Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:04 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:You are actually claiming that the most reasonable explanation is that the human machine's incredible complexity was the result of atoms just randomly coming together without the principle of evolution or God????????
Even if he had said that, which he did not,
Suppose Joe says that everything is green.
I say, that means that I am green.
You reply, Joe never said that you are green!!!
Leo meaning was obvious. The constants are perfect for life because the constants are perfect for life.
That implies that the human machine is complicated because it is complicated.

Leo said nothing about green; what he meant is for him to decide. You think he means one thing I another.
But you avoid the main point of my post.
It implies that the human machine is the result of billions of years of organisation of matter, and that seems to be a natural tendency given some particular conditions. You cannot say more.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:10 pm**

raw_thought wrote:Are you saying that Evolution is not an explanation of how life became incredibly complex?

You are making the most common mistake in the book. You are trying to say that evolution is a cause of change.
In fact evolution is the result of change. That is precise circumstances give rise to changes in which the outcome of evolution.
This is not the sort of explanation that people like. But it is an important 'Copernican Shift", which, once you get it, changes the way you look at the universe.
Humans have always looks for a cause, hence creator, and it is with this same thought that people come to the idea of 'evolution'; thinking that we have found a natural cause. In fact the theory of evolution sets out the conditions, by description alone, which inevitably lead TO evolution.
Do I need to state them?
Evolution is an effect of change given these conditions.
So "evolutionary theory" is a description "HOW", not and explanation "WHY".
If you want to know why, go to church.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:12 pm**

raw_thought wrote:Wittgenstein came up with a great analogy.
Imagine a normal grid (squares). Now imagine a grid made of triangles.
It is true that both grids are human inventions (or to use Leo's word,"narratives")
However, to say that they do not help us understand reality is absurd. One can say object A is in triangle 2367 and object B is triangle B. Or one can say that object A is in square 298887 and B is in square 2105444. We then know the objective distance that seperates them. Maps represent reality!
PS: I forgot.Leo does not believe in distance!

This is wholly a circular argument, grids help you understand what happens in grids. There are no grids in reality.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:23 pm**

Th entire multiverse argument is circular because it assumes that which it seeks to prove. It assumes that the universe was brought into being with a particular suite of laws and constants and then ask why these laws and why these constants?

Where is the proof that the universe was brought into being at all and why is it assumed that these laws and constants are a feature of the universe itself rather than a feature of the models invented by physicists to explain certain observed patterns of order in the behavior of matter and energy within the universe. As both Hobbes and I have pointed out countless times these patterns of order can be explained by evolution which is not law-derived but self-causal. In the real universe events occur because they have been caused to occur but not because it was intended that way, which is the central thrust of the Goldilocks argument.

These are the questions which your creationist assumption must address.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:23 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Wittgenstein came up with a great analogy.
Imagine a normal grid (squares). Now imagine a grid made of triangles.
It is true that both grids are human inventions (or to use Leo's word,"narratives")
However, to say that they do not help us understand reality is absurd. One can say object A is in triangle 2367 and object B is triangle B. Or one can say that object A is in square 298887 and B is in square 2105444. We then know the objective distance that seperates them. Maps represent reality!
PS: I forgot.Leo does not believe in distance!
This is wholly a circular argument, grids help you understand what happens in grids. There are no grids in reality.

??
Yes, there are no grids in realiy. What is your point???
The fact Wittgenstein was illustrating was that a human invention can reveal aspects of reality. Similarly, a photograph is a human invention but reveala reality. If a friend shows me a picture of their baby, I then know what the actual baby looks like.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:25 pm**

Um no PLEASE. read my posts! The multiverse was not created with a certain set of laws.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:29 pm**

You are very confused. Evolution does explain how life became more complex. However, that explanation did not cause anything.
In other words,if I say that that domino caused that domino to fall, I am not saying that those words caused the domino to fall.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:34 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:
Suppose Joe says that everything is green.
I say, that means that I am green.
You reply, Joe never said that you are green!!!
Leo meaning was obvious. The constants are perfect for life because the constants are perfect for life.
That implies that the human machine is complicated because it is complicated.
Leo said nothing about green; what he meant is for him to decide. You think he means one thing I another.
But you avoid the main point of my post.
It implies that the human machine is the result of billions of years of organisation of matter, and that seems to be a natural tendency given some particular conditions. You cannot say more.

Um, you just said that evolution explains how life became became complex.
Um, yes. Leo did not mention green. I was saying that to accuse the responder to Joe of being disingenuous is silly. Similarly, Leo did not say that the constants are perfect for life because the constants are perfect for life. However, that was his meaning and what he implied.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:37 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.
However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. e.
I realize that you are VERY literal. I confess that you did not say " the universe has constants suited for life because the universe has constants suitable for life"
However, that is implied and is the meaning of what you said. You offered the above response as an explanation as to why the constants are so perfect for life.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:39 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:
Suppose Joe says that everything is green.
I say, that means that I am green.
You reply, Joe never said that you are green!!!
Leo meaning was obvious. The constants are perfect for life because the constants are perfect for life.
That implies that the human machine is complicated because it is complicated.
Leo said nothing about green; what he meant is for him to decide. You think he means one thing I another.
But you avoid the main point of my post.
It implies that the human machine is the result of billions of years of organisation of matter, and that seems to be a natural tendency given some particular conditions. You cannot say more.
Um, you just explained that evolution caused life to become more complex.
Um, yes. Leo did not mention green. I was saying that to accuse the responder to Joe of being disingenuous is silly. Similarly, Leo did not say that the constants are perfect for life because the constants are perfect for life. However, that was his meaning and what he implied.

I don't think your brain is working.
I explained that the Universe is in a state of change. When certain conditions are present the RESULT is evolution.
When you figure the difference you will sort out a lot of your problems in the way you conceive things. At the moment you are in a geocentric frame of mind.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:42 pm**

Yes, I realize that you concentrate on semantics. That is why I changed that to," you just said that evolution explains how life became more complex."

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:43 pm**

raw_thought wrote:You are very confused. Evolution does explain how life became more complex. However, that explanation did not cause anything.
In other words,if I say that that domino caused that domino to fall, I am not saying that those words caused the domino to fall.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:46 pm**

Evolution does cause life to be more complex. Not a single reputable biologist disagees with that.
Similarly, I may explain how a car engine works. That is an explanation. You may object that that explanation does not cause anything but that is semantic sillyness.

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:39 am**

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Leo said nothing about green; what he meant is for him to decide. re.

I disagee! If someone says that everything is green, he means that I am green, even if he never said that I am green.
Leo did not say that the constants are perfect for life because they are perfect for life. However, that was what he meant.

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:42 am**

raw_thought wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.
However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. e.
I realize that you are VERY literal. I confess that you did not say " the universe has constants suited for life because the universe has constants suitable for life"
However, that is implied and is the meaning of what you said. You offered the above response as an explanation as to why the constants are so perfect for life.

Philosophy Now Forum

Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!

Re: Multiverse!