Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

The God-theory is the best scientific explanation for life given the evidence that Evolution/abiogenesis is NOT computationally feasible in 4.5 billion Earth-years without very very very large quantities of luck.

Argument from irreducible time complexity

This is testable and falsifiable. Remove the element of luck and intentionally reproduce life using science and you can consider this theory falsified.

[Skepdick]

(49/51) / (ω ^ ω) is approaching a paradigm where the multiverse is The Bee God's fart.

If that sort of bollocks fools you, then you are free to believe that Skepdick has supernatural counting skills

There's no need for you to hold such an erroneous belief. My counting skills are perfectly explained by the formal sciences - I am just using infinitesimal numbers. It just makes the madness of all the zeroes and fractions easier to manage.

This is well within scientific understanding therefore it doesn't satisfy the Oxford definition of "supernatural"

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws

I'm just a dumb philosopher.

We agree.

[Will Bouwman]

I am a wanker.

We agree.

[Will Bouwman]

The God-theory is the best scientific explanation for life given the evidence that Evolution/abiogenesis is NOT computationally feasible in 4.5 billion Earth-years without very very very large quantities of luck.

Very, very, very large relative to what?

[Skepdick]

I am a wanker.

We agree.

Pot, kettle.

[Skepdick]

Very, very, very large relative to what?

I don't think me explaining it again is going to help you understand it.

Learn computational complexity theory or something...

[Will Bouwman]

I am a wanker.

We agree.

Pot, kettle.

Duh! You said it.

[Skepdick]

Duh! You said it.

And you said "Duh! You said it."

Thanks, Captain Echo Chamber.

[Will Bouwman]

Duh! You said it.

And you said "Duh! You said it."
Thanks, Captain Echo Chamber.

Duh! You didn't say "Duh! You said it."

[Skepdick]

Duh! You didn't say "Duh! You said it."

DUH!

Now, what were you saying about my "supernatural" counting skills? Don't they teach you formal science stuff in Philosophy school?

Do you have any scientific feedback, or has this interaction devolved into philosophical poop-flinging on your part?

[Will Bouwman]

Do you have any scientific feedback, or has this interaction devolved into philosophical poop-flinging on your part?

Wassat? You want a thread you titled "Pissing off the atheists/naturalists" to be about something other than poop-flinging? You mean having opened with one creationist clunker, you now want this to be taken seriously?

The God-theory is the best scientific explanation for life given the evidence that Evolution/abiogenesis is NOT computationally feasible in 4.5 billion Earth-years without very very very large quantities of luck.

Very well; 3 questions.
1. What variables were included in the computation?
2. How were they arrived at?
3. Why does the result imply that "The God-theory is the best scientific explanation"?

[Skepdick]

1. What variables were included in the computation?
2. How were they arrived at?
3. Why does the result imply that "The God-theory is the best scientific explanation"?

What philosophical presuppositions are you not telling me about in asking those questions?

Which model of computation are you assuming when you use language like "THE computation"?

Here's at least one conceptual distinction which matters:

DId nature take ~13.8 billion years to produce the first living organism here on Earth; or did nature take 13.8 billion years * 2 trillion planets doing random stuff and Earth got lucky?

This is the difference between parallel and massively-concurrent computations.
And why this matters is because reduction itself (science) is a time-bound computational process.

So if you want reductionism to "succeed" e.g terminate (computationally speaking) you need some deciding factor on what "success" even means.

Based on the fact that reductionism hasn't succeeded yet (can't do in 5000 years what nature did in ???? billion ???? sixtillion ???? years) the theory of irreducible complexity is more plausible. On the grounds of the factual evidence that reductionists have failed to reduce; and until reductionists succeed at reduction.

All if this is contextualized on the question: How complex is the process from chemistry -> RNA?

[Skepdick]

Wassat? You want a thread you titled "Pissing off the atheists/naturalists" to be about something other than poop-flinging? You mean having opened with one creationist clunker, you now want this to be taken seriously?

Acting pissed off is definitely amongst your long list of incompetencies.

Or maybe that's just your way of showing it

[Will Bouwman]

Which model of computation are you assuming when you use language like "THE computation"?

The one you used to arrive at your result.

[Skepdick]

Which model of computation are you assuming when you use language like "THE computation"?

The one you used to arrive at your result.

So the one which answers the question "How complex is the process from chemistry -> RNA?"

Sure.

The simple/linear model predicts that reductionists will reduce the process. And subsequently reproduce it synthetically.
The complex/massively-concurrent model predicts that reductionists will NOT reduce the process (you are welcome to read about all the challenges in molecular biology and the infinite gap between where our synthesis is at; and what's required for RNA to function).

So far process remains irreducibly complex (maybe we need more time. maybe we need more luck. Who knows?)

Q.E.D for the scientific/probabilistic answer.

And for the philosophical answer.... we are attempting to interpret and understand this phenomenon in computational terms. Complexity and models of computation.

Is computation discovered or invented? It's invented. Obviously! It's a theoretical construct reified.

So why is the creator hypothesis better? Because it explains better! It's more intuitive. It's more relatable and easier to teach (with the abundance of computers). It's more human.

We are (self?)inventors, with a streak of discovery.