Are We Truly In The End Times?

[theseoafs]

At the end of the day, we should rule out single-universe atheism. The question remains, though, which is more plausible - multiple-universe atheism or theism.

Bingo.

[Ħ]

Glad someone gets it.

[eric42434224]

Dude, I don't know how you are disagreeing with me. I'm saying that if this universe was all there is, if this universe was a single attempt, then it would be vastly improbable that it would be life-permitting. I hate to talk down to you, but you are clearly not getting it. I am making a conditional statement. I am not actually claiming that the universe has only had one attempt.

Dude, I dont think a person who thinks the atom was the fundamental particle of nature and was indivisible can talk down to me.
You cant treat the set of attempts in the universe as one attempt.  It is a set of attempts, and therefore the probability goes up.
Its like saying Im going to treat the million times I flip the coin as 1 attempt.
The probability for the universe is not the same as its subsets of galaxys & solar systems.  The universe contains all of those sets of attempt and probabilites, and therefore its probability goes up from a one-off attempt. 

[Ħ]

You cant treat the set of attempts in the universe as one attempt.  It is a set of attempts, and therefore the probability goes up.
Its like saying Im going to treat the million times I flip the coin as 1 attempt.

You don't know that it was a set of attempts.

[eric42434224]

You cant treat the set of attempts in the universe as one attempt.  It is a set of attempts, and therefore the probability goes up.
Its like saying Im going to treat the million times I flip the coin as 1 attempt.

You don't know that it was a set of attempts.

Every solar system that came to be, when its star was born, has a chance to create the required scenario to support life.
There are Septillions of stars.
That is your set.

[Omega]

No, you are counting the universe as one attempt.  The universe contains Septillions of chances for the scenario to permit life.

What is in question isn't the amount of possible instances of life forming in the universe we observe; what is in question is the values of the universal forces and universal constants that allow for the formation of life in the first place.

[Ħ]

No, you are counting the universe as one attempt.  The universe contains Septillions of chances for the scenario to permit life.

What is in question isn't the amount of possible instances of life forming in the universe we observe; what is in question is the values of the universal forces and universal constants that allow for the formation of life in the first place.

^That. Well stated.

We aren't talking about life-permitting conditions such as the distance between a planet and a star. We're talking about the constants that affect the fundamental laws of physics, such as the gravitational constant, or the mass ratio between a proton and a neutron.

[eric42434224]

No, you are counting the universe as one attempt.  The universe contains Septillions of chances for the scenario to permit life.

What is in question isn't the amount of possible instances of life forming in the universe we observe; what is in question is the values of the universal forces and universal constants that allow for the formation of life in the first place.

Irrelevant to probability.  Even if I agree there is a god, and that he created the universal forces and constants that can "allow" for life to exist, that doesn't ensure life will or wont exist.  The universal constants are there, their origin doesnt change the probability.  The probabilities remain the same.

EDIT:  In fact, those very universal constants and forces can make life impossible under most circumstances.  Poor job of "fine-tuning" by an omnipotent being if the environment he creates is so immensly hostile and inefficient in creating life..

[Ħ]

I'm done. If anyone else has a good objection to my earlier post, bring it up and I'll respond later today or tomorrow.

[eric42434224]

I'm done. If anyone else has a good objection to my earlier post, bring it up and I'll respond later today or tomorrow.

I thought my objection was clear.  The probabilities of life emerging on our planet have a probability.  The probability that it happened in our solar system have a greater probability as there are more attempts (planets).  The probability increases as we go out to galaxies, and eventually to the totality of the universe.  If you want to treat the universe as one attempt, that is fine, but its probability of life emerging must include the increasing probability going from its most basic set of attempts.

[ariich]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

I think you're talking about different things here. For each individual trial, the odds are, as you say, exactly the same regardless of how many times it's been done. So the chances on the 5,000th try are the same as they were on the 1st try.

But the probably that it will occur SOMEWHERE in that run of attempts is considerably higher. To give a basic example - rolling a die five times.

First let's say we want the probability rolling a 1 every throw. The probability is 1/6 on each throw, or 16.7%. The probably of getting all five to be a 1 is therefore 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6. This is a probability of 0.0129%, tiny.

Now let's say we want the probability that a 1 will come up at least once AT SOME POINT. The easiest way is to consider the only alternative possibility (because all possibilities will add up to 100%) - this is that all five throws will not be a 1, i.e. it will never come up. This is 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 = 40.2%. Thus, the probability of a 1 coming up at some point is 59.8%, which is rather a lot higher than the 16.7% of an individual throw.

Hope that makes sense. Not even sure how it relates to the subject of this thread, but just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two different things!

[Omega]

Irrelevant to probability.  Even if I agree there is a god, and that he created the universal forces and constants that can "allow" for life to exist, that doesn't ensure life will or wont exist.  The universal constants are there, their origin doesnt change the probability.  The probabilities remain the same.

I have the distinct feeling that you have missed the point. The origin of these precise life permitting universal constants and universal forces which we observe is precisely what is in question.

EDIT:  In fact, those very universal constants and forces can make life impossible under most circumstances.

Precisely!

Poor job of "fine-tuning" by an omnipotent being if the environment he creates is so immensly hostile and inefficient in creating life..

Postulating to know the reasons why God may or may not permit multiple instances of life to form in the universe He created is exactly what would be considered as irrelevant to the conversation.

[gmillerdrake]

 
The disagreement that may be occuring is when the probability of all the factors aligning for the possibility of life occuring is so low on a one-off attempt....but it happened here!...but you are only focusing on one attempt, that will lead to the fine tuning opinion (not saying it is wrong), as your probability on one attempt for something so rare is astronomical.  But by adding the Septillions of attempts in the universe, as explained above, the probability increases to much more.

Considering the size of the universe, and the total lifespan of the universe (both prior to now, and yet to come), I'd say it's perfectly likely to happen somewhere at some time in some form by chance alone, so I agree. To think it proves "fine-tuning" shows a lack of scope imo.

I wish that I could recall the 'exact' name of the program I watched on the Science Channel so I could at least link it. I apologize that I can't. The episode was focused on a group of scientists who had constructed a machine that essentially 'mimmicked' the Big Bang. It was a very smart computer program that crunched all variables. These scientists freely admitted that in order for life to exist not only here on earth but universally the EXACT amount of certain things like nitrogen, helium....all the elements had to be PRECISE. Mere fractions of a degree over or under universally would negate life EVERYWHERE.....and these levels of all the elements universe wide was all 'decided' within macro seconds of the Big Bang...almost instantly.
   The intriguing thing to me about the entire program was the fact that the lead scientist stated that their computer modeling and simulation had ran mulitple millions individual 'big bangs'....allowing for endless possible 'outcomes' to see if they could re-create life or if life throughout our universe might be sustained outside of what they believed it could be. They NEVER created a situation where life could have the possibility of developing much less sustain itself...in countless millions of attempts. The scientist admitted that the unique elemental make up of our universe and the sensitive and precise nature of their arrangement allows for life to exist. And in the line that sticks with me to this day a (what appeared to be) distinguished and very intelligent scientist described this fact in a very odd manner....he used the line "Lucky for Us that our Big Bang turned out the way it did". Lucky for us? That's the huge scientific revelation after this extensive study....."Lucky for Us" Yeah Bud.....Lucky for Us...it was all "Luck"

[eric42434224]

Exactly.  Which is why H cant treat the probability of the universe having life as one attempt, the same as our solar system being one attempt.  The universe contains subsets of attempts, and its probability will me much higher.
Probability of life on Earth:  Astronomically small
Probability of life in universe:  Earths probability attempted 6 Septillion times.  Much higher probability.
H wants to treat the univers as one attempt, fine....but the probability is not going to be the Astronomically Small he thinks it is.

[eric42434224]

Irrelevant to probability.  Even if I agree there is a god, and that he created the universal forces and constants that can "allow" for life to exist, that doesn't ensure life will or wont exist.  The universal constants are there, their origin doesnt change the probability.  The probabilities remain the same.

I have the distinct feeling that you have missed the point. The origin of these precise life permitting universal constants and universal forces which we observe is precisely what is in question.

EDIT:  In fact, those very universal constants and forces can make life impossible under most circumstances.

Precisely!

Poor job of "fine-tuning" by an omnipotent being if the environment he creates is so immensly hostile and inefficient in creating life..

Postulating to know the reasons why God may or may not permit multiple instances of life to form in the universe He created is exactly what would be considered as irrelevant to the conversation.

Nope, that is a tangent you are off on, and it does not affect the statistical probability.  Its like with Evolution.  Its there, and there are statistical probabilities it will happen, and happen in certain ways.  You want to bring abiogenesis into the discussion.
We arent saying god did OR didnt put the puzzle pieces on the board.  We arent saying anything about the existence or origin of the pieces.  That is your issue.  We are saying that it is perfectly reasonable for some of those pieces to come together without the interference of god, and that it is completely possible to be random in nature.  If you want to say that is what god wanted all along, that is fine and you are entitled to your opinion.  We are simply saying we dont need god to show that life can randomly arise from puzzle pieces available and under no control.   

EDIT:  I think that it is entirely possible that, in respects to life arising in the universe, god was only involved as far as emptying out a 1,000,000 peice puzzle box on a table, and then a retarded monkey sits down, and randomly plays with the pieces.  Statistically he will get some to fit.

[Scheavo]

At the end of the day, we should rule out single-universe atheism. The question remains, though, which is more plausible - multiple-universe atheism or theism.

Bingo.

And given human knowledge, both are equally plausible. I see no reason why God is any more a likely reason than multiverses, as both are basically beyond the possibility for us to know.

[Omega]

You are making unnecessary distinctions with the solar system, Eric. Either a universe is life permitting or it is not. It doesn't matter if life could only be found on only one planet or in trillions. The parameters that universal constants and universal forces must meet to allow for the formation of life are incomprehensibly narrow. What is in question is what gave rise to the these life permitting constants and universal forces that fall into the incomprehensively narrow set of possibilities to allow for the formation of life, not to mention the very origin (as distinguished apart from explaining their mere value) of the very fundamental constants, forces and laws themselves.

[eric42434224]

You are making unnecessary distinctions with the solar system, Eric. Either a universe is life permitting or it is not. It doesn't matter if life could only be found on only one planet or in trillions. The parameters that universal constants and universal forces must meet to allow for the formation of life are incomprehensibly narrow. What is in question is what gave rise to the these life permitting constants and universal forces that fall into the incomprehensively narrow set of possibilities to allow for the formation of life, not to mention the very origin (as distinguished apart from explaining their mere value) of the very fundamental constants, forces and laws themselves.

The universe is either life permitting or not.  Correct.  After I flip a coin a million times, I will get heads or not.  Whats your point?

The parameters exist in each of the Septillion solar system attempts, making the probability for life in the universe greater.
The parameters in each of the million coin flips exist, making the probabilities of the one "event" (the million flips) greater.
"
What gave rise to these parameters is not the question here.  It is a question that you have inserted into the existing discussion.

If God picked the four forces necessary for the universe to work, and for life to be possible, it is not necessary for him to finely tune the forces to have life actually emerge. 



EDIT:  Think of it this way:

god was only involved as far as emptying out a 1,000,000 peice puzzle box on a table.  Some of these pieces have the ability, when put together properly, to fit and make part of a picture......like your forces and matter to create some type of life.  And then a retarded monkey sits down, and randomly plays with the pieces.  Statistically he will get some to fit.

[Scheavo]

If God picked the four forces necessary for the universe to work, and for life to be possible, it is not necessary for him to finely tune the forces to have life actually emerge. 

As much as it pains me to say this, Omega's more right on this issue.

[eric42434224]

If God picked the four forces necessary for the universe to work, and for life to be possible, it is not necessary for him to finely tune the forces to have life actually emerge. 

As much as it pains me to say this, Omega's more right on this issue.

I am willing to accept that if you can show me why.

[Scheavo]

If God picked the four forces necessary for the universe to work, and for life to be possible, it is not necessary for him to finely tune the forces to have life actually emerge. 

As much as it pains me to say this, Omega's more right on this issue.

I am willing to accept that if you can show me why.

Go watch that video I linked to earlier, it deals with one constant that, if changed, would mean matter, galaxies and solar systems wouldn't form. They'd literally be pushed apart, and gravity wouldn't be strong enough to compensate.

[eric42434224]

If God picked the four forces necessary for the universe to work, and for life to be possible, it is not necessary for him to finely tune the forces to have life actually emerge. 

As much as it pains me to say this, Omega's more right on this issue.

I am willing to accept that if you can show me why.

Go watch that video I linked to earlier, it deals with one constant that, if changed, would mean matter, galaxies and solar systems wouldn't form. They'd literally be pushed apart, and gravity wouldn't be strong enough to compensate.

Im not disputing that.  I am saying that once those constants are in place, the scenario of them coming together in a way to allow for life doesnt need fine tuning or involvement from god.  Those constants dont have to cause life, but can by random.

EDIT:
So maybe macro fine tuning, and micro random? 

[ariich]

Thing is, I've heard that as an argument for the existence of a divine creator many times, but I think that link is a matter of faith and not fact.

If the constant had been different, we wouldn't be here to question it, or understand it. There's nothing to say that there couldn't be a trillion other existences out there with big empty universes because those variables were different, or even ones where universes never even formed because other variables were even more out.

[eric42434224]

Thing is, I've heard that as an argument for the existence of a divine creator many times, but I think that link is a matter of faith and not fact.

If the constant had been different, we wouldn't be here to question it, or understand it. There's nothing to say that there couldn't be a trillion other existences out there with big empty universes because those variables were different, or even ones where universes never even formed because other variables were even more out.

Or universes that DO have life using all together different constants in differing configurations.  To say that the existing constants of our universe, in the existing configuration, is the only possible way to allow for life is a bit premature to say the least.  A God should be able to create laws and constants and scenarios that we could never imagine.  The scenario that exists in our universe could be the result of a random paring of random constants in a random configuration.  Did god create it?  Maybe, but it could have been by chance.

[Ħ]

At the end of the day, we should rule out single-universe atheism. The question remains, though, which is more plausible - multiple-universe atheism or theism.

Bingo.

And given human knowledge, both are equally plausible. I see no reason why God is any more a likely reason than multiverses, as both are basically beyond the possibility for us to know.

Given the evidence of fine-tuning alone, an intellectually responsible person should not decide between either an atheistic multiuniverse hypothesis and theism. He should then acquire additional evidence to decide between the two - the existence of evil, for instance, to support multiuniverse atheism. Or the existence of morality to support theism. Or personal experience. And so on.

[theseoafs]

At the end of the day, we should rule out single-universe atheism. The question remains, though, which is more plausible - multiple-universe atheism or theism.

Bingo.

And given human knowledge, both are equally plausible. I see no reason why God is any more a likely reason than multiverses, as both are basically beyond the possibility for us to know.

Wouldn't go that far.

[bosk1]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

I think you're talking about different things here. For each individual trial, the odds are, as you say, exactly the same regardless of how many times it's been done. So the chances on the 5,000th try are the same as they were on the 1st try.

But the probably that it will occur SOMEWHERE in that run of attempts is considerably higher. To give a basic example - rolling a die five times.

First let's say we want the probability rolling a 1 every throw. The probability is 1/6 on each throw, or 16.7%. The probably of getting all five to be a 1 is therefore 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6. This is a probability of 0.0129%, tiny.

Now let's say we want the probability that a 1 will come up at least once AT SOME POINT. The easiest way is to consider the only alternative possibility (because all possibilities will add up to 100%) - this is that all five throws will not be a 1, i.e. it will never come up. This is 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 = 40.2%. Thus, the probability of a 1 coming up at some point is 59.8%, which is rather a lot higher than the 16.7% of an individual throw.

Hope that makes sense. Not even sure how it relates to the subject of this thread, but just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two different things!

I know that, but Eric, GP, and Mr. Seoafs are conflating the two as if they are the same thing.

[ariich]

Also, I disagree with Hayden's assertion that single-universe could be ruled out. For a start, being very unlikely does not make something impossible. And even within the realm of very unlikely, we still don't understand the nature of time. What was before what we think of as the start of our universe? Is time infinite? If time is infinite, then it's just as plausible that what we think of as constants will change and have every possible configuration throughout eternity.

It's just as plausible as theism or multi-universe atheism.

I do, however, agree that each individual will make a choice (or indeed choose not to do so, like myself) based on their own experiences, beliefs, etc.

[ariich]

I know that, but Eric, GP, and Mr. Seoafs are conflating the two as if they are the same thing.

I think they may have not worded it clearly enough, but in the context of this discussion, I'm fairly sure they were trying to get that point across: i.e. if there are infinite possibilities across the universe/multiverse, then it becomes a certainty that every possibility will be played out, including sentient life.

[eric42434224]

No, GP is correct.  The odds of one trial do not change, but the number of trials does.

Well, not sure what I can say if that's what you guys think is correct.  But I did some quick google research to make sure they didn't change how math is done since back in the day when I took probability and statistics, and that research confirmed that I am mathematically correct.  So, okay, I guess that's about as far as we can go in this discussion.

I think you're talking about different things here. For each individual trial, the odds are, as you say, exactly the same regardless of how many times it's been done. So the chances on the 5,000th try are the same as they were on the 1st try.

But the probably that it will occur SOMEWHERE in that run of attempts is considerably higher. To give a basic example - rolling a die five times.

First let's say we want the probability rolling a 1 every throw. The probability is 1/6 on each throw, or 16.7%. The probably of getting all five to be a 1 is therefore 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6. This is a probability of 0.0129%, tiny.

Now let's say we want the probability that a 1 will come up at least once AT SOME POINT. The easiest way is to consider the only alternative possibility (because all possibilities will add up to 100%) - this is that all five throws will not be a 1, i.e. it will never come up. This is 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 = 40.2%. Thus, the probability of a 1 coming up at some point is 59.8%, which is rather a lot higher than the 16.7% of an individual throw.

Hope that makes sense. Not even sure how it relates to the subject of this thread, but just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two different things!

I know that, but Eric, GP, and Mr. Seoafs are conflating the two as if they are the same thing.

They are the same thing.  Both Statistical probability.  One has one attempt, the other has multiple attempts.

You were, as we said, correct, when looking at only one instance.  But since there are more instances taking place, you look at the probability of the instances as a whole, which will have a higher probability.

They are not different.  They are the same statistical probabilities, just for a differeing set of attempts.

[Ħ]

Also, I disagree with Hayden's assertion that single-universe could be ruled out. For a start, being very unlikely does not make something impossible. And even within the realm of very unlikely, we still don't understand the nature of time. What was before what we think of as the start of our universe? Is time infinite? If time is infinite, then it's just as plausible that what we think of as constants will change and have every possible configuration throughout eternity.

It's just as plausible as theism or multi-universe atheism.

I do, however, agree that each individual will make a choice (or indeed choose not to do so, like myself) based on their own experiences, beliefs, etc.

Modern science says the time our universe has existed is finite, so I just took it for granted that this single universe has only existed for a certain amount of time. But you are correct that if time is infinite, we would expect to see life (i.e. success in our cosmic dice roll) at some point. I just think that the "time is infinite" approach only works with a multiple-universe hypothesis.

Not sure if this was made clear before, but I take an oscillating universe to be a potential model in the "multiple universe" hypothesis, where constants have been "reset" every oscillation period.

[theseoafs]

I know that, but Eric, GP, and Mr. Seoafs are conflating the two as if they are the same thing.

We were not.

[ariich]

Well actually, modern science does not say anything about time being finite, as far as I'm aware, only that the big bang happened at a defined point, and that it is considered the start of our universe. Of course, nobody knows what existed before that, but personally I'm interested in the fact that since the very first nanosecond of the big bang, there has been a fixed amount of mass/energy in the universe - never increasing or decreasing. So either existence has always been there in some form, possibly with the oscillating universe idea you mentioned, or that that energy/mass was created by a divine creator, to start things off in the first place.

It's something we can't possible know and never will know, I just find it interesting.

And yeah, I think I understand you now - if we talk about anything outside of what we think of as our universe, whether that is in time or space or any other dimensions that might exist, then you'd call that multiverse. And by that definition, I'd broadly agree that it is by far the least likely. But as I said, it still doesn't make it impossible, and so still can't be written off.

[Ħ]

Well actually, modern science does not say anything about time being finite, as far as I'm aware, only that the big bang happened at a defined point, and that it is considered the start of our universe. Of course, nobody knows what existed before that, but personally I'm interested in the fact that since the very first nanosecond of the big bang, there has been a fixed amount of mass/energy in the universe - never increasing or decreasing. So either existence has always been there in some form, possibly with the oscillating universe idea you mentioned, or that that energy/mass was created by a divine creator, to start things off in the first place.

It's something we can't possible know and never will know, I just find it interesting.

And yeah, I think I understand you now - if we talk about anything outside of what we think of as our universe, whether that is in time or space or any other dimensions that might exist, then you'd call that multiverse. And by that definition, I'd broadly agree that it is by far the least likely. But as I said, it still doesn't make it impossible, and so still can't be written off.

I think I agree with you, mostly.

When I said "time is finite", I meant past time, or previous constant-determining dice rolls to think of it another way.

I just want to be careful that I don't use the term "multiple-universe hypothesis" to only refer to a multiverse. I'm using it in a way that also refers to a single oscillating universe. But I think you picked up on that.

What I think is unlikely is a single universe that has only had one dice roll to determine its constants, and that those constants happened to permit life. It sounds like you are on board with that idea?

[ariich]

Indeed, I'm merely explaining that extremely likely does not equal impossible.

Even if it were only the one cosmic dice roll, and a failure would have meant no existence whatsoever, then it would still have been possible to end up the way we have. And indeed, if it had failed, there would never have been sentient life to have this discussion in the first place.