|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 16 2006 : 5:31:48 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~~~
Hello Folks,
I found this interesting reading..
That is, the probability of this universe and life created just happened by chance. I get that question alot.
If you care to form an opinion based on some statistical thinking, perhaps you may wish to visit the following site:
http://cofu.persianblog.com/1382_12...archive.html
What will this site talk about:
The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence" i.e. that life happened by chance is 10^10^123 to 1. So, that number is 10 to the 10th power, and that 10th power exponent is raised to the 123rd power.
See what you think.
Ekam Sad Viprah Bahudha Vadanti - Truth is ONE, Sages call it variously
Peace,
Frank In San Diego
|
Edited by - Frank-in-SanDiego on Jan 16 2006 10:11:30 PM |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2006 : 09:42:49 AM
|
Frank,
I hate to continually play the role of the hard-noser, raining on the parade, but, since Alvin is not speaking, I have to do my duty.... 
I think I know the fallacy from which they are operating. I think they are misrepresenting Penrose -- not in his calculations, but in the deductions from them.
>> To sum up: Every physical law and every physical constant in this universe has been specifically designed to enable human beings to exist and live. In his book The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies states this truth in the last paragraph, "The impression of Design is overwhelming."5
The idea that only 1 in N universes could support life like ours does not provide any evidence at all that we were created 'by design' as opposed to 'by chance', no matter how astronomically large N is.
Think about it. It's no stronger than 'only 1 in N planets can support life like ours', which, no matter how astronomically large N is, I have never heard anyone think proves we were put here by design.
There's nothing there that can make us feel special on mathematical grounds. It's a fallacious application of probabilistic notions.
By and large I don't think there is any scientific evidence of anything 'creator-like', which designs things. That fact doesn't cause me any disappointment, because I have a sense that the Source is not creator-like, and we should not need It to be.
How about 'The Source, Brahman, emanates even That which is Self-designing and self-sustatining'.
A cause for celebration too, no? Hey, wouldn't that be cool in Sanskrit? Any chance.....
-D |
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 17 2006 4:28:28 PM |
 |
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2006 : 11:31:13 PM
|
Hari Om
]~~~~~~~
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
I think I know the fallacy from which they are operating. I think they are misrepresenting Penrose -- not in his calculations, but in the deductions from them.
Hello David,
thx for the note... I think you make good points... I am just impressed that someone gave it any thought. I have my own views on this and its nice not having to defend or promote one concept over the other. This whole 'design and creation' thing is such small thinking. There seems to be an urge to stake claims on how 'this' all happened... intelligent design v. evolution v. snap!!! its all here
We have been here for a millisecond. Give it a few more billion years and our views will evolve.
One day of Brahma = 4.32 billon years. One second = 100,000 human years
Peace
Frank In San Diego
|
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Feb 14 2006 : 09:28:58 AM
|
Do those calculations support the idea that we were created "by design"? (I use "support" here, not "prove". We can never "prove such things for sure. But we may get some evidences to support certain ideas, which is what science is doing...)
I have two points to make, but no definite answer. (at least I hope I don't spell out MY own answer, which are somehow subjective anyway)
1.
Mr Stoney and his wife are walking on a beach. Full of stones of different shapes. Before the wife pick up one, Mr Stoney says firmly: "the probabiliy that you get a stone of weight between 4.578 - 10^(-1000) gram and 4.578 + 10^(-1000) gram is lower than 1/10^10^10^100. This is accurate as long as my calculations are. I base my calculations on a large amount of stone collected on the beach and plot out the distribution of stone weight....."
So far so good. Very accurate--I would be the first one to agree. Not just that, I am willing to beat for sure that the wife will not get a stone between that range of weight.
The story goes on as the wife pick one stone, but indeed it's not in that range: it's 3.567 gram (4 sig. figure) instead. She then said to Mr Stoney: "haha, I have picked up a stone, which, according to your calculations and our error of measurement, is a really really rare event: of a probability of below 1/10^10^10!!!"
She then thinks that it must be God's will that she picked that stone. Otherwise such 1/10^10^10 event cannot have occured. There must be some designer.
Now, did we, human race, pick that stone of 3.567 gram?
To take it further, the probability of getting a stone of a FIXED weight (not withing a range) is ZERO. But you are going to pick up a stone of SOME weight. Guess what?
Science have a strong predictive power. It is the best way of organizing (at least) the cognitive part of our knowledge. Yet, I wonder we can use it that way--- to determine how likely we should be here. You can calculate that something, of course. For example, if you calculate the probabiliy of finding so-and-so star and then look around the sky, that calculations would be very trustable and helpful (provided you do it right methodologically). No problem about that. But to fix your eyes on a certain star (not necessarily the earth), and only then wondrer how you could have an eye of such star because it's so rare according to your calculations....you determine what you're doing here.....
2.
A less important point than the above one, in fact it's too vague that you shouldn't take it seriously. The problem is somehow in the above point already: if you start properly (scientifically) with your methods, and restrict your conclusions to what you have on hands and what you can check repeatedly, than you would be very safe in your general statements (in the above case, the distribution curve of weight). When having a chance to use repeatedly, then the distribution curve is very promising. Exactly because of such generality, that in a single case it fails to tell you anything profound. That's not the fault of science. You have to ask whether you way of interpreting things is scientific!
To be more general, (and more vague...) we human are so limited in our laboratory and senses. We are limited in what we can perceive. And the mental models (and/or karma, if you like) inside our mind is so shaped by what we've already percieved, that we are bounded to be biased. (no matter how those yogis claim that they go to the truth in samadhi, they certainly cannot get to scientific or cognitive truth)
Sometimes, such incompleteness of theories is inherent inside the theory-- we could never know the whole picture, because we will get to a limit of knowledge sooner or later. May be that limit is really the destination, the ultimate truth of science. We will be very lucky then. But it's unlikely, anyway. What's certain is, that when we apply our methods to things which have not been (or cannot be)tested repeatedly, it becomes less respectable. That's the best we human can get, but not at all conclusive-- not as conclusive as what you can conclude about how tall your son would be (below 3 meter, I am sure. THAT'S SCIENCE)
Having said that, I still would like to mention that scientific statements is already the BEST, the most trustable we can get in the cognitive realm. Turning to God or other things may be very spiritual, and may lead you to spiritual truth; but you will not get close to the cognitive truth by that.
------------------------------------------------
To further illustrate the inherent limitations of our knowledge, look at probability again:
there's no "REAL" thing as Probability. (that's my view anyway, and many philosophically oriented mathematician's) Probability is a science of knowing what we don't know enough, a science of predicting even while our knowledge is incomplete. In short, it's a science of incomplete knowledge. In throwing a dice, do we have to use the concept of probability if we can know all the physical laws and all initial conditions of the D.E. ? (including the exact motions of your hands!!) NO! we use the concept probability as a tool, as the best tool we have despite our ignorance. But Probability works too well that many mathematicians/scientists almost take it to be as "real" as the chair they're sitting on!! A good working habit, may be; but a poor philosophical one! |
Edited by - Alvin Chan on Feb 14 2006 10:07:14 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 14 2006 : 7:23:39 PM
|
I agree Alvin, to the extent that I understood it! It's a little deep for me.
Nothing can ever be proved by science. All we can ever arrive at is "preponderance of evidence."
All proofs are based upon assumptions, and there's no way to prove the assumptions. The only reason we make them is that they have always seemed to be true. But we build this huge knowledge base of science upon those basic assumptions, and forget they are there.
Then we try to apply our scientific method to those things you spoke about that can't produce reliable results, and we try to throw in thoery of probability to make it more credible.
The problem is this as I see it:
The "Scientific method" is thrown out the window by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and probability can't save it. And I think the uncertainty principle applies just as much to spiritual phenomena as to sub atomic particles.
Then throw in the fact that we are fooling with the very workings of what causes us to perceive the world, and you're fooling yourself to think you can get anywhere scientifically. It would be like instructing a robot to take himself apart piece by piece and figure out who he is. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Feb 15 2006 : 09:38:02 AM
|
Ether, why on earth do you think the scientific method is thrown out the window by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
All 'This' by CHance?
