An argument foe Grand Design, maybe?

[Immanuel Can]

How so? As if they all exist already then every type exists so the bet is certainty?

No. There is no "all" in infinity. "All" means "all of a particular thing or set of items," and in this case, "the complete set of possible universes." But infinity HAS no complete set. There is by definition, always more ways that things could be than are included in any subset of infinity.

So again, you're faced with the question, do you believe in a finite or infinite universe or multiverses? And if the former, you have the "fine tuning" problem, and if the latter then you can't get any help from the notion of infinity.

What most people are imagining when they imagine infinity is some really, really high number, but a definite, limited number. But infinity isn't like that. By definition, infinite anythings would have no limit in their number.

You'd even have ones where all the various 'God's of Creation' exist.

You can have gods (Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, the River Spirit, whatever), but by concept there is only one Supreme Being, or one monotheist God. So you could argue in favour of polytheism from this, but not any sort of monotheism.

But your point raises something interesting that may help you see through the logical mistake of thinking infinite galaxies or even a multiverse is an explanation of anything. The problem would go like this:

Let us grant that infinite universes exist.
Let us further suppose that in these universes every possible outcome is realized somewhere.
If every possible outcome is realized somewhere, then somewhere God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Question: What assures you that this outcome is not realized precisely here? How do you know that this is not the Heavens and Earth that God created?


Now, if you're on top of this, you'll say something like, "Don't be ridiculous: I meant every possible outcome BUT that one." But two problems would follow: 1) what's your warrant for an arbitrary exclusion from a scenario in which you are supposing all possible outcomes are realized somewhere? and 2) If you exclude that outcome, you're no longer referring to actually infinite possibilities, since that would be at least a conceptually possible outcome (as you have conceded above); so how do you expect infinite possibilities to help your case, and make it a "certainty" as you put it, since you are not actually speaking about infinite possibilities anymore?

And I won't do this, but we can begin to mock the infinite possibilities idea rather easily. We could ask, "Does this mean there is a universe somewhere in which "Arising UK" is a dog...or a rock...or a column of gas? Does this mean there is a universe somewhere where hot things freeze and cold things melt? Does it mean there is a universe in which entropy is zero? All of these are, of course, conceptual possibilities...they're just so wildly irrational and contrary to science that we are hard pressed to hang on to our trust of infinite possibilities.

You may wish to look at mathematician David Hilbert's work on infinity. I think you'll realize there's good reasons why we are not rational to imagine the existence of an actual infinity...anymore than we are well advised to imagine that someone has calculated pi to the final decimal.

[Arising_uk]

No. There is no "all" in infinity. "All" means "all of a particular thing or set of items," and in this case, "the complete set of possible universes." But infinity HAS no complete set. There is by definition, always more ways that things could be than are included in any subset of infinity. ...

Thats a fair point, just goes to show that this multiverse idea will have to constrain itself to all the possible variations of whats there I guess.

So again, you're faced with the question, do you believe in a finite or infinite universe or multiverses? And if the former, you have the "fine tuning" problem, and if the latter then you can't get any help from the notion of infinity.

Not really faced with this question at all as I tend to not bother with such beliefs. At best I just believe I am and there is an external world.

What most people are imagining when they imagine infinity is some really, really high number, but a definite, limited number. But infinity isn't like that. By definition, infinite anythings would have no limit in their number.

Hmm...how did Cantor get around to counting them?

You can have gods (Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, the River Spirit, whatever), but by concept there is only one Supreme Being, or one monotheist God. So you could argue in favour of polytheism from this, but not any sort of monotheism.

It's all metaphysical theological nonsense to me.

But your point raises something interesting that may help you see through the logical mistake of thinking infinite galaxies or even a multiverse is an explanation of anything. The problem would go like this:

Let us grant that infinite universes exist.
Let us further suppose that in these universes every possible outcome is realized somewhere.
If every possible outcome is realized somewhere, then somewhere God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Question: What assures you that this outcome is not realized precisely here? How do you know that this is not the Heavens and Earth that God created?

I don't, apart from that no-one can show me this 'God' when I ask them to, as I think it all pretty much nonsense spoken aloud.

Now, if you're on top of this, you'll say something like, "Don't be ridiculous: I meant every possible outcome BUT that one." But two problems would follow: 1) what's your warrant for an arbitrary exclusion from a scenario in which you are supposing all possible outcomes are realized somewhere? and 2) If you exclude that outcome, you're no longer referring to actually infinite possibilities, since that would be at least a conceptually possible outcome (as you have conceded above); so how do you expect infinite possibilities to help your case, and make it a "certainty" as you put it, since you are not actually speaking about infinite possibilities anymore?

Like I say, I think it pretty much all nonsense and wishful thinking, generally inculcated in childhood.

And I won't do this, but we can begin to mock the infinite possibilities idea rather easily. We could ask, "Does this mean there is a universe somewhere in which "Arising UK" is a dog...or a rock...or a column of gas? Does this mean there is a universe somewhere where hot things freeze and cold things melt? Does it mean there is a universe in which entropy is zero? All of these are, of course, conceptual possibilities...they're just so wildly irrational and contrary to science that we are hard pressed to hang on to our trust of infinite possibilities.

Sounds a lot like the wildly irrational idea of some 'supreme being' judging us all when we die.

You may wish to look at mathematician David Hilbert's work on infinity. I think you'll realize there's good reasons why we are not rational to imagine the existence of an actual infinity...anymore than we are well advised to imagine that someone has calculated pi to the final decimal.

I just thought the problem that we can't count them unless we redefine what a number is. From what you say no thing will be able to imagine infinity as the definition precludes it.

[Immanuel Can]

Arising:

I find your response agreeable to the problems I indicate regarding infinity, so I think we're on the same page there. I suspect where we remain apart is on the side-comments you make...which I think you're targeting at belief in God or gods generally: as you say, "all...nonsense,...wishful thinking...inculcated in childhood," and so on.

Now, these are things one could talk about, of course. But at the moment I haven't engaged them, but have merely pointed out the problems with the alternative of the multiverse hypothesis. I suggested to David (the original poster of the strand) that if there were the two hypotheses he indicated -- namely the multiverse hypothesis and the God hypothesis, then it was not true that there was no way of deciding. But rather than adduce positive proofs for the second hypothesis, I merely pointed out that the first was indeed possible to rule out entirely on rational grounds, apart from the question of verifying the God hypothesis.

It seems we have come to agreement about that.

However, if we've ruled out the multiverse hypothesis, which I think you can see we have to do, then it does not follow that if we simply lob allegations at the God hypothesis skepticism can win that way. For now we are faced with the fine-tuning problem, and that is a very strong indicator of some kind of Design limitations at work in the creation of the universe. So even if we buck all the existing accounts of a Supreme Being or polytheistic gods, as you seem at pains to do, we're stuck with a need for a new one. Something had to fine-tune the universe; and it wasn't an accidental product of infinite universes.

So now, what's your alternate hypothesis?

[Ginkgo]

Ginko:

Good question.

The multiverse hypothesis employs the term "universe" rather ambiguously...perhaps even disingenuously.

I'll defer to Oxford here, since we should have some agreement about what we are going to mean. Oxford says it is, "All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." If that's right, we'd be incorrect to posit the existence of multiple universes on a single plane of existence, and would thus have to imagine the existence of empirically unverifiable "other" parallel universes in other dimensions. That would take us into the territory of pure fiction. But that is precisely where the multiverse hypothesis goes.

So the multiverse hypothesis takes definition a) as you list it: "infinite number of universes."

Now definition b) is generally accepted to be true, though we cannot verify it scientifically since we can't actually get out there and test everything. But as a supposition, it seems more likely to be right than not. But what is clear is that in every part of the galaxy we live in that we can measure in any way, there is a very tightly limited set of variables and an even more limited set of configurations of variables, that make possible our existence. And this has traditionally been a starting point for what is called the "fine-tuning argument," namely the argument that this particular set of variables is so unlikely to happen by accident that no reasonable person could prefer the accidental hypothesis of the origin of these values to the design hypothesis, i.e. to God as an explanation.

And at first view, that's right. But the multiverse hypothesis is then supposed to come online and explain away the fine-tuning of the universe. It's supposed to do this by employing infinite probabilities, but as I have pointed out, that explanation can only even become remotely plausible if we already limit the variables. If the variables themselves are infinite, then we can no longer use them to explain how any single configuration came to be, because then there is an infinite chance against any particular set of variables happening.

The upshot of your question is this, then: we have no empirical data for a) and it would not help increase probability calculations if we did, as infinite variables cancel out the advantage of infinite recursions. If b) we are back to the fine-tuning question.

So which way do you wish to go?

OK, so I am with you now. Your expression of infinity as a ratio (infinity : 1 ratio) threw me for a bit. A ratio can't be expressed using infinities.

If we are talking about an argument from design then we are talking about odds and probabilities, so there is no need to worry about infinities in this respect. In terms of fine tuning we are talking about favourable results and possible results.

I am assuming this is where we are going.

[Immanuel Can]

If we are talking about an argument from design then we are talking about odds and probabilities, so there is no need to worry about infinities in this respect. In terms of fine tuning we are talking about favourable results and possible results.

Yes, naturally. But you are astute to recognize that infinity, since it is an undefinable concept not a number, cannot help the multiverse hypothesis. To improve probability, one needs to do so by the use of real numbers...which means by limited not unlimited values. But if one is using limited values, one needs to be able to say why and how those values become limited...especially since they are so finely limited in our universe, as we can empirically test.

[Ginkgo]

If we are talking about an argument from design then we are talking about odds and probabilities, so there is no need to worry about infinities in this respect. In terms of fine tuning we are talking about favourable results and possible results.

Yes, naturally. But you are astute to recognize that infinity, since it is an undefinable concept not a number, cannot help the multiverse hypothesis. To improve probability, one needs to do so by the use of real numbers...which means by limited not unlimited values. But if one is using limited values, one needs to be able to say why and how those values become limited...especially since they are so finely limited in our universe, as we can empirically test.

Yes, so we are now free to talk about ratios and comparisons. In mathematical terms the problem is that it is extra ordinarily difficult to calculate the odds of a fine tuned universe, since the one we are living in is the only example. Sure,one can come up with a particular figure in terms of, "what are the odds?" Firstly, I would question that we can actually know how may possible outcomes there are. Secondly, I would suggest we don't really know how many favourable outcomes there are.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, so we are now free to talk about ratios and comparisons. In mathematical terms the problem is that it is extra ordinarily difficult to calculate the odds of a fine tuned universe, since the one we are living in is the only example. Sure,one can come up with a particular figure in terms of, "what are the odds?"

That's a good way to put it. Yes. But it's not hopeless. In fact, mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated the chances of life happening at random to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123 -- that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros!

As Penrose says, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

Astronomical odds against, to be sure. A much more plausible suggestion is that the conditions for life did not happen at random at all -- that they were planned.

Firstly, I would question that we can actually know how may possible outcomes there are. Secondly, I would suggest we don't really know how many favourable outcomes there are.

Actually, we do. There is a very specific set of conditions required for existence and life...things very scientifically verifiable and measurable, such as the weak and strong forces in the atom, a very weak but sufficient gravitational field, a low entropy rate, and so on. And while it's very likely that one would have a universe form accidentally *outside* of these narrow ranges necessary to life, it is extremely unlikely, as Penrose says, that these would coincide by some accident.

But even supposing the conditions for life were present in our universe, that still doesn't tell us how WE got here. This is because *having conditions suitable to sustaining life* is not the same as *having life.* Even if you had billions of such planets, there's no reason for life to appear on them -- even as you can go and buy a goldfish bowl and fill it with water and fish food...but that doesn't get you a goldfish. You've still got no more than an empty tank.

[Greylorn Ell]

Arising:

I find your response agreeable to the problems I indicate regarding infinity, so I think we're on the same page there. I suspect where we remain apart is on the side-comments you make...which I think you're targeting at belief in God or gods generally: as you say, "all...nonsense,...wishful thinking...inculcated in childhood," and so on.

Now, these are things one could talk about, of course. But at the moment I haven't engaged them, but have merely pointed out the problems with the alternative of the multiverse hypothesis. I suggested to David (the original poster of the strand) that if there were the two hypotheses he indicated -- namely the multiverse hypothesis and the God hypothesis, then it was not true that there was no way of deciding. But rather than adduce positive proofs for the second hypothesis, I merely pointed out that the first was indeed possible to rule out entirely on rational grounds, apart from the question of verifying the God hypothesis.

It seems we have come to agreement about that.

However, if we've ruled out the multiverse hypothesis, which I think you can see we have to do, then it does not follow that if we simply lob allegations at the God hypothesis skepticism can win that way. For now we are faced with the fine-tuning problem, and that is a very strong indicator of some kind of Design limitations at work in the creation of the universe. So even if we buck all the existing accounts of a Supreme Being or polytheistic gods, as you seem at pains to do, we're stuck with a need for a new one. Something had to fine-tune the universe; and it wasn't an accidental product of infinite universes.

So now, what's your alternate hypothesis?

I.C.,

Of course AUK will not have an alternate hypothesis, but of course you knew that.

The alternative is Beon Theory, which includes these useful properties:

• It is derived entirely from known principles of physics. No divine revelation was involved. Therefore, the core elements of Beon Theory are verifiable according to the standards of hard science.
• Beon Theory is logical. Of course it employs non-standard hypotheses. How could it be useful if it began with the same old conventional bullshit that's been kicked around and argued over for the last several centuries? The logic that derives the implications of Beon Theory from these core hypotheses is clear and straightforward.
  
  That will not make it accessible to the majority of those who post on these threads, because as you may have noticed, their mostly atheistic dogmas are not based upon logic, which it seems they are generally incapable of comprehending. However, it will make sense to you.
• Beon Theory explains a wide variety of scientific and empirical phenomena with which either science or religion have difficulties.
  
  Most importantly, Beon Theory explains the origin and nature of human consciousness. Science utterly fails at this, and religious beliefs offer tepid explanations at best.
• Beon Theory explains quantum phenomena at the level of why. It offers a mechanism for the creation of the universe that eliminates the absurd physical singularity of Big Bang theory, and does not involve a multiverse.
• With respect to evolution, Beon Theory offers potential mechanisms for abiogenesis (science does not), explains why protein synthesis within cells involves arbitrary codes (and their decoding mechanisms).
  
  Conventional biologists pretend that the absurd probability of 1.4 x 10exp-542 for the development of a single, small, 900-base pair gene using the Darwinian principle of random changes to DNA is not an issue. In truth, it represents an entire circus of gorillas and elephants in the room, because probabilities multiply, and there are 23,000 genes in the human genome--- most of them even larger.
  
  Beon Theory's explanation for gene development does not involve this issue, and is resolved without invoking an almighty God.
• In fact, Beon Theory does not employ the idea of an almighty God at all. It proposes that the universe was engineered, over a long period of time, by a consortium of conscious entities with limited capabilities, brought into existence by an extreme but natural process.
  
  All components of this process, including beons themselves, are available for scientific investigation.
• Capable of explaining things ranging from Q/M to evolution to human consciousness, Beon Theory is the first step to a Theory of Everything that transcends simplistic cosmologies and stands a chance of actually explaining all things explainable. (Beon Theory cannot and will never attempt to explain female emotions, especially around PMS time.)

In a previous thread I attempted to interest you in ganging up against atheist positions. This failed, because you chose to argue against my ideas and leave the atheists alone. Your subsequent posts make it clear that you are capable of dealing with them on your own better than I can, so I'll not re-engage that plan. Instead, I propose to argue my "alternate hypothesis" with you.

Let me begin with the proposal that the concept of an omniscient God is not useful, and runs contrary to traditional Christian beliefs and Biblical writings that clearly treat God as a thinking being. Let me narrow down the definition of thought.

There are many kinds of information processing. If you spot the license number of a hit and run driver, you'll put that into your brain's short-term memory until you get a chance to write it down. Before long, you'll not recall the number. Brains also have mid-term and long-term memories, useful for various purposes. However, while memories are essential precursors to thought, they are not themselves thought. Recalling a friend's phone number is a retrieval process, not fundamentally different from how computers earn their keep. It does not involve the only genuinely interesting component of human thought, namely imaginative, conceptual thought.

This is the kind of thought that humans used to change rocks into sharp tips that could be attached to the ends of long sticks, then to attach them to shorter sticks that could be launched from a bow. The same imaginative conceptual (IC) thought led to the inventions of today's marvels, smart phones and flush toilets, a pair of inventions that should be used together more often.

However, a genuinely omniscient God cannot perform IC thought. He (a literary convention because the more correct "it" does not feel quite right to people) cannot imagine a concept he already knows. He knew how to build biffies and telephones before he created the universe. Therefore, God is either omniscient, or God thinks (i.e. God is capable of IC thought).

So, you have two options. If God thinks, he is not omniscient. If God does not think and is indeed omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent.

After all, man is capable of IC thought. If God is omniscient and thus incapable of such thought, God cannot do something which many humans can do. Thus he would not be omnipotent.

You can't have it both ways. It's time to modify your God-concept in accordance with common sense logic, as Beon Theory has long ago done.

Greylorn

[Ginkgo]

As Penrose says, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

Astronomical odds against, to be sure. A much more plausible suggestion is that the conditions for life did not happen at random at all -- that they were planned.

Yes, but no one ever thinks of the other possibility. It could be both "planned" and randomized at the same time. It is possible that God ( if he exists) is a piecemeal engineer, not an omnipotent engineer.

Actually, we do. There is a very specific set of conditions required for existence and life...things very scientifically verifiable and measurable, such as the weak and strong forces in the atom, a very weak but sufficient gravitational field, a low entropy rate, and so on. And while it's very likely that one would have a universe form accidentally *outside* of these narrow ranges necessary to life, it is extremely unlikely, as Penrose says, that these would coincide by some accident.

Before we can calculate the probability of something in terms of the universe we need to know more about the priors then we do at the moment.
For example, if I fanned a deck of cards and your picked the ace of spades, you would probably think you had a 1 in 52 chance of choosing the ace of spades. This seems like a reasonable assumption, but you would need to know how many ace of spades are in that particular deck.

The other problem is that we don't really know how many favourable results there are because we only know of our one favourable universe. We can only assume there is one favourable result. Given the fact we don't have all this information I still agree the odds would be incredibly astronomical. But the problem then becomes, is it less astronomical in terms of probability to go with an intelligent designer?

But even supposing the conditions for life were present in our universe, that still doesn't tell us how WE got here. This is because *having conditions suitable to sustaining life* is not the same as *having life.* Even if you had billions of such planets, there's no reason for life to appear on them -- even as you can go and buy a goldfish bowl and fill it with water and fish food...but that doesn't get you a goldfish. You've still got no more than an empty tank.

In this respect we be creating an involved discussion on the possibility of emergentism.

[Arising_uk]

...
However, if we've ruled out the multiverse hypothesis, which I think you can see we have to do, then it does not follow that if we simply lob allegations at the God hypothesis skepticism can win that way. ...

Well, I tend to agree with your argument that if infinity exists then it doesn't help those who wish to live in a world with or without a 'God' but the multiverse hypothesis still holds if we take it as all possible variations of what is and I'm still yet to be completely convinced that if infinity exists it rules out the becoming of 'universes' with and without 'God's as it still seems tied to the idea of time and if time is infinite and the variables, as you call them, are as well then sooner or later I'd have thought such 'universes' would come to be. The question appears to be that in such a situation what are the odds we're in one or the other at present and that'd appear to be a Bayesian issue, but I stand to be corrected.

For now we are faced with the fine-tuning problem, and that is a very strong indicator of some kind of Design limitations at work in the creation of the universe. ...

Krauss makes a good case that this is not an issue of a designer but just one of being at the time when energy and matter allow such things.

So even if we buck all the existing accounts of a Supreme Being or polytheistic gods, as you seem at pains to do, we're stuck with a need for a new one. Something had to fine-tune the universe; and it wasn't an accidental product of infinite universes.

Fine-tune it for what? But lets say I agree then nothing rules it out as being an accidental product of a large but finite universe. The latest I've seen is that the Physicists have recalculated and it looks like the big-crunch is back on the books, so we could be having and endless series of finite universes.

Personally I don't think 'we', if you mean philosophers, are stuck for anything as 'we' have abandoned such Aristotelean metaphysics ever since the natural philosophers produced a better epistemology and rested upon the very simple metaphysic that there is an external world that obeys law-like 'laws'. As such I'll leave it up to the Physicists to discover what is or isn't ontological fact.

So now, what's your alternate hypothesis?

Don't really bother to have one as I have no need to find meaning other than in my own life and have no need to prop-up a belief system that I have lost faith with but cannot shake as it was inculcated before I could truly reason.

Still, in my fun thoughts I like to keep with the times so I think the alternative hypotheses is that we are living in an ancestor-sim or we are just in the boot-up or initialisation phase of a simulation or emulation and when it's finished something else will be the case.

[Arising_uk]

That's a good way to put it. Yes. But it's not hopeless. In fact, mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated the chances of life happening at random to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123 -- that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros!

As Penrose says, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

That's interesting as the Computational Universe bods think differently, digitise space and compare the 'bits' available and there is an embarrassing overabundance of computational power available to compute all the particles and all their possible histories.

Astronomical odds against, to be sure. A much more plausible suggestion is that the conditions for life did not happen at random at all -- that they were planned. ...

And yet you are still left with the problem of what planned the thing that planned life?

[Ginkgo]

Arising, I don't particularly like the idea of a multiverse, but as you point out it does have some interesting aspects. The question in relation to the possibility of everything that can happen must eventually happen depends on probability. It could happen in a multiverse, provided we can rule out a non-zero probability. That would be easier said than done.

[Greylorn Ell]

Yes, so we are now free to talk about ratios and comparisons. In mathematical terms the problem is that it is extra ordinarily difficult to calculate the odds of a fine tuned universe, since the one we are living in is the only example. Sure,one can come up with a particular figure in terms of, "what are the odds?"

That's a good way to put it. Yes. But it's not hopeless. In fact, mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated the chances of life happening at random to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123 -- that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros!

As Penrose says, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

Astronomical odds against, to be sure. A much more plausible suggestion is that the conditions for life did not happen at random at all -- that they were planned.

Firstly, I would question that we can actually know how may possible outcomes there are. Secondly, I would suggest we don't really know how many favourable outcomes there are.

Actually, we do. There is a very specific set of conditions required for existence and life...things very scientifically verifiable and measurable, such as the weak and strong forces in the atom, a very weak but sufficient gravitational field, a low entropy rate, and so on. And while it's very likely that one would have a universe form accidentally *outside* of these narrow ranges necessary to life, it is extremely unlikely, as Penrose says, that these would coincide by some accident.

But even supposing the conditions for life were present in our universe, that still doesn't tell us how WE got here. This is because *having conditions suitable to sustaining life* is not the same as *having life.* Even if you had billions of such planets, there's no reason for life to appear on them -- even as you can go and buy a goldfish bowl and fill it with water and fish food...but that doesn't get you a goldfish. You've still got no more than an empty tank.

I.C.

You might want to brush up on the notation styles used to represent very large or very small numbers. This forum offers no mechanisms for including mathematical forms because they would be wasted on wanna-be philosophers who are maybe capable of performing basic arithmetic on a good day. 10 exp-123 is a better expression of what you've proposed as Penrose's probability calculation.

You expressed a number with a positive exponent. This is not correct. Probability values are expressed in the range from 0 to 1, where 0 means it cannot happen and one implies that it has already happened. A number such as yours is greater than one. Clearly, Penrose expressed it correctly, at least in the sense of mathematical notations.

However, if that is a number that Penrose calculated, it is incorrect, and absurd. The probability for the the assembly of a single small human gene of 900 base-pairs is 1.4 x 10exp-542. Multiply that by the approximately 23,000 genes in the human body and the exponent goes into the negative millions.

The odds against the random assembly of ferns, which have a larger genome than humans, are even smaller-- if one imagines that the concept of "even smaller" is meaningful when compared to such absurdly tiny values.

Also, there is no such thing as an "entropy rate." Methinks you would benefit from a 300-level basic physics course before writing much more about it based upon pop-sci magazines and documentary TV. You are probably the only one posting to this forum who could handle such a course, assuming that you know basic calculus, a prerequisite.

Otherwise your arguments here are serviceable.

Greylorn

[Melchior]

[Arising_uk]

...

The odds against the random assembly of ferns, which have a larger genome than humans, are even smaller-- if one imagines that the concept of "even smaller" is meaningful when compared to such absurdly tiny values. ...
Greylorn

Hi Greylorn,
It'll probably make no difference to the result but have you redone 'your' probability calculations about the human genome with an analogy of inheritance and natural selection factored in yet?