Comments on: TIA Tuesday: Consider the possibilities… http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: » TIA Tuesday: Imagine there’s no heaven Evangelical Realism http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-765 » TIA Tuesday: Imagine there’s no heaven Evangelical Realism Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:02:01 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-765 [...] we saw before, the flaw in the anthropic principle, as an argument for an intelligent Creator, is that it fails [...] [...] we saw before, the flaw in the anthropic principle, as an argument for an intelligent Creator, is that it fails [...]

]]> By: Bacopa http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-565 Bacopa Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:02:54 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-565 There can also be coherent geometries where space is curved the other way. There's no constant pi there either, and geometric figres are not scaleable. There is not just an absulute angle, the symmetric right angle, but an absolute length as well, the maximum side of an equilaterateral triangle just before it flies apart into three lines each parallel to the other two. Euclid may have scalable figures and constant ratios, but Lobachevsky gave us an absolute length. But consider my previous example of the closed, sphere-like uinverse where pi varies and the circumference is always leess than pi times the diameter. Could there be such a world? In a sense you are already living in it! We live in a universe closed in time. When we peer at distant galaxies we are looking backward in time as the speed of light is finite. The universe is expanding. The visible universe we are looking into might more poperly be called a retroverse, we are not seeing things as they are, but as they were. Because we are looking into a younger universe and the universe is expandanding, we are looking into a smaller universe. If I were to draw a circle of things in the universe/retroverse equidistant to that distant galaxy, and measure it against twice the distance the light traveled through an expanding universe to reach my telescope, I would find the circle was less than pi times twice the radius. So, spacetime is closed in at least one direction. Whether it's closed in both is another issue. I am not a cosmologist. Most of the ideas I present here came from 70s Nova shows I subconsciously grocked at age eleven and a book called _Poetry of the Universe_ by Osserman. There can also be coherent geometries where space is curved the other way. There’s no constant pi there either, and geometric figres are not scaleable. There is not just an absulute angle, the symmetric right angle, but an absolute length as well, the maximum side of an equilaterateral triangle just before it flies apart into three lines each parallel to the other two. Euclid may have scalable figures and constant ratios, but Lobachevsky gave us an absolute length.

But consider my previous example of the closed, sphere-like uinverse where pi varies and the circumference is always leess than pi times the diameter. Could there be such a world? In a sense you are already living in it! We live in a universe closed in time. When we peer at distant galaxies we are looking backward in time as the speed of light is finite. The universe is expanding. The visible universe we are looking into might more poperly be called a retroverse, we are not seeing things as they are, but as they were.

Because we are looking into a younger universe and the universe is expandanding, we are looking into a smaller universe. If I were to draw a circle of things in the universe/retroverse equidistant to that distant galaxy, and measure it against twice the distance the light traveled through an expanding universe to reach my telescope, I would find the circle was less than pi times twice the radius.

So, spacetime is closed in at least one direction. Whether it’s closed in both is another issue.

I am not a cosmologist. Most of the ideas I present here came from 70s Nova shows I subconsciously grocked at age eleven and a book called _Poetry of the Universe_ by Osserman.

]]> By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-546 Deacon Duncan Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:05:20 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-546 Kinda makes you wonder if "free will" is all it's cracked up to be, doesn't it? I'll have to think about your curved pi example: it seems to me that once you start working with curved (i.e. non-linear) diameters, the ratio of the (curved) diameter to the circumference is no longer pi. But it's early in the morning and I'll need at least two cups of coffee before I can begin to do this kind of math. Kinda makes you wonder if “free will” is all it’s cracked up to be, doesn’t it?

I’ll have to think about your curved pi example: it seems to me that once you start working with curved (i.e. non-linear) diameters, the ratio of the (curved) diameter to the circumference is no longer pi. But it’s early in the morning and I’ll need at least two cups of coffee before I can begin to do this kind of math.

]]> By: Bacopa http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-542 Bacopa Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:04:45 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-542 I think it really is possible that space may be curved such that pi is not a constant. Consider the surface of a sphere. If I pick a point and define a curved line such that all its points are equidistant to that point, I'll have a circle, but the ratio of the circumfrence to the diamater will be less than pi. If I go a bit further out I will find yet another ratio. Anthropic arguments are all a bit weird. For all I know the values of the constants are the product of some higher level necessity, some set of meta-laws that would be nearly impossible to discover. Or perhaps all physically possible worlds exist, so there's no wonder this one exists. Or perhaps Lewis was right and Modal Realism is true, then all coherently concievable worlds exist. But in the end, stronger versions of the anthropic principle are poor explainations of why things are the case or that things have been made to be the case. Consider the twists and turns of of world history that led to my making this blog comment at this exact time. If Vinland had survived, the nation I live in would not be what is today and I would not have come into being. If I got a phone call just 30 mins ago I might have put this all off for tomorrow. And what about the schedule change at work a year ago? If that had not happened I wouldn't be reading this tonight. The odds that I would make this comment are long beyond calculation. Surely some force has been guiding not just my own life, but the entire flow of human history. I think it really is possible that space may be curved such that pi is not a constant. Consider the surface of a sphere. If I pick a point and define a curved line such that all its points are equidistant to that point, I’ll have a circle, but the ratio of the circumfrence to the diamater will be less than pi. If I go a bit further out I will find yet another ratio.

Anthropic arguments are all a bit weird. For all I know the values of the constants are the product of some higher level necessity, some set of meta-laws that would be nearly impossible to discover. Or perhaps all physically possible worlds exist, so there’s no wonder this one exists. Or perhaps Lewis was right and Modal Realism is true, then all coherently concievable worlds exist.

But in the end, stronger versions of the anthropic principle are poor explainations of why things are the case or that things have been made to be the case. Consider the twists and turns of of world history that led to my making this blog comment at this exact time. If Vinland had survived, the nation I live in would not be what is today and I would not have come into being. If I got a phone call just 30 mins ago I might have put this all off for tomorrow. And what about the schedule change at work a year ago? If that had not happened I wouldn’t be reading this tonight. The odds that I would make this comment are long beyond calculation. Surely some force has been guiding not just my own life, but the entire flow of human history.

]]> By: jorgaba http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-541 jorgaba Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:17:51 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-541 "Vox Day seems remarkably unimaginative for a leading intellectual…" Not an "intellectual" (it's not even something he would agree to), but certainly a privileged elite. Rather, what strikes me about Vox is that he is extraordinarily unimaginative for a fantasy writer: http://www.eternalwarriors.com/ “Vox Day seems remarkably unimaginative for a leading intellectual…”

Not an “intellectual” (it’s not even something he would agree to), but certainly a privileged elite.

Rather, what strikes me about Vox is that he is extraordinarily unimaginative for a fantasy writer:

http://www.eternalwarriors.com/

]]> By: Airor http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-540 Airor Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:05:06 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-540 Valdemar, Alas Philip Pullman in His Dark Materials Trilogy has beat you to the punch. In his story the first dark matter creature to evolve named himself God and convinced everyone that he created the universe. Valdemar,
Alas Philip Pullman in His Dark Materials Trilogy has beat you to the punch. In his story the first dark matter creature to evolve named himself God and convinced everyone that he created the universe.

]]> By: valdemar http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-538 valdemar Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:31:11 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-538 The late Douglas Adams, a good friend of Richard Dawkins, made the point that, if a puddle could think, it would no doubt find it remarkably significant that the shallow depression in which it found itself was of exactly the right size and shape. 'Shallow' and 'depression' being key words when anyone uses the anthropic principle as an argument for the existence of god(s). Really, nobody has yet demonstrated that life as we know it isn't extremely rare and abnormal in this cosmos. It may be that supercold intelligent beings drifting between the stars are 'normal', while planet bound, liquid-water entities are vanishingly rare. (And if I've just hit on the explanation for Dark Matter, can somone send me a Nobel application form?) And such supercold beings might evolve in universes with rather different laws from our own - ones with no stars, for instance. Vox Day seems remarkably unimaginative for a leading intellectual... The late Douglas Adams, a good friend of Richard Dawkins, made the point that, if a puddle could think, it would no doubt find it remarkably significant that the shallow depression in which it found itself was of exactly the right size and shape. ‘Shallow’ and ‘depression’ being key words when anyone uses the anthropic principle as an argument for the existence of god(s).
Really, nobody has yet demonstrated that life as we know it isn’t extremely rare and abnormal in this cosmos. It may be that supercold intelligent beings drifting between the stars are ‘normal’, while planet bound, liquid-water entities are vanishingly rare. (And if I’ve just hit on the explanation for Dark Matter, can somone send me a Nobel application form?) And such supercold beings might evolve in universes with rather different laws from our own – ones with no stars, for instance.
Vox Day seems remarkably unimaginative for a leading intellectual…

]]> By: Airor http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-537 Airor Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:42:04 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-537 Actually the 'couple thousand' bits of information is a hell of a lot when you're talking about possibilities. How many different paragraphs can be written? Well, 2^2000 is about 10^602 or so, which is beyond astronomical. The number of protons in the universe (Eddingtons Number) is around 10^79 and this number is 10^523 times larger than that. Of course those are only the imaginable possibilities for the active gene information content, but what about the valid possibilities? Well, imagine how small a percentage that are valid and still get quadrillions of different eyes? One in 10^577. Thats vanishingly small. Its so small as to be unbelievable, so there are probably much more (astronomically more) valid possibilities for an eye. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually the ‘couple thousand’ bits of information is a hell of a lot when you’re talking about possibilities. How many different paragraphs can be written? Well, 2^2000 is about 10^602 or so, which is beyond astronomical. The number of protons in the universe (Eddingtons Number) is around 10^79 and this number is 10^523 times larger than that.

Of course those are only the imaginable possibilities for the active gene information content, but what about the valid possibilities? Well, imagine how small a percentage that are valid and still get quadrillions of different eyes? One in 10^577. Thats vanishingly small. Its so small as to be unbelievable, so there are probably much more (astronomically more) valid possibilities for an eye.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

]]> By: VorJAck http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-536 VorJAck Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:04:44 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-536 I love the anthrocentrism of this kind of thinking: "The extreme unlikelihood of everything being not too hot, not too cold, not too big, and not too small, to put it very crudely, has often been cited as evidence that the universe has been designed for us, presumably by God." The assumption is that we are the point of things. All the other potential universes that could be are inferior, because they wouldn't have led to us. And they call atheists arrogant. It's all very reminiscent of the old Douglas Adams line: "... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" I love the anthrocentrism of this kind of thinking: “The extreme unlikelihood of everything being not too hot, not too cold, not too big, and not too small, to put it very crudely, has often been cited as evidence that the universe has been designed for us, presumably by God.”

The assumption is that we are the point of things. All the other potential universes that could be are inferior, because they wouldn’t have led to us. And they call atheists arrogant.

It’s all very reminiscent of the old Douglas Adams line: “… imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

]]> By: Ric http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Ric Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:44:21 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-535 Yeah, the anthropic argument used by theists is ridiculous and fails miserably, as you have pointed out admirably. I also like Nassim Taleb's refutation in his "The Black Swan." He says something like: "The anthropic argument is similar to a winner of a lottery arguing after the fact that he must have been destined to win because, well, he won." Great logic, huh? Yeah, the anthropic argument used by theists is ridiculous and fails miserably, as you have pointed out admirably. I also like Nassim Taleb’s refutation in his “The Black Swan.” He says something like: “The anthropic argument is similar to a winner of a lottery arguing after the fact that he must have been destined to win because, well, he won.” Great logic, huh?

]]> By: jorgaba http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/06/10/tia-tuesday-consider-the-possibilities/comment-page-1/#comment-534 jorgaba Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:50:25 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=363#comment-534 These "odds" arguments are always so preposterous and stupid, it boggles the mind that people fixate on them so. The argument is a bit like saying, isn't amazing that a house exists at the EXACT longitude and latitude I happen to sleep every night, down to a resolution of several hundred square feet of terrestrial surface area. Think about that -- of ALL POSSIBLE longitudes and latitudes on the earth, there is a house EXACTLY where I live....isn't that amazing? What are the odds? Well, no it isn't amazing -- the odds are pretty good, considering that the presence of a house actually exerts causal influence on where I live and bed down for the night. If I didn't live in this particular location, I'd live in some other location with a house. People who use the anthropic argument seem to completely miss the point that life is an effect -- it is CAUSED by the conditions amenable to it. The bit about the unlikelihood of universes tuned for us is even more ridiculous. You can't judge the odds of anything without some knowledge of a probability distribution. We don't know anything at all about the probability distribution of possible universes, and we know equally nothing about the probability distribution of emergent intelligence given the probability distribution of possible universes. The anthropic principle really is a non-starter. These “odds” arguments are always so preposterous and stupid, it boggles the mind that people fixate on them so.

The argument is a bit like saying, isn’t amazing that a house exists at the EXACT longitude and latitude I happen to sleep every night, down to a resolution of several hundred square feet of terrestrial surface area. Think about that — of ALL POSSIBLE longitudes and latitudes on the earth, there is a house EXACTLY where I live….isn’t that amazing? What are the odds?

Well, no it isn’t amazing — the odds are pretty good, considering that the presence of a house actually exerts causal influence on where I live and bed down for the night. If I didn’t live in this particular location, I’d live in some other location with a house. People who use the anthropic argument seem to completely miss the point that life is an effect — it is CAUSED by the conditions amenable to it.

The bit about the unlikelihood of universes tuned for us is even more ridiculous. You can’t judge the odds of anything without some knowledge of a probability distribution. We don’t know anything at all about the probability distribution of possible universes, and we know equally nothing about the probability distribution of emergent intelligence given the probability distribution of possible universes.

The anthropic principle really is a non-starter.

]]>