Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

The fine tuning argument just isn't convincing though. I've yet to see a rigorous probability argument for (or against) it.

I would have though our own understanding would be sufficient... but apparently not. The OP was about monkeys doing something improbable, which turns out to be impossible. Why/ Because they are monkeys! Think about it. Yet we think that even bigger problems can be solved by effectively monkeys. Everything seems to hinge round the idea of many worlds/universes to help the odds. Yet there is nothing to say that will help, only are excepance of an assumption that if you have many things you will have difference. But who is to say they are not all the same?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, I believe it's hypothetically possible as do most cosmologists and physicists. So, apparently you believe they also are "not serious".

I doubt they think that, but if they do, they as you, are blinding themselves with science and philosophy.

BTW, your analogy is actually flawed in that you're having things put together that already are fully made, whereas what we're dealing with are formations of sub-atomic particles, or even the basic components of these particles (strings?), eventually coalescing into larger particles, and then eventually into mega-matter.



That's your choice, and after all, you could be correct.

I think it works fine. There are component parts that have to be assembled, just as atoms to to form molecules and cells etc. No difference. Perhaps you could show me where a scientists says what I quoted. If you do, my estimation of them will go downhill fast... For that my friend, is faith, theirs.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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?



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



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.



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?



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.



Who, exactly?



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?



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



"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?



See: Probability.



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



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.

You always say a lot, but say nothing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

But intelligence forming something complex is always a better idea than luck. They speak for a point of view of sceince.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Nowhere. I have never said so either.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Erm... It is like Dawkins says...You are just postulating complexity.
I will use your house analogy. If accepting it as an accident is like saying that a house built itself, then accepting a creator is like saying that a building like the taj mahal was always there.

You are just doing what many theists have done through the time for many different reasons: "I don't have any other reasonable explanation for event X, therefore it was god".

 

[Revoltingest]

I would have though our own understanding would be sufficient... but apparently not. The OP was about monkeys doing something improbable, which turns out to be impossible. Why/ Because they are monkeys! Think about it. Yet we think that even bigger problems can be solved by effectively monkeys. Everything seems to hinge round the idea of many worlds/universes to help the odds. Yet there is nothing to say that will help, only are excepance of an assumption that if you have many things you will have difference. But who is to say they are not all the same?

The probability of monkeys typing out a sonnet just isn't related to the probability of a Goldilocks universe. Suppose the OP were about monkeys typing out Obama's slogan, "Hope & change". Now it's quite likely they could do it. (Perhaps they even did.) Does that negate the need for intelligence in creating & running the universe?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Erm... It is like Dawkins says...You are just postulating complexity.
I will use your house analogy. If accepting it as an accident is like saying that a house built itself, then accepting a creator is like saying that a building like the taj mahal was always there.

You are just doing what many theists have done through the time for many different reasons: "I don't have any other reasonable explanation for event X, therefore it was god".

And you seem to be doing the opposite. Intelligence is the better answer. Even science theory speaks of everything being consciousness. I t is puzzling why people are so in love with luck being the answer and in turn, death.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The probability of monkeys typing out a sonnet just isn't related to the probability of a Goldilocks universe. Suppose the OP were about monkeys typing out Obama's slogan, "Hope & change". Now it's quite likely they could do it. (Perhaps they even did.) Does that negate the need for intelligence in creating & running the universe?

I monkeys can't even do that, how and why do we think that something even more complicated taking us back to the beginning of time, is more likely without intelligence. As someone said, Dawkins might well say I postualte complexity, but what does he postualte, luck?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is the probability that there is one god, as most believers say. There could also be 0, 2, 3, 4.....& on to infinity. The odds that there is one would be 1/infinity = 0.

 

[Revoltingest]

I monkeys can't even do that, how and why do we think that something even more complicated taking us back to the beginning of time, is more likely without intelligence. As someone said, Dawkins might well say I postualte complexity, but what does he postualte, luck?

You haven't even proven that monkeys can't type out the sonnet. Even if there isn't a multiverse, our universe having a beginning would point to its existence being an event. What are the odds there was a singular event? Well, the possibilities are also 2, 3, 4....& on to infinity. The probability of a single occurrence would be 1/infinity=0.

Of course, my calculation is dependent upon questionable premises, as are yours. I point out that we really don't know enuf. So it boils down to preference...you say "goddidit", & I say "itjusthappened".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"I don't have any other reasonable explanation for event X, therefore it was god".

Yes, and the gaps are gradually getting smaller. "God" feels to me like an easy answer.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The probability of monkeys typing out a sonnet just isn't related to the probability of a Goldilocks universe. Suppose the OP were about monkeys typing out Obama's slogan, "Hope & change". Now it's quite likely they could do it. (Perhaps they even did.) Does that negate the need for intelligence in creating & running the universe?

You have to assume that the many universe theory is real, that it will bring about DIFFERENT universes and not the same, in order to give our universe reasonable odds. Considering that so many thing 'here' seem to be, if I can put it this way, perfect, it should make one reflect on why it is so. Consider evolution, why should we not have the odd ear or nose where it is not needed, or the odd appendix, an arm for instance where it is not needed. I have seen animals like this, but why is it not more common? I would have thought without intelligence there is no reason to think that an eagle would look the way it does - or a man.

I do think though that this thread is already at an end.
It appears that those who think mind is fundamental still accept it, and those who don't, don't. As a theist, I have no problem with that. It fits well. But what if there were no God and we did arrive by sheer luck. What then? Why would we have such differences of opinion about such things in the first place. I've no doubt that if we looked at some other problem other than this subject, we probable would come up with the same answer.

If it were just ignorance, then by now, all of the West would now not believe, which is what philosophers thought would happen, and has not. Faith has risen, even if though, acoording to some, it is now falling. All things fluctuate, right? (I give you that line so we can agree on something).

So I think, like it or not, those who do not believe still have to have faith, even if it is faith in the answer, I don't know...

 

[Robert.Evans]

You haven't even proven that monkeys can't type out the sonnet. Even if there isn't a multiverse, our universe having a beginning would point to its existence being an event. What are the odds there was a singular event? Well, the possibilities are also 2, 3, 4....& on to infinity. The probability of a single occurrence would be 1/infinity=0.

Of course, my calculation is dependent upon questionable premises, as are yours. I point out that we really don't know enuf. So it boils down to preference...you say "goddidit", & I say "itjusthappened".

Haven't read it but this might help:

Christian Medical Comment: Why Richard Dawkins’ typing monkey theorem is a load of nonsense

also

“Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), The monkeys produced fifty typed pages—but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000. Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. ‘What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?’ he asked. He continued:

‘All the sonnets are the same length. They are by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times—or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.

‘Now the number of particles in the universe—not grains of sand, I am talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons—is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is one with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690 is one with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.

‘If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips—forget the monkeys—each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, one million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second producing random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600 times larger. Yet the world just thinks the monkeys can do it every time.’”

A Mathematical Quote From Gerald Schroeder In “There Is A God” | Craig T. Owens

 

[Robert.Evans]

He is a scientist. According to him it is proved I think

 

[Robert.Evans]

you say "goddidit", & I say "itjusthappened".

But what did it justhappen from? Where did this magical property that can justmakethingshappen come from, and how? Did it always exist? What made this magical property? I think perhaps you are no better off as and when it comes to mere argument and explanation.... correct me if I am wrong please.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have to assume that the many universe theory is real, that it will bring about DIFFERENT universes and not the same, in order to give our universe reasonable odds. Considering that so many thing 'here' seem to be, if I can put it this way, perfect, it should make one reflect on why it is so.

The multiverse option isn't the only one we must consider. There is also the possibility that other "tunings" of the universe could be comodious to other forms of life, which might speculate about the unlikeliness of their existence.

Consider evolution, why should we not have the odd ear or nose where it is not needed, or the odd appendix, an arm for instance where it is not needed. I have seen animals like this, but why is it not more common? I would have thought without intelligence there is no reason to think that an eagle would look the way it does - or a man.

The reason is that what you see is the emergent property of a stochastic process.

I do think though that this thread is already at an end.
It appears that those who think mind is fundamental still accept it, and those who don't, don't. As a theist, I have no problem with that. It fits well. But what if there were no God and we did arrive by sheer luck. What then? Why would we have such differences of opinion about such things in the first place. I've no doubt that if we looked at some other problem other than this subject, we probable would come up with the same answer.

We never agree here.....the commies fight the capitalists....the statists fight the libertarians.....the pro-rioters fight the anti-rioters......the Scots fight the...everyone.

If it were just ignorance, then by now, all of the West would now not believe, which is what philosophers thought would happen, and has not. Faith has risen, even if though, acoording to some, it is now falling. All things fluctuate, right? (I give you that line so we can agree on something).

I've no idea whether faith or monotheism are on the rise or fall. "Truth" just isn't something indicated by popularity.

So I think, like it or not, those who do not believe still have to have faith, even if it is faith in the answer, I don't know...

No faith is necessary if I believe only things which I observe or deduce. I have the distinct advantage of not needing a multiverse. I was born both not believing & not knowing anything of cosmology. So the need to believe in any particular cosmological model just isn't part of my thinking.
Perhaps I have the spiritual insight to know that there's nothing supernatural, eh?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where did this magical property that can justmakethingshappen come from, and how?

We simply don't know at this stage. There may well be something "magical" going on, but I don't think God language is at all useful or revealing in considering what that might be - there's far too much theological baggage tied up with this way of thinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

But what did it justhappen from?

Some cause.

Where did this magical property that can justmakethingshappen come from, and how?

I don't know.

Did it always exist?

Maybe. Maybe not.

What made this magical property?

Is it magical?

I think perhaps you are no better off as and when it comes to mere argument and explanation.... correct me if I am wrong please.

I never said your belief is wrong.

I did say your method of calculating probability is inadequate.
Wolfgang Pauli might say.....
It's not right...it's not even wrong.

 

[Koldo]

And you seem to be doing the opposite. Intelligence is the better answer.

The opposite of what? I am NOT saying: "I don't have any other reasonable explanation for event X, therefore it was not god".

Even science theory speaks of everything being consciousness.

What scientific theory are you referring to?

I t is puzzling why people are so in love with luck being the answer and in turn, death.

In turn...death? Are you referring to no afterlife?