Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2013, 09:45 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 08:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Why are we here then? Happenstance? Is it happenstance that the cosmological constant just happened to be so precise(as in 120 decimal places) that it fell on the one value that allows for us to exist?

Like Susskind said in the clip, no one believes that, there has to be an explanation.
Where do you get "cosmological constant just happened to be so precise(as in 120 decimal places)"?

That is a mischaracterization of the issue.

I posted a video clip of documentary which makes the claim. The clip features Leonard Susskind who is an expert in cosmology who also supports the claim. Go back and re-read the thread, find the video and watch it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 09:47 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where do you get "cosmological constant just happened to be so precise(as in 120 decimal places)"?

That is a mischaracterization of the issue.
I agree. Furthermore, it is a wild-ass, bull-shit misrepresentation of any kind of measurement system that has ever existed or devised! What....120 Decimal Places! What kind of instrumentation could possibly measure something so precisely?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 09:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I posted a video clip of documentary which makes the claim. The clip features Leonard Susskind who is an expert in cosmology who also supports the claim. Go back and re-read the thread, find the video and watch it.
I don't care what you posted, or who said it. Saying that a constant that relies on Physical Measurements has been confirmed to 120 Decimal Places is not only stupid...it makes me think someone is on drugs. Show me the instrumentation!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 09:59 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 09:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where do you get "cosmological constant just happened to be so precise(as in 120 decimal places)"?

That is a mischaracterization of the issue.

I posted a video clip of documentary which makes the claim. The clip features Leonard Susskind who is an expert in cosmology who also supports the claim. Go back and re-read the thread, find the video and watch it.



As a funny aside...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

"Susskind is the author of two popular science books, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design published in 2005, and The Black Hole War: My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics published in 2008."


ILLUSION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN! Laughat


The irony is so acute, it hurts! Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-03-2013, 10:41 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 09:55 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 09:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I posted a video clip of documentary which makes the claim. The clip features Leonard Susskind who is an expert in cosmology who also supports the claim. Go back and re-read the thread, find the video and watch it.
I don't care what you posted, or who said it. Saying that a constant that relies on Physical Measurements has been confirmed to 120 Decimal Places is not only stupid...it makes me think someone is on drugs. Show me the instrumentation!

I'm putting faith in the cosmologists making the claim. I have no way of independently verifying this claim. It could be that science is wrong and you are right. I wouldn't put any money on it though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 10:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm putting faith in the cosmologists making the claim. I have no way of independently verifying this claim. It could be that science is wrong and you are right. I wouldn't put any money on it though.


Notice however, that he doesn't use this line of reasoning (deferring to the educated experts) when it comes to evolution. Cause when it comes to evolution, he puts his faith not in the overwhelming majority opinion of evolutionary biologists, but in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales.

Hypocrite much? Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 12:00 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 08:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 04:24 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  To the very young or the very stupid, I like to explain why life flourishes here on earth.

Walking out to the sidewalk, I show them a crack in the sidewalk. Within that crack, blades of grass grow.
As we look around on the concrete, we don't find any grass growing on it. We only find it growing in places suitable for it to grow. Alternately we can look at the cracks along the concrete wall and depending on where the crack it, we may find some blades growing there, but usually. not every crack is suitable. Why is this ?

The cracks on the sidewalk can more easily contain and hold dirt that is wisked through the air by the wind.
The cracks on the wall aren't as suited to retain dirt and a good rain can wash away what little dirt was there.

Natural processes create cracks in the sidewalk. The instability of nature creates places where life can grow.
Not all places naturally made are suitable for life.

By examining the universe, we have really good information and evidence that shows the beginnings of the expansion that our universe is currently undergoing. We have seen how stars form. We have seen accretion disks. We can view other planetary solar systems. We have experiments that show how the early building blocks of life can form by recreating the conditions of the early atmosphere on earth.

So we can show that the building blocks of life can come from inorganic compounds that are mixed, heated, subjected to ultraviolet light and electricity.
We can show how evolution works as it is observed on this planet.
All life here has come from a common ancestor.

Life is no more fine tuned than a crack in the sidewalk.
Life grows where it can.

Simple as that.



What if the odds of a crack opening in the sidewalk at one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion?

You are misunderstanding the fine tuned universe argument. You think life grows where it can and that explains why we are here. The fine tuned argument, argues that the odds of the universe being capable of supporting life(or the odds of the concrete cracking to use your analogy)are so large that we can dimiss happenstance as an explaination.

Even the father of string theory, atheist Leonard Susskind, thinks the happenstance explaination is silly.



]
Press the play button.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
15-03-2013, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 12:07 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 12:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 09:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I like a good challenging debate but you two are bringing up things that have already been refuted.

The cosmological constant can be 0, a very large positive value or a small negative value. So much for the changing of the constant throwing everything off.

Another note, even if our maths were completely off, reality would not change, because we have fine tuned models of reality doesn't mean those models will change reality. Rather than change reality we change our mathematical models to come closer to resembling reality, constants and all.

Second, probabilities are fun to play with, but to ignore all the forces that cause things to change states is the greatest blunder of the "It's so improbable therefore god" argument.

[Image: stzkUQJ.png]

Where has it been shown that if the cosmological constant where 0 or a very large number that a universe like ours would form?
Einstein's greatest blunder.

Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with
Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was
the biggest blunder of his life.

-- George Gamow, My World Line


Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the "biggest blunder" of his life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Now if you read the rest of the wiki you'll notice it can have many values depending on the math you are using.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
15-03-2013, 01:14 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 12:04 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 12:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Where has it been shown that if the cosmological constant where 0 or a very large number that a universe like ours would form?
Einstein's greatest blunder.

Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with
Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was
the biggest blunder of his life.

-- George Gamow, My World Line


Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the "biggest blunder" of his life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Now if you read the rest of the wiki you'll notice it can have many values depending on the math you are using.

I agree it can have many values. The question is why does it happen to have a value that allows for life?

Brian Greene suggest that the fine tuning of the cosmological constant is evidence for a multi verse, but the same argument can be made for the existence of God.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 01:19 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
No it can't. You can see the universe. You can't see any gods. One exists. One has no evidence for it.
You really are desperate, BlowJob.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: