|
|
#41
03-09-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing I see in the fundamental laws of physics that is logically self-compelling. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. And that is my problem when I look at his original post. When David says: [ QUOTE ] More troubling to me though is the complexity of subatomic particles. The chemistry and especially the Newtonian physics I learned was pure logic. All of Newton's laws can be derived from thought experiments and can be reduced to obvious common sense. Even though most people don't realize that. If E is defined as force times distance, then E=1/2 mv squared. There are no alternatives. But the actual universe is apparantly not like that. The way it is and the stuff in it could in fact be other ways. In other words I don't believe that pure logic allows you to deduce that there will be three types of mesons or whatever. [/ QUOTE ] Newtonian physics isn't pure logic. A deaf, dumb and blind kid couldn't deduce Newtonian physics. With a few assumptions, like F=ma, he could. And, likewise, with the proper starting assumptions one could deduce QM and GR. It depends on how one views common sense. If common sense is entirely dependent on our everyday 3-dimensional perception, then yes, Newtonian mechanics reduces to common sense and QM and GR would not. But if common sense constitutes our empirical evidence as a whole, QM and GR are common sense and Newtonian mechanics is not. Pure logic allows you to deduce mesons, if you assume certain commutation relations and gauge symmetries. Maybe these assumptions are non-trivial, but, truly, is F=ma trivial? [ QUOTE ] So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life (an important point to refute the anthropic argument) the fact that this one exists argues for some sort of original design. [/ QUOTE ] Too many unknowns for me here to support this quote. QM and GR are essential for the evolution of the universe as we know it. Without QM there would be no galaxies, stars and planets. No life. I can't be certain here, but I would say that an entirely Newtonian universe WITH Big Bang cannot provide life, since it would be entirely homogeneous. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I'm not too convinced that there are simpler universes that support consious life. I feel that our universe is beautifully simplistic in many ways. I just can't see how David's quote "argues for some sort of original design". 
|
|
#42
03-09-2007, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
[ QUOTE ]
Newtonian physics isn't pure logic. A deaf, dumb and blind kid couldn't deduce Newtonian physics. With a few assumptions, like F=ma, he could. And, likewise, with the proper starting assumptions one could deduce QM and GR. It depends on how one views common sense. If common sense is entirely dependent on our everyday 3-dimensional perception, then yes, Newtonian mechanics reduces to common sense and QM and GR would not. But if common sense constitutes our empirical evidence as a whole, QM and GR are common sense and Newtonian mechanics is not. Pure logic allows you to deduce mesons, if you assume certain commutation relations and gauge symmetries. Maybe these assumptions are non-trivial, but, truly, is F=ma trivial? [ QUOTE ] So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life (an important point to refute the anthropic argument) the fact that this one exists argues for some sort of original design. [/ QUOTE ] Too many unknowns for me here to support this quote. QM and GR are essential for the evolution of the universe as we know it. Without QM there would be no galaxies, stars and planets. No life. I can't be certain here, but I would say that an entirely Newtonian universe WITH Big Bang cannot provide life, since it would be entirely homogeneous. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I'm not too convinced that there are simpler universes that support consious life. I feel that our universe is beautifully simplistic in many ways. I just can't see how David's quote "argues for some sort of original design". [/ QUOTE ] Well you are refuting my physics rather than my philosophy. If in fact it is true that intelligent life needs a universe with 100 different subatomic particles then I'm wrong. Especially if all those particles follow logically from simple assumptions. But I can't believe those who are claiming that lack of simplicity is evidence AGAINST a designer. Especially a designer who might be considered a moron, among his peers in another dimension. PS I find it interesting that all of those who are joining in this discussion are atheists. I guess theists are too scared to weigh in on my other point. Which is that even if there was a designer, he designed things such that he never has to pay attention to us again.
|
|
#43
03-09-2007, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
[ QUOTE ]
So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life (an important point to refute the anthropic argument) the fact that this one exists argues for some sort of original design. [/ QUOTE ] why not the reverse argument that if it were designed to support life we would expect it to be the simplest one that can do the job (also seems wrong to me but if there were many universes then you might expect life in all capable of supporting it, not just the minimal ones) There seem good reasons for doubting this universe is all there is but I can't see the leap to deism. If we accept your premise that the whole must be logically minimal and that doesn't require desim, then our universe could just be an unspecial detail within that whole. chez
|
|
#44
03-09-2007, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
I think things like fractal geometry and strange attractors argues fo my viewpoint.
|
|
#45
03-09-2007, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
[ QUOTE ]
I think things like fractal geometry and strange attractors argues fo my viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ] In what way? chez
|
|
#46
03-09-2007, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
I know I'm being vague here but it seems to me that random processes either fly off into irrelevant chaos or coalesc into stuff that is is deep but simple.
|
|
#47
03-09-2007, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
This is a poor post because of this quote
" Even though most people don't realize that. If E is defined as force times distance, then E=1/2 mv squared. There are no alternatives. But the actual universe is apparantly not like that. The way it is and the stuff in it could in fact be other ways. In other words I don't believe that pure logic allows you to deduce that there will be three types of mesons or whatever. " you are wrong. Energy conservation is correct.
|
|
#48
03-09-2007, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
[ QUOTE ]
I know I'm being vague here but it seems to me that random processes either fly off into irrelevant chaos or coalesc into stuff that is is deep but simple. [/ QUOTE ] So chaos never coalesces into stuff that's shallow but simple? Or deep and complex?
|
|
#49
03-09-2007, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
[ QUOTE ]
If in fact it is true that intelligent life needs a universe with 100 different subatomic particles then I'm wrong. [/ QUOTE ]Why would intelligent life need in order to exist a universe with "100 different subatomic particles" ? We might not know how to create intelligence but we do know that, most probably, the process of intelligence (at least, at the human level, and not at a kinda "Solaris", cosmic level) takes place in our three-dimensional, macroscopic world; looks rather like a process of electricity and chemistry instead of quantum physics.
|
|
#50
03-09-2007, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
"Why would intelligent life need in order to exist a universe with "100 different subatomic particles" ?
We might not know how to create intelligence but we do know that, most probably, the process of intelligence (at least, at the human level, and not at a kinda "Solaris", cosmic level) takes place in our three-dimensional, macroscopic world; looks rather like a process of electricity and chemistry instead of quantum physics." Mickey, your post is making my case. I'm saying that those who argue that my amazement at 3 mesons is silly because without them I wouldn't be here, are probably wrong. Put another way, as a present to Not Ready, Dawkins seems wrong when he says our universe is just about the way one would expect if there is no God. We might expect fishes first and then donkeys, but no one has shown why we should expect lots of different neutrinos.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
