Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

I had a look at this on Wiki:
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It all looks a bit inconclusive to me.

 

[metis]

Time travel.

Thanks, and I'll check it out.

 

[metis]

I had a look at this on Wiki:
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It all looks a bit inconclusive to me.

Correct, and even some relatively hard-core atheists, like Dawkins, Hawking, and Harris will admit to this. We simply do not know what series of events formed our universe/multiverse, and it's always possible we may never know.

 

[Koldo]

an accident created the word- help? I hope you don't work for the coast guard!

I hope we don't get into that kind of thing. My tongue can prove be quite sharp.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had a look at this on Wiki:
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It all looks a bit inconclusive to me.

So......I read thru the possibilities covered in that article. I hereby decree that we're in no position to calculate the probability of intelligent fine tuning.

There....that should end the debate about the issue! All that's left now is name calling, putting each other on <ignore>, & proclaiming a win.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I hope we don't get into that kind of thing. My tongue can prove be quite sharp.

it's a joke Koldo, but humor me for a moment, - in the analogy, would you assume the waves created the word 'help'?

 

[metis]

Sure. But if the structure of existence is a fractal (like Robert here likes to talk about, and I can agree with), the "connection" could end up being something infinite. A fractal has a finite area (order), but an infinite edge (chaos).

Well, it depends on how you use "infinite" in this regard, because even if the edge is irregular that doesn't mean it expands into infinity. I think you're better off just saying "irregular" versus "infinity".

When we see different kinds of physical laws/rules/phenomenon they're just the emergent apparent pattern in the area of the infinite structure. What binds one area together with the other? A finite space between, but infinite regression still.

Within sub-atomic particles, gluons and possibly some other particles perform that function, but if we try to break these particles down even further, we get lost in hypotheticals because we not only don't know if strings exist, nor do we know how exactly they may affect each other?

I used to be an amateur photographer, and I loved taking low-light pictures using high-speed film. However, especially when you blow these pictures up, they can come off very grainy, almost as if you're looking at a mosaiic painting. One theory of cosmology is that the weird behavior of sub-atomic particles gets averaged out and are miniscule by the time it all gets put together in mega-matter. Like with my grainy photographs, when you stand back further away from the picture, you don't see all the little "mosaiics" but just the larger picture. Much like they say I look better the further back the viewer is.

Am I communicating?

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, it depends on how you use "infinite" in this regard, because even if the edge is irregular that doesn't mean it expands into infinity. I think you're better off just saying "irregular" versus "infinity".

Look at the Koch snowflake as an example.

"An infinite perimeter encloses a finite area... Now that's amazing!!"
Cynthia Lanius' Fractals Unit: Infinite Perimeter

Within sub-atomic particles, gluons and possibly some other particles perform that function, but if we try to break these particles down even further, we get lost in hypotheticals because we not only don't know if strings exist, nor do we know how exactly they may affect each other?

Yes, it's only hypotheticals for now. But the fractals consist of something. And that something consist of something. Which in turn... It's turtles all the way down, except each turtle is a different kind.

I used to be an amateur photographer, and I loved taking low-light pictures using high-speed film. However, especially when you blow these pictures up, they can come off very grainy, almost as if you're looking at a mosaiic painting. One theory of cosmology is that the weird behavior of sub-atomic particles gets averaged out and are miniscule by the time it all gets put together in mega-matter. Like with my grainy photographs, when you stand back further away from the picture, you don't see all the little "mosaiics" but just the larger picture. Much like they say I look better the further back the viewer is.

That's how physics works. It's the averaging or greater look at the picture. A low resolution of the world. Reality is most likely an infinite resolution. There is no bottom or final pixel size.

The smallest space we can consider today in physics is Planck space, and the shortest time is Planck time. That's the current theoretical limit to our resolution in this world, but... what's beyond that? Between 9 and 11 dimensions that affects the quarks, and beyond that...? I believe the world is more like a Russian doll. There's never and end to how far it can be broken down.

Am I communicating?

Absolutely.

 

[Ouroboros]

I had a look at this on Wiki:
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It all looks a bit inconclusive to me.

It is. I think the whole "fine tuned" idea is probably some kind of fallacy. Very much like the grand winner in Lotto who thanks God for the win. God made it happen. But if he/she lost... well, then that was God's will too, or maybe he/she was just plain unlucky.

 

[metis]

Look at the Koch snowflake as an example.

"An infinite perimeter encloses a finite area... Now that's amazing!!"
Cynthia Lanius' Fractals Unit: Infinite Perimeter



Yes, it's only hypotheticals for now. But the fractals consist of something. And that something consist of something. Which in turn... It's turtles all the way down, except each turtle is a different kind.


That's how physics works. It's the averaging or greater look at the picture. A low resolution of the world. Reality is most likely an infinite resolution. There is no bottom or final pixel size.

The smallest space we can consider today in physics is Planck space, and the shortest time is Planck time. That's the current theoretical limit to our resolution in this world, but... what's beyond that? Between 9 and 11 dimensions that affects the quarks, and beyond that...? I believe the world is more like a Russian doll. There's never and end to how far it can be broken down.


Absolutely.

Good.

I'm glad you posted the link with your first comment above as now I see how you were using the word "infinite". I thought you were saying infinite in terms of being everywhere all at one time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Good.

I'm glad you posted the link with your first comment above as now I see how you were using the word "infinite". I thought you were saying infinite in terms of being everywhere all at one time.

Oh. Ok. See!! It's all about those friggin' words! The more I debate over the years, the more I see how fickle language is. (Fickle? Is that a good word for it? Don't know, but it sounds funny enough. )

--edit

Anyway, to expand on the thoughts a little. Not only space, matter, energy, etc falls under this umbrella of "fractals", but also time. So, in my mind (there's a huge empty space there, but there's something still between those empty slots) there's no beginning or end. It just all loops in on itself over and over again. I should stop there. All my blabbery mouth again. LOL!

 

[metis]

Oh. Ok. See!! It's all about those friggin' words! The more I debate over the years, the more I see how fickle language is. (Fickle? Is that a good word for it? Don't know, but it sounds funny enough. )

Remember "the fickle finger of fate"? I can, but I can't remember where it's from.

 

[Bunyip]

It is all part of the improbabilty of the universe as a whole, not as a part. And anyway, I thought I made it clear that the bird would need it straight away, like brakes on a car.... we don't want them evolving as they go along

Why not? Clearly they do 'evolve as they go along'.

You seem to think that excluding the answer to your questions means that your questions can not be answered. Don't see the point.

 

[Ouroboros]

Remember "the fickle finger of fate"? I can, but I can't remember where it's from.

I had to look that up. You made me! It's a movie. I didn't know. Now I'm interested in watching that one too.

 

[metis]

I had to look that up. You made me! It's a movie. I didn't know. Now I'm interested in watching that one too.

If you suddenly disappear from RF, now I'll know why.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you suddenly disappear from RF, now I'll know why.

Hey! I can multitask. I can chew gum and...

wait...

I had to finish the gum first... Where was I?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

This is a question that Physicist G. Schroeder asks:

Q: Very occasionally monkeys hammering away at typewriters will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

A: Not true, not in this universe. But it is a popular assumption that the monkeys can do it, a wrong assumption that randomness can produce meaningful stable complexity. But let's look at the numbers to see why the monkeys will always fail ...

I've taken the liberty of skipping the numbers from the original post. Anyone interested in the details can page back up and review them. I've omitted them because the original poster failed to demonstrate that they were relevant to a discussion concerning the origin(s) of the universe.

Undoubtedly, an investigation into the odds of a monkey randomly typing out a known work of literature is very interesting. However, what you've failed to do is show how that scenario relates to the universe. How in the world do you arrive at numbers that relate to an unknown event like the creation of the universe? How do you compute odds when you have no numbers?

In my own humble way, I could have said that monkeys would not have done that, no matter how much time they had. Time was at one time seen as the ''hero''. But monkeys are monkeys!

Monkeys are monkeys. And monkeys are primates and William Shakespeare was in fact a primate. The Christian who is regarded as the father of modern taxonomy arrived at this rather obvious truth:

"It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural History." ~ Carl Linnaeus, 1747

Yet time does not always mean there will be sufficient change in order to facilitate the change needed in the first place.

I'd ask you "How do you know that?" but your prose was so convoluted, I'm not even sure what you were trying to say. Could you restate that? And feel free to offer some evidence to support the claim next time.

Why do we think it does?

OK. I'm going to try to work with what you've offered:

Why do "we" feel that ... time does not always mean ... there will be sufficient change ... to facilitate the change needed .. in the first place?

Are you saying that "we" believe that there are sometimes instances when time will mean that there will be sufficient change to facilitate the change needed in the first place?

So, my question is this: If that is so unlikely for monkeys to do... then, if the multiverse exists, how can we even be sure that they would all be different universes, thus giving us sufficiently correct odds that our universe could develop the way it did. I don't see we have licence to expect such a positive result.

You haven't produced any numbers for the universe, have you? If you're willing to attempt to calculate odds without any numbers ... you're welcome to try. Let me know how it all works out.

Meanwhile, I'll happily recall the Robert Frost quote about trying to play tennis without the net.

Now there are those who say that this universe might be the proverbial bouncing ball, forever coming into existence and then dying only to be reborn.

Who, exactly?

If so, why should we think that would be any better with the odds?

Are you asking what the odds are in an infinite loop? Is that even a coherent question?

Let's try this: Can we re-run the numbers from your chosen example and allow the monkey an infinite amount of time to type out that sonnet? How do you figure probability in an infinite scenario? Does infinity render all probability-based objections rather meaningless?

In other words, if it is so difficult to do, how is time going to help?

You've cited some sort of "infinite-bouncing ball" scenario. Would you care to explain how is time relevant in an infinite scenario?

A dice with six sides is one thing.... eventually we know that the six will come up. But what of the dice with a trillion sides. Is a six going to come up then?

It is hard to say it ever would, there are just too many chances of it falling onto another number. It might never do! Are we mistakenly thinking it would have to do, just because of an allegiance to some kind of worldly thinking?

"God does not play dice with the universe." ~ Albert Einstien

It's pure conjecture, but the following question seems rather obvious: How do you know that the dice roll required to get this universe wasn't whichever one you happened to roll first?

And why does probability act the way it does anyway?

See: Probability.

What drives that?

Certainly not intelligence. Applying intelligence to probability (especially in regards to your dice analogy) is typically viewed as cheating, isn't it?

It appears without intelligence involved in creation, we have no right to expect anything positively happening at all.

You haven't proven anything about the origin of the universe or the role that intelligence might have played. You've merely cited numbers that attempt to refute the notion that a monkey could type out a sonnet. Need I remind you that the universe and a monkey typing out a sonnet are two different things?

If you ever arrive at concrete numbers for God and our universe and Creation Ex Nihilo ... break out your abacus and your scratch paper. And remember to show your work.

...

Otherwise, you're just whistling in the dark.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I think there is a fundamental error in the OP.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Add up the probability of every possible universe and you will have 100% chance to have one universe.
That is, if at least one universe had to come up in the first place.

Where is it written though that if there are many universes (or even rebounding universes) that every possible universe that can exist will exist? Is that not faith?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think it was an accident. Although that is not the word I would use.
Why? Because I see no reason to believe in a creator. I see no evidence for its existence.

Accident or luck, that is just, as far as I am concerned, madness. Whyyyyy??? Hoooowwww??? To not see a creator and think that is reason is like saying you can't see a brick layer so the house built itself or was always there.