Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 05:02 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That is one interpretation, by some. I'm well aware it that interpretation. It's one.
Prove to us it's the generally accepted theory in QM. Ignorant you are.
I was suggesting it more as a possible explanation for the natural occurrence of life, not as an infallible scientific truth. But in time, I feel like this interpretation will grow to be the most popular, because it's the one which doesn't claim humans are more special than any other matter in the universe. And seriously, stop calling me an idiot in whatever vernacular. It's tiring to put up with insults while maintaining an intelligent discussion.

"Intelligent discussion" Consider
I never called you an idiot. YOU were the one who said you were not going to watch a one hour video and get educated on a topic YOU brought up, and attempted to talk about.

You conflated Many Worlds with something no physicist does. One does not need your QM explanation for anything. How life may have started has already been sufficiently explained by Biology and Chemistry. We don't need quantum woo to explain it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Ahh, randomness.

To the very core of it, all life's survival depends on pattern seeking. Evolution itself is pattern seeking. Intelligence is pattern seeking.

Randomness is what makes the SEEKING necessary in the first place. Without randomness we would not (need to) evolve.

Religion is the attempt to insert patterns into spots we haven't been able to explore properly yet.

Any argument that is based on filling such an empty slot is invalid. There is no basis for it.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
29-03-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Nobody knows what the odds are, thus any argument based off of them are nothing more than a steaming load of horse shit.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
29-03-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 05:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never called you an idiot.
Quote: Ignorant you are.
Quote:You do not understand QM. At All.
Quote:Then you'll never understand the point, or the probabilities.
Close enough.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 05:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  Ahh, randomness.

To the very core of it, all life's survival depends on pattern seeking. Evolution itself is pattern seeking. Intelligence is pattern seeking.

Randomness is what makes the SEEKING necessary in the first place. Without randomness we would not (need to) evolve.

Religion is the attempt to insert patterns into spots we haven't been able to explore properly yet.

Any argument that is based on filling such an empty slot is invalid. There is no basis for it.
"God of the gaps" seems to be valid in almost every discussion of this sort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
The Argument from Divine Imbecility

God has this

[Image: dust-storm-roars-across-field.jpg]

And wants this

[Image: caveman-diet.jpg]

So he makes this

[Image: abell1185_cfht.jpg]

His followers view this as a sign of intelligence.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
29-03-2016, 06:32 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 03:20 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  I understand what you're getting at, but this is a question of how the odds were beaten. Was it luck or was it design?

No odds were 'beaten', so no luck, no design. Shit happens.

If life is a one in 100 billion chance of arising on any particular planet and there are 100 billion planets, what is the probability of it occurring somewhere?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
29-03-2016, 06:39 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 05:17 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  "God of the gaps" seems to be valid in almost every discussion of this sort.

"God of the gaps" is an argument from ignorance.

It is a sign of a lazy mind.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-03-2016, 06:53 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2016 07:42 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Odds and probabilities can only calculated when all possible outcomes are known.

We can hypothesize based on current observations (organic life on planet Earth) what we think the probabilities of life occurring elsewhere in the universe are, but as for life occuring at least once, as others have already pointed out, that would be 100%.

I think the issue is that IDers like to think that the “goal” of the universe is to create life, specifically humans. By anthropomorphizing the universe their argument goes off the rails.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
29-03-2016, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 08:31 PM by Paleophyte.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(29-03-2016 06:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  If life is a one in 100 billion chance of arising on any particular planet and there are 100 billion planets, what is the probability of it occurring somewhere?

0.36788 0.63212 My bad

Statistics are weird.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: