Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Sapiens]

Look at some of the improbable odds of this universe:

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,

namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Fine Tuning of the Universe

I don't think an excuse of there being many universes is really apt to explain such figures.... and that is just of ONE occurrence. There are many others. It is truly mind-blowing.

Roger Penrose calls string theory a "fashion," quantum mechanics "faith," and cosmic inflation a "fantasy." He is a dottering contrarian who loves the limelight.

Even if his calculations were correct, this sort of retrospective statistical analysis if foolish and he knows that. It like one of the old mechanical Japanese Pachinko machines, if you calculate the odds of any specific path for the ball from top to bottom you'll see that it is virtually impossible for it to get there, but knowing that it is in a slot at the bottom you realize that the actual odds are just one out of the number of slots at the bottom, all those pegs are just randomizers that effect what final slot the ball falls into.

 

[Ouroboros]

Every heard of the phrase ''Under the weather'' for someone who is ill or a little off colour? Apparently there is good evidence to show that it can affect us now. It appears to me that we are part of the whole, not just 'in' the whole. There are studies in Russia where certain weather patterns and the fullness of the moon actually affect wars, suicides etc.

Very true.

Actually, we do know that we need sunshine. Winter depression is a real thing (D-vitamin deficiency). There are organisms that follow patterns of the moon cycle. Then we have the tides, and the distance of the moon, it doesn't follow a circle but an ellipse, means that its gravitational pull varies. It's not strange to imagine that some lifeforms are susceptible to those changes (water and weather already is).

 

[Ouroboros]

That's definitely an attractive idea. But could it be explained by monkeys on typewriters?

There's art produced by monkeys. It reminds us of abstract and expressive art, but still. There's been tests to see if people can see the difference between a monkey's painting and a modern artist's, and usually it's a very tight race. Actually, the trained art students have a harder time than regular people. LOL!

“My monkey could have painted that.” Really? | Psychology Today

 

[Ouroboros]

''might'', but also might not. There are nigh on a billion chances that it would not. When you get to the billionth one, would you stake your house on it?

You said that chances don't increase but rather decrease, which is wrong. The chances increases with more universes. I'm just correcting you where you were wrong.

But sure, yes, even after a billion tries there's a chance that you don't hit the winning number.

If you play on Lotto and play one billion lines, each one different than the other one, would your chances be higher than if you played only one line?

Firstly we have to assume the universe are there. Secondly, the fact that the fine tuning argument says that this universe is very improbable,

I'm not sure it says any universe is improbable, only that it's improbable to be the way ours is. It could have been many different ways but none of them would have been stable or such. Personally, I think they're wrong (yes, I sometimes think scientists are wrong ).

means that it is less likely that any other potential universe has formed. If it has, and has in a way that we would recognise it, then the odds of this universe just got worse. If they are not like this one, (which is likely) then they fall under their own laws, which may not include life, or at least not as we would know it (Jim). But this universe would still have a very unlikely chance of existing.... and yet it does!

Well, I've seen many different attempts of calculating the probability of the universe we have but they all are made from assumptions and our limited knowledge of how the universe works. We still don't have an explanation for dark matter, dark energy, or full understanding gravity, and more. So to calculate any probability without the full knowledge is a shot in the dark.

 

[Ouroboros]

I search it, interesting.
One, how does it work?

He has the code somewhere. Not sure, but there's randomness combined with some kind of selection, I think. Not sure.

Is it a random program that recognises words or preprogrammed. And two, what the heck did you post it for... haha

To show that randomness can be part of an algorithm and produce things. People have a huge stigma against randomness and chance (and monkeys).

---edit---

May I ask, do you believe there's a spirit (God, humans, soul, etc)? Is it alive? Is it part of this universe or separate? If separate and alive, then how the universe is tuned is inconsequential since life is based on the spirit, not the construct. On the other hand, if spirit is alive without universe, then life can exist in other forms, non-universe like forms, and the fine tuning argument that this universe is the only kind where life can exist in is wrong. On the other hand, if we only talk about biological life forms, not the soul/spirit part of it, we still consider that life is founded in the soul/spiritual part, not the biological, and in a universe where the biological life can't form, other forms could take place where the spiritual could inhabit. So again, the fine tuning argument doesn't fit the external spiritual life idea.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No disagreement on my part.

hence apparent chaos=

If you have a billion sided die, and roll it a billion times, there's a billion chances that whatever number you wanted to show up might show up. The probability increases with more universes. Or, let's say that each multiverse is lined up on a numerical line, so universe 1 is die side 1. Universe 2 is die side 2. All the billion universes all represent each side of the die, that means one of them will have the number. Without chance. Without randomness. Only because of all things that can exist exists.

and if a gambler bets on the number 500,000,000- and he wins, you don't suspect the die is loaded?

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know what you think you saying here. The fine tuning argument says that not only is everything incredibly unlikely, but that if it is so unlikely, the chances of it happening anywhere else are not likely at all, otherwise the odds get worse. This means that life may not be suitable for us in other universe, if indeed they exist in the first place. If, if, you are saying that they all have the right order for life, then the odds just got worse.

Pretty simple, hes' saying that if you roll a die and are able only to see sixes then the only result you'll see are sixes. Pretty accurate analogy for your condition.

It is easy to misuse retrospective statistics to confuse rather than illuminate, thanks for a prime example.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know what you think you saying here. The fine tuning argument says that not only is everything incredibly unlikely, but that if it is so unlikely, the chances of it happening anywhere else are not likely at all, otherwise the odds get worse. This means that life may not be suitable for us in other universe, if indeed they exist in the first place. If, if, you are saying that they all have the right order for life, then the odds just got worse.

But if God is that intelligence/spirit behind the universe, then is God not alive? Can he only exist within our universe since this is presumed to be the only way life can exist? There's some contradiction here that needs to be resolved.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Pretty simple, hes' saying that if you roll a die and are able only to see sixes then the only result you'll see are sixes. Pretty accurate analogy for your condition.

It is easy to misuse retrospective statistics to confuse rather than illuminate, thanks for a prime example.

snotty ad hominem attacks are always a lot easier than respectful counter arguments, thanks for a prime example..

 

[metis]

and if a gambler bets on the number 500,000,000- and he wins, you don't suspect the die is loaded?

No, because other numbers might "win" as well.

Live here on Earth evolved under the conditions that were present here, but that doesn't mean that life forms couldn't evolve under some differing conditions elsewhere.

 

[Koldo]

hence apparent chaos=

And?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Except that an overwhelming number of cosmologists, many of whom have been researching the BB, say otherwise, and they are joined by also an overwhelming number of physicists. If a theistic creation is so obvious, why did this group somehow miss it, especially since most of them had a theistic upbringing according to Leonard Susskind?

Some physicists are believers.
Because the theistic theory and the science theory are one of the same. Science only deals with what it sees, so is therefore limited on certain concepts.

You are ignoring the possibility of "infinity", and this indeed fits into our experiences of multiple causes and effects going back as far as we can possibly take it. It's the concept of theistic causation that has no real evidence for. And if one stops and thinks about it, how is it even hypothetically possible that one could know that a deity or deities caused our universe?

Nothing can be ''eternal'' or ''infinite'' in the sense that it can go backwards as well as forwards as that always implies change, and that implies time. God, in case you are wondering, in His simplest form, just 'is'.

The causal effect does indeed go back a long way, but only to Source.

It is God that enlightens us. But failing that, as the OP is trying to pick at, the odds of this universe and fine tuning suggest, strongly, that it will not come about through luck. Thus higher-intelligence is in order, and that is the supreme-intelligence which is everything. It explains all things, you me, evolution, the big bang, even the fact there are believers in the first place.

Depends on how the question is asked. If "agnostic" is an option, then the largest plurality of scientists goes in that direction according to the survey's I've seen.

It does indeed depend on how one inteprets the figures, but more or less hald and half, even if not the majority of the higher sceintists

Listen, I am not an atheist but take the position that whatever caused our universe to happen I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. Call me "agnostic" if you prefer, and let me just say that I have vastly more questions than I have answers.

That's fine.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That would be a stretch either way, as I mentioned above. Hawking, even though he has labeled himself an "atheist" as of this year, doesn't negate the hypothetical possibility of there being a deity or deities, and neither do Dawkins or Harris.
They label themselves as "atheists" because they don't believe in a deity, but the reality is that they are really agnostics, which can sometimes be construed as "atheists" depending on variable definitions of "atheism".

I can only speak for Dawkins as I don't know Harris, but I would say he is just playing safe in case any evidence is found. One does not write a book called Teh G-d Delusion and then say, But I don't know. Interlectually dishonest I would say... to use his words.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Live here on Earth evolved under the conditions that were present here, but that doesn't mean that life forms couldn't evolve under some differing conditions elsewhere.

Yes, and conditions could have been such that there was no possibility for any kind of life to evolve. But there is no requirement for life to evolve.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think all fine tuning arguments committ the same fallacy (of composition).the same fallacy many cosmological arguments suffer from. In a nutshell: it is logically unwarranted to apply things valid within a certain context to the context itself.

Consider a tipical teleological argument:

If I can keep up with you, oh wise one, I shall do...

1) things do not assemble magically to create a car, therefore a car, even if I never saw one before, clearly points toward a conscious designer.

Okay, agreed. This is my level.... haha

Now, the essential premise is:

1a) things do not assemble magically (or randomly, or by chance) to form a car.

And this is a valid premise. The point is that is not generalizable. It is an empirical evidence based on the fact that a set of atoms, or basic constituents, do not assemble, usually, autonomously to form a car.

Okay...

But this is also a thermodynamcal statement. Since there are many many more (macroscospically indistinguishable) ways a set of atoms can evolve into something different than a car, then it is obvious that we should not expect a car, without introducing eternal factors.

right!

This is the second principle in action. In an insulated system, things evolve naturally toward macroscopically indistinguishable states (viole's mess) because they are the vast majority of states a system can autonomously evolve to. It is a statistical principle ruling the evolution of many basic constituents, like gas. It does not work, for instance, with boxes containing only one constituent or atom, primeval or not.

But the second principle is also only applicable in a context that is not in thermal equilibrium. In a system in thermal equilibrium things can only evolve toward the same mess or towards less mess, for the current mess is already maximal and cannot be topped.

Ergo, premise 1a makes sense only in contexts not in therml equilibrium. That is in contexts like our Universe. Applying it to the context itself is unwarranted, unless the Unverse itself is contained in an encompassing Universe which is not in thermal equlibrium. But that would just delegate the problem to the encompassing Universe, for which there is no evidence, by the way.

Ciao

- viole

Your point I'm afraid was lost on me. Now write it again for a five year old. (pssst... don't tell anyone that is me... I already have no street cred haha)

 

[metis]

Some physicists are believers.
Because the theistic theory and the science theory are one of the same. Science only deals with what it sees, so is therefore limited on certain concepts.

Yes, some obviously are believers, but theistic theory and science theory are not at all the same. Theistic theory is not based on deriving objective evidence, but scientific theory is entirely reliant upon it.

Nothing can be ''eternal'' or ''infinite'' in the sense that it can go backwards as well as forwards as that always implies change, and that implies time. God,

I'm afraid you're making up you own "cosmology" and "physics" as infinity is definitely in the theoretical running. I can give you a short list of books on cosmology that you might find interesting, so let me know if you're interested.

The causal effect does indeed go back a long way, but only to Source.

Provide even one shred of evidence for this, please.

It is God that enlightens us.

Provide even one shred of evidence for this, please.

 

[metis]

Yes, and conditions could have been such that there was no possibility for any kind of life to evolve. But there is no requirement for life to evolve.

Absolutely.

 

[Robert.Evans]

v

What is the probability of life arising in a possible universe, & this life pondering its existence? Have no answer? Then I don't buy the improbability argument.

We do have probability of certain things in this universe, and it is scientists who give these figures not me. They, as one instance, are horrendously high. There are many examples of that. I have given some earlier. What it amounts to totally would probably be off the scale. This is one quote which might answer your question:

~~~
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on:
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

~~~
note the ''1'' at the end

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why can't it be inherent?

It is... but I am asking how is that possible if there is no intelligence involved.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, and conditions could have been such that there was no possibility for any kind of life to evolve. But there is no requirement for life to evolve.

But that is not the point... life does exist.