 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
You'd expect a reasonably competent philosopher to be aware of Leibniz! 
A continental rationalist concept called the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" easily accounts for his argument. That is to say that the incredibly complexity and unlikeliness (and thus question of probability implying intelligent design -> God) depends on the validity of contingent possibilities... look at that structurally as analysing each individual deterministic event that formed this universe in terms of it's context.
It holds that contingent possibilities are not really contingent. For example, suppose on Monday I go and buy a lottery ticket. In the UK, the odds of me hitting the jackpot in the standard draw are a smidgen under 14'000'000 : 1. I think we can all agree that the possibility of me winning on a single ticket are fantastically unlikely. See how that is analogous to the state of the universe if not intelligently designed.
However, suppose last Monday, I bought a lottery ticket and on the draw, I won the jackpot. Nice seven-figure sum, LA hotel room, naked and sleeping adonis figures, lines of coke, empty bottles of Stolichnaya and pink/purple typewriters all about the place. To me now, because deterministically contingent possibilities, no matter how complex, are in fact not contingent, the odds of me winning on last weeks ticket are 1, whereas next weeks ticket that hasnt been drawn yet is still 13'900'000 : 1.
Look at it, as I often say, as a game of chess, judged on the moves that could have been made, not the moves that were made, in order to establish the context of each individual constituent move. Since in a future game the moves are yet to be made, we have nothing to look at, so continent possibilities and actual possibilies are indistinct at this stage, hence the probability. Of course, look at it from the present -> past perspective, it's fairly obvious to see here how this refutes the argument by design / teleological argument for God's existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
Don't you know the scientific law that every event that occurs in the universe must involve both space and time. |
Don't you know that's completely meaningless bullshit you just spouted.
Last edited by Kuciwalker on 12-12-2004 at 00:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Nice Guy
|
 |
"I'm gonna speak softly, but carry a BIG STICK!!!"
Mar 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The BB was never proposed as a moment of creation. It was proposed as a transition from one state to another. Supposedly, spacetime was infinitely small, and then it started expanding. We have no clue how long is was that way, or what happened before. |
To prove this or disprove it, you'll need to build a time machine and take me back to the moment of the Big Bang. Oh, and you'll need to do this to prove it or disprove it to yourself, too, in which case you would eliminate all uncertanties.
Oh, wait a minute. I almost forgot. Traveling through time is not theoretically possible is it, at least when traveling into the past.  Ah well. Scrap that idea then. 
Case in point: Only God could tell us how the universe was created. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That there may have been a previous universe whose information was destroyed and led to a collapse into a singularity is irrelevant, because as you say, there is no information about that universe. |
No practical information. It's entirely conceivable - by some theories, required - that the information wasn't lost, in the sense that the information in a computer isn't lost even if you nuke it.
quote:
Since the laws of our universe all sprung from the BB, the BB is, for all intents and purposes, the moment of creation. |
Where'd you get that they sprung from the BB? The BB was a particular configuration of the universe, under which different laws might have applied (in general - classical theory breaks down at singularities, but it's wrong anyway), but that doesn't mean it changed the laws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
What? Tautology? It's an empirical claim!
|
That the BB was a transition between one universal state to another is empirical? 
The words you use are misleading, to say "creation" in the sense of the BB as the point of creation is a fallacy, unless you're dealing with the universe in terms of it's logical framework, an internally consistent logical system as you so fondly put it as I recall, but then methinks you need to read Wittgenstein. Strangely, I'd start with Philosophical Investigations, then the Tractatus, even though the latter was written formerly.
Bare in mind also that the big bang is typical of scientific theories in the sense that doubt is a necessary precurser to knowledge, indeed, knowledge of a given phenomena DEPENDS upon doubt at the same time, as for the holes, I assume you refer to the Horizon problem?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2004 23:56
Beat me to it
|
|