The Un-Random Universe
According to the Poisson process( a standard mathematical model for counts which presumes a certain fixed rate at which observations/processes appear on average and otherwise they are random) with a long-run fixed average of one observation/process per 24 hours, the chances/probability (thus random) of seeing 6 or more similar/identical observations/process in a 24 hour window is 22%. This was the conclusion of Persi Diaconis, a Professor of Statistics and Mathematics at Stanford University.
Assuming that the professor is on target with the calculation, could we then logically or validly apply this formula to the process of the creation of the universe, which as some empiricists-atheists suggest is pure unadulterated random event.
I don't know about you, but if we go by probabilities alone, I'd take my chances( no pun intended) with the fixed rate, i.e that the creation of the universe and the intelligent life on it was not random.... thus pre-planned (by a Creator=God) down to its last perplexities and complexities.Are you assuming that anything with a fixed rate (radioactive emissions, maybe) or not random is the result of an intelligent creator? Why? Are you claiming that nothing happening at regular intervals is natural? Things like the blast of radiation periodically seen from a pulsar has to be planned by a creator instead of being the result of rotation?
@Wilderness: Some empiricists (but never atheists) have long understood that there are hidden aims or intentions that explain everything perfectly well, and so no need to resort to the concept of chance (randomness). Victoria Stodden (assistant professor of statistics at Columbia University) says as much, in her Essay titled: Fact, Fiction, and our Probabilistic World.
Stodden related the story of the English mathematician Karl Pearson who brought a statistical revolution in scientific thinking, in which Pearson suggested that NATURE presents data from an unknown distribution but with some RANDOM scatter; in other words NOT PURELY RANDOM.It's nice that you're looking a math, but to use it to somehow justify your irrational religious beliefs is not very sound. Try physics, instead. That's how these things are observed.
It is nice that you (and other theists) can make up pretend "aims or intentions" to explain things. It is even nicer that you can dedicate your life to believing and living them.
For the rest of us, though, we prefer reality rather than living a dream or myth. ATM is right - try using physics to find those "aims or intentions" and suddenly they aren't there. Only in human imagination do we find such things.@wilderness:
Physics takes a back seat to mathematics when it comes to understanding the intricacies of a non-random universe. Granted that physics deals with the sub-atomic/atomic structures on their own, it is mathemartics that explains how those structures function.Hmm. Observation, testing and experimentation (Physics, in other words) takes a back seat to theoretical mathematics.
I do think I'll have to pass on that - even the concept of a changing time could not be totally accepted until observation/experimentation proved it true. But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with making up pretend "aims or intentions" (along with an undetected intelligence for them) to explain the universe. Can you elucidate here?The creation of the Universe and all the living entities(sentient/non-sentient) in it, is either random or non-random. Atheists argue that it was all random, from the Big Bang when time (as we know or interpret it) started and space expanded rapidly from a "point", the nature of which scientific/empirical formulation is vague about. Mathematically, as per Prof. Stodden's calculation, randomness in nature do occur but only 22% of the time. I am assuming that her calculation is empirically provable, so the probability that the Universe was created randomly (1/4) is very much less than the probability that it was created non-randomly, i.e purposely(3/4). Given that formulation, I'd go with the idea that indeed the creation was purposeful. Since we do not assign or expect aim or intention coming from a non-sentient entity, I would then conclude that there was intent and aim to the creation of the universe... one that can only come from an entity most people would label "GOD".
Where in the world do you get the idea that atheists claim that the big bang was random? From some theist trying to "prove" otherwise?
No one knows if there was a cause for the big bang or not, or whether it was random or not. No one knows if there was a god involved or not and certainly no self respecting atheist would ever claim otherwise.
Random or not, though, the big bang did not necessarily have an intelligence behind it. Non-random events happen all the time without an intelligence; the pine cone falling off the tree or the rock rolling down the mountainside are two such events.
I see that you are equating "random" with no intelligence and "non-random" with a requirement for intelligence. Those words are not the same and do not mean the same thing: if your Prof. Diaconis is also using them that way Prof Diaconis is an idiot. IF. Because events happen all day long without having an intelligence beyond that of a microbe behind them.@ wilderness:
You might want to check the multiple permutations synonym-wise of random in Roget's International Thesaurus. You might be surprised to find out that random is synonymous with purposelessness, causelessness, aimlessness, designlessness. all of which we associate with non-sentience. Thus non-random means the opposite of all the synonyms of random mentioned above....all of which involves sentience.
The idea that the Big Bang and the ultimate creation of life in the universe (or on earth specifically) is a random event came from all of the posts that atheist have made on various forums on HubPages.... and for you to deny that atheists have neither implied nor overtly stated that the creation of the universe is random... is again obfuscation of the highest order.
Now about that falling pine cone and rolling rock....obviously these events are just following the Laws of Physics, laws which humans neither invented nor promulgated. The Laws of Physics were purposely designed and implemented by whoever created the Universe (call Him God) so that the universe in its infancy, adolescence, adulthood and old age could and would exist for sentient beings to explore.You're right - "random" carries a large number of differing definitions. Very few of which are used in the study of physics, and those few do NOT include the concept that "random" means "without intelligence".
If you have found atheists anywhere willing to state the big bang had no cause, all I can say is that you really need to listen to someone else. While most (all?) atheists will tell you there is no need for a cause (random) not a one worthy of the label will tell you there was NO cause. Just as no Christian worthy of being considered rational will tell you there WAS a cause - that it was non-random (intelligence designed). We don't know.
As is so common in religious debates about science, a theist is trying to use semantics, changing the definition of a word midstream, to "prove" a god. Hasn't worked for thousands of years, and doesn't work now. You don't know the laws were created by an intelligence and don't have the slightest evidence of such in spite of deciding that "random" has something to do with intelligence in the world of physics. And CERTAINLY you have no idea whatsoever of what that hypothetical god's intentions or reasons were for creating our universe. If it exists at all (unknown) that creation may have meant no more to it than a burst of methane from the south end of a cow headed north does to the cow. It may have entirely accidental, it may have been on a bet, it may have been a grade school science experiment and it may have been to satisfy an enemy by giving that enemy the human race.
Going clear back to the OP and the Poisson process, it concerns counting and has nothing to do with intelligence. Even such things as counting telephone calls (an example) assumes that it is completely statistical and not affected by intelligence. In fact, when intelligence enters the world of statistics and probabilities, in a manner that affects the results, those stats or probabilities suddenly become worthless. As worthless as suddenly deciding that the Poisson Process proves there is a god that created the universe by modifying the meaning of the word "random" from indicating an unknowable probability to meaning intelligence caused. Both may be, and are, acceptable meanings in the proper context, but probability studies or the laws of physics are not the proper context at all.@Wilderness:
Events, be that as non-earth shattering as "farting while asleep" ( as another non-believer psycheskinner so succinctly put it in another forum)) or as cosmologically game changing as the Big Bang are always caused by someone or something. For you to say that atheists believe that there was NO NEED for a cause for the Big Bang, is illogical, for in my logical mind, NO NEED for a cause is the same as saying... there was no cause.
To say it bluntly I am a Christian who is at the same time, rational... and I'm telling you now, there was a cause to the Big Bang. Since our mathematician professor indicated that the chances of a random event (purposeless, aimless, designless ) occurring in nature is only 22%, then I would go for the 78% non-random event ( aimed and designed for a purpose or meaning) as a plausible cause/explanation for the Big Bang.
Now I never inferred or suggested that the two professors I mentioned in my other posts have connected their empirical calculation to the existence of God or that God initiated the Big Bang. I am merely extrapolating their scenario to the plausibility that a sentient entity created the cosmos, for the purpose of sharing that creation with sentient beings capable of exploring and divining His creation. In other words... a non-random event."Events, be that as non-earth shattering as "farting while asleep" ( as another non-believer psycheskinner so succinctly put it in another forum)) or as cosmologically game changing as the Big Bang are always caused by someone or something."
Well, now, therein perhaps lays the biggest problem of all. You are more than willing to make a statement, claiming it is fact, without the tiniest shred of proof that it has any truth in it.
Now I cannot help it if you think that "There was no need for a cause for the big bang" equals "There was no cause for the big bang". The two statements are plainly very different and plainly say different things. When you then state that you are rational, after stating there is a god that created everything because...because you want there to be, followed by an inability to see the difference between "maybe" and "positively", I just don't have much more to say. There is zero rationality in anything you've posted in this thread, from "non-random" = "intelligent cause" right up to "no need" = "no cause". When you once more try the semantics game, changing the meaning of words mid-discussion, it doesn't help.
If you are not extrapolating the statements of the two professors to include a god, then you are most definitely committing a logical fault, intentionally, by again playing games with word meanings. There is exactly zero logical reasoning involved in declaring that a 22% chance of an event being "random" (probability unknowable) means a god made the universe because it leaves a 78% chance of the event being non-random (caused by intelligence). Playing word games, again, does nothing but ruin what little argument you ever had. And no, you cannot claim that the mathematics shows a 22% chance of creation being random (no intelligence involved); it does nothing of the sort. Only after you play word games can the statement be made, but mathematically it does not follow and cannot be shown by the Poisson Process.@Wilderness: "No need for a cause for the big bang" can linearly be followed to it's logical conclusion i.e if there was not a need for something to happen, then it should not happen, but the Big Bang did happen, so something/someone had the need to cause it to happen.
What you may consider random events are truly not random at all because from my perspective, when it comes to intelligent/sentient beings, randomness are never part of their activities of daily living.
Would a random event (as atheists claim the Big Bang is) really and truly lead to the formation of sentient/intelligent beings when randomness is never part of their cerebral functioning and equation? I doubt it very much.When your argument includes using the conclusion to prove the conclusion it is called a "circular" fallacy.
Claiming that something should not happen because there was not a cause for it to happen pre-supposes that everything needs a cause, and is an excellent example of such circular reasoning. Try again.
Unfortunately, your perspective and mine are the same. We have similar eyes, the only difference is that you will say almost anything to try and prove your god is out there - something I will not do. You may "doubt" that a random event can produce intelligence all you wish, but have produced exactly zero evidence to support it, either factually or logically. Your opinion that it can't is thus worthless without any evidence.
@wilderness:
The Anthropic Principle is neither fallacious nor circular.
The Anthropic Principle, if you must know, is one of the most introspectively interesting scientific formulation that has resulted from what you dismissively labeled "philosophic/religious musings"
The astrophysicist Dr. Brandon Carter first introduced the term in an article titled: "Large Number coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology" in which he posited that the conditions that we observe in the Universe must include those necessary to give rise to intelligent life, or else we would not be here to observe them. Stephen Hawkings added his take on the Anthropic Principle by stating: "We see the Universe the way it is because we exist. The idea that there are certain conditions which are necessary for the development of intelligent life... conditions that could be taken as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle."The Anthropic Principle, if you must know, is one of the most introspectively interesting scientific formulation that has resulted from what you dismissively labeled "philosophic/religious musings"
No, the Anthropic Principle, if you must know, "(from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it."(bolding added) {Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle}
Do you see that little philosophical consideration part? The words that deny this tremendous "principle" is a "scientific formulation" at all? Circular or not, it has nothing to do with science, only with pretend observations of the world around us that are supposed to match up with consciousness.
Now, Carter and Hawking are smart enough to state that the conditions of the universe, seen or not, must be such as to enable intelligent life - this is a self supporting statement as it is made by that self same intelligent life. What NEITHER has said is that an intelligence was necessary to design those conditions, something you have steadfastly claimed despite being completely unable to offer any observations of it or any reason for it.
@wilderness: If you must know, the Strong Anthropic Principle as posited by Dr. Carter is this: "The universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage....which as interpreted by most empiricist, means that the universe must be nearly as we know it, or life could not exist; thus if life did not exist, neither, then, would the universe"
Again to quote Stephen Hawkings (an empiricist of the highest order: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron, and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron". ( So it seems Mr. Tegmark's math idea of a universe has validity). S. Hawkings continues: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron has been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. Thus it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to Universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one wonder at that beauty."But what in the world does that have to do with requiring an intelligent designer? That the universe DOES contain intelligent observers is reason enough to accept the statement that "the universe must be able to produce an intelligent observer", but say's NOTHING about how it got that way, whether by random action or by intelligent interference.
It doesn't even say that another universe could exist that produces intelligent life, but life totally and completely different that ours. Or that there could be a billion such universes, all completely different. It doesn't even say that something in the nature of the big bang forces a universe that can produce life, with or without an intelligent designer.
Even Hawkings, as much as I admire the man, seems to be stating that ONLY life as we know it can produce intelligence and I would disagree heartily at that, as will you (your god is not life at all similar to us, after all).
@wilderness:
Dr. Carter is first and foremost an empiricist... so his formulation of the Anthropic principle must have been derived from that perspective. Now it does not mean that he could not be a philosopher too. The philosophic underpinning of the Anthropic Principle goes back to Plato... so I would consider the Anthropic Principle more in the framework of science.... much less of philosophy.You are once more making assumptions without any indication they are true. You cannot say that Carter is primarily an empiricist (even if true) and therefore anything he says comes from that basis.
Nor can you make up your own definitions and requirements for words, doubly so in the world of science. You are stuck with what the definitions already are, and the definition of the Anthropic principle has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
But all that is irrelevant, unless I'm badly missing some major points here. I thought all this was pointing to the necessity for a god to have created the universe, and every time I question that you simply ignore and take off on a tangent that has nothing to do with a god. Have you changed the subject away from the necessity of a god while my head was turned, or is that still the topic? And if so, how does a philosophical OR theological determination indicate that such a thing is real?
@wilderness:
The anthropic principle, as securely understood both by philosophers and empiricists alike posits that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life. Specifically, the research conducted by astrophysicists, over the past century have yielded unexpected observations: -- the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constraints, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges, and this TRUTH applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but to the galaxy, planetary systems, and planet humans occupy. ....thus the preponderance of physical evidence( both large scale and small scale fine tuning) points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmosFrom Mirriam-Webster:
em·pir·i·cism noun \im-ˈpir-ə-ˌsi-zəm, em-\
: the practice of basing ideas and theories on testing and experience
Plainly, no empiricist would ever conclude "that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life" as they can neither test nor experience that position. That theologians and philosophers come to such a made up conclusion is no reason to believe there is any truth in it; that remains for the empiricist to discover through testing and experience. As neither has ever been done there is STILL no reason to posit a designer.
By now you must have made this same claim - that the universe produced an intelligent life form and therefore there was an intelligent designer - and it still has no basis in fact. You are still unable to produce either observation or logic that supports the claim, and by now should recognize that it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it still cannot be recognized as truth.
You really need to step back and understand that only empiricism, not philosophy nor theology, not imagination nor fiction, no matter how strong the desire for a specific conclusion (god is out there) and no matter how many times you repeat an unfounded claim, can both find knowledge and truth while knowing it for truth/reality. All else is guesswork only, and not worth the effort of saying it.
@wilderness:
You ask for observable evidence... here goes: As I mentioned in the prior post, astronomers (in the 1960's) have acknowledged only 2 characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" for human existence, the obvious one being the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant i.e. it can not differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life.. Today the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life--- any conceivable kind of physical life--- stands at 38. Of these the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value can not vary by more than one part in 120 thousand trillion trillion trillion and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires.
Evidence of specific preparation for human existence shows up in the characteristics of the solar system as well. In the early 1960's astronomers could identify just a few solar system characteristics that required fine-tuning for human life to be possible. By the end of 2001, astronomers had identified more than 150 finely-tuned characteristics.
Going back to Dr. Brandon Carter (who I labeled incorrectly as an astrophysicists... he is actually a mathematician),... he noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years "preparing" for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survival no more than 10 million years (optomistically). He formalized this enormous imbalance between the time required to produce the possibility for human life and the brevity of the species' (potential) survival as the "anthropic principle inequality".
Empiricists and skeptics, like you not yet persuaded that the fine tuning of the universe reflects more than a lucky coin toss can choose to examine the universe, the "coin", more closely.. If the anthropic principle and its implications for transcendent design are false, research will discover declining evidence for fine-tuning and existing evidence will be erased by new data. If, on the other hand, the anthropic principle and its implications are true, research will yield an increase in both the number of fine-tuned characteristics and the degree of fine tuning. Based on the accumulating evidence, to bet on the anthropic principle seems safer than taking another breath.You seem to be under the impression that the entire universe was made so that we can exist? If that were the case we would be in the most hospitable place for our existence, but alas it appears we are not. There are billions of smaller much longer lasting more stable stars with inhabitable planets that have been able to contain life since the first stars. It seems our own sun came into existence rather late and will continue to heat up until it engulfs our earth, but long before that happens the earth will no longer be in an inhabitable zone.
In other words your assumption that God made the earth in the perfect environment for life to exist and flourish and that it took some 14 billion years to do it is completely false.
@wilderness:
Of course everyone knows that the Big Bang was caused by someone/something. For you to say that "no one knows if there was a cause for the big bang or not" is totally nonsensical unless of course we are all potted plants. "Nothing comes from nothing", as the song goes....logically.
The only question is: was the Big Bang caused randomly or non-randomly? If randomly, then all the subsequent events that followed it, were also random....including the formation of intelligent life. If so, why would one or any intelligent being start perceiving that life, to its last minutiae, is not random at all, because once intelligence is brought into the picture, all randomness evaporates into thin air, and what is left are the intentions and aim, and purposes of a non-random sentient/intelligent being."Of course everyone knows that the Big Bang was caused by someone/something"
Don't be ridiculous. Stephen Hawking went on record a long time ago, saying there there was no need for a god to cause the big bang. If no god, there can be no cause as there was nothing prior to the big bang. And no one (physicist, cosmologist, etc) has refuted it yet. Things come from nothing all the time in the field of quantum mechanics, whether you find that to be "logical" or not.
Please explain how the molecular brownian movement of hydrogen in Sirius, the Dog Star, is being determined by the single intelligence known to inhabit our universe. You ARE saying there are no random processes because of man, right?@wilderness:
Your last paragraph was inchoate as it was incomprehensible from the point of view of this discussion."because once intelligence is brought into the picture, all randomness evaporates into thin air, and what is left are the intentions and aim, and purposes of a non-random sentient/intelligent being"
"Please explain how the molecular brownian movement of hydrogen in Sirius, the Dog Star, is being determined by the single intelligence known to inhabit our universe."
It's hard to make it much clearer that the random brownian movement in Sirius is NOT being controlled by an intelligence in spite of your bogus claim that it is.
Sorry, but you've got it the wrong way round. Mathematics is simply the language used to explain the physical observations.
@ATM and Wilderness:
You might want to check the January 2014 issue of the Scientific American which excerpted a book by M.I.T. Professor Max Tegmark titled: Our Mathematical Universe: My quest for the Ultimate nature of Reality. In the book he argued that the universe isn't just described by math, but that it is math in the sense that we are all parts of a giant mathematical object".From a review of that book:
"Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an utterly empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.”
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551@ATM:
Now why am I not surprised that you'd quote someone who is not entirely enamored of what Tegmark was proposing re: the mathematical nature/structure of the universe.Because, he understands Tegmark is proposing nonsense.
Nonsense because you have critically evaluated his assertions or nonsense because someone else said so?
@wilderness:
It turns out that the reality you are so enamored of are of and by themselves unreliably real unless inferred, interpreted and labeled by sentience. The question now is, is there a physical reality outside of human existence... absolutely, but only in mathematical terms, however/whenever/wherever our human minds may interpret those mathematical formulations, abstractly.But...it only turns out that way if you accept that creating a make believe sentience, with make believe goals and purposes, is there AND that it made the universe. As that is imaginary only, it actually says nothing about reality.
And yes, we have pretty firm evidence reality (the universe) existed before humanity. Or before earth itself, for that matter.
The difference, of course, is that the ramblings of philosophers and theologians are not physics. They are seldom connected to reality, and were never meant to be. Only to convince some people that they were connected, and that of course does not mean that those meanderings are real at all.@wilderness:
If the common slug or the earthworm ( or even the dinosaurs) were the only living entities on earth , would they know ( or even care) that the universe existed way before them?
The reality is, that humans, amongst the life forms on earth, are the only ones to have the cerebration (thus they care) to even wonder if the universe ever existed before them.
But that is after the fact. If humans (or any sentient entities anywhere else in the universe or multiverse) have not developed sentience( and the appropriate intelligence that goes along with that sentience), then I suppose they would feel the same way as the common slug and earthworm and dinosaurs... so unimpressed about the beauty and grandeur, and the perplexities of the world/universe that surround them.
The ramblings of philosophers and theologians are what urged and stimulated the scientists to connect human's reality vis-à-vis the universe.... thus they are more connected to reality than what you would give them credit for.
If the universe is a random event, we wouldn't know it, according to your terms. Statistically, it would eventually appear. We just notice it more easily because it IS here. Those random times it didn't appear wouldn't be noticeable to us. Maybe there are random universes popping into existence randomly all over the place.
Random means random. It is a null hypothesis from which both science and religion differ when it cones to explaining life the universe and everything.
Tegmark has always had two side, serious science and weird 'meaning of life' theories. Even he admits the two are largely unconnected right within the book.
To quote the New York Times review: "There is nothing wrong with contemplating speculative ideas, but the problem is that while pretending to stay in the realm of science"@Psyche: Tegmark did enumerate several instances when mathematics was crucial in discovering major understanding of the nature of the universe, so to say that his theories or postulates are pretended scientific constructs are misrepresentations to say the least.
Related Discussions
- 45
The Great Divide
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
I firmly subscribe to Decarte's formulation: I think therefore I am. Some folks on Hubpages argue against this by saying: I am therefore I think.The idea that objective entities exist outside of the mind, have been found to be false from empirical evidence obtained from investigations of the inner...
- 56
Can Science explain everything?
by Tanmoy Acharya 3 years ago
Scientists keep their silence when asked the biggest questions of life, like: "Where does the laws of Physics come from?", or "What is biological life", or "Why we are here, and who created us so intelligently?" ...and so on questions. I welcome all the spiritualists...
- 57
Uncertainty or Determinism?
by TruthDebater 13 years ago
Do you believe that things in the universe is uncertain in what will happen, or do you believe in determinism that the future can be predicted in everything from the past and present? Which do you believe and why? Also, determinism leans to everything having a purpose, uncertainty has randomness.
- 47
Atheists Are True
by sibtain bukhari 9 years ago
I have made an experience of closing my eyes from the great,wonderful,mysterious and infinite worlds of inside and out side of me and I safely concluded that'' I can never see God,therefore, God is not present'',therefore,atheists are true subject to'' closing of their eyes''.
- 8
Is there such a thing as a random event or does everything have a cause?
by Christopher Wanamaker 12 years ago
Is there such a thing as a random event or does everything have a cause?
- 311
Stephen Hawking has concluded....
by John Harper 13 years ago
"The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe."What say you?