| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"PeteM" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2003 02:39:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> averred
"PeteM" <postmaster@torquemada.net> wrote in message
news:9K0bDXAkxci$EwyI@torquemada.net...
Right. So the astronomical evidence to which you referred
*is* exactly
the Hubble shift plus the 3k background. In other words,
the
cosmologiical evidence.
Beg pardon? That is _two__lines_ (among more) of
astronomical evidence in support of big bang cosmology.
Not really. Those two pieces of evidence are the key ones. What else did
you have in mind?
It's taken us a while, but at last we know where we are.
I mention this because in your original post you talked
about panspermia
being refuted
I did not talk about panspermia being refuted at all.
Sorry. I abbreviated too much. I meant you talked about
"panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" being refuted. I should have
been more specific, but "panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" is
after all the theory we have been discussing.all along.
Indeed, I have explicitly, even in the post to which you are
replying, accepted that panspermia isn't totally
disconfirmed. Might I suggest that you stop wilfully
misunderstanding me?
It wasn't a wilful misunderstanding, as should be clear from the
context. We have been discussing the
"panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" theory, and I on one
particular occasion inaccurately abbreviated it as "panspermia". You are
right to pick me up on it, but you should not assume "wilfully".
Especially as all our arguments have been directed at the infintely-old
aspect and not the panspermia.
It would help, of course, if you
hadn't snipped (without marking the snip) the part of my
post where I did this. I've added it back below.
both by cosmological evidence *and* by astronomical
evidence, implying there was a lot more than just these
two facts.
Evidently there is not.
Your claim was that life had "always existed". According
to
current cosmology, the entire physical universe came into
being as a ball of inconceivably hot elementary
particles.
No life could exist in such an environment. Ergo, life
could not have "always existed".
Only true if one accepts the Big Bang theory. However, it
is not
necessary to accept the Big Bang theory. It is a nice
theory, and quite
likely true. But it is no more than a conjecture that - if
we make some
other assumptions - fits the observational evidence. If we
make some
other assumptions, then it doesn't.
And so, as I said at the start, in order to establish that
"life has always existed" you will have to "overturn
virtually all cosmology and great deal of astronomy of the
last 35-40 years, and explain away a whole heap of
observational evidence, to make
that one fly".
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be
rejected, and what new assumptions (in support of steady
state) must be adopted so as to explain away the
observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities. What you do not seem to realise is that
the Big Bang theory was not deduced from the observational evidence. It
is merely a conjecture that, in combination with certain assumptions
about the behaviour of space-time, matter and radiation, and certain
entirely ad hoc assumptions about the early universe, can approximately
account for our observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence. Some of
these would be consistent with the idea of an infinitely old universe.
We might have to discard certain cherished assumptions of current
physics - for example that the laws of gravitation, thermodynamics and
electrodynamics have always been what they are today. I don't see that
as a problem. They might have been anything in the first three minutes.
After all, we weren't here to test them .
The only important thing is that we don't ignore any *observational*
evidence. And so we don't, provided we make the necessary adjustments in
our thinking about laws.
That being the case, life must have arisen somewhere.
[unmarked snip reinstated]
It is not wholly impossible that life arrived on this
planet by
panspermia, although that is not the way to bet - but
even
if that turns out to be the way life got here, you're
still
left only with the two possibilities for abiogenesis that
were canvassed in the post to which you first replied:-
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active
creation,
and
2) life arose and arises from non-life.
[end of reinstated unmarked snip]
That being not necessarily the case,
Hold on a cotton-picking minute; stop handwaving. Get down
to brass tacks - how can you explain (i) the CMBR and (ii)
increase of redshift with distance within a steady state
model?
No, I don't have to. It is yourself who is claiming that the
observational evidence excludes an infinitely old universe. So *you*
show how the microwave background and red shift *inevitably* prove that
the universe is of finite age. List the assumptions you are making at
each step.
--
PeteM
.
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
17 Oct 2003 08:42:05 AM |
|
|
Hi PeteM,
it's interesting to follow your line of thought. First I'll address a
hidden assumption recurrent in recent posts (warriors of Science
especially like it). The word "observation evidence" suggests that
scientists (and laymen alike:) all agree on what they see, they reach
consensus on the "evidence". The so called "observational evidence"
assumes a god-like status of being the single and only truth for all
'observers' in space-time. The assumption in turn being that we all
have identical eyesight, or more generally, that we all perceive
'reality' in the same way. That is, reality 'outside' is (and has
been:) independent of the person (perceiver).
That independence assumption (belief) is at the heart of traditional
science (and modern statistical methods) and can be traced back to
Aristotle. It is like a moral justification to research and explore
(and test and experiment with) the 'independent' Nature outside.
Unfortunately, it is an assumption that is beginning to shake, quantum
theories for one caused many troubles to the independent observer
dogma. And of course, Eastern schools of thought have never adopted the
Western dogma (including our religion and her independent God outside),
some of them postulate that the word 'Nature' (and what about 'God',
'reality':) started with the mind.
What is it that is truly independent? I think we are all related although
not always in an obvious way. And who says that our divine eyesight is
perfect and to be trusted? It was again Aristotle, I'm afraid, but it is
another subject.
As a curious example I'll quote from the jolly (and very passionate:)
letter that Lenny Flank posted the other day (Monday, 13 Oct) to the "In
the News: Schools should not limit origins-of-life discussions to
evolution" thread. It won't be an exaggeration to say that he was
defending 'independence' like a 'God'. And then he continued the ode for
science swearing how "religion had nothing to do with science", repeating
all the time that "religion was religion" and "science was science", which
I found quite informative definitions :). He didn't define the words
'science' and 'religion', perhaps didn't want to run the risk. I mean,
what if they turn out closely related concepts (or belief systems:)?
Anyway, in his post 'independent' examples abounded, observed
independently from his 'impartial' and 'objective' point of view. For
instance his argumentative plea started with the complete independence
between two sciences: economics and meteorology:
"Using science to answer philosophical or theological questions (or
vice versa) is like using macroeconomics to forecast the weather. The
two simply have nothing to do with each other."
The funny thing is that with a bit of imagination a link can be
established even between "macroeconomics" and "forecasting the
weather". How?
Macro-economists preach that more GDP (production) is Good (God) for us, a
mantra that usually comes with the magic word 'growth'. Economic growth,
growth of industrial production, growth in services, growth of employment,
growth in consumption,x these are all assumed very good things (and not
only for the 'economy' but also for each and every one of us:). So we all
grow and not least in body weight, I mean that is what a perfect consumer
is all about. I guess it is already easy to see the macroeconomic link to
environment and climate.
It is so that many production processes are associated with burning
something or using an input that causes environmental damage. Thus, if we
listen to macro-economists we (and all countries) will want to consume
more and constantly grow (at a steady and 'sustainable' rate:) and
consequently we'll increase pollution or just exploit more Nature (we'll
view her richness and beauty just as "factors of production":). This may
ultimately cause a climate change, some scientists even claim there is a
causal relationship between human activity (civilised, industrial) and the
climate (global warming, ozone holes ...). For example, "The science of
the ozone hole" (http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html) begins with
"Evidence that human activities affect the ozone layer has been building
up over the last 20 years, ever since scientists first suggested that the
release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere could reduce the
amount of ozone over our heads..."
Therefore, "macroeconomics and weather forecasts may simply have more to
do with each other" than Lenny could imagine (i.e. more than "simply
nothing"). The word 'independent' is starting to shake. And the same with
the alleged independence between science and religion. Our religious or
scientific theories reflect our belief system, our views of the world. The
words we use in those theories depend on what we believe, they are matter
of choice and our personal preferences. The same choice that makes some
prefer the word 'God' and others 'Nature' (or 'natural' for that
matter:). By the way, have you thought about their 'independent'
definitions. Next it will be infinity's turn :)
Two adjectives slightly disturbed me in your post and I'll make my case
below. I usually disagree with the word (and symbol of) 'infinity' in its
different disguises ('infinitesimal', 'continuum', ...). I think it is not
real but a pure construct of (and in) our mind, i.e. it doesn't exist
outside of our wild imagination (and books, theories).
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, PeteM wrote:
Robin Levett averred
"PeteM" wrote
Right. So the astronomical evidence to which you referred *is*
exactly the Hubble shift plus the 3k background. In other words, the
cosmologiical evidence.
Beg pardon? That is _two__lines_ (among more) of astronomical
evidence in support of big bang cosmology.
Not really. Those two pieces of evidence are the key ones. What else did
you have in mind?
It's taken us a while, but at last we know where we are. I mention
this because in your original post you talked about panspermia being
refuted
I did not talk about panspermia being refuted at all.
Sorry. I abbreviated too much. I meant you talked about
"panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" being refuted. I should have
been more specific, but "panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" is
after all the theory we have been discussing.all along.
Indeed, I have explicitly, even in the post to which you are
replying, accepted that panspermia isn't totally
disconfirmed. Might I suggest that you stop wilfully
misunderstanding me?
It wasn't a wilful misunderstanding, as should be clear from the
context. We have been discussing the
"panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" theory, and I on one
particular occasion inaccurately abbreviated it as "panspermia". You are
right to pick me up on it, but you should not assume
"wilfully". Especially as all our arguments have been directed at the
infintely-old aspect and not the panspermia.
It would help, of course, if you hadn't snipped (without marking the
snip) the part of my post where I did this. I've added it back below.
both by cosmological evidence *and* by astronomical evidence, implying
there was a lot more than just these two facts. Evidently there is
not.
Your claim was that life had "always existed". According to current
cosmology, the entire physical universe came into being as a ball of
inconceivably hot elementary particles. No life could exist in such
an environment. Ergo, life could not have "always existed".
Only true if one accepts the Big Bang theory. However, it is not
necessary to accept the Big Bang theory. It is a nice theory, and
quite likely true. But it is no more than a conjecture that - if we
make some other assumptions - fits the observational evidence. If we
make some other assumptions, then it doesn't.
And so, as I said at the start, in order to establish that "life has
always existed" you will have to "overturn virtually all cosmology and
great deal of astronomy of the last 35-40 years, and explain away a
whole heap of observational evidence, to make that one fly".
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be rejected, and what
new assumptions (in support of steady state) must be adopted so as to
explain away the observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities.
That is what I meant in the introduction, the word 'endless' as another
version of 'infinite'. The set of possibilities might be huge indeed or
even inconceivable, but "endless"? We may assume so (like the existence of
an infinite set) for simplicity, though once we start coding or counting
the possibilities they become finite.
What you do not seem to realise is that the Big Bang theory was not
deduced from the observational evidence. It is merely a conjecture that,
in combination with certain assumptions about the behaviour of
space-time, matter and radiation, and certain entirely ad hoc
assumptions about the early universe, can approximately account for our
observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence.
Let's reflect on this: "can we" really "construct an uncountably infinite
number of other theories"? My impression is that however attractive and
breath-taking the words "uncountably" and "infinite number" are, they are
empty. Why?
Let's start with the words in English. How many words are there? I assume
that the number of words is countably finite, huge but finite like in the
thickest dictionary. Of course, we constantly invent new words (including
ones for big numbers:) but their number is still finite. Their length too,
that is there seems to exist a practical (real:) upper limit on the length
of a word. We may try to construct a word with infinitely many characters
but it won't happen in anyone's lifetime. At least I do not know of any
infinitely long word. And if the number (length) of words is finite then
so is the number of their combinations. Moreover, we could even order
those words and build their combinations in exhaustive but consistent
manner (to facilitate counting and crush "un-countability").
Next, what are theories? What do theories consist of?
Theories are made of words, what a silly (but useful:) fact.
Of course, one could also say of ideas, thoughts, assumptions,
observations, tests, conjectures, conclusions, propositions and ... But it
is not wrong to say that on a very practical level theories consist of
words (and symbols and numbers). Let us assume that a theory is not
"endless" or "infinitely" long but made of a finite number of words (and
symbols, i.e. word abbreviations:). Since the total number of words is
also finite, the way we can combine them to form a theory is also
finite. Moreover, we can even count all those different combinations of
words that are worthy of being called a theory. And the number of theories
satisfying your property of 'observational consistence' (i.e. "other
theories that would equally well account for the observational evidence")
will be a subset of the possible combinations, that is also finite.
Q.E.D. :)
Best,
Ann
Some of these would be consistent with the idea of an infinitely old
universe.
We might have to discard certain cherished assumptions of current
physics - for example that the laws of gravitation, thermodynamics and
electrodynamics have always been what they are today. I don't see that
as a problem. They might have been anything in the first three
minutes. After all, we weren't here to test them .
The only important thing is that we don't ignore any *observational*
evidence. And so we don't, provided we make the necessary adjustments in
our thinking about laws.
That being the case, life must have arisen somewhere. [unmarked snip
reinstated] It is not wholly impossible that life arrived on this
planet by panspermia, although that is not the way to bet - but even
if that turns out to be the way life got here, you're still left only
with the two possibilities for abiogenesis that were canvassed in the
post to which you first replied:-
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active creation, and 2)
life arose and arises from non-life.
[end of reinstated unmarked snip]
That being not necessarily the case,
Hold on a cotton-picking minute; stop handwaving. Get down to brass
tacks - how can you explain (i) the CMBR and (ii) increase of redshift
with distance within a steady state model?
No, I don't have to. It is yourself who is claiming that the
observational evidence excludes an infinitely old universe. So *you*
show how the microwave background and red shift *inevitably* prove that
the universe is of finite age. List the assumptions you are making at
each step.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
20 Oct 2003 02:26:46 PM |
|
|
PeteM wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> averred
"PeteM" <postmaster@torquemada.net> wrote in message
news:9K0bDXAkxci$EwyI@torquemada.net...
Right. So the astronomical evidence to which you referred
*is* exactly
the Hubble shift plus the 3k background. In other words,
the
cosmologiical evidence.
Beg pardon? That is _two__lines_ (among more) of
astronomical evidence in support of big bang cosmology.
Not really. Those two pieces of evidence are the key ones. What else did
you have in mind?
Relative abundances of hydrogen/helium and heavy elements in old stars;
number and distribution of radio sources...
It's taken us a while, but at last we know where we are.
I mention this because in your original post you talked
about panspermia
being refuted
I did not talk about panspermia being refuted at all.
Sorry. I abbreviated too much. I meant you talked about
"panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" being refuted. I should have
been more specific, but "panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" is
after all the theory we have been discussing.all along.
Indeed, I have explicitly, even in the post to which you are
replying, accepted that panspermia isn't totally
disconfirmed. Might I suggest that you stop wilfully
misunderstanding me?
It wasn't a wilful misunderstanding, as should be clear from the
context. We have been discussing the
"panspermia-plus-infinitely-old-universe" theory, and I on one
particular occasion inaccurately abbreviated it as "panspermia". You are
right to pick me up on it, but you should not assume "wilfully".
Especially as all our arguments have been directed at the infintely-old
aspect and not the panspermia.
It would help, of course, if you
hadn't snipped (without marking the snip) the part of my
post where I did this. I've added it back below.
both by cosmological evidence *and* by astronomical
evidence, implying there was a lot more than just these
two facts.
Evidently there is not.
Your claim was that life had "always existed". According
to
current cosmology, the entire physical universe came into
being as a ball of inconceivably hot elementary
particles.
No life could exist in such an environment. Ergo, life
could not have "always existed".
Only true if one accepts the Big Bang theory. However, it
is not
necessary to accept the Big Bang theory. It is a nice
theory, and quite
likely true. But it is no more than a conjecture that - if
we make some
other assumptions - fits the observational evidence. If we
make some
other assumptions, then it doesn't.
And so, as I said at the start, in order to establish that
"life has always existed" you will have to "overturn
virtually all cosmology and great deal of astronomy of the
last 35-40 years, and explain away a whole heap of
observational evidence, to make
that one fly".
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be
rejected, and what new assumptions (in support of steady
state) must be adopted so as to explain away the
observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities.
Name some. You have stated that if we make some other assumptiosn than are
made in Big Bang theory, Bog Bang doesn't fit. So identify the relevant
assumptions - both those that must be discarded, and those that must be
adopted.
What you do not seem to realise is that
the Big Bang theory was not deduced from the observational evidence.
Incorrect. The dominant theory was the steady state theory; it was
observational evidence that demonstrated that no reasonable steady state
solutions existed.
It
is merely a conjecture that, in combination with certain assumptions
about the behaviour of space-time, matter and radiation, and certain
entirely ad hoc assumptions about the early universe, can approximately
account for our observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence. Some of
these would be consistent with the idea of an infinitely old universe.
We might have to discard certain cherished assumptions of current
physics - for example that the laws of gravitation, thermodynamics and
electrodynamics have always been what they are today. I don't see that
as a problem. They might have been anything in the first three minutes.
....of a steady state, infinitely old, universe...?
After all, we weren't here to test them .
I was.
The only important thing is that we don't ignore any *observational*
evidence. And so we don't, provided we make the necessary adjustments in
our thinking about laws.
That being the case, life must have arisen somewhere.
[unmarked snip reinstated]
It is not wholly impossible that life arrived on this
planet by
panspermia, although that is not the way to bet - but
even
if that turns out to be the way life got here, you're
still
left only with the two possibilities for abiogenesis that
were canvassed in the post to which you first replied:-
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active
creation,
and
2) life arose and arises from non-life.
[end of reinstated unmarked snip]
That being not necessarily the case,
Hold on a cotton-picking minute; stop handwaving. Get down
to brass tacks - how can you explain (i) the CMBR and (ii)
increase of redshift with distance within a steady state
model?
No, I don't have to.
Yes you do. They are observed. If it is to correspond with reality, your
model must be consistent with observational evidence - so explain how it is
consistent.
It is yourself who is claiming that the
observational evidence excludes an infinitely old universe.
Indeed. So explain the CMBR and Hubble redshift.
So *you*
show how the microwave background and red shift *inevitably* prove that
the universe is of finite age.
No. You claim that they are consistent with a steady state, infinitely old,
universe, despite the fact that no known mechanism will produce a CMBR in a
such a universe, for example. Explain the CMBR and hUbble redshift - show
your workings, including the assumptions you make at each stage.
List the assumptions you are making at
each step.
--
Robin Levett (remove big blue - don't yahoo)
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
