View Full Version : Accident or design?
RAD4921
Sep29-06, 12:32 PM
Some mathematicians argue that it would be even a more remarkable coincidence if there were no remarkable coincidences in the world. Considering that there are over 6 billion people in the world, there are bound to be stories of remarkable coincidences just because of the odds. There is the story of the New Jersey woman who won the state lottery grand prize twice. But considering that there are millions of people playing the lottery it was bound to happen sooner or later even though it is estimated that the odds of winning that lottery twice were at 1 in 17 trillion. There is a web site where you can put your 4, 5 or 6 digit birth date into an entry box to see where your birth date appears in the mathematical number of PI. The number Pi is random and in theory infinite so sooner or later your birth date is bound to appear in PI. So are there such a thing as synchronicity? It might appear that a remarkable coincidence has occurred when it was just the odds at play. For an example. I heard on the news last night that some people in Wisconsin that won the power ball thought it was an act of God. From their perspective they may believe so since what are the odds of it happening to them? But from another one’s perspective it was just a matter of odds. Sooner or later someone had to win. Why not them? Then there is the remarkable coincidence of life in a universe where the odds of such a series of circumstances happening by accident appear to be astronomical. But if there were an infinite amount of configurations of universes than sooner or later life would pop into existence just by accident. The problem with this is that there is no evidence that there is other universes in existence. So it would be logical to assume that there is some creative force in the universe.
As far as we know, infinities only exist in mathematics and we don’t know if mathematics was created or discovered. If it is the latter than there may be no “God”. The universe appears to have been created by some type of intelligence. Or did we just win the lottery of infinite chance?
(If you do not understand the anthropic principle or design argument, please do not reply to this thread)
RAD
In my opinion it is reasonable to assume intelligent design. Things do just happen but assuming such intricate and precise values are just accidental is too much of a stretch of imagination and odds to make it reasonable for me. An eternal designer, creator may be unlikely and unprovable or disprovable but much more likely and reasonable than everything from nothing without reason or cause.
DaveC426913
Sep29-06, 04:41 PM
In my opinion it is reasonable to assume intelligent design. Things do just happen but assuming such intricate and precise values are just accidental is too much of a stretch of imagination and odds to make it reasonable for me. An eternal designer, creator may be unlikely and unprovable or disprovable but much more likely and reasonable than everything from nothing without reason or cause.
"...stretch of imagination and odds..."
"...reasonable..."
These are how humans naturally (i.e. before the aid of scientific method) process the world - by looking at things that are reasonable in their experience.
Show me a human who has lived 10 million years, and I'll show you a human who is capable of intuitively understanding the process of evolution.
The corollary of this is: show me a human who can't conceive of a process that takes 10 million years to occur ... and I'll show you a human who has lived less than a century.
But us not being able to understand is not a prerequisite of it being the truth.
(Note, this argument is irrespective of Darwinists et al, who have no problem accepting it.)
MeJennifer
Sep29-06, 05:27 PM
There is the story of the New Jersey woman who won the state lottery grand prize twice. But considering that there are millions of people playing the lottery it was bound to happen sooner or later even though it is estimated that the odds of winning that lottery twice were at 1 in 17 trillion.
You are mistaken about the probabilities here.
After she won the first time, the probability that a single ticket she owns wins the grand price again are just as high as any other ticket from other contestants.
DaveC426913
Sep29-06, 06:51 PM
Rad is not mistaken. He did not say "a second time", he said "twice".
The probability of throwing a heads twice on a coin is 1 in 4 - i.e. the product of the two individual probs.
I think you shot from the hip on this one.
russ_watters
Sep30-06, 09:00 AM
The problem with this is that there is no evidence that there is other universes in existence. So it would be logical to assume that there is some creative force in the universe. No evidence of other universes, no evidence of a creator. A scientific person would not assume the existence of either.
Regarding the gambling issue, I think we all understand the gambler's fallacy, but citing the probabilty in terms of odds of winning twice instead of odds of winning a second time implies to me an overstating of the odds. If you say, for example, that her odds of winning the second lottery were 1 in 700,000, it sounds a whole lot less improbable. In any case, maybe we're not talking about the same woman, but from what I see, the odds were 1 in 3.6 trillion.... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/4175323.html
There is also a guy who was hit by lightning 7 times at a lifetime odds of 1 in 3000 per hit...
...Then there is the remarkable coincidence of life in a universe where the odds of such a series of circumstances happening by accident appear to be astronomical...
Making an assumption is your first mistake. The odds might appear to be astronomical to us, but doesn't mean they are. Human history is full of assumptions that turned out to be wrong--the Earth is flat, the Universe is static...
ABout the anthropic principle...If the Universe was made just for us, does that mean we're safe from extinction? Can we do as we please without worrying about meteor impacts, superbugs, global nuclear war, etc.?
RAD4921
Sep30-06, 01:23 PM
Making an assumption is your first mistake. The odds might appear to be astronomical to us, but doesn't mean they are. Human history is full of assumptions that turned out to be wrong--the Earth is flat, the Universe is static...
ABout the anthropic principle...If the Universe was made just for us, does that mean we're safe from extinction? Can we do as we please without worrying about meteor impacts, superbugs, global nuclear war, etc.?
If there is some type of "god" or intellignet creator it probably is like that of what Einstein thought, an impersonal God. A God that does not reward and punish which is in sharp contrast to that of the Judeo-Christian God.
RAD4921
Sep30-06, 01:34 PM
No evidence of other universes, no evidence of a creator. A scientific person would not assume the existence of either.
Regarding the gambling issue, I think we all understand the gambler's fallacy, but citing the probabilty in terms of odds of winning twice instead of odds of winning a second time implies to me an overstating of the odds. If you say, for example, that her odds of winning the second lottery were 1 in 700,000, it sounds a whole lot less improbable. In any case, maybe we're not talking about the same woman, but from what I see, the odds were 1 in 3.6 trillion.... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/4175323.html
There is also a guy who was hit by lightning 7 times at a lifetime odds of 1 in 3000 per hit...
That fact that matter has come alive and started thinking makes me question as to whether all matter is alive and thinking, even matter that appears to be inorganic and inanimate.
Who is to say that a scientific minded person is superior to one who thinks philosophically? Science, taking collectivly, is still ignorant of many many issues in the universe, so a "scientific" minded person would have to admit ignorance. I have heard many circumstances where "scientific minded" people have made assimptions, one being the universe thought of as being static, which was Eistein. Then there is the case of Hawkins who made the assumption that computer viruses were a form of life. Everyone makes assumptions it is human nature.
RAD4921
Sep30-06, 01:39 PM
In my opinion it is reasonable to assume intelligent design. Things do just happen but assuming such intricate and precise values are just accidental is too much of a stretch of imagination and odds to make it reasonable for me. An eternal designer, creator may be unlikely and unprovable or disprovable but much more likely and reasonable than everything from nothing without reason or cause.
Yes Royce I got to agree with you. The universe has come alive and started thinking because we have come alive and started thinking. If the universe is governed by pure chaos why didn't it stay chaotic? Where does organization come from?
If there is some type of "god" or intellignet creator it probably is like that of what Einstein thought, an impersonal God. A God that does not reward and punish which is in sharp contrast to that of the Judeo-Christian God.
I agree with the "impersonal" part. There isn't a single indication that the Universe cares whether we exist or not. That's quite a slap in the face to a form of life that thrives on thinking of itself as special, and I suspect that's what leads us to create defensive, overblown ideas about our place in the Universe.
I agree with the "impersonal" part. There isn't a single indication that the Universe cares whether we exist or not. That's quite a slap in the face to a form of life that thrives on thinking of itself as special, and I suspect that's what leads us to create defensive, overblown ideas about our place in the Universe.
Significant or not, we all, collectively and individually, are a part of this universe just as is every atom, molecule, photon or electron. If you or I should die or disappear tomorrow the Universe would be different, a different place and in a different state. In this way we are all special and unique and we all make a difference.
If the Universe does not care if we exist or not then why did it provide this world complete with everything we and all of life needs to come into existence and to continue to exist? Possibly the reason you think the Universe and/or the Creator/God is impersonal is because you have never tried to make a personal relationship with the Universe. It does take two, you know to make a relationship. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a preacher; but, it is something to think about.
But considering that there are millions of people playing the lottery it was bound to happen sooner or later even though it is estimated that the odds of winning that lottery twice were at 1 in 17 trillion.
I think you mean "the odds of winning that lottery twice in two tries", which makes the odds deceptively larger -- if she plays 1000 times in her life (e.g. one ticket per week for 20 years), her odds of winning twice are a more reasonable one in 34 million.
octelcogopod
Oct1-06, 11:30 PM
Significant or not, we all, collectively and individually, are a part of this universe just as is every atom, molecule, photon or electron. If you or I should die or disappear tomorrow the Universe would be different, a different place and in a different state. In this way we are all special and unique and we all make a difference.
If the Universe does not care if we exist or not then why did it provide this world complete with everything we and all of life needs to come into existence and to continue to exist? Possibly the reason you think the Universe and/or the Creator/God is impersonal is because you have never tried to make a personal relationship with the Universe. It does take two, you know to make a relationship. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a preacher; but, it is something to think about.
Maybe there's a completely different way to look at it..
The universe came into existence, determinism ran its course and lots of objects were created by seemingly pure chance.
Suddenly life came into existence, and of course since everything is deterministic, life would automatically "fit in."
As life grew more and more complex, it started to go outside the boundaries of pure determinism, it started doing things that put it in danger.
Other life ate eachother and so forth.
But still underneath this seemingly "free" will, there was nothing buit hard concrete logic and determinism.
It is my opinion that the universe isn't made to cater for life, but rather humans are made to cater for themselves.
I also de believe that every human has a relationship with the universe, everytime you drink something, walk somewhere or do anything, you are a part of the universe doing what you are made to be doing.
The universe isn't conscious of your existence, and you are not conscious of its existence.
You are merely doing your part and nobody expects anything else.
Maybe there's a completely different way to look at it..
The universe came into existence, determinism ran its course and lots of objects were created by seemingly pure chance.
Suddenly life came into existence, and of course since everything is deterministic, life would automatically "fit in."
First, how and why did the Universe come into existence?
Second, if the Universe is deterministic, it has yet to run its course.
Third, I think that "since everything is deterministic" is a totally unfounded and unsupportable statement.
I am not going to argue Determinism with you. I have already done that time and time again in other threads over the years. I am just going to say that I cannot and will not accept the truth of that statement.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to and can live with but, so too am I. We disagree in our most basic assumptions and beliefs. Having said that, I am willing to continue the discussion within the topic of this thread.
I also de believe that every human has a relationship with the universe, every time you drink something, walk somewhere or do anything, you are a part of the universe doing what you are made to be doing.
The universe isn't conscious of your existence, and you are not conscious of its existence.
You are merely doing your part and nobody expects anything else.
We cannot know that the Universe is not conscious of our existence and you and I are most certainly conscious of the Universe's existence at least in part or we could not talk or write about it.
Mech_Engineer
Oct2-06, 10:27 AM
Just throwing out an idea, I don't necessarily have the answer :-\
Matter has a natural tendency to arrange itself in the lowest stable energy state available (entropy), and this lowest energy state when it comes to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. will tend to create conditions that are consistent with the building blocks of life... just as gravity tends to attract particles together and create circular / spherical objects and formations.
The appearance of life based on the odds in my estimation isn't improbable, it is inevitable.
Just throwing out an idea, I don't necessarily have the answer :-\
Matter has a natural tendency to arrange itself in the lowest stable energy state available (entropy), and this lowest energy state when it comes to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. will tend to create conditions that are consistent with the building blocks of life... just as gravity tends to attract particles together and create circular / spherical objects and formations.
The appearance of life based on the odds in my estimation isn't improbable, it is inevitable.
I agree completely that is virtually inevitable. My question is what are the odds that these tendencies that you mention and all of the other parameters and laws of science and nature should be so exactly the value that these laws and tendencies would lead to the formation of a universe such as the one we live in much less lead to complex intelligent life?
One other question that always was comes up is "WHY?"
Why are all of these things just the way they are and who or what made the physical and natural laws be what they are. The Anthropological Principle of course says that because if they were any other way or value we wouldn't be here to ask why.
This in my opinion just begs the question and is no answer at all. If all came from nothing without cause or reason then what are then the odds are nearly infinite that the parameters just happen to be the values that they are for all of this to come about.
Determinism is the same. If all is deterministic then who or what made that determination and made the laws, tendencies and values just the exact way they need to be for us to ask Why. And last but not least, once again, WHY? Why did they or it make it so that conscious, intelligent is inevitable if it wasn't on purpose?
Significant or not, we all, collectively and individually, are a part of this universe just as is every atom, molecule, photon or electron. If you or I should die or disappear tomorrow the Universe would be different, a different place and in a different state. In this way we are all special and unique and we all make a difference.
If the Universe does not care if we exist or not then why did it provide this world complete with everything we and all of life needs to come into existence and to continue to exist? Possibly the reason you think the Universe and/or the Creator/God is impersonal is because you have never tried to make a personal relationship with the Universe. It does take two, you know to make a relationship. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a preacher; but, it is something to think about.
No worry, I've been preached at much worse before. :smile: But never mind you or me dying tomorrow. Billions of people and trillions and trillions of other animals have already lived and died here on Earth. How has that changed the Universe? It's still going on its merry way as it would have if life had never evolved here.
If the Universe cared enough about me to give me life, why does it reserve the right to take that life away suddenly, horribly and for no reason? That's hardly a caring attitude. I can't "make a personal relationship with a Universe" (as you so anthropomorphically put it) that could whimsically commit random acts of unspeakable cruelty on me. I wouldn't respect myself in the morning.
No worry, I've been preached at much worse before. :smile: But never mind you or me dying tomorrow. Billions of people and trillions and trillions of other animals have already lived and died here on Earth. How has that changed the Universe? It's still going on its merry way as it would have if life had never evolved here.
It is just another indication that the Universe is ever changing and evolving in many ways that we cannot fathom or even know.
If the Universe cared enough about me to give me life, why does it reserve the right to take that life away suddenly, horribly and for no reason? That's hardly a caring attitude. I can't "make a personal relationship with a Universe" (as you so anthropomorphically put it) that could whimsically commit random acts of unspeakable cruelty on me. I wouldn't respect myself in the morning.
Well put! I don't have an answer only opinions and beliefs. I think that individual life is not a concern but life itself over the entire universe may be. Without getting into religious beliefs this seems to be a reasonable belief.
DaveC426913
Oct3-06, 08:26 AM
Third, I think that "since everything is deterministic" is a totally unfounded and unsupportable statement. <snip /> I am just going to say that I cannot and will not accept the truth of that statement.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to and can live with but, so too am I.
Nope, in a deterministic univese, his choice and your choice are predetermined! :biggrin:
DaveC426913
Oct3-06, 08:34 AM
If the Universe cared enough about me to give me life, why does it reserve the right to take that life away suddenly, horribly and for no reason?
I will I never understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they can comprehend - let alone question - the motives and rationale of hypothetical minds vastly more complex than ours.
Do you suppose a wild grizzly is capable of understanding the motive behind being shot with a tranq dart and waking up with a tag attached to its ear and perhaps a new set of dentures?
I will I never understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they can comprehend - let alone question - the motives and rationale of hypothetical minds vastly more complex than ours.
Do you suppose a wild grizzly is capable of understanding the motive behind being shot with a tranq dart and waking up with a tag attached to its ear and perhaps a new set of dentures?
True enough.
Design is something we have conceived of and now comprehend in the things we observe. It is impossible to know if a grizzly or a salmon perceive or comprehend what we term as a design (be it an experimental design or designs for dinner and a fur coat).
Design implies intelligence, which is a human trait (we're told!) and design requires motive or motivation behind it (intelligence could be seen as a motive). Design requires a reason for it to be. And design requires reasoning in order to be realized. None of these requirements are met by the existence of the laws of physics. The laws exist as a result of natural selection. The laws that survive do so because their constitution allows for their continued existence. The laws that did or do not continue did not continue because they did not adhere to the principles of other more basic laws of physics. These laws are a result of a regimen of trial and error that has lasted, we are told, almost 14 billion years. Over this time the laws that have survived are what we perceive as a "design" when these are simply the orgainized, surviving remnants of what was, initially a chaotic explosion.
Accidents need the compliment of an organized design to be seen as "accidents". With this in mind I would propose that neither "accidents" nor "designs" exist beyond the thoughts and actions of human kind. Outside of our mental mechanism there a simple existence of events that have no value other than the fact that they exist, as far as I can see.
Nope, in a deterministic universe, his choice and your choice are predetermined! :biggrin:
That's the point, it is not a deterministic universe. This is supported by Quantum Mechanics, QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and nuclear decay, all random and unknowable phenomena. In short if one truly random and/or unknowable, indeterminable event occurs in 14+ billion years then the universe cannot be deterministic. I, thus, do have a choice and free will as does the Universe if it is conscious and aware. We do know that at least part of it is. It is therefore possible that the Universe itself is entirely conscious and aware and it a sentient entity itself with a thousand names.
I will I never understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they can comprehend - let alone question - the motives and rationale of hypothetical minds vastly more complex than ours.
Do you suppose a wild grizzly is capable of understanding the motive behind being shot with a tranq dart and waking up with a tag attached to its ear and perhaps a new set of dentures?
I think that's what I'm saying. From our perspective, we can't come close to comprehending the Universe, so why would we assume it was made for just for us?
The bear can't come close to comprehending our motivations either, even with concrete evidence that we exist. It also wouldn't comprehend why next year a hunter would kill it just to have its head hanging on his wall and leave its cubs to slowly starve to death or be torn apart alive by another bear. From that perspective, it would reasonably conclude that this Universe was not made just so bears could exist.
octelcogopod
Oct3-06, 11:45 AM
That's the point, it is not a deterministic universe. This is supported by Quantum Mechanics, QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and nuclear decay, all random and unknowable phenomena. In short if one truly random and/or unknowable, indeterminable event occurs in 14+ billion years then the universe cannot be deterministic. I, thus, do have a choice and free will as does the Universe if it is conscious and aware. We do know that at least part of it is. It is therefore possible that the Universe itself is entirely conscious and aware and it a sentient entity itself with a thousand names.
I won't get too deep into it but indeterminism does not entail "free will."
Even if it was indeterministic you wouldn't have free will either.
Free will is our conscious ability to make a choice, nothing more.
You have a choice don't you?
It can be seen as our ignorance to understanding what we are.
It is therefore possible that the Universe itself is entirely conscious and aware and it a sentient entity itself with a thousand names.
Logically, because humans are conscious and aware of their environment and because humans are a part of the universe you are right to say that the universe is therefore conscious and aware.
However this does not address the question of design or accident(?). Awareness of design does not imply that design exists and the same is true of accidents. What we are aware of is determined by what we perceive. It can mistakenly be perceived that a bird is "aware" of the changing seasons or compassionately preparing for offspring when it builds a nest or when it flys south. The truth may be, on the other hand, that it is mechanically acting on the motives of hormones and genetics that are naturally selected and ensure the survival of its species.
The same can be true of humans. What we perceive as compassionate acts and grand "designs" and even our "conscious awareness" are actually manifestations of naturally selected human genetic mechanisms that remain in place, to this day, because they have delayed the collapse of the human species.
It is in this light that "conscious awareness" becomes another anthropocentric way of perceiving the mechanism of the universe. We tend to add our precepts where they may or may not belong.
I won't get too deep into it but indeterminism does not entail "free will."
No it does not entail free will; however, Determinism does preclude free will.
Even if it was indeterministic you wouldn't have free will either.
If you are saying that if the Universe is indeterministic it does not then necessarily follow logically that we have free will, then I agree, but as I said it does make it possible whereas Determinism make it impossible.
Free will is our conscious ability to make a choice, nothing more.
You have a choice don't you?
I believe free will is more than just making choices. It is also the ability to have purpose and intent, to be creative and inventive. Without free will we would be little more than robots or ands responding only to our genes and hormones and unable to deviate from our predetermined set of behaviors. We could not think, create or invent anything new. We would not be human.
So, yes, I do have a choice.
However this does not address the question of design or accident(?). Awareness of design does not imply that design exists and the same is true of accidents. What we are aware of is determined by what we perceive...
It is in this light that "conscious awareness" becomes another anthropocentric way of perceiving the mechanism of the universe. We tend to add our precepts where they may or may not belong.
What I have been suggesting without actually saying it, is that there is one universe, one consciousness and one designer/creator and all of these things are one identity or entity and we are all an integral part of that One, the one universe, the one consciousness. Simply the One that is all. I realize that this is controversial and borders on religion but this is what I believe as a philosophy.
Without free will we would be little more than robots or ands responding only to our genes and hormones and unable to deviate from our predetermined set of behaviors. We could not think, create or invent anything new. We would not be human.
So, yes, I do have a choice.
Then again, free will is, without a doubt, an result of the same genetics that predetermine our behaviors. For instance creating, inventing and designing are behaviors that are driven and determined by the naturally selected genes of humans. One could say that we are robots with those abilities because those abilities form the mechanisms that result in our survival.
Without free will we would be little more than robots or ands responding only to our genes and hormones and unable to deviate from our predetermined set of behaviors. We could not think, create or invent anything new. We would not be human.
So, yes, I do have a choice.
If you have some time, 15-20min read this "What is man", and tell me how would you refute his hypothesis? [you dont have to read all 125 pages, after 10 you will get the idea. Its mark twain so its worthy anyway.
(Its in a form of dialog)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1595403310&id=HAwvPwGYfCcC&pg=PA5&lpg=PP1&dq=mark+twain+man&sig=iucS_89tX9Wk2ykvGFvtjjJff-8
octelcogopod
Oct3-06, 04:02 PM
Determinism make it impossible.
This is where I highly disagree with you, and I have to explain why.
If you look at the universe as a huge object of fundamental particles interacting, then it doesn't matter whether they are indterministic or deterministic, because they will not help nor disclude free will, as it were.
If indeteminism states that something compeletely random can happen, then it is not run by the choice of a person, otherwise it wouldn't be random, so what that means is that if something random happens, it will control whatever is physical, on the most fundamental level.
Since human choice is not primordial or fundamental in the universe, it will no doubt control that as well.
Same with determinism, if everything is determinsistic, everything is indeed controlled for us on the fundamental level.
The only (somewhat) other option I see for free will, is that it is an emergent property of determinism, where each person can control their own within a set of constraits, namely physics.
The most fundamental particles will still be controlled completely, but as consciousness and choice are emergent, we will indeed have free will, as for example our ability to choose whether or not to go to a party.
russ_watters
Oct3-06, 08:52 PM
I think you mean "the odds of winning that lottery twice in two tries", which makes the odds deceptively larger -- if she plays 1000 times in her life (e.g. one ticket per week for 20 years), her odds of winning twice are a more reasonable one in 34 million. Heh. Nice catch.
russ_watters
Oct3-06, 08:58 PM
Who is to say that a scientific minded person is superior to one who thinks philosophically? Perhaps I should have said logical. You appealed to logic in your OP, then made unequal assumptions. When I said unscientific, I was talking about the logical aspect of science.
To wit: That fact that matter has come alive and started thinking makes me question as to whether all matter is alive and thinking, even matter that appears to be inorganic and inanimate. And how is that logical? People aren't made up of single atoms. We can measure and observe that complex electrochemical reactions are occurring in our brains. It is not logical to conclude that neurons (much less protons) think, only that brains think.
Science requires evidence. There is no evidence that atoms, quarks, planets, etc. ever behave in a way that requires conscious thought. Ie, they don't ever disobey the laws of the universe. Science, taking collectivly, is still ignorant of many many issues in the universe, so a "scientific" minded person would have to admit ignorance. Since when is ignorance a crime and since when does science not acknowledge ignorance? If scientists truly believed they already knew everything, there'd be nothing to study and science would end. I have heard many circumstances where "scientific minded" people have made assimptions... Scientists are human and you're a pot calling the kettle black. Just because some scientists are bad scientists, doesn't make it ok for you to do the same thing. ...one being the universe thought of as being static, which was Eistein. Huh? Since when did Einstein assume that? GR was a critical piece of the puzzle for explaining/proving the expansion.
[edit] - Oh, you're talking about the cosmological constant, right? Expansion was an untested prediction when he inserted that term into GR. When evidence showed up (Hubble) that showed expansion, Einstein immediately recognized it for what it was. Sure, he made a mistake based on a personal preconception. But he was logically/scientifically minded enough to recognize the evidence when he saw it.
Anyway, how is this relevent? Are you saying that if Einstein can be illogical that it is acceptable for you to do it? Especially considering that you claim to be arguing based on logic, it rings a little hollow to then argue that it is ok to not argue based on logic.
Besides, what you are doing is worse: you're inventing evidence to support your assumption. Or rather, you're taking evidence for one thing and applying it to something else, while at the same time the same observations of that other thing show nothing. I flip one light switch and a light in my living room goes on. Based on that, I conclude that another light also goes on - even though I can see that the light is still off! Then there is the case of Hawkins who made the assumption that computer viruses were a form of life. Do you have a source for that? Not that its relevant (see above) - I'm just curious. Everyone makes assumptions it is human nature. Certainly, its an endless struggle. Sometimes people are able to put their preconceptions aside and argue logically. And sometimes.... So does this mean you are going to stop claiming you are arguing based on logic?
Then again, free will is, without a doubt, an result of the same genetics that predetermine our behaviors. For instance creating, inventing and designing are behaviors that are driven and determined by the naturally selected genes of humans. One could say that we are robots with those abilities because those abilities form the mechanisms that result in our survival.
While I agree that genetics, hormones etc influence our choices so do our state of mind and body at the moment and our history. The operative word is influence. They do not compel us to do anything unless we have a compulsive disorder. I am a smoker and addicted to nicotine but I am still not compelled to smoke. As Mark Twain said; "Quiting smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times." It is still a matter of conscious choice.
Anything that is programed by design or genes to certain behavior or operations is, IMO, incapable of creating or inventing anything. It has no free will and it's behavior is controlled and compelled. I don't think that such a thing could even be called a thinking being.
If you have some time, 15-20min read this "What is man", and tell me how would you refute his hypothesis? [you dont have to read all 125 pages, after 10 you will get the idea. Its mark twain so its worthy anyway.
(Its in a form of dialog)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1595403310&id=HAwvPwGYfCcC&pg=PA5&lpg=PP1&dq=mark+twain+man&sig=iucS_89tX9Wk2ykvGFvtjjJff-8
I was able to read only a few pages. Apparently I would have to buy the book at the link you gave us, but I think that I got the drift. However, I don't think that I read enough to refute his position other than by what I've been saying. A human is not a machine nor a computer. We are not compelled to do anything whereas a machine including computers can only respond one way to any given set of circumstances, we humans have a choice, free will.
We are getting way off the topic of this thread. If one of you want to start a determinism and/or freewill thread, I will certainly join in.
This is where I highly disagree with you, and I have to explain why.
If you look at the universe as a huge object of fundamental particles interacting, then it doesn't matter whether they are indeterministic or deterministic, because they will not help nor disclude free will, as it were.
You need to look up and study the philosophy and history of Determinism. It is an either/or option; ether the universe is completely deterministic or it is not deterministic.
If the Universe, including ourselves, is deterministic then our behavior, and choices are predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time which is predetermined by it's previous state all the way back to the Big Bang. This precludes freewill as we then have no choice in our behavior or choices be cause they are not free choices but predetermined by previous states.
This is not my opinion. It is the position of Determinists
If indeterminism states that something completely random can happen, then it is not run by the choice of a person, otherwise it wouldn't be random, so what that means is that if something random happens, it will control whatever is physical, on the most fundamental level.
Exactly. Determinists, including Physicalist, believe that we are controlled by fundamental physical states that are determined by previous physical states, that there is no such thing a a random event. If this is the case then as every action including thought is determined, there can be not such thing as freewill. I have argued the philosophy of freewill endlessly with determinists and physicalists here in numerous previous threads to no avail.
Since human choice is not primordial or fundamental in the universe, it will no doubt control that as well. Same with determinism, if everything is deterministic, everything is indeed controlled for us on the fundamental level.
Yes, that is the Determinism position.
The only (somewhat) other option I see for free will, is that it is an emergent property of determinism, where each person can control their own within a set of constraints, namely physics. The most fundamental particles will still be controlled completely, but as consciousness and choice are emergent, we will indeed have free will, as for example our ability to choose whether or not to go to a party.
The bold portion of your statement is a contradiction. If something is completely controlled at any level fundamental or conscious then by definition of the word controlled it is not free. Free implies not controlled. Also I disagree that consciousness and thus freewill are emergent properties. But that too is another topic suited for another new thread.
I realized that most of you have not been here at the philosophy section of Physics Forums nearly as long as I have so much of this is all new to you. We have gone over all of this many times previously. If you are really interested, go to the archives and do a search on the terms being used here or do a search for my ,Royce, posts or threads as I was involved in most of these topics over the last 3-4 years. I am not bragging nor trying to stop the discussions of these topics because I have already done this or said that before. I really think that some of them, while long winded, were very good and many good points were made on both sides. It may also give you a better understanding of the philosophies and terms involved. Most of us are lay philosophers, some formal philosophy students, but all of us opinionated and most fiercely so.
octelcogopod
Oct4-06, 09:35 AM
I'm sorry but that's an assumption on your part about me.
I think you have the wrong definition of free will.
Free will is merely a persons conscious ability to make a choice, and this is supported in determinism if you consider that physics give rise to several emergent properties. (You still didn't argue why you disagreed with me on this point.)
You are saying that free will is a persons ability to make a choice without external control, but that is a logical error because either then choice is primordial/fundamental, or it is infinitely regressive.
The "universe" where the choice is made must still be controlled by something, otherwise it's random chaos.
You said free will is not controlled by anything but the mind, and especially not by physical properties, but how can that be?
The only two options we have is that either consciousness/free will came before physicality, and thus it created OR supervenes the physical, or consciousness/free will came AFTER physical properties and thus is controlled by it.
You can't have an inbetween there.
If you try to go inbetween and say consciousness came after physicality but is still not controlled by it, you end up in infinite regress.
This assumes that free will always was outside of the physical properties, thus the universe is irrelevant to its nature.
And about indeterminism.. The same applies to all of the above, it is completely irrelevant whether the universe has deterministic or indeterministic events, it doesn't phase your definition of free will at all.
While I agree that genetics, hormones etc influence our choices so do our state of mind and body at the moment and our history. The operative word is influence. They do not compel us to do anything unless we have a compulsive disorder. I am a smoker and addicted to nicotine but I am still not compelled to smoke. As Mark Twain said; "Quiting smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times." It is still a matter of conscious choice.
Anything that is programed by design or genes to certain behavior or operations is, IMO, incapable of creating or inventing anything. It has no free will and it's behavior is controlled and compelled. I don't think that such a thing could even be called a thinking being.
Thank you Royce.
Influence is definitely - influencial - when it comes to behavior. I see the universe not as a design nor as an accident. It is more a "result" of trial and error.
If we look at what happens when there is an explosion or chaotic occurrence such as a landslide, at first the laws governing this event are basic and rely on fundimental mechanisms like gravity or combustion etc. Then it is possible to see that the components of the event begin to settle and organize according to weight, size, state and condition all under the influence of basic laws like gravity and turbulence and aerodynamics and so on.
Simlarily, the universe that exists today is a result of the "settling" and organization of the various components of what was borne out of a time of great chaotic influence. The laws of gravity, light and particle behavior were spawned during that period. How they settled and organized was determined by what behavior best survived through that time. The behaviors that did not comply with the basic laws simply do not exist today. What does survive today provides an example of what works in this environment. That would include our genetic predisposition to create, invent and design. Our genetics are some of the particles left over from a chaotic expulsion that are organized in such a way that they represent the result of 14 billion years of progressive composition. That, at least, is how I see it.
Thanks again.
I just did a Google search, philosophy, Determinism, and it came up with one of my and other's favorite scours of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Its a quick read and gives a good synopsis of Determinism with links to more detailed and deeper thinking.
I think you have the wrong definition of free will. Free will is merely a persons conscious ability to make a choice, and this is supported in determinism if you consider that physics give rise to several emergent properties. (You still didn't argue why you disagreed with me on this point.)
Sorry about the wrong assumption. You are arguing from a typical physicalist point of view. I do not hold that point of view.
You are saying that free will is a persons ability to make a choice without external control, but that is a logical error because either then choice is primordial/fundamental, or it is infinitely regressive.
The "universe" where the choice is made must still be controlled by something, otherwise it's random chaos.
You said free will is not controlled by anything but the mind, and especially not by physical properties, but how can that be?
The only two options we have is that either consciousness/free will came before physicality, and thus it created OR supervenes the physical, or consciousness/free will came AFTER physical properties and thus is controlled by it.
Yes, from my point of view, the physical is a result, an effect of creation not THE CAUSE of creation (No I am not a fundamental creationist). Consciousness, sentience, intent and will is the cause not the effect of the physical. essentially we are arguing for opposite sides of the spectrum and pointing in opposite directions.
You can't have an in between there.
If you try to go in between and say consciousness came after physicality but is still not controlled by it, you end up in infinite regress.
I agree
This assumes that free will always was outside of the physical properties, thus the universe is irrelevant to its nature.
No, it assumes that freewill is prime, the first cause, if you will, that created the physical universe not the other way around. And, we as part of that primal, eternal consciousness also have freewill as an intrinsic part of consciousness. I happen to call that primal consciousness, God, the designer and creator of the Universe. You of course can call it whatever you want.
And about indeterminism.. The same applies to all of the above, it is completely irrelevant whether the universe has deterministic or indeterministic events, it doesn't phase your definition of free will at all.
Some say it does, others that it doesn't. The later are called Compatablist.
Similarly, the universe that exists today is a result of the "settling" and organization of the various components of what was borne out of a time of great chaotic influence. The laws of gravity, light and particle behavior were spawned during that period. How they settled and organized was determined by what behavior best survived through that time. The behaviors that did not comply with the basic laws simply do not exist today. What does survive today provides an example of what works in this environment. That would include our genetic predisposition to create, invent and design. Our genetics are some of the particles left over from a chaotic expulsion that are organized in such a way that they represent the result of 14 billion years of progressive composition. That, at least, is how I see it.
Thanks again.
This is a new one for me. I think that it would be a variation of the Many Worlds or Infinite Universe position tied in with the Anthropological Position i.e.
this universe with this set of laws and properties is that which led to the universe as we know it and to us, so that is why and how we are here to ask "How" and "Why."
Science requires evidence. There is no evidence that atoms, quarks, planets, etc. ever behave in a way that requires conscious thought. Ie, they don't ever disobey the laws of the universe.
Science cannot even prove that consciousness exists, so stating that there is no evidence that atom-behaviour requires conscious thought does not say anything about it being true or false. It merely states that science is incapable of finding out.
And conscious influence on matter does not need to disobey the laws of nature, unless one assumes both have nothing to do with eachother, but they may well be the same thing. Our bodies definately seem to require consciousness to function, and the claim that other matter doesnt is one that doesnt come from human knowledge but from human ignorance. Our knowlegde is that some matter does require it.
DaveC426913
Oct4-06, 01:27 PM
Science cannot even prove that consciousness exists...
I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think there's any question that it exists - it is an empirical observation*. Though there's certainly a lot of question about its definition and extent.
*Likewise, we know that galaxy cohesion cannot be explained by gravity of the visible matter alone - this too is an empirical observation - even though we don't know the how and why of it.
octelcogopod
Oct4-06, 01:27 PM
Royce,
You didn't really refute any of my points, I said that it assumes that free will is outside of the physicality of things, which is exactly the same as what you said No, it assumes that freewill is prime, the first cause, if you will, that created the physical universe not the other way around. And, we as part of that primal, eternal consciousness also have freewill as an intrinsic part of consciousness. I happen to call that primal consciousness, God, the designer and creator of the Universe. You of course can call it whatever you want."
For it to have created the physical universe it would have had to be outside of it, how can it exist inside something which didn't exist because it wasn't created yet?
Then you say
Yes, from my point of view, the physical is a result, an effect of creation not THE CAUSE of creation (No I am not a fundamental creationist). Consciousness, sentience, intent and will is the cause not the effect of the physical. essentially we are arguing for opposite sides of the spectrum and pointing in opposite directions.
I proved my point that this doesn't make much sense earlier
The only two options we have is that either consciousness/free will came before physicality, and thus it created OR supervenes the physical, or consciousness/free will came AFTER physical properties and thus is controlled by it.
So in other words the burden of proof is on your shoulders to show that consciousness is prime.
Lastly you said this;
Some say it does, others that it doesn't. The later are called Compatablist.
I'm sorry but can you explain to me how free will can arise in a non deterministic system, using your definition that a free choice is something which is not controlled by the underlying system it is built on?
If free will under your definition is true, then it cannot have any kind of system.
This is because by logic, anything that exists must be built on an underlying system, unless you hit the fundamental.
However nobody is capable of imagining, or even synthesizing a fundamental in any shape or form, nor are they capable of applying this method in real life.
That's infinite regress for ya, always the damn zoom eh?
What I don't understand is how you can say free will is prime, when the only thing you have to go on is the innate feeling that you do indeed make your own choices.
So instead of studying the logical regress of events that lead up to your choice, you rather just assume some story about how free will/consciousness is prime and how it is eternal.
I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think there's any question that it exists - it is an empirical observation*.
Im not saying that there is doubt whether it exists, just that we cannot show scientifically to anyone that we are conscious. For instance, if a robot states "i am conscious", then this isnt scientific evidence for it being conscious. So even though we have no doubt consciousness exists, science is not what brings that certainty.
octelcogopod
Oct4-06, 01:49 PM
Im not saying that there is doubt whether it exists, just that we cannot show scientifically to anyone that we are conscious. For instance, if a robot states "i am conscious", then this isnt scientific evidence for it being conscious. So even though we have no doubt consciousness exists, science is not what brings that certainty.
IMO this is because we haven't learned how to properly analyse emergent systems.
Trying to analyze an ocean waves path by looking at a water molecule in the wave is somewhat the same as trying to see consciousness by studying the neurons in the brain.
We are able to see that it is a wave because our brains are made to logically put the water molecules into a coherent whole, it is thus my opinion that we need to learn how to properly combine body, world, perception and brain processes into one coherent consciousness.
IMO of course.
Royce,
You didn't really refute any of my points, I said that it assumes that free will is outside of the physicality of things, which is exactly the same as what you said
I didn't refute your points because I can't. We both, so far as I can tell, are arguing logically, but we hold different, opposite, premises. I did not imply that free will is "outside" of of physics but that it is before physical things. I'm a monist. There is only one. There is no inside or outside. I maintain that physical matter is the result of consciousness not that consciousness is the result of physical matter. IMO it is all one. If I must, I will say that everything and everyone is a part of the One, I call that One, God.
For it to have created the physical universe it would have had to be outside of it, how can it exist inside something which didn't exist because it wasn't created yet?
It is eternal, without beginning and without end. It created the universe out of and within itself. This is a logical necessity if there is only one, no outside or inside,
nothing is outside. All that is is of and inside the one universe or one god, whatever. If it created the physical then as you imply it must not be physical. I would call it metaphysical or spiritual for want of a better term.
I'm sorry but can you explain to me how free will can arise in a non deterministic system, using your definition that a free choice is something which is not controlled by the underlying system it is built on?
Freewill did not arise, is not emergent, but is a property of sentient, intelligent, consciousness. A mind thinks. It reasons more or less logically. It come up with new thoughts and ideas at least to itself. It make choices based on it own volition, its own will, purpose and intent. If it had no freewill, freedom of thought, choice and action it could not come up with anything new or original or do anything that it was not preprogrammed or predetermined to do.
If free will under your definition is true, then it cannot have any kind of system.
This is because by logic, anything that exists must be built on an underlying system, unless you hit the fundamental.
The system of mentality, intelligence, sentient consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is logic which include mathematics and reasoning. Our logic is the same it is our premises that are at opposite ends of the spectrum of thought. This is why you think that my beliefs are total chaos and why I think yours are, why I assumed that you were not familiar with the terms of Determinism.
However nobody is capable of imagining, or even synthesizing a fundamental in any shape or form, nor are they capable of applying this method in real life.
That's infinite regress for ya, always the damn zoom eh?
What I don't understand is how you can say free will is prime, when the only thing you have to go on is the innate feeling that you do indeed make your own choices.
So instead of studying the logical regress of events that lead up to your choice, you rather just assume some story about how free will/consciousness is prime and how it is eternal.
It is the absurdities that infinite regression leads to that, in part, led me to my set of beliefs. It is also the unsupportable positions of Hard Determinism and Physicalism, as well as the paradoxes and contradictions that they inevitable lead to that brought me to the point of examined alternate premises. Dualism was the first alternate choice that I came to, but Dualism doesn't hold under my firm conviction that all is one, one is all that is, which arose from my study and practice of Zen Buddhism. Incidentally many Buddhist are and were materialist, what we call physicalist now.
To quote Spock, "If your logic is correct and your conclusion is impossible, check your Premise."
And, Sherlock Holmes, "After you eliminate all that is impossible, only the truth remains." (or something like that)
Sorry for the late reply but I missed your post yesterday...:blushing:
It is just another indication that the Universe is ever changing and evolving in many ways that we cannot fathom or even know.
That doesn't answer the question at all (which was something like, "How does the existence of life on Earth change the Universe?"), but it sure skirts it in a mysterious, religious-like way. If you can't fathom the Universe, how can you know it has changed?
Well put! I don't have an answer only opinions and beliefs. I think that individual life is not a concern but life itself over the entire universe may be. Without getting into religious beliefs this seems to be a reasonable belief.
We all have opinions and beliefs, but not all of us seem to base them on our extremely limited observations. Again, what observations have you made that lead you to believe we have changed the Unviverse?
Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.
This is a new one for me. I think that it would be a variation of the Many Worlds or Infinite Universe position tied in with the Anthropological Position i.e.
this universe with this set of laws and properties is that which led to the universe as we know it and to us, so that is why and how we are here to ask "How" and "Why."
I don't think its a new idea to say that what we observe as the universe today is a result of many trials and errors. There are conditions, laws, states and behaviors that work, and those are still around. There were behaviors, laws, states and conditions that were too unstable to survive and so they are no longer in existence (in this universe).
There is a paradox seen where the surviving laws we observe today are probably a result of the laws and states that didn't make it. What survives as Conservational Law, Gravitational law etc. are most likely synthesized out of less efficient states.
This model is observable today in the way society refines laws and conditions that were, at one time, rough approximations of what we have now. And the laws and conditions we have today will be refined even further if time permits. Sometimes the refinements survive and sometimes the refinements are dismantled and synthesized into better working models. And so on.
These functions can only be said to be "design" or "accident" by the observer who holds the precepts of "design and/or "accident". A simpler explaination is to label the process "nature" or "cause and effect". But "cause and effect" are interchangable in any function and therefore should be reduced to "result".
Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.
Pardon me for being dense, but I was hoping we were talking about something more fundamental, not in the way a bug splatted on a windshield "changes" a car.
So every time we swat a mosquito, or unknowingly step on an ant, take a bite of a sandwich, move a finger, take a breath, vomit, etc, etc., we're channging the Universe. Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe. That just cheapens the meaning of "change" to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. (As in Hawking's lofty statement that by observing a single electron, we change the Universe.)
Well if you want more lofty changes, consider that we as conscious, sentient beings are the first step in the Universe becoming conscious and sentient itself. That is, of course, assuming that we are the first; but, it still holds if we but one of many. The universe is becoming conscious, sentient and self-aware. Hows that for an emergent property?
Pardon me for being dense, but I was hoping we were talking about something more fundamental, not in the way a bug splatted on a windshield "changes" a car.
So every time we swat a mosquito, or unknowingly step on an ant, take a bite of a sandwich, move a finger, take a breath, vomit, etc, etc., we're channging the Universe. Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe.
Yes. I think its called Chaos theory. You know, when a butterfly's wings flap on Mars it creates universal changes resulting in a wind that throws a mosquito into your windshield. If you don't like the theory, change it by proving otherwise. A cautionary note, if you succeed in changing the theory, you will still be changing the universe.
nannoh, so your theory is that not only has the universe evolved but the physical laws and values themselves have evolved via natural selection?
I understand the many worlds idea each with different laws and parameters. Some make it and some don't.
From reading your post I got the impression that your taking about one universe evolving these laws and parameters by trail and error until it came up with the one that works, so far, and here we are.
This implies, to me at least, that there is some driving force or purpose to it. Why else would the laws change until it got it "right."
Further to my last post, which (I think) will answer both Royce and nannoh...
The Universe is change. Electrons are getting knocked around constantly throughout the whole cosmos by unconscious processes but that doesn't change the nature of the Universe. By responding predictably to another force, they are helping to define the Universe as it is, not change it. Our little actions would be significant only if they didn't change anything.
This implies, to me at least, that there is some driving force or purpose to it. Why else would the laws change until it got it "right."
As we already know "purpose" is relative to the observer. What we think of as "universal laws" (though no one has observed the whole universe to be able to call them that) are always changing and refining and being dismantled and rebuilt. The laws from which human kind and life itself have emerged are never "right or wrong" because right or wrong are relative only to the observer.
Saying the universe "got it right" when it produced the emergence of life is a good example of your individual freedom of "choice". It demonstrates that you are able to maintain a position in the universe and are able to voice your opinion about it. No small feat.
That doesn't answer the question at all (which was something like, "How does the existence of life on Earth change the Universe?"), but it sure skirts it in a mysterious, religious-like way. If you can't fathom the Universe, how can you know it has changed?
This weeks Newscientist has an article about retrocausality (the present influencing the past). In it, there is a section where Paul Davis describes what retrocausality could mean for life on earth. He says the universe may be fine tuned for life, because life itself is finetuning it. The reasoning goes something like this: in the first moments after the big bang, the laws of nature werent fixed, they were wobbly, and if retrocausality is possible then conscious observers right now may be influencing the wobbly era and shaping the laws of nature. His exact words can be read here (http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20061003_ScienceandEnvironment.php)
We all have opinions and beliefs, but not all of us seem to base them on our extremely limited observations. Again, what observations have you made that lead you to believe we have changed the Unviverse?
One can see how we have changed the universe by just looking around. Humans have transformed the planet in the past 100 years, even though our brains havent changed much in the same timespan.
Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe. That just cheapens the meaning of "change" to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. (As in Hawking's lofty statement that by observing a single electron, we change the Universe.)I dont think this cheapens the meaning of "change", but puts it in the right perspective. If this were not "change" then universal events arent either. Even if by "change" u mean changing the laws of nature, then observing an electron would qualify so long as one assumes these laws are part of the things they are changing, as opposed to assuming these laws exist in a platonic realm.
Our actions (like squashing an ant) may seem tiny compared to the rest of the universe, but can have giant implications for what the universe actually is. Compare it to a boy that enters a room which is completely red. Then he finds a tiny blue dot on a wall. Even though the dot is tiny, it does have fundamental implications for the entire room: the entire room is not fundamentaly red.
Yes. I think its called Chaos theory. You know, when a butterfly's wings flap on Mars it creates universal changes resulting in a wind that throws a mosquito into your windshield. If you don't like the theory, change it by proving otherwise. A cautionary note, if you succeed in changing the theory, you will still be changing the universe.
I won't argue with the theory, just your example. A butterfly on Mars is impossible. I think you meant "a butterfly on Earth can set in motion events that lead to a hurricane" as I've heard it, which is at least possible, though the chances of it happening are so remote they're laughable. Now compare that with the chances of a butterfly causing a supernova, or even affecting a single atom, 10 billion light years away.
Did I just change the Universe? :wink:
One can see how we have changed the universe by just looking around. Humans have transformed the planet in the past 100 years, even though our brains havent changed much in the same timespan.
I can see how we've changed some things on Earth, but not the entire Universe. I can also see how the forces of nature have changed the Earth unconsciously.
I'm guessing the rest of the Universe looks the same as it would have if I hadn't been born.
I dont think this cheapens the meaning of "change", but puts it in the right perspective. If this were not "change" then universal events arent either. Even if by "change" u mean changing the laws of nature, then observing an electron would qualify so long as one assumes these laws are part of the things they are changing, as opposed to assuming these laws exist in a platonic realm.
Our actions (like squashing an ant) may seem tiny compared to the rest of the universe, but can have giant implications for what the universe actually is. Compare it to a boy that enters a room which is completely red. Then he finds a tiny blue dot on a wall. Even though the dot is tiny, it does have fundamental implications for the entire room: the entire room is not fundamentaly red.
My squashing an ant changes the configuration of matter and energy in the ant. So would a rock if it fell on the ant. Would you say the rock has changed the Universe?
To me, your red room implies a static Universe with a single anomaly. To me, the room would better represent the Universe if blue dots were appearing and disappearing constantly (representing all the changes that happen in the Universe). Now the dots are a fundamental property of the room, just as change is a fundamental property of the Universe, conscious or not.
(I haven't had time to look at the Newscientist article, but I'll get to it.)
Our little actions would be significant only if they didn't change anything.
As far as I know "significance" is in the eye of the signifier (observer).
As far as I know "significance" is in the eye of the signifier (observer).
In a universe where change is inevitable, unavoidable and constant, I would think everyone would find it significant if we didn't cause changes.
If I can recap here, for my own clarity at least, you (and Royce and PIT) are saying that by making a change, no matter how minor, we're changing the overall makeup of the Universe. The statement "Therefore, we change the Universe" attaches some importance to the changes that we as conscious beings cause. I say that because inanimate matter and energy are also constantly "changing the Universe" as you put it, there is nothing significant, in a universal sense, in the fact that we cause change.
Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.
Is this also very simple?
Dirt is part of the Universe.
If dirt changes in any way, then part of the Universe changes.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
Dirt changes the Earth and changes part of the Universe.
If any part of the Universe changes, the entire Universe changes.
Therefore, dirt changes the Universe.
I can see how we've changed some things on Earth, but not the entire Universe. I can also see how the forces of nature have changed the Earth unconsciously.
I'm guessing the rest of the Universe looks the same as it would have if I hadn't been born. We actually dont know if the forces of nature act on the universe unconsciously. Also if u werent born, it could have the same meaning for the universe as one star that should have collapsed into a black hole but did not.
My squashing an ant changes the configuration of matter and energy in the ant. So would a rock if it fell on the ant. Would you say the rock has changed the Universe?
Yes the rock changes the universe. A rock falls because of gravity (falling rock = gravitational pull), and this gravitational force has all kinds of influences on the universe. The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved. We dont know what this means, but it could mean that conscious change is fundamental.
We actually dont know if the forces of nature act on the universe unconsciously. Also if u werent born, it could have the same meaning for the universe as one star that should have collapsed into a black hole but did not.
If it turns out the Universe is acting consciously, that would be disappointing for those who think we're different or special because we're conscious. In that case, consciousness by itself would make us no different of special from anything else in the Universe.
And just to get technical, if a star should collapse into a black hole, it will, according to the laws of nature. If it doesn't, there would be a physical reason that it doesn't, so that it was never meant to become a black hole in the first place. It's like saying, "I should have travelled at the speed of light but for some reason I didn't", or, "He should have been born but for some reason he wasn't".
Yes the rock changes the universe. A rock falls because of gravity (falling rock = gravitational pull), and this gravitational force has all kinds of influences on the universe. The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved. We dont know what this means, but it could mean that conscious change is fundamental.
Irregardless of consciousness, I was just disputing the claim by some people that we humans are special because we cause changes in the Universe. If a mere rock can also "change the Universe", that nullifies that claim. Also, I'm not sure if you mean the rock changes the Universe by falling, or if the force of gravity changes it and the rock is its unwitting agent.
By saying "The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved", doens't that imply that the rest of the Universe is not acting consciously?
In a universe where change is inevitable, unavoidable and constant, I would think everyone would find it significant if we didn't cause changes.
I don't think anyone would notice. How many people's attention does it take to make an event or non-event significant? (way off topic)
If I can recap here, for my own clarity at least, you (and Royce and PIT) are saying that by making a change, no matter how minor, we're changing the overall makeup of the Universe. The statement "Therefore, we change the Universe" attaches some importance to the changes that we as conscious beings cause. I say that because inanimate matter and energy are also constantly "changing the Universe" as you put it, there is nothing significant, in a universal sense, in the fact that we cause change.
I don't think Royce and Pit are saying that because we change the universe we are special or significant. They are saying that along with all the other components of the universe we too are involved in its evolution of change. We effect the course of the evolution of the universe and, in turn, we are affected by the same.
So what you are saying is true; there is nothing significant in the fact that we cause change because everything causes change in the universe. This includes butterfly wings, a rock falling on an ant, and one gene that eventually and "significantly", produced 6,000,000,000 Homosapiens.
And just to get technical, if a star should collapse into a black hole, it will, according to the laws of nature. If it doesn't, there would be a physical reason that it doesn't, so that it was never meant to become a black hole in the first place. It's like saying, "I should have travelled at the speed of light but for some reason I didn't", or, "He should have been born but for some reason he wasn't".Yes, so u can see that such events could have implications at a more fundamental level(all our theories about black hole formation might have to be rewritten perhaps). I was originally going to give the example of a rock that fell upwards instead of downwards, and the consequences this would have for our understanding of gravity.
Also, I'm not sure if you mean the rock changes the Universe by falling, or if the force of gravity changes it and the rock is its unwitting agent.I think somehow gravity and the things that it acts on are co-dependant on eachother, and that they are in fact both the same thing. So a change in either will affect the other.
By saying "The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved", doens't that imply that the rest of the Universe is not acting consciously?Not really, i just said it like that because we are certain of it in the case of humans, and this prevents us from assuming that the entire universe works unconsciously, and that the entire universe can be explained by physical descriptions.
I don't think anyone would notice. How many people's attention does it take to make an event or non-event significant? (way off topic)
It was rhetorical of course. If we didn't cause changes in the Universe, or if the Universe didn't cause changes in us, we wouldn't exist.
I don't think Royce and Pit are saying that because we change the universe we are special or significant. They are saying that along with all the other components of the universe we too are involved in its evolution of change. We effect the course of the evolution of the universe and, in turn, we are affected by the same.
Saying "We change the Universe" without adding, in the same reverant tone, "So does everything else" fully implies that we're special. Otherwise, why would anyone say it?
So what you are saying is true; there is nothing significant in the fact that we cause change because everything causes change in the universe. This includes butterfly wings, a rock falling on an ant, and one gene that eventually and "significantly", produced 6,000,000,000 Homosapiens.
At first glance, six billion is an impressive number. It's a lot more than the number of wombats in the world, that's for sure. But compared to bacteria, it's hardly something to be proud of. Each one of us has trillions of bacteria eating, excreting waste, reproducing and dying in and on our bodies. Multiply those trillions by six billion, and add the trillions and quadrillions and googillions in the rest of the world. By numbers alone, homo sapiens is pretty insignificant compared to the "lowly" bacterium.
But numbers aren't a true measure of a species, I'm sure you'd agree, so how about something more significant: survival. Bacteria perform functions for us without which we can't live. In a world without humans, bacteria would do, and have done, very well, but take bacteria away and we'd soon be extinct. Bacteria thrive in places where we wouldn't last a second, and they've lived through epochs on Earth that would have wiped us out completely. Their short life span and quick reproduction rates make bacteria, as a species, much more adaptable to sudden changes in their environment than us sluggish humans. They have an incredible advantage over us in their ability to survive as a species, and yet they aren't conscious. I'd say consciousness, in itself, isn't a prerequisite for successful existence, although it is apparently required for a species to think it's pretty hot stuff.
Bacteria have an incredible advantage over us in their ability to survive as a species, and yet they aren't conscious.This is something which we just dont know. How and why do bacteria behave the way they do? What allows them to respond to the environment in a way that enables them to survive? Perhaps ur statement is based on the assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain. But even the human brain has bacterial ancestors, and the idea that our brain has something unique which bacteria and non-brainers dont turns us(or rather our brains) into 'special' beings also.
Yes, so u can see that such events could have implications at a more fundamental level(all our theories about black hole formation might have to be rewritten perhaps). I was originally going to give the example of a rock that fell upwards instead of downwards, and the consequences this would have for our understanding of gravity.
I cant' argue that such events would have profound implications, but have such events ever happened? Has a rock ever fallen upwards? Has there ever been a star that should have become a black hole that did not become one?
I think somehow gravity and the things that it acts on are co-dependant on eachother, and that they are in fact both the same thing. So a change in either will affect the other.
Certainly the rock's gravity is dependent on the rock; without the rock, there wouldn't be the rock's gravity. I'm probably missing your point again, but I don't see how the rock is dependent on the Earth's gravity.
Not really, i just said it like that because we are certain of it in the case of humans, and this prevents us from assuming that the entire universe works unconsciously, and that the entire universe can be explained by physical descriptions.
That's fun to think about and it makes good science fiction, but there is no evidence at all in the real world, that we can comprehend, to suggest it. Which leads to me to ask why you would pick consciousness as a human property that would apply to the Universe. You wouldn't say the Universe has a seventy-year life span, or that it conducts organized warfare, or that it intentionally creates other life in order to kill it and eat it.
This is something which we just dont know. How and why do bacteria behave the way they do? What allows them to respond to the environment in a way that enables them to survive? Perhaps ur statement is based on the assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain. But even the human brain has bacterial ancestors, and the idea that our brain has something unique which bacteria and non-brainers dont turns us(or rather our brains) into 'special' beings also.
Quck answer cause I'm pressed for time:
But we do know what allows bacteria to respond to the environment. It falls under the umbrella of evolution. (And just to point out, they don't "respond" to the environment. Those that aren't suited to the environment are killed off, leaving those that are suited.)
Having consciousness makes us unique, not special. Every species has unique characteristics but that doesn't make them all favourites of the Universe.
DaveC426913
Oct13-06, 06:25 AM
But we do know what allows bacteria to respond to the environment. It falls under the umbrella of evolution. (And just to point out, they don't "respond" to the environment. Those that aren't suited to the environment are killed off, leaving those that are suited.)
This is not the condition as I understand it.
The requirement as I have understood it, is more accurately called "irritation", as in: yes individual bacteria will actually respond to the enivronment without dying.
I cant' argue that such events would have profound implications, but have such events ever happened? Has a rock ever fallen upwards? Has there ever been a star that should have become a black hole that did not become one?Has a skyscraper or a computer ever been built without consciousness involved?
Certainly the rock's gravity is dependent on the rock; without the rock, there wouldn't be the rock's gravity. I'm probably missing your point again, but I don't see how the rock is dependent on the Earth's gravity. The earths gravity is not just the earths gravity, gravity is a universal force. The same may go with human consciousness. I think gravity and the rock (and what it represents fundamentally) are codependant just like time and space are.
That's fun to think about and it makes good science fiction, but there is no evidence at all in the real world, that we can comprehend, to suggest it. Which leads to me to ask why you would pick consciousness as a human property that would apply to the Universe. You wouldn't say the Universe has a seventy-year life span, or that it conducts organized warfare, or that it intentionally creates other life in order to kill it and eat it.Why consciousness would apply to the universe? Well we are not seperate from the universe, but a part of it. Other animals are probably conscious too. Does temperature apply only to humans? Gravity? Why would consciousness?
Warfare is not unique on earth(nor is a 70-year timeperiod), the only thing about it that sets it apart, is that it causes a range of experiences in the conscious beings that are affected by it (this is assuming that consciousness is a unique ability of brains). Otherwise, warfare is just the interaction of specific physical configurations, just like rocks rumbling down a hill on mars.
This idea also applies to the distinction between living and dead matter. Is there really a distinction, or are they fundamentally both the same?
But we do know what allows bacteria to respond to the environment. It falls under the umbrella of evolution. (And just to point out, they don't "respond" to the environment. Those that aren't suited to the environment are killed off, leaving those that are suited.)
Evolution does not tell us how bacteria respond to the environment. We know we respond to the environment, yet dont know how. Also evolution does not rule out bacteria being conscious(and responding), because we know we are conscious(and we respond) and we are shaped by evolution too. Evolution is a principle that is the result of the behaviour of living beings, it is not a force that controls this behaviour. The fact that bacteria are 'killed off' indicates that they are alive and they are alive because they manage to solve the problems the environment throws at them. The most rudimentary form of problemsolving may in fact be the very evolutionary origin of our more advanced/specialised intelligence.
If we define intelligence as "to understand and profit from experience", then it means that it requires consciousness - which i think is true. Either way, evolution is a result of this problemsolving, so id say that evolution falls under the umbrella of the organisms responding to their environment, and not the other way around.
The question is whether consciousness arose somewhere on the evolutionary timeline(how and why so?), or whether it is (and was) present in all life, and thus has its origin in the origin of life, before that, or has any origin at all.
Having consciousness makes us unique, not special. Every species has unique characteristics but that doesn't make them all favourites of the Universe.Could u name one 'unique' characteristic which cannot be reduced to universally present elements of nature?
Could u name one 'unique' characteristic which cannot be reduced to universally present elements of nature?
First I'd have to prove that the presently observed elements of nature actually are universal.
This is the first stumbling block to the "design" theory. There's no way we are able to prove the existence of an overall, universal presence of natural elements and laws.
Prove that a rock does not fall away from gravity in some other part of the universe. To date we are basing the "laws of nature" and "natural design" on our local knowledge of the universe. Not the entire phenomenon.
Prove that a rock does not fall away from gravity in some other part of the universe. To date we are basing the "laws of nature" and "natural design" on our local knowledge of the universe. Not the entire phenomenon.True, but we assume these laws are universal. Anyway im not sure what this has to do with what im asking, so the question remains (if somewhat changed to clarify):
Name a unique characteristic of an organism, which is not reducible to the elements of nature which we assume to be universal?
This is the first stumbling block to the "design" theory. There's no way we are able to prove the existence of an overall, universal presence of natural elements and laws.Isnt this a stumbling block to just about any theory of the universe, design or not?
Name a unique characteristic of an organism, which is not reducible to the elements of nature which we assume to be universal?
Since I do not have data on all the organisms in the universe I can't answer the question.
Isnt this a stumbling block to just about any theory of the universe, design or not?
Yes but it is not universally accepted as a stumbling block.:smile:
Since I do not have data on all the organisms in the universe I can't answer the question.
U dont have to know all organisms in the universe to know that snakes have eyes. The word 'unique' in the question does not mean that the characteristic is unique to a particular species, but to any organism (whether it exists elsewhere in the universe or not). So it would be better to just leave the word 'unique' out of the question entirely.
Name a characteristic of an organism, which is not reducible to the elements of nature which we assume to be universal?
An organism that flys in a machine(?)
An organism that wears shoes(?)
An organism that blows itself up(?)
all organism is the product of evolution and all can be expressed by evolution and natural selection is everything but random
selfAdjoint
Oct16-06, 01:11 PM
all organism is the product of evolution and all can be expressed by evolution and natural selection is everything but random
Actually evolution can be described as deterministic filtering (selection) of a random signal (variation). But the deterministing component is so complex (and possibly chaotic in the mathematical sense) that for most purposes it can be taken as random too.
just becuase something is complex it doesnt make it random
An organism that flys in a machine(?)
Is this really different from a cloud drifting through the sky on another planet?
An organism that wears shoes(?)
Shoes are ordinary slabs of matter just like planets.
An organism that blows itself up(?)
Can explosions not be reduced to chemical reactions?
In all three examples, the only thing that makes these characteristics seem unique, is the human mind interpreting them. When we gain further knowledge of these characteristics, we see that our initial view of them as unique turns out to be illusory: they are in fact the same particles/fields/forces that exist universally. However, if this were also the case with our consciousness, then it would imply that we are the illusion of a conscious being that exists universally...
Has a skyscraper or a computer ever been built without consciousness involved?
I gather you mean that we make rocks go up, in which case they aren't "falling up" but just reacting to natural forces exerted on them by us. No need to rewrite the book on gravity there (if that's what you meant).
Could u name one 'unique' characteristic which cannot be reduced to universally present elements of nature?
Obviously not. Everything can be reduced to universally present elements of nature, but reduction is not the point. Every toy made with lego blocks can be reduced to individual blocks, but reducing them takes away the identity and function of the toy so that it no longer exists. It's the arrangement of the blocks, not the blocks themselves, that gives each toy its unique characteristics.
Some atoms are arranged to form a brain that produces consciousness, but that doesn't mean atoms themselves are conscious, or that all arrangements of atoms produce consciousness. It's the particular arrangement that matters.
This is not the condition as I understand it.
The requirement as I have understood it, is more accurately called "irritation", as in: yes individual bacteria will actually respond to the enivronment without dying.
Thanks for pointing that out, although I meant that a bacterium can't respond by changing its DNA. But since you mention it, we all respond to our environment, and the success or failure of the response is determined by our genes. I can run from a bear but whether or not I can outrun it is determined by my DNA, and I can't change that in mid-flight. Whatever it is, I'm stuck with it. (Also, "killed off" was a poor choice of words on my part; "die off" would be better.)
IF i did believe in a higher being, i would hate to think of him sitting in a back room, comming up with designed for "flesh eating viruses", HIV-AIDS, SIDS, and mutation to bird flu viruses. There it was gods work, i would expect his work to be perfect, so why is there cancer and desease, and natural disasters? they too would have to be 'designed'.
Your DNA and evolution does not give you the ability to outrun that Bear, but it may give you the ability to outrun YOUR MATE. you dont have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the other people the bear is chasing.
i would assume extinsion would not occur if the design was intelligent, and the engineering was dont by a master engineer.. but we have extinsions and many examples of faulty designs.. how can that be !!
i would assume extinsion would not occur if the design was intelligent, and the engineering was dont by a master engineer.. but we have extinsions and many examples of faulty designs.. how can that be !!When we observe intelligence in humans, we can see that it doesnt produce perfect and immortal systems, but this doesnt make humans unintelligent. What would happen if a 'perfect intelligence' made all species so that they didnt go extinct, or that they didnt die at all for that matter? What would become of evolution?
Btw existing biological systems are still the most complex functioning systems in the known universe. When humans design automated systems, they constantly look at nature for inspiration, because nature has done it waaaaaay better than any human so far has been able to.
existing biological systems are still the most complex functioning systems in the known universe.
We could argue that the known universe is the most complex and functioning system beyond the biological systems that have evolved out of it. Its pretty amazing.
I can't say its been specifically designed to be that way. My contention is that what we see as the universe is a result of its own evolution. The systems in place today are there after a long (13.5 billion year) process of the natural selection of chemical, thermal, motive, gravitational and other processes. They are masterfully efficent only because if they weren't they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have and we would not be observing them and enjoying their efficency today.
DaveC426913
Nov17-06, 06:48 PM
Btw existing biological systems are still the most complex functioning systems in the known universe. When humans design automated systems, they constantly look at nature for inspiration, because nature has done it waaaaaay better than any human so far has been able to.
2 reasons:
1] Evolution has been at it approximately 10,000 times longer than humans, give or take a few hundred million years. And evolution "failed" about 10,000 times more often than humans.
2] Evolution has a huge, huge advantage in that it does not have a set goal in mind, and no criteria for success. If you asked me to "Make a thing. I don't care what. I could throw a pile of sticks on the ground and call it a piece of art." We are not like we are because this was the goal, we are like we are just becasue that's the way the evolutionary wind blew.
So, evolution had 10,000 times as long to produce something that had no criteria for success - a lump of goo would be considered a success for evolution, whereas human have to produce a working computer to very rigid expectations in a mere 30 years.
Sounds like humans got seriously, seriously hosed in the contest.
I can't say its been specifically designed to be that way.We cant say that it wasnt either can we?
2 reasons ...Those are two good reasons, but evolution does not rule out that intelligence is at work. We can see this in humans, we are intelligent and our intelligence will influence the course of evolution. There is no need for a 'set goal' (except perhaps something very abstract as survival, or having positive experiences).
We cant say that it wasnt either can we?
No, we can't say the universe wasn't designed:rolleyes: .
What we can do is decide if there is an omni-present designer who planned the universe - or - we can decide that matter has evolved the way it has because that is the only way it is able to under the constraints of the evolved and fundimental laws of the observable universe. What's going on beyond our powers of observation is anybody's guess.
And many people guess. And many make a lot of money doing so. And many have billions of followers. They're popularity does not mean they're right. It means they have appealed to the collective emotions of the human animal.
One more thing Pit2. We can always say that the universe has designed itself. This does not depend on it having a consciousness or a purpose or a goal in mind. The idea simply suggests that as the universe evolved it began to develop a set of criteria for its components. If a component of the universe met the criteria that was laid out by the fundimental or primary laws that were developed during the first stages of the universe's evolution, then the component continued to exist. If the component didn't meet the criteria of being a part of the universe then it didn't continue to exist.
In this way one could feasibly say that the universe designed itself (which would include all of its components).
There are different types of designers and there are different methods of designing. There is what is perceived as calculated design and there is what is perceived to be chaotic or spontaneous design techniques.
What type of designer is the universe? First let's look at the definition of "Designer" or "Design".
I'll give one example for now of the definition of "design".
From the Oxford Dictionary
design |d??z?n|
noun 1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made : he has just unveiled his design for the new museum. • the art or action of conceiving of and producing such a plan or drawing : good design can help the reader understand complicated information | the cloister is of late twelfth century design. • an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration : pottery with a lovely blue and white design. 2 purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object : the appearance of design in the universe.
verb [ trans. ] decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it : a number of architectural students were designing a factory | [as adj. with submodifier ] ( designed) specially designed buildings. • (often be designed) do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind : [ trans. ] the tax changes were designed to stimulate economic growth. See note at intend .
The last note tends to want me to steer away from calling the universe a designer because it suggests that design is a function of "intent" or to intend.
I see it more like you'd see Jackson Pollack "designing" a painting. He leaves all the design work up to how the paint falls, on its own. The only manipulation of the "design" is his action in throwing the paint at the canvas.
The result of Pollack's production is a design that is at least 80% self designed. The paint, the gravity the meterological conditions and the size of brush, canvas and so on are the determiners that form the design. 20% would be the fact that Pollack has brought together a number of different paints, a canvas and has produced some actions that distribute the paint. His "designs" are much sought-after and fetch a high sale price today.
I think that with about .003% accuracy we could say that the universe is one big Jackson Pollack where the accidents and the resulting designs create a masterpiece of pure existence!
However, in the end I think that it is each individual's personal decision with regard to whether or not a configuration or mechanism has been purposely designed or is a result of an accident. This is because the concepts and precepts of design and accident are a human interpretation of nature or "anthropocentric".
From one stand point all of our concepts are conceived by nature itself because each individual is a product of nature. On the other hand as far as we know it is only that one, infinitesimal component of nature - humans - that have conceived of the ideas of accidents and designs.
What appears as an accident to one individual may appear as design. For instance a puddle of water and rust may very well appeal as a design element to one person where it may alarmingly appear as an accident to another individual.
No, we can't say the universe wasn't designed:rolleyes: .
What we can do is decide if there is an omni-present designer who planned the universe - or - we can decide that matter has evolved the way it has because that is the only way it is able to under the constraints of the evolved and fundimental laws of the observable universe. What's going on beyond our powers of observation is anybody's guess. What do those fundamental laws say about consciousness and life? And do they forbid humans (which exist in the observable universe) from designing stuff?
And many people guess. And many make a lot of money doing so. And many have billions of followers. They're popularity does not mean they're right. It means they have appealed to the collective emotions of the human animal.Ur right, this has nothing to do with whether the universe was designed or not.
^btw i agree with ur post above
What do those fundamental laws say about consciousness and life? And do they forbid humans (which exist in the observable universe) from designing stuff?
Awareness:
Is a deep and convoluted subject. Is it fundamental? Or is it unique to biological mechanism?
Is Awareness unique to humans or is it universal to all organisms?
As for fundamental laws determining whether humans can design or not. What's tricky is what I said earlier. Humans are a component of nature biological and non-biological. When we design a sidewalk or drainage ditch, it is Nature designing the ditch and the sidewalk. So, with this in mind, I would guess that there is nothing forbidden in nature.
The only thing controlling whether or not an action or mechanism is allowed to exist in Nature is if it conforms to what seems to be quite a few laws in Nature. The overall law is balance. If a mechanism is out of balance Nature will attempt to balance the event with its other components. If that doesn't work the mechanism is dismantled. When humans design something - even civilizations - that is out of balance, the law of balance will slowly try to modify it to fit Natural criteria. If it is not adapting well, it is dismantled.
My vote goes toward the universe being an accident that has had time to become organized enough to survive as long as it has.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.