Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fooloso4]

Felix:

there is no reason to think that order suddenly arose out of complete disorder.

There is a pretty strong consensus regarding the conditions of the early universe.

The likelihood is that an older system or systems gave birth to a new and different one - our universe.

That is a possibility, not a likelihood. In any case, even if there was an older system or systems that gave birth to our universe that does not mean that the new universe began as a well ordered or complex system. There was at that time nothing like “interactions within or between complex systems”.

In the standard Big Bang model, the universe began in a state of near-infinite density and temperature. At such extremes the known laws of physics break down. For now, we can only speculate about what initiated the process.

In other words, it began without order. What kind of order to you imagine existed under those conditions? And yet, the universe evolve to its current state of order. While it may be true that we can only speculate about what initiated the process, you just said it is likely that the process began with another universe. In any case, that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is whether the universe went from a chaotic state to a well ordered state.

[Mark1955]

To: Mark1955 - I'm not sure, cephalopod eyes develop as a dermal extension rather than as an extension of the brain as do our eyes. In both cases, I suspect that form followed function - range, depth, and medium (air vs water) of vision, etc. As I said, there are always evolutionary trade-offs.

The issue was not evolutionary it was intelligent design, my contention is you or I would not design the human eye backwards.

[Sy Borg]

An overview of the the human body's main functional issues: io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-de ... 1518242787

[Felix]

Fooloso4: In other words, it began without order. What kind of order to you imagine existed under those conditions? And yet, the universe evolve to its current state of order. .... What is at issue is whether the universe went from a chaotic state to a well ordered state.

The Universe exhibited an orderly structure from the very beginning:

The Universe started out with a "granular" structure. The Universe is clumpy. Astronomers, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger structures are sprinkled about. The standard big bang model cannot explain where this hierarchy of clumps came from - it cannot explain the origin of structure. We call this the structure problem.

The Universe started out with the same temperature everywhere. In opposite sides of the sky, the most distant regions of the Universe are at almost the same temperature. But in the standard big bang model they have never been in causal contact - they are outside each other's causal horizons. Thus, the standard model cannot explain why such remote regions have the same temperature. We call this the horizon problem.

The Universe started out with a perfectly flat geometry. As far as we can tell, the geometry of the Universe is flat - the interior angles of large triangles add up to 180°. If the Universe had started out with a tiny deviation from flatness, the standard big bang model would have quickly generated a measurable degree of non-flatness. The standard big bang model cannot explain why the Universe started out so flat. We call this the flatness problem.

The Universe started out expanding. Distant galaxies are redshifted. The Universe is expanding. Why is it expanding? The standard big bang model cannot explain the expansion. We call this the expansion problem.

[Fooloso4]

Felix:

The Universe exhibited an orderly structure from the very beginning:

But the information you provide (without reference) says just the opposite. If there was an orderly structure from the beginning there would be no structure problem. The sand on a beach has a granular structure but how do you get, so to speak, from a pile of sand to the structured universe? Granular structure is the problem not the answer. It has a low level of order. The problem is how we get from a low level of order to the high level of order of the universe.

Note too that the statement “The Universe started out …”. It is vague and imprecise. It does not provide a time frame. Compare this with “According to the new study, chaos in our universe would have started ruling the realm about 10 to the minus 43 seconds (or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds) after the Big Bang. And it would have lasted only a very brief time: at least 10 to the minus 36 seconds in duration.” So, in less than a second the universe is still starting out.

[Mark1955]

An overview of the the human body's main functional issues: io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-de ... 1518242787

Best one has to be
"Many of our cognitive biases — annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions — are a consequence of our limited intelligence and predisposed tendencies. Examples include the confirmation bias (we love to agree with people who agree with us), the gambler's fallacy (the tremendous weight we tend to put on previous events that aren't causal factors), our tendency to neglect or misjudge probability, and the status-quo bias (we often make choices that guarantee that things remain the same). Some of these are adaptive traits, but others are simply cognitive deficiencies." which explains why you'll never win a rational argument on a human philosophy forum.

[Fooloso4]

Mark1955:

which explains why you'll never win a rational argument on a human philosophy forum.

That assumes that we are never able to overcome our cognitive biases. Some of us do, and with various degrees of success. In addition, you might not persuade the person you are arguing with but you might persuade others who are reading. And sometimes the argument continues even after it ends on the forum. Sometimes it takes time for someone to come around to seeing and acknowledging their errors.

Note: I am not trying to win anything by these comments, just offering my perspective.

[Felix]

Fooloso4: The problem is how we get from a low level of order to the high level of order of the universe.

But that has been my point all along: that the Universe is not a product of disorder, it assumed a uniform structure within picoseconds of it's eruption, therefore order or the capacity for order was intrinsic to it.

If you were unable to go back in time before an ordinary explosion, say of a stick of dynamite, the explosion would appear to be a chaotic event, but only because you were incapable of perceiving what triggered it.

Here's a chart of the Big Bang timeline: https://goo.gl/wZ2X17

Note: I am not trying to win anything by these comments, just offering my perspective.

Ahh, you're not fooling me, I saw you eyeing the big stuffed panda up there on the top shelf.

[Fooloso4]

Felix:

But that has been my point all along: that the Universe is not a product of disorder, it assumed a uniform structure within picoseconds of it's eruption, therefore order or the capacity for order was intrinsic to it.

Let's back up a bit:

Chaos theory does not imply this. It is concerned with the seemingly random processes that occur within complex systems and says nothing about truly random or chaotic events - events that do not occur within a defined system.

I cited the study that said that “chaos in our universe would have started ruling the realm about 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang”. The universe at the time of this chaotic event was not a complex system with an orderly physical structure.

What kind of complex system of order could exist in a universe that is “infinity small, infinitely dense”? Notice that on the chart you provide the atom has not yet formed. “[G]alaxies and other large structures form at 500 million years.

But that has been my point all along: that the Universe is not a product of disorder, it assumed a uniform structure within picoseconds of it's eruption, therefore order or the capacity for order was intrinsic to it.

If it assumes a uniform structure that means its initial conditions were not that of a uniform structure or any structure. The chaotic state (10 to the minus 23 seconds) was prior to the universe assuming a uniform structure. To say it is a product of disorder or is not a product of disorder is misleading. Disorder describes the conditions. The universe does not begin as an orderly system. The universe moves from a state of low order, so low that there are not yet any physical structures and high energy, to higher order and physical structure. It is not nothing in the sense of absolute nothingness, but is nothing in the sense that there are no things. The present order is not intrinsic to the universe. For all we know the universe could have begun and collapsed over and over again because the initial conditions were not conducive to the formation of an orderly universe. It is self-ordering system, rather than a system with an intrinsic order.

Just to throw a monkey wrench into this mess: there was research published last year in Physics Letter B that suggests there was no Big Bang singularity, that the universe has always existed.

[Felix]

Fooloso4: It is self-ordering system, rather than a system with an intrinsic order.

That is what I meant when I said that order or the capacity for order was intrinsic to it.

Just to throw a monkey wrench into this mess: there was research published last year in Physics Letter B that suggests there was no Big Bang singularity, that the universe has always existed.

I suspect that both are true, a Big Bang event occurred but it was either a localized or cyclic event.

[Anthony Edgar]

Science involves explaining the evidence, the term 'intelligent design' implies a designer and so far most scientists can't find any evidence of same

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.

[quote="Mark1955] further it's actually quite easy to find evidence that any designer isn't that intelligent, look up squid eyes and mammal eyes and ask yourself if we are the last species to be designed why is the squid eye so well designed and the human eye back to front.[/quote]

Whether you think the human eye is back to front or not is irreleveant. The point is, any form of eyesight is astonishing, especially when one considers the sense of sight in its entirety - the eye connects to the brain, which somehow provides the relevant creature with vision.  I imagine that the complexity of such a system must be absolutely mind-boggling.  Equally mind-boggling is the fact that many people believe that such a system is not the result of Intelligent Design, but of some mindless process.

-- Updated October 24th, 2016, 4:10 am to add the following --

Science involves explaining the evidence, the term 'intelligent design' implies a designer and so far most scientists can't find any evidence of same

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.

further it's actually quite easy to find evidence that any designer isn't that intelligent, look up squid eyes and mammal eyes and ask yourself if we are the last species to be designed why is the squid eye so well designed and the human eye back to front.

Whether you think the human eye is back to front or not is irrelevant. The point is, any form of eyesight is astonishing, especially when one considers the sense of sight in its entirety - the eye connects to the brain, which somehow provides the relevant creature with vision.  I imagine that the complexity of such a system must be absolutely mind-boggling.  Equally mind-boggling is the fact that many people believe that such a system is not the result of Intelligent Design, but of some mindless process.

-- Updated October 24th, 2016, 4:11 am to add the following --

Science involves explaining the evidence, the term 'intelligent design' implies a designer and so far most scientists can't find any evidence of same

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.

further it's actually quite easy to find evidence that any designer isn't that intelligent, look up squid eyes and mammal eyes and ask yourself if we are the last species to be designed why is the squid eye so well designed and the human eye back to front.

Whether you think the human eye is back to front or not is irreleveant. The point is, any form of eyesight is astonishing, especially when one considers the sense of sight in its entirety - the eye connects to the brain, which somehow provides the relevant creature with vision.  I imagine that the complexity of such a system must be absolutely mind-boggling.  Equally mind-boggling is the fact that many people believe that such a system is not the result of Intelligent Design, but of some mindless process.

-- Updated October 24th, 2016, 4:10 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.


(Nested quote removed.)


Whether you think the human eye is back to front or not is irrelevant. The point is, any form of eyesight is astonishing, especially when one considers the sense of sight in its entirety - the eye connects to the brain, which somehow provides the relevant creature with vision.  I imagine that the complexity of such a system must be absolutely mind-boggling.  Equally mind-boggling is the fact that many people believe that such a system is not the result of Intelligent Design, but of some mindless process.

[Sy Borg]

Science involves explaining the evidence, the term 'intelligent design' implies a designer and so far most scientists can't find any evidence of same

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.

What do you think constitutes evidence of ID?

Surely not the eye. There are numerous descriptions of the evolutionary processes behind different species' eyes. Why not marvel at the existence of the rectum while we are at it? An amazingly useful thing that keeps stuff in until you need it not to be. All of nature is a marvel. So much can happen over geological time. Nature over time produces "miracles", not ancient middle eastern supermen.

[Mark1955]

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.

If all you can do is accuse the opposition of cheating you've lost the argument, or more to the point you haven't got an argument. I could just as unconvincingly say that since the people who believe in ID believe in god they can't see how poor their argument is because it calls into question their belief in god as the designer.

-- Updated 24 Oct 2016 20:39 to add the following --

Mark1955:

which explains why you'll never win a rational argument on a human philosophy forum.

That assumes that we are never able to overcome our cognitive biases. Some of us do, and with various degrees of success. In addition, you might not persuade the person you are arguing with but you might persuade others who are reading. And sometimes the argument continues even after it ends on the forum. Sometimes it takes time for someone to come around to seeing and acknowledging their errors.

Note: I am not trying to win anything by these comments, just offering my perspective.

The word "never" was inserted in place of the more rational and agnostically defensible "statistically significantly more probable" because one of my biases is towards sarcasm and/or flippancy.

[Fooloso4]

Mark1955:

The word "never" was inserted in place of the more rational and agnostically defensible "statistically significantly more probable" because one of my biases is towards sarcasm and/or flippancy.

You’re right: “which explains why it is statistically significantly more probable that you will not win a rational argument on a human philosophy forum”, just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

[Sy Borg]

Since "most scientists" are atheists, I'm not surprised! How can a atheist find evidence of ID (God) if he's determined not to or doesn't want to? He can't - or won't. Some atheists would rather lose a limb than concede to any evidence of ID.

If all you can do is accuse the opposition of cheating you've lost the argument, or more to the point you haven't got an argument. I could just as unconvincingly say that since the people who believe in ID believe in god they can't see how poor their argument is because it calls into question their belief in god as the designer.

Yes, they are basically saying that nature is too complex not to have been designed so they posit an even more complex entity that remains completely unexplained.

Thing is, I am very complex and I was created by Mum and Dad, neither of whom had the slightest idea about the billions of processes involved in this being they created. Simplicity begets complexity through long chains of knock-on effects, shaped by the inclinations of nature that are somewhat misleadingly called "the laws of physics". No one made any "laws", but there are limits and thresholds in all aspects of reality that ultimately lead to emergences - creation.

More likely, it seems to me that there are different kinds of life. Aside from biological life, there is a kind of geological life with its own "evolution" leading up to the kinds of chemical conditions that resulted in abiogenesis (at the time of abiogenesis, the difference between the first organism and the surrounding chemicals would not be great, suggesting the deep connections between geology and biology). Star systems, planets and galaxies are all complex entities that go through their own life cycles.

It makes sense that the universe too (or what we think of as the universe, which might only be a portion) will have its own developmental cycles like its entities, though those larger cycles would run over such long time spans that comprehension of them would be forbidding.

Our confusion is starkly shown by the changing faces of dark energy. A century ago we lived in a static, eternal universe. With Hubble came the expanding universe. Then we find it's expanding faster. Then faster. Then faster again. Now doubt is being cast over the consistency of Type 1A supernova brightness, whose "standard candles" are apparently not standard. What will next years' news bring? Or in a decade?

We are flying blind because at the scales of the very small and very large there is no reference, no objective standard, no precedents or examples. We humans are akin to intelligent bacteria in a body, trying to understand their environment. The gut itself would seem like a universe to "intelligent microbes", and there'd be confusion about when major upheavals occurred (eg. eating or emotional upset). Not that I'm suggesting that outside of our universe something large is on its giant periods and scoffing down giant chocolates, but there are probably some very large temporal dynamics that we interpret as permanent features due to the disparity of time scales.

I obviously favour naturalistic answers to these questions, but I don't think of nature as "non human stuff" but consider humans to be, not only part of nature, but quite possibly an early, primitive form, given the young age and potential future life of the universe.