182009-01-31T11:57:00.000-08:002009-01-31T11:57:00.000-08:00Why assume that anything needed to "trigger" them?...Why assume that anything needed to "trigger" them? Why can't they have always been happening, with neither beginning nor end? <BR/><BR/>If you say that everything had to come from somewhere, and then say that somewhere is God, then God has to have come from somewhere and you haven't solved anything. If you say that God can be exempt from requiring a beginning, then why can't the universe?Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-73709975585869786702009-01-27T17:12:00.000-08:002009-01-27T17:12:00.000-08:00Epic conversation that I somehow managed to make i...Epic conversation that I somehow managed to make it through...but how about asking what triggered all these big bangs in the first place?Nathaniel Caauwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02023790351520080234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-27447464320349793882008-10-03T13:09:00.000-07:002008-10-03T13:09:00.000-07:00Don't proponents of the oscillating universe theor...Don't proponents of the oscillating universe theory expect the universe to collapse and re-explode in an endless cycle?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-21405588718854047182008-09-20T23:56:00.000-07:002008-09-20T23:56:00.000-07:00First off, the universe cannot be "expected" to do...First off, the universe cannot be "expected" to do anything. You need to get expectation and intention out of your head if you're going to get your head around these concepts. The universe is uninflected, unemotional, and without intention. <BR/><BR/>That being said, I proposed three scientific paradigms by which the question might be answered (curved universe, quantum mechanics, string theory). <BR/><BR/>Of course, those are hypotheticals. The simple answer is "we don't know." But again, not knowing the answer doesn't mean the answer is un-knowable, nor that the answer is "God."Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-69937581584014604872008-09-20T21:06:00.000-07:002008-09-20T21:06:00.000-07:00Here's the issue with the oscillating universe hyp...Here's the issue with the oscillating universe hypothesis as it relates to fine tuning:<BR/><BR/>If the universe bangs and crunches repeatedly with no change in the laws of physics, then it adds nothing to the discussion.<BR/><BR/>If it bangs and crunches repeatedly with the laws of physics randomized each time, then how can the universe be expected to bounce every single time?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-11646351341525908692008-09-20T20:44:00.000-07:002008-09-20T20:44:00.000-07:00You know, if we're going to debate, we might as we...You know, if we're going to debate, we might as well debate. You've got a blog, I've got a blog, let's just discuss it there. You write a post, I'll respond, you rebut. Then maybe I write a post, you respond, I'll rebut. We can take our time and not bury the discussion in a long thread of replies to a particular, arbitrary post.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-32698775310184541202008-09-20T18:41:00.000-07:002008-09-20T18:41:00.000-07:00I'd also like to withdraw that last comment which ...I'd also like to withdraw that last comment which put words in your mouth. It's a technical foul in any civilized debate. You may have your two foul shots and the ball back.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-12224122550663960752008-09-20T18:31:00.000-07:002008-09-20T18:31:00.000-07:00I'll gladly answer them, but I forgot to ask about...I'll gladly answer them, but I forgot to ask about what you define as natural and what you define as supernatural.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-52198147691132895972008-09-20T18:00:00.000-07:002008-09-20T18:00:00.000-07:00Don't be silly. Believing that there is more to th...Don't be silly. Believing that there is more to the universe than the human senses can perceive on their own, or the human mind can conceive on its own, is not a belief in the supernatural. It's a statement of objective and verified fact. <BR/><BR/>Neither you nor I can see infrared or ultraviolet light with the naked eye, but that doesn't make it "supernatural." It just means we don't have the capacity to perceive the full spectrum of what is "natural." We need other instruments to do so. <BR/><BR/>Before we change the subject again, you are welcome to address the possibility of a curved or multi-dimensional universe, and their implications for the "fine tuning" argument. <BR/><BR/>Also, you seem to have misunderstood my raindrop analogy. The raindrops do not represent different universes, rather they are examples of events occurring despite the astronomical odds against those specific events ever occurring. This is in response to the "fine tuning" argument, where you contend that the high odds against a particular event -- or even a succession of them -- imply the necessity of divine intervention. <BR/><BR/>You may wish to look up the term "God of the Gaps," and the related logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance."Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-54271053207411477422008-09-20T17:27:00.000-07:002008-09-20T17:27:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-48990764988576429602008-09-20T17:21:00.001-07:002008-09-20T17:21:00.001-07:00But that's assuming several things: - it assumes t...But that's assuming several things: <BR/><BR/>- it assumes that the universe is an open space where motion is always linear and never curved (as proposed by Einstein, Google "curved universe")<BR/><BR/>- it assumes that beyond the boundaries of the universe there is nothing (perhaps two "universes" collide at their "boundaries" to form a third universe, with different mathematical constants in place as a result of the collision)<BR/><BR/>- it assumes that Newton wasn't flat-out wrong -- Newtonian physics actually tend to break down at very small scales, that's where quantum mechanics comes in. <BR/><BR/>Assuming that you are right that nothing greater than subatomic particles could form, then the possibilities of what might or might not have happened should be factored through the lens of quantum mechanics, not Newtonian physics. And when you get down to the level of quantum mechanics, matter basically turns into a circus, where light is both a particle and a wave, and a single electron can be in two places at once (check out the "double-slit experiment"). <BR/><BR/>To say nothing of string theory, which is slowly gaining support in scientific circles and which implies that, at some level, all matter is connected. String theory suggests space-time has eleven dimensions, only four of which (three space one time) are perceptible to human beings, so it may be perfectly possible, if examined through the lens of string theory, that matter expelled "too fast" into the ether could still be "connected" and eventually reconstitute itself via forces other than gravity. <BR/><BR/>We have a tendency to view our understanding through our expectations and experience in what Dawkins calls "Middle World." (Not to be confused with Middle Earth.) Because we evolved at the level we have, we do not perceive the surface tension of a pool of water (unlike an insect, which can land on the surface of a liquid and may very well perceive it as solid because of its relative scale), and we do not perceive the forces that affect the stars and planets on a massive scale. So we expect gravity and matter and etc. to behave in a certain way because we have always observed and experienced them behaving that way. But when we begin to observe very large or very small scales, we discover that the universe defies many of our expectations, behaving counterintuitively and even, often, inexplicably. <BR/><BR/>That's the beauty of science. It is always striving to find new, better answers to difficult questions, and those answers often create more questions. If you start with what you think is the answer to everything, then you wind up never asking the proper questions.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-30448654230422517962008-09-20T17:21:00.000-07:002008-09-20T17:21:00.000-07:00...like the viewpoints in this discussion. So it g......like the viewpoints in this discussion. So it goes.St. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05621354179287251576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-83496875078180476052008-09-20T16:23:00.000-07:002008-09-20T16:23:00.000-07:00Simply google "Escape Velocity" and you'll see a d...Simply google "Escape Velocity" and you'll see a discovery by Newton. Since gravity obeys the inverse square law, where every time the distance between two objects, their gravitational attraction is cut by a factor of four. If two objects are moving away from each other rapidly enough, gravity will never be able to reunite them.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-80273869796195860332008-09-20T10:43:00.000-07:002008-09-20T10:43:00.000-07:00Can you point me to any peer-reviewed scientific s...Can you point me to any peer-reviewed scientific studies that support these assertions?<BR/><BR/>At any rate, there's no point in going in more circles because it really doesn't matter. Whether it is one of infinite universes or one of infinite iterations of a single universe, the fact remains that the universe being one which supports life is only evidence that the universe is one which supports life. Placing intelligence behind that is an <I>assumption</I> based on a pre-formed conclusion, and not an inherent conclusion based on the evidence. <BR/><BR/>The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn, even granting all the evidence that you have provided to be true (which I have no reason to doubt, but also no particular reason to accept, lacking citations), is that the odds of the universe developing the way it has are <I>really small</I>. But the odds of a 100-sided dice landing on any given number are also small -- admittedly nowhere near as small, but still small -- and yet sometimes when playing an RPG you get exactly the number you need. <BR/><BR/>Or let's say you go out in a rainstorm. There are millions, billions, trillions of raindrops falling through the air, and there are at least hundreds of thousands of square millimeters of surface area on your body (I think, I could be wrong but let's just say for the sake of argument). The odds of any one of those specific raindrops touching you is astronomical, the odds of any one of them hitting you in a specific spot exponentially so, and yet against a trillion-trillion-to-one odds, a raindrop hits you on the freckle above your left eye. A millimeter in any direction and it would miss the freckle, but it hits. And in the storm dozens, maybe hundreds of other drops hit the same exact spot! What are the odds?<BR/><BR/>My point is that natural events -- even the rare or unlikely -- have no inherent significance. Small odds != intelligent intervention, unless you have <I>already decided</I> you need to believe God is involved. Then you're not forming a conclusion, just affirming one you've already made. <BR/><BR/>Seeing significance in the "fine tuning" of the universe is no different from seeing significance in a Rorschach test. The inkblot wasn't "designed" to resemble a butterfly, that's just the pattern your brain retroactively assigns it. There is no significance, in either case, but that which you impose upon them. <BR/><BR/>True science starts with a question and finds the best answer. You are starting with an answer and trying to find/ask questions that lead to it.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-6820475278038053292008-09-19T08:18:00.000-07:002008-09-19T08:18:00.000-07:00You mean trillions of universes or one universe ex...You mean trillions of universes or one universe exploding trillions of times?<BR/><BR/>Because if we have one universe exploding trillions of times with the laws of physics changing each time, every single set of conditions would have to allow for a recollapse and a bounce. If it ever expanded to quickly, or had too low a force of gravity, or too high a cosmological constant, and the universe tears itself apart with no chance of a Big Bounce.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-90482000458337526472008-09-17T12:25:00.000-07:002008-09-17T12:25:00.000-07:00Same exact thing. It's entirely possible that all ...Same exact thing. It's entirely possible that all of that has happened before. You get one universe that only has the right rate of expansion, but none of the other constants are in place as they "need" to be, and no life arises, the universe collapses after a couple hundred billion years, then it explodes out again and the "constants" will change. <BR/><BR/>Somewhere down the line -- maybe billions of iterations later -- you get a universe with two of the constants in place, but not the others. No life arises, universe collapses. <BR/><BR/>And so on and so forth, until eventually you get a universe where it all falls into place and life eventually arises. The "fine tuning" argument is only compelling if we assume that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of everything, that there has only ever been one universe and that it "got it right" the first time. But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that. <BR/><BR/>What we're talking about is the cosmological equivalent of infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters. Given enough time (and we're talking about an infinite amount of it), it is not only possible but <I>inevitable</I> that, just by randomly pounding keys, they will eventually type the works of Shakespeare. But they won't know that they've typed Shakespeare, and they'll continue pounding aimlessly away afterward.<BR/><BR/>Given enough time and opportunity for variation (and we're talking abut an infinite amount of it), it is not only possible but <I>inevitable</I> that a universe should eventually arise with everything having fallen into place. And after this universe collapses, there will probably be billions more that arise without those constants in place. <BR/><BR/>Out of trillions of universes -- or more -- it may very well be that ours is the only one that can support life as we know it, or at all. No one would deny that it makes our universe special, but that isn't the same as making it divine.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-38297664611807218032008-09-17T08:31:00.000-07:002008-09-17T08:31:00.000-07:00And all the other constants?A slightly higher stro...And all the other constants?<BR/><BR/>A slightly higher strong nuclear force constant would create insufficient hydrogen for stars to form. A slightly lower strong nuclear force constant would make any elements heavier than helium either unable to form or extremely unstable.<BR/><BR/>If we were to mess with the ratio of electrons to protons in either direction, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, negating the existence of planets, stars, and galaxies.<BR/><BR/>There's also the decay rate of 8Be, the mass of the neutrino, the decay rate of the proton, among other factors.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-48081327806138484392008-09-12T22:06:00.000-07:002008-09-12T22:06:00.000-07:00Even assuming that's true -- what's to say all tha...Even assuming that's true -- what's to say all that didn't <I>already happen</I>? <BR/><BR/>You're assuming that there was nothing before our universe "started," and there is no reason to assume that. Our universe is most likely one of unfathomably countless iterations that have occurred. <BR/><BR/>If it's true that the numbers being too low would have collapsed again instantaneously -- well, why assume that didn't already happen? If it Big Banged and accelerated wrong, it would just collapse and Big Bang again. <BR/><BR/>And how many times might that have happened? Billions of times maybe? Trillions even? Until the universe hit just the right "settings" to expand at a reasonable rate? <BR/><BR/>Likewise, it's hypothesized that even at the "perfect rate" our universe is expanding, eventually it will reverse and collapse upon itself. So there's nothing to say that a universe that expanded "too fast" wouldn't also have eventually collapsed, billions or even trillions of times until it hit just the right rate of expansion. <BR/><BR/>So even conceding, for the sake of argument, that this universe is totally unique among all the other possibilities, it is not so much like "picking" the one red coin out of a jar of black and white ones on your first try, as drawing out coins one by one until eventually you get the red one. The odds against the former case are, admittedly, astronomical. The latter case is, on the other hand, inevitable given time enough.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-13974395644240439482008-09-12T19:35:00.000-07:002008-09-12T19:35:00.000-07:00Are you implying that the alternate universes woul...Are you implying that the alternate universes would be as different from each other as they are from this one?<BR/><BR/>First off, we have to understand that stars are very interesting phenomena. The Big Bang can explain the background radiation in our universe, and can even explain the existence of hydrogen, but would be able to generate almost nothing heavier. We need stars to act as the factories for the heavier elements, or there no hope of having planets or any sort of life whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>If we were to adjust the dial that controls the expansion rate for the universe, what outcomes would there be?<BR/><BR/>If we dialed it down by even the tiniest amount, less than a thousandth of a percent, we're left with a universe that collapses on itself very, very quickly. While I'm not sure if a star would be able to form in such a universe, there is undoubtedly not enough time to process the hydrogen into anything from which planets and life could form.<BR/><BR/>If we dialed it up by an equally tiny amount, we're left with the opposite problem. The energy and matter produced by the Big Bang is so widely dispersed that while MAYBE a few stars could form, they would be so widely dispersed that there would be no hope whatsoever of producing any planets or any life.<BR/><BR/>I guess the analogy would work better if there were an ocean of painted coins, half black (dust universes from overly rapid expansion), and half white (collapsed universes from insufficiently rapid expansion), and you pick the sole red coin.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-12083474976110554362008-09-10T18:28:00.000-07:002008-09-10T18:28:00.000-07:00Actually, no. You made a very close to accurate an...Actually, no. You made a very close to accurate analogy. Just not with enough variation, and making the wrong conclusion. <BR/><BR/>If there were a jar full of quarters that were all equally different -- one was painted red, another green, another not painted but scratched, another painted green and scratched, another with a blank bit where "tails" should be, another blank where "heads" should be, another green on tails and red on heads, etc. -- then that would be a more accurate analogy to the various possibilities of the universe. Then if I were to pull out the one that was all red, and attach special significance to the fact that I pulled out the red one, then YOU would be justified in calling ME an idiot. <BR/><BR/>What changes the situation is if you blindfold me and say <I>before I reach in</I> that I will pick the red one. The odds against fulfilling that prediction are astronomical. But if you make no prediction as to which coin I will pull out, and the coins are genuinely different, then there is no significance inherent to the coin which I pull out. <BR/><BR/>You also make the mistake of assuming that if the universe could not have formed <I>as we know it</I>, nothing would have formed at all. But there is nothing in the "fine tuning" argument to support that assumption. All we can say is that if the laws of physics were different, the universe <I>as we know it</I> could not exist. That doesn't mean another, <I>totally different universe</I>, governed by those alternate laws, couldn't have formed instead. And it doesn't mean, frankly, that some form of "life" couldn't have arisen in that other universe. It just wouldn't have been life <I>as we know it</I>. <BR/><BR/>The fact, again, is that we pulled out the red coin out of all the equal and different possibilities. And that led to us. But that doesn't mean that we were the "goal."Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-29013737940406151912008-09-10T17:42:00.000-07:002008-09-10T17:42:00.000-07:00Imagine this:You are blindfolded. You feel around ...Imagine this:<BR/><BR/>You are blindfolded. You feel around and discover in front of you is an open jar. You reach into it and decide it is maybe a half gallon in volume and filled with coins that are the same size.<BR/><BR/>You reach in and pull out a coin, and then take off the blindfold, noticing that the coin in your hand is a US Quarter, painted red. You look into the jar and notice that the rest of the quarters are not painted.<BR/><BR/>You sit down with me and discuss this interesting luck. I then argue that the red coin has meaning solely because you give it meaning. I pick out two other quarters and say:<BR/><BR/>"This one in my left hand is very worn, has an eagle on the back, and the number 1981 on the front. This one in my right hand has a picture of Nebraska on the back. They're all different. The fact that yours is the only painted one is purely arbitrary."<BR/><BR/>You would be justified in calling me an idiot at that point.<BR/><BR/>What if we were these weird, cosmic beings, and I put a weird, cosmic blindfold on you and asked you to pull universes out of a weird, cosmic jar.<BR/><BR/>You pull out one, take off the blindfold, and notice that it has all these stars, planets, and it even has life forms in it. You then look at all the other universes and notice that each of the others contains nothing more than dust. You point out that the universe in your hand is unique and distinct from all the others, but I say:<BR/><BR/>"Not true!" I say as I pull out two of these inert dust universes. "The universe in my left hand has 25% more dust than the universe in my right hand. They are all unique. The fact that it is the only one with those glowing balls of gas, rocks floating around it, and stuff you call life is not remarkable. It is no more different from the universes in my hands than these universes are from each other."<BR/><BR/>You might then be justified in asking me what cosmological stuff I had been smoking, to which I would reply: "your mom"Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-48354890338154050452008-09-10T13:18:00.000-07:002008-09-10T13:18:00.000-07:00I will never look at the number 135 the same again...I will never look at the number 135 the same again.St. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05621354179287251576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-39091232956738825582008-09-10T12:15:00.000-07:002008-09-10T12:15:00.000-07:00Exactly. With the dice analogy, the existence of l...Exactly. <BR/><BR/>With the dice analogy, the existence of life is the number 135. It didn't have to turn out that way, it wasn't "meant to" turn out that way, it just so happens that it <I>did</I> turn out that way. <BR/><BR/>Difficult as it can be to do when you've grown up with the notion of a creator god (believe me, I know), you have to shake loose from the idea that life was "meant to be." It wasn't. <BR/><BR/>You have to let go of the concept that creating life is the "purpose" of the universe. It isn't. <BR/><BR/>What we call "life" is just the sum of the arbitrary values leading up to this point. It is the number 135. It has no cosmological significance, we are only imbuing it with such because our existence is, understandably, the most important thing to <I>us</I>.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-45846602206971420452008-09-10T11:43:00.000-07:002008-09-10T11:43:00.000-07:00Because the existence of life is arbitrary. Life i...Because the existence of life is arbitrary. Life is an emergent property of that set of values. This universe causes life, not the other way around.St. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05621354179287251576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-24232993856301982902008-09-10T11:28:00.000-07:002008-09-10T11:28:00.000-07:00If this is the only set of values under which life...If this is the only set of values under which life could exist, then how could you call it arbitrary?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.com