IC please clarify for us

[Immanuel Can]

If there is a countably infinite number of planets in the universe, the probability of ideal conditions for life on at least one of them, is high.

Actually, no, it's not -- at least, not mathematically. And that's because "infinity" isn't merely a high-but-limited number, but rather an unlimited non-number concept. It never ends, never exhausts itself, is never constrained by only-so-many recursions. It always has infinitely more.

No matter how many recursions of something there are in an infinity, there are always still infinite "other ways" things could have been. This means that any single outcome remains infinitely improbable, no matter how many there might be or not be.

But not everybody can get his/her head around what "infinite" means. It's a very strange concept, really. We all tend to lapse into number-thinking about it, whereas that is the one thing one cannot do with infinity as a concept, and get it right.

[MikeNovack]

When I said "other states" I did not have in mind "other planets with life" etc. I was not thinking of states that DID exist but other states that COULD exist as alternatives to the one we are in. IC, when you say this state incredibly improbable you are not saying any less probable than any other (possible) state.

But what did I mean by states? Our planet, as it exists, let's call that state zero. Now consider ten things true about state 0 that could easily be different:
1) there remain extant two species in the genus of the gray fox -- so a difference could be three extant species.
2) there remain extant two species in the genus Pan, imagine either chimpanzees or bonobos extinct.
3) there remains one species in genus Homo, imagine there were still two (were two until maybe 50,000 years ago -- H. floresiensis is no longer considered to be a case of island size shrinking -- now not even thought to be in the same "line of descent" within Homo.
etc, till we have ten variations

Now, how many states (including our own). Well if you know about binomials, 1024 states (2 to the 10th power) How many ways can 0-10 things be selected from 10 things.

A hundred such state variations, would be 2 ** 100 states (a rather big number) If we found ourselves in any of these states, we might consider it improbable, but we would say the same in any of the others. EQUAL.

It's your same "a" vs "the" problem IC. That we wold be in a state (any one of these states) is not improbable. It may be very unlikely that YOU, IC, will be struck by a meteorite in your lifetime (about 1 in 2 million) but it is VERY LIKELY that somebody in the US will be hit by a meteorite in their lifetime (about 150 will experience that ) and so more likely than not, somebody in the US will be hit by a meteorite every year.

[Dubious]

It cannot escape everybody's notice that you could not think of one thing...even one...to say against the man's arguments. All you could do was insult the man.

Not very clever. Not at all interesting.

Science itself being the main argument against it, what is there to further argue against?

"Science" would have something to say about the argument, one way or the other; something about the statements made by the speaker, the data available, the relevant experiments, and so on. You have only spite. Spite isn't science. It isn't even an argument, in fact. It's just noise.

You speak of spite! You who have nothing but spite and venom against those who refuse to believe in something so absurd as the Old Testament god and an original mating pair which of course, requires an Adam and Eve conclusion.

It's clear that most of the idiots here who incessantly argue with you - and mostly only you - are incognizant of how full of hate and lies you actually are against those who don't subscribe to your insanity of the bible being the word of god. Your inflicted artificial moral dichotomies between atheists and theists serve as proof beyond proof.

If science has anything to say on the subject of Intelligent Design, it's only to discount it as a pathetic theistic attempt to maintain itself as viable within a scientific framework.

It's a vulgar compromise in the hope of maintaining these insane religious beliefs as equally valid and those who espouse it are nothing more than mountebanks, charlatans and opportunists.

[Immanuel Can]

Science itself being the main argument against it, what is there to further argue against?

"Science" would have something to say about the argument, one way or the other; something about the statements made by the speaker, the data available, the relevant experiments, and so on. You have only spite. Spite isn't science. It isn't even an argument, in fact. It's just noise.

You speak of spite!

I know it when I see it. It's marked by vituperation in the place of any refutation.

[Dubious]

N/A

[Dubious]

"Science" would have something to say about the argument, one way or the other; something about the statements made by the speaker, the data available, the relevant experiments, and so on. You have only spite. Spite isn't science. It isn't even an argument, in fact. It's just noise.

You speak of spite!

I know it when I see it. It's marked by vituperation in the place of any refutation.

You know nothing except the ways and means prejudice, intolerance and a debilitating form of dogmatism informs you. You're the kind of person whose extreme sectarianism and all that follows from it the world no-longer needs existing only as a deformation and pollutant on the planet.

[Immanuel Can]

You speak of spite!

I know it when I see it. It's marked by vituperation in the place of any refutation.

You know nothing except...

And...there it is, again.

Sorry...I just haven't got time for this sort of pettiness. And it's too bad, because occasionally, I see a remark from you that suggests you could do better. That you choose not to, is perhaps a great pity. But there we are.

I'm moving on.

[Dubious]

I know it when I see it. It's marked by vituperation in the place of any refutation.

You know nothing except...

And...there it is, again.

Sorry...I just haven't got time for this sort of pettiness. And it's too bad, because occasionally, I see a remark from you that suggests you could do better. That you choose not to, is perhaps a great pity. But there we are.

I'm moving on.

...and always in the same direction! If you lived forever, it would be a case of Eternal Recurrence!

[phyllo]

When I said "other states" I did not have in mind "other planets with life" etc.

Well I used "planets" because I think it's less abstract and easier to understand than "states".

[Alexis Jacobi]

It makes the hypothesis that all this happened by accident vastly implausible. That sets us to having to seek a better hypothesis -- no small service to theology.

Since my view is that Existence itself — that there is existence — when meditated on produces a sense of impossible wonder, and that that itself is the beginning-point of both philosophy and religion (and science I must add), I personally think that both the poles in this interpretive conflict are off-the-mark.

Your “religious picture” is a false image because it reduces to simply put a “conceptual pathway” for what is ultimately a personal choice about spirituality. Your religious adamancy can be separated from your declarations about the issue of “salvation” which, in your system, has a supreme totemic value, related I think to the ur-Hebrew notion of “selection” and “chosenness”.

My sense is that Dubious’ position is largely against the ridiculousness of a shallow religious picture that, and this is crucial, has no explanatory value or utility. If I have any position at all it is that there is no sufficient model for us anymore and that the huge encompassing models of those Grand Narratives simply cannot function for us any longer.

So — and I have said this numerous times — we really have no choice but to avail ourselves of some sort of Master Metaphysician who can ‘explain’ things in a way that unites the division between perspectives. But really what that means is that we become adept ourselves at metaphysics. What after all is a physician?

[Middle English phisik, from Old French fisique, medical science, natural science, from Latin, natural science, from Greek phusikē, feminine of phusikos, of nature, from phusis, nature; see bheuə- in Indo-European roots.]

To say “existence occurred by accident” is obviously absurd! It itself is beyond any possible comprehension. Which is why, I assume, the ancient mystics meditate on THAT. They do not do so as modern physicists do — in a removed, abstracted state — but by a focus and participation of their total selves. See, you could be the most accomplished physicist, like Einstein, but have no spiritual or existential relationship to being and to existence.

Simply put, the Christian explanatory model (Genesis) has no relationship to explanations of Nature — but at one time Genesis was understood to be the actual model. To say this is asinine because it is so obvious! But you see people require ‘explanatory models’ in order to keep their psychological self from losing its grip. To be bereft of a model — many can function as such — is to run the risk of madness. You cannot stand before a Model such as that proposed by sheer physicalists (like Big Mike) without fundamentally being overswept by its meaninglessness and purposelessness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your “religious picture” is a false image because it reduces to simply put a “conceptual pathway” for what is ultimately a personal choice about spirituality. Your religious adamancy can be separated from your declarations about the issue of “salvation” which, in your system, has a supreme totemic value, related I think to the ur-Hebrew notion of “selection” and “chosenness”.

In order to understand the Christian model you have to reduce it: the soul exists trapped in a devil-ridden body, in a World that is, more often than not, controlled by ‘spirits of a lower (malicious) order’. A being is born into this world, but born (if you will) with a core defect (symbolized by the error of Adam and Eve) and afflicted by it. The Avatar …

[Sanskrit avatāraḥ, descent (of a deity from heaven), avatar : ava, down + tarati, he crosses; see terə- in Indo-European roots.]

…descends down into our realm as an Omen and a Sign from “worlds beyond our world” with infinite levels and possibilities of meaning most of which are essentially poetic. The Avatar is a protector, a guiding lamp, through the mazes of ‘the material entanglement’. It is, like our own consciousness, a magical potency with extraordinary molding and creative power.

The relationship of the Avatar is to the most internal kernel within the individual, what we refer to as the soul (which is, for us now, more a poetic term than a real-medical term (as it once was). And metaphysics and the realm of poetic meaning are not to be dismissed!

I do not think “Salvation” is by any measure meaningless, but typical religious fundamentalism and play-acting certainly is. Salvation to me means recovery, internal relationship to the sense of the Unchanging and Eternal. And I think it is related to that sense that we are ‘eternal beings’ not only heading into what we conceive of as “future” but having to do with “past” as well. (What Christianity never deals on BTW).

[Alexis Jacobi]

If one states:

“There is an inconceivable impossibility in the fact that the order of creation allows the manifest Universe to appear as it does …”

… one has not really said anything at all.

And that is what Meyer (et al) are saying.

Yes, it is mathematically impossible that existence exists and the Universe of complex forms exists.

And yes, it is inconceivable that the unreally complex cell exists. But then the real Genesis Story should have been a picture of how God constructed the cell and set it loose in the Early World.

To say “The cell is miraculous! and mathematically impossible!” is simply to reiterate what one feels about Existence itself. It is beyond comprehension.

It does nothing to explain God (or the Universe) and has little value for any Religious Picture I can think of.

[MikeNovack]

When I said "other states" I did not have in mind "other planets with life" etc.

Well I used "planets" because I think it's less abstract and easier to understand than "states".

But you are referring to actual existence and I am saying "state" does not. The "states" are all POSSIBLE existence with one of the states "real".

The argument was "how improbable THIS existence" and I was countering with THIS/THE not the same as A(n) existence.

Thus, it is certain that we are in A state in which thinking beings exist able to ponder this question. Only if the number of POSSIBLE states that include thinking beings is finite would the low probability of being in a particular one matter.

The set that contains all sets which include X and anything else would be of the same order of infinity as the set of all sets not including X.

[Immanuel Can]

It makes the hypothesis that all this happened by accident vastly implausible. That sets us to having to seek a better hypothesis -- no small service to theology.

Since my view is that Existence itself — that there is existence — when meditated on produces a sense of impossible wonder, and that that itself is the beginning-point of both philosophy and religion (and science I must add), I personally think that both the poles in this interpretive conflict are off-the-mark.

Your “religious picture” is a false image because it reduces to simply put a “conceptual pathway” for what is ultimately a personal choice about spirituality.

Actually, no. Personal choice doesn't affect reality. And while it's common these days to imagine that what one believes is like one's football team...a matter of personal taste and optionality...the problem with that is that while there is no "right" football team, there is a right picture of the world.

One only chooses whether one will line up with the truth, or will prefer something unreal. All unreal choices, in this matter, lead to the same end.

[Immanuel Can]

To say “The cell is miraculous! and mathematically impossible!” is simply to reiterate what one feels about Existence itself.

But this is precisely the point: mathematically impossible things require an explanation. And the more apparently impossible the mathematics of the thing becomes, the more it demands an explanation.

For example, if you go to the casino to play roulette, and there are 36 options on that wheel, and the croupier spins the wheel and it lands on 25, that is unremarkable, for two reasons: one, it had to land on some number, so it was as likely to be 25 as any other number, 2) it's only happened once, and 3) there are limited options on the wheel -- only 36, so while it was unlikely you'd have your money on 25, it was far from impossible. Thus, no special explanation is called for.

But what if you went to the casino and put your money on 25, and hit 25, and then hit 25 again, and then 25, and 25, and 25, and 25...? How long would it be before the casino boss would be over at your table demanding an explanation? If you were the casino boss, wouldn't you? You would sense something was off about the game; perhaps the wheel had been rigged, or was stuck, or the croupier was cheating...he'd want to know, and know fast.

But that's just 7 recursions of an unlikely event. Now, if the wheel hit 25 a thousand times, that would be a vanishingly miniscule representation of just one of the fine-tuning situations we observe from the macrocosm to the microcosm in our universe. At what point would you say an explanation of cause was demanded by the data?

We're astronomically far beyond any point you're likely to pick.