[_ Old Earth _] What Brought About Order In The Universe

[cubedbee]

The math however states that the above scenario is statistically impossible.

No, the math does no such thing. A statistical impossibility has a probability of zero. The above scenario has a very low, but non-zero probability. If there are enough universes (an infinite number), all of whose natural laws develop randomly, then any stasticically improbable series event that can happen, will happen. The low probability of a possible event cannot be used as proof against that event having occured.

Second: in order for e.g. a fish to evolve into an amphibian, mutation would have to occur in the correct set of genes that affect a range of internal systems in the organism (e.g. the respiratory, circulatory, skeletal, nervous systems) - all at the same time. Beyond this never being seen before in nature, the odds of this happening makes it impossible.

Once again, improbably does not equal impossible. No matter how you estimate the odds, they are greater than zero, which means the event could have happened.

 

[PDoug]

Order in the universe comes largely from gravity. Gravity pulled the stars and planets together.

When I talk about ordering, I talk about the ordering of atoms, molecules, energy, rocks, plants, animals, man, clouds, etc. into existence. All these things show a tremendous amount of sophistication in design - some more than others. Besides that, all these things are ordered in such a highly coordinated way, that they are able to support a world and an entire universe.

One last thing, relativity won out over Newtonian physics because that latter suggested that gravity could be transmitted instantly between bodies, when observations indicate nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Also the force of gravity could be explained away by noting that just because a mass may accelerate towards another mass in close proximity to it, that doesn't necessarily mean that an intrinsic force exists between the two bodies. There could be another cause for the two masses accelerating towards one another. In relativity which explains these two weaknesses of Newtonian physics away, gravity does not exist. One body will accelerate towards another body, because the fabric of spacetime which runs throughout the universe that connects the two, is such that it causes the first body to move towards the second body in an accelerated fashion. (You can read about what I just wrote here.) Therefore while we still use Newtonian physics a lot because it is a more straightforward model of how our world works (and the math is a lot simpler), our 'best' model of how the universe works does not accept the existence of gravity.

Sorry. Let me state more precisely that relativity states that the force of gravity does not exist. Gravity in relativity is said to be a phenomenon that causes distortion of spacetime by masses. This does not materially change what Sabazi wrote.

 

[Drew]

Hello Pdoug (and others):

I will certainly agree that all this genetic stuff involves the use of a language. However, just because the dictionary associates an "intended purpose" with a language does not necessarily mean that there cannot be languages that arise without intentionality - dictionaries definitions are not gospel.

Once again, it is indisputable that some languages are the products of intelligent agents. You still have not done any work to show that languages in general must be the products of intelligent agency.

 

[PDoug]

Hello Drew,

Hello Pdoug (and others):

I will certainly agree that all this genetic stuff involves the use of a language. However, just because the dictionary associates an "intended purpose" with a language does not necessarily mean that there cannot be languages that arise without intentionality - dictionaries definitions are not gospel.

Once again, it is indisputable that some languages are the products of intelligent agents. You still have not done any work to show that languages in general must be the products of intelligent agency.

Even if we were lop off the requirement that a language must have a purpose, we would still come back to the fact that the only phenomenon that is known to use language in nature is the intelligent creature called man. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that genetic code (with its language characteristics) was placed in all known life forms by an intelligent being.

 

[PDoug]

The math however states that the above scenario is statistically impossible.

No, the math does no such thing. A statistical impossibility has a probability of zero. The above scenario has a very low, but non-zero probability. If there are enough universes (an infinite number), all of whose natural laws develop randomly, then any stasticically improbable series event that can happen, will happen. The low probability of a possible event cannot be used as proof against that event having occured.

There is a thing called Borel's upper limit "which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10^50 ([i.e. 10 raised to the power 50] 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)" The article that you are taken to by the link above, demonstrates in several ways, that even if you were try and examine 1 step in the evolutionary process (e.g. the creation of a protein molecule from amino acids), the probability of that step happening far exceeds the Borel's upper limit, and is therefore impossible to occur. Thefore when you compound this fact with all the considerations I previously stated, you see that mathematics effectively states that the notion of life coming about and evolving by chance, is impossible.

Second: in order for e.g. a fish to evolve into an amphibian, mutation would have to occur in the correct set of genes that affect a range of internal systems in the organism (e.g. the respiratory, circulatory, skeletal, nervous systems) - all at the same time. Beyond this never being seen before in nature, the odds of this happening makes it impossible.

Once again, improbably does not equal impossible. No matter how you estimate the odds, they are greater than zero, which means the event could have happened.

My response to your first comment is also applicable to the one you gave immediately above.

 

[cubedbee]

Even if we were lop off the requirement that a language must have a purpose, we would still come back to the fact that the only phenomenon that is known to use language in nature is the intelligent creature called man. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that genetic code (with its language characteristics) was placed in all known life forms by an intelligent being.

It is certainly a reasonable position to take, but just because it is reasonable doesn't mean it is true. If a child who had only ever seen sponges his mother brought in the store went to the beach and saw a sponge in the water, it would be quite reasonable to conclude,from his life experience, that the sponge he was seeing was man-made. However, his life experience is limited, and in this case leads him to a wrong conclusion, because there is nothing inherent in the structure of a sponge that requires it to be man-made.

Likewise, man is limited. We have only every observed a miniscule portion of a single universe---which is certainly not enough to draw conclusions about universes in general and whether they must or must not have an intelligent creator.

I agree with you that our universe does have a creator. However, I think you are mistaken in the assertation that a Creator is the most rational explanation---it is certainly a rational explanation, but we simply don't have enough information to say that it is a more rational explanation than the atheistic belief. I believe God intended this---if belief in him was the most rational belief we could have, then how much faith is really exercised in believing him?

 

[Quath]

There is a thing called Borel's upper limit "which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10^50 ([i.e. 10 raised to the power 50] 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)"

The limitation is if you take into account the visible universe and just look at particle interactions. This should be taken as a rule of thumb for some applications, not as an absolute law. It is better to go back to the fundamental rules for that.

Quath

 

[cubedbee]

There is a thing called Borel's upper limit "which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10^50 ([i.e. 10 raised to the power 50] 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)"

Probabilities and Life is a non-mathematical text written for the layperson. There is no mathematical theory behind his assertion. Searching "Borel's upper limit" on google only gives creationists websites. None of the 3 probability books on my desk or the several mathematical website I know of make any reference to this or anything like it. Borel was a famous mathematician, and I can find many references to his work in algebra, but not a mention of this law. I haven't read his books, but I can almost guarantee you Borel presented this as a rule of thumb, not a law.

If it is presented as a law, then it is false. It contradicts the most basic probability: If the probability of an event occuring on a given day is p, then the probability of it not occuring is 1-p and the probability of it not occuring for x consecutive days is (1-p)^x. This is page one of a probability book.

Now, p is usually written as 1/n. There is an interesting property of probability that if the probability of something occuring in a given trial (day) is 1/n, then the probability of the event not occuring in n trials(days) approaches 1/e ~ 0.3679 as n become larger. You can try this yourself with a calculator (1 - 1/100)^100 = 0.3660, (1-1/1000)^1000 = 0.3677, (1-1/10,000)^10,000 = 0.3679. There is no limit on how big N can be---this is a mathetical law---if you'd like I can prove to you that no matter how big N is, when you compute (1-1/N)^N it is always really close to 0.3679.

So, make the probability as small as you want, it still can be written as 1/N, and if you look at N universes you only have a 36.79% chance of not seeing your improbable event, and a 63.21% chance of seeing it.

 

[PDoug]

Even if we were lop off the requirement that a language must have a purpose, we would still come back to the fact that the only phenomenon that is known to use language in nature is the intelligent creature called man. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that genetic code (with its language characteristics) was placed in all known life forms by an intelligent being.

It is certainly a reasonable position to take, but just because it is reasonable doesn't mean it is true. If a child who had only ever seen sponges his mother brought in the store went to the beach and saw a sponge in the water, it would be quite reasonable to conclude,from his life experience, that the sponge he was seeing was man-made. However, his life experience is limited, and in this case leads him to a wrong conclusion, because there is nothing inherent in the structure of a sponge that requires it to be man-made.

Likewise, man is limited. We have only every observed a miniscule portion of a single universe---which is certainly not enough to draw conclusions about universes in general and whether they must or must not have an intelligent creator.

I agree with you that our universe does have a creator. However, I think you are mistaken in the assertation that a Creator is the most rational explanation---it is certainly a rational explanation, but we simply don't have enough information to say that it is a more rational explanation than the atheistic belief. I believe God intended this---if belief in him was the most rational belief we could have, then how much faith is really exercised in believing him?

I don't believe the sponge anology is all that tight. I believe most small kids realize that the fruits their mothers bring home from the store have been prepared (not necessarily manufactured) by man. I believe many kids notice fruits on trees around them, and are able derive the correct conclusion that fruits are prepared, not manufactured by man. I believe likewise that it is not necessarily true that kids would conclude from seeing sponges being broght home from stores by their mothers, that sponges are manufactured by man - many kids could instead conclude that sponges may be prepared by man from those found in nature. Further, in the message that started this thread, I noted Romans 1:18-24 in which Paul indicated that God has given man enough faculties to realize that there is a God. (At the very least, God has given man enough faculties to suspect that there is a God.) The fact is, most of all this speculation about evolution is caused by the failure of men to have faith, and acknowledge God. Because if someone has faith correctly, then after a while he will be able to discern for himself (using highly rational means) that the universe was in fact created the way it was stated in the scriptures.

Do you think if Christ was around, He would not be able to confound scientists and philosopers through reasoning? Having faith correctly is not irrational. It is an act of trust that entails the belief that there is an invisible God and that the things He says are true. It is also a practice that you depend on to gain ever increasing intelligence. If people e.g. received instructions from someone of great stature in a foreign country (whom they never saw before), on how to plant apple seeds, and obtain the largest apple trees possible, would you consider these people to be irrational if they followed the person and his instructions? Why then would a reasonable person think it is irrational to follow God's instructions on how to have faith, and to trust that the exercise would lead to the things God promises that it would lead to. (Remember, having faith is the practice of asking God for things, and believing that you will receive them - Mark 11:22-24. You can read here for more information.)

Do you realize what mankind is? It is the fallen race of God. I'm not kidding. Adam was created as God (i.e. a member of the Godhead - Gospel Of Bartholomew 4:52-55), but he forfeited his position by eating the fruit he was told not to eat, and this threw all of mankind into a lowered sinful state of ignorance. That is why this thread is taking place, instead of all us being confident about how our universe came into being. That is also why when we have faith, we become the sons of God. In as much as an offspring of a dove is a dove, an offspring of an owl is an owl, a son of man is a man: a son of God is a god or God (John 10:34). We really are the lost race of God, who because of sin, have become blind and suffer. If you guys really want become very intelligent, and regain your positions with with God (which you lost because of Adam's and your own shortcomings) engage in the practice of having faith correctly. This is not a fairy tale. I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, and I'm not given to trivial ways of thinking. Having faith correctly really does work, and things really do happen to you in ways that are consistent with what are written in the scriptures - as a result of it.

 

[Sabazi]

The math however states that the above scenario is statistically impossible.

No, the math does no such thing. A statistical impossibility has a probability of zero. The above scenario has a very low, but non-zero probability. If there are enough universes (an infinite number), all of whose natural laws develop randomly, then any stasticically improbable series event that can happen, will happen. The low probability of a possible event cannot be used as proof against that event having occured.

There is a thing called Borel's upper limit "which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10^50 ([i.e. 10 raised to the power 50] 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)" The article that you are taken to by the link above, demonstrates in several ways, that even if you were try and examine 1 step in the evolutionary process (e.g. the creation of a protein molecule from amino acids), the probability of that step happening far exceeds the Borel's upper limit, and is therefore impossible to occur. Thefore when you compound this fact with all the considerations I previously stated, you see that mathematics effectively states that the notion of life coming about and evolving by chance, is impossible.

What is the probability of something evolving by chance?

 

[Quath]

What is the probability of something evolving by chance?

That is the tough question because it depends on a lot of stuff we know and stuff we do not know. For example, bubbles serve as a good cell wall if they are stable. Are there stable bubbles that occur naturally that would increase the probability? Do rock pores provite the same functionality? What is the smallest self-replicating molecule? What if two molecules formed that could copy each other?

No matter what assumption you come up with, you get a finite probability. So then it comes down to how big the universe is. If it is infinite, then the probability of life developing in a universe like this by chance is 100%.

Quath

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

As life on earth formed in the first few million years where it was even possible for life to exist at all, it is logical to assume that the probability is 1, where conditions are present.

 

[Drew]

As life on earth formed in the first few million years where it was even possible for life to exist at all, it is logical to assume that the probability is 1, where conditions are present.

Isn't this like saying on November 1, 2004 that the probability that the Red will win the World Series = 1?

You cannot argue that because "x" did indeed occur, that the a priori probability that "x" will occur = 1.

Perhaps I misunderstand you - Are you saying that if the "right conditions" are present, then the development of life is inevitable. This certainly could be the case - the right conditions might indeed effectively guarantee that life will arise. In such a case, however, it is entirely legitimate to ask: what is the probability that such conditions will arise in the first place?

 

[Sabazi]

As life on earth formed in the first few million years where it was even possible for life to exist at all, it is logical to assume that the probability is 1, where conditions are present.

Or at least close to 1, unless you add the possibility of a God.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

where conditions are present.

By this statement, I mean that, where there is the correct type of planet, one beneath the volitile "frost line," where water can exist in liquid form. Then life will most likely rise in some form, in most cases it would probably be a very small form. I was being a mite overdramatic, it's probably above the 90th percentile.

Another condition would be that there would have to be some constraint on all self-reproducing proteins from forming at all, as that is the only thing that might affect the condition.

 

[keebs]

I haven't read through the whole thread (I don't have that kind of attention span), but I do have one issue to address. People say that our universe is too finely tuned for life to be a result of mere chance. The problem with that, however, is that they are assuming that our universe is the only kind of universe that would allow life. That is a big assumption and misconception...as long as there is some kind of order and interaction amoung the constituents that exist in the universe then evolution is possible. We all came from tiny, non-living molecules (I just say non-living for those of you who actually believe things are alive...I certainly don't see any real differentiation between humans and any other "non-living" object besides the amount and type of information processed), and the way those molecules evolved were guided by the simple laws of nature. As long as those laws are orderly and allow the constituents the interact like molecules than evolution is possible (if not nearly inevitable, depending on the size of the universe we are discussing).

 

[Drew]

I certainly agree that "as long as there is some kind of order and interaction amoung the constituents that exist in the universe then evolution is possible". However, I think that the fact of the matter is that our universe had to be very finely tuned in order to give rise to any structure at all. In other words, without very special settings, no life of any conceivable kind would evolve in our universe (making the very reasonable assumption that life, no matter how exotic, at least requires the existence of structures).

I think that the concensus among the experts is that the "settings" of our universe had to be very carefully "picked" (I use this word guardedly) in order for our universe to have any hope of giving rise to life. Exactly what this does or does not imply about the notion of design seems to be the interesting question.

A related question that bears on this issue: Is it at least conceivable that universes could exist where "any old settings" (to exaggerate the point) would allow for the development of structure and / or life? This is probably an enormously difficult question to answer since it effectively requires us to conceive of a universe with radically different fundamental properties. It is not at all clear that we can even do this.....

 

[keebs]

However, I think that the fact of the matter is that our universe had to be very finely tuned in order to give rise to any structure at all.

How so? I can understand someone making the big mistake that I was talking about and saying that if there were infinitesimal changes to certain constants our universe wouldn't exist like it is now, life would be impossible, and thus we live in a finely tuned universe, but I don't understand how you can say that any order at all requires fine tuning. If that's true, then how has God been around so long? Ok, ok, I understand that "he's been around forever," but that still doesn't solve the problem of fine tuning. Did God have to fine tune himself? How so then? How would be able to exist to fine tune himself without the fine tuning? Are we supposed to accept that there is something that has been around longer than God (yes, there are different magnitudes of infinity...even if God has existed forever something could have existed longer) that fine tuned him? That just starts an ad infinitum problem (which, by the way, are logically faulty)...

 

[Drew]

Hello Keebs:

Needless to say, I cannot answer many of your questions (especially in the latter half of your post).

Just to clarify the whole business about fine tuning and order: It is my understanding that one of the key parameters associated with the early universe is the rate of expansion. Furthermore, I have read (think it was something by either Penrose or Hawking) that if the rate of this expansion were slower by even a teeny-tiny amount, then the Universe would have violently collapsed back onto itself. If the rate of this expansion were faster by even a teeny-tiny amount, the matter and energy in the universe would be forever dispersed into a kind of thin soup of non-interaction.

Either way, no ordered structures of any kind --> no life.

If I have these facts wrong, someone please clarify.

Those of you who know my position on this matter will know that I will not then simply state "It is therefore obvious that some intelligent agent (e.g. God) must have chosen this value". I happen to believe that this is indeed true but my belief is based on a combination of intuition and simple faith. Making a substantive argument for this position would involve a lot of work and research.

In this regard, I am often mystified when people come on this board and seem to claim that the answer is "obvious" - as if the rest of us simpletons cannot see what is plainly before our noses.

But I digress.....

The whole question of "where does God come from" or "how can we explain His existence" is a deep mystery (for those of us who believe in God's existence). It is not even clear to me how to express these questions, but yes, I agree there are enormous challenges no matter what position one takes on these issues. The existence and "settings" of God is as profound a mystery to me as I would think the simple fact of the existence of the Universe (in the absence of God) is for an atheist.

No matter which road one takes, it seems to end in a black wall of total, complete mystery.

 

[keebs]

Just to clarify the whole business about fine tuning and order: It is my understanding that one of the key parameters associated with the early universe is the rate of expansion. Furthermore, I have read (think it was something by either Penrose or Hawking) that if the rate of this expansion were slower by even a teeny-tiny amount, then the Universe would have violently collapsed back onto itself. If the rate of this expansion were faster by even a teeny-tiny amount, the matter and energy in the universe would be forever dispersed into a kind of thin soup of non-interaction.

You're assuming a universe like ours.