The probability of man

[withperfecttiming]

external variables? external "things" you say?

[withperfecttiming]

you are using childlike psychology.

[Brianswers]

Great point. :)

[Raptor302]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[MilitantPeaceist]

You are on the ball eggy - props to your channel!

[MilitantPeaceist]

This lame Craig guy is a metaphysician, but I doubt he ever did the Aristotle section but rather failed or just passed the 1st easy step of singular theological philosophy.

Metaphysics is a big subject covering many majors. el'lamo just did a little section and not very well as he is so easily debunked by Aristotle, if he were to had carried on in study, he might have been dangerous!

[MilitantPeaceist]

psychological awareness is the breeding ground for 'faith'. It is an intrinsic moral/ethical imprinted set of instructions that guide our very decisions. bad spelling I know, I am not interested in elglish, only music and science incl psychology and metaphysics (no qual).

The absemce of fear allows freedom of thought..eg awareness = freedom to chose to fear or learn to trust/faith to rise above fear.

Humans are unresponsive when controlled by fear, phobic reactions.

[MilitantPeaceist]

The fear of death + awareness of mortality is a very large burdon to bare if not effectively above the fear threshold of awareness.

eg a dog cringes alot, humans only do that if scared, otherwise, vey peacefull and trusting, too trusting.

It only requires the perception of fear/trust to gain access to Intrinsic values and invoke emotional reactions to instincts outside of our lobal control.

Remember i am an ex-tolly hubbtardette! This is the basic principle behind indoctrination.

[8WholeThing]

You can do better. The life form analogy fails as it would not only be legitimate that it had a creator, it would be correct, even if the creature was incorrect about the abilities and motives of its creator.

Point out that F.C. Adams published a paper in universes with different constants, 25% would still have stars. Others say that ours would still be viable without the weak nuclear force.

[askegg]

Are you suggesting we may be created, but are so flawed we cannot recognise its abilities and motives?

My point is the constants themselves are simply a description of the universe. There is no reason to assume the universe could be any different - it just is.

[8WholeThing]

"Are you suggesting we may be created, but are so flawed we cannot recognise its abilities and motives?"

I am not referring to us, I am talking about the hypothetical creature.

[bdcarlitosway]

My thoughts exactly! Very good video.

[bdf2718]

Three possibilities:

The fundamental constants could have taken many different values, none of them dependent on the others. Most such combinations result in no stars or other conditions that would preclude life. We got lucky.

The universe is part of a multiverse of universes, each with different values. We got lucky.

When (if) we unite relativity with quantum theory we'll realize why those constants HAD to have the values they do.and no others are possible.

[alphacause]

Askegg, in his analogy about the hypothetical sentient being, who mistakenly assumes he is the purpose of a design, makes a good point. What the design argument proves is the narcissism of the religious believer. The ultimate conceit of religion is this: "The universe, which is so vast and old that it is impossible for us to conceive, was made for ME because I am so IMPORTANT!" Religious people tell us that belief in God is supposed to impart humility to the believer. Apparently NOT!

[alphacause]

(continued from previous post) What would you say about me as an engineer? Either you would say I was incompetent, or that I was purposely wasteful and malicious. You wouldn't say that I was good or perfectly intelligent.

[askegg]

Excellent analogy!

[alphacause]

(continued) Suppose I was an engineer building a car, and in the process of doing so I created several BILLION cars that would not even start (i.e. billions of lifeless planets), and I, from this very wasteful process produced only one functional car that was susceptible to early rust and malfunction (i.e. one planet with life that is replete with pain, suffering, and defects) (continued).

[alphacause]

It is interesting that theists will only use the flawed design analogy just to prove their God, but they won't be honest about the inferences made by the design analogy, and they won't let those inferences play out to their fullest extent. If they did they would realize that if the universe is the product of design, then it demonstrates a designer that is cruel and wasteful (continued)

[newexperiment]

Enjoying these responses. But you have a poor understanding of mathematics. =(

For example the number pi (3..1415...) is a constant. It's a value like all constants. It's value does not change when you represent it a different way(different number system). Could it's value be different in another universe? There's NO getting around the answer to the question to which pi is the answer being set. But can it be different?

Whatever you believe of pi you must believe for the 'physical' constants.

[askegg]

I realise that, but it's not quite what I was aiming for. It is true there is a fixed relationship between radius and circumference (for example), just as there are fixed ratios between physical elements.

Rephrasing the questions: Can there be other possible values of Pi? Perhaps in other universes, maybe. As far as we know - not a chance.

[bdf2718]

You are incorrect. Pi has the value it has only in a flat universe. In open and closed universes pi has different values, although on relatively small scales it would appear to have the same value as in a flat universe.

The interior angles of triangles total less than 180 degrees in closed universes and more than 180 degrees in open universes.

[askegg]

Thank you - this is what I was (badly) trying to point to.

[bdf2718]

You did pretty well. :)

None of us know everything. Not even me!

[newexperiment]

No, I'm correct. I never argued that pi couldn't be different in another universe. Also, pi is derived and defined through axioms based a flat or euclidean platonic universe. It can't 'appear' to be correct as it is never measured.

So yes, the value of pi can be different in other universes just like the value of physical constants. But,

The value of pi can't be different in our universe.

^ that's the negation of one of the propositions in the video and the only point I'm addressing.

[bdf2718]

"The value of pi can't be different in our universe."

That depends rather much on our universe having a flat geometry, doesn't it? If not then there are scales and localities which have different values of pi.

[newexperiment]

Just to state what the question you are asking means we have to go over some things.

There is no such thing as a perfect circle. So when talk about pi to an accuracy that is well beyond any meaningful comprehension (the way we always do) we are never considering our universe. In fact we don't need the assumption that anything exists at all anywhere ever. We are only ever dealing purely in the hypothetical.

...Continued...

[newexperiment]

You'd argue that there is no such thing as a straight line in a curved universe.

Think of a vector in a non curved space. Take the same vector in curved space. Is it still straight? Why not?

Applying the same curve function(matrix) to the vector that relates the curved and uncurved spaces curves the vector. But there exists a curved line in uncurved space that is straight in curved space. Hence straight lines exist in curved space. By the same reason, 'flat' circles exist in curved spaces.

[newexperiment]

When I asked 'why not'? I wasn't being rhetorical. It is indeed no longer straight. These comment sections are to small always mean what you say. Hope it doesn't complicate things too much. I tried.

[bdf2718]

When you talk of straight lines in curved space instead of geodesics, you worry me.

When you say that "flat" circles exist in curved spaces you make me wonder whether you are talking about local exceptions (the point I made) or implying that everywhere in a curved space circles are "flat."

If our universe is not flat the value of pi, as measured, varies depending upon location and size of circle (theoretically, anyway, the discrepancy may be too small to actually measure).

[newexperiment]

=/. What I was trying to say would only work for translating straight lines in dimensions higher than 2, and for circles higher than 3.

In uncurved R3, a straight line can still match the definition of a geodesic. Translating R3 to some curved R3 would curve said line/geodesic.

However, there exists a curved line (not having the properties of a geodesic) in R3 that when translated to the same cruved R3 produces a 'straight' line (although still not a geodesic).

[newexperiment]

Here i mean 'straight' in so far as being able to produce triangles in the new curved space that DO have a sum of 180.

But that's not my point. If it turned out that our universe was curved and we were able to measure the curvature of it, the value for the quotient of a Real-world circle and it's real-world diameter would be said to be (k)(pi) for some constant k which accounts for the curvature.

But pi doesn't change. Pi's value is platonic.

[newexperiment]

If you are still having trouble understanding what I mean try this.

Chose a positively curved space.

Then derive 'the value' of a geodesic circle's diameter into it's circumference in this space, but with one restriction: you may not use the value of pi to derive, calculate or represent your answer.

Notice that you can't. Notice that this(the fact that you can't) sets pi to an unchanging constant due to logic, not due to observation. To change pi in another universe you have to change logic.

[newexperiment]

Or consider this,

Does e^[(i)(pi)] + 1 = 0 hold true in curved universes? If it does, than the curvature must change more than just pi to keep the equation true.

[bdf2718]

OK, now you have entered territory that is way beyond my knowledge. You seem to know what you're talking about.

[rediband]

We evolved in this universe. Of course we are suited to it. We're part of this universe, it wasn't created for us. Creationists believe the Universe was created for us, rational people do not. Perhaps the creationist premise that the Universe was created for us should not be accepted in the first place.

[anwyll]

As Dr Karl said this week on his Triple J radio show - "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us, however scientists are".

[askegg]

Dr. Karl is the best. I once enjoyed a glass of red wine with him. Fascinating guy.

[flyingfisbeefilms]

What's on the freckin T- Shirt? I agree with everything you say but what's on the T-Shirt. I know I'm shallow.............

[ProjectPaladin]

I compare this to a game of poker... You can ramble on and on about how improbable it is to be dealt a Royal Flush in one game, but when you actually get it dealt, it doesn't matter, how improbable you thought it was to be dealt that hand, because - however small the odds - you got dealt a Royal Flush...

Talking about a certain event that already happened in the past and render it improbable, is nonsensical at best, because it already happened, no matter how small the odds...

[NoAntecessor]

Hehe, I knew an old guy named Joseph Graves out in the mojave, loved to tell the story of a poker game he had in WWII with a bunch of british soldiers.

He swore that he was dealt a royal flush in a game that he was betting heavily on and was accused of cheating. On his next hand, he once again received a royal flush. To stay alive, he folded and didn't show anybody his hand :p.

Anyways, good point, to call what has already happened as being too improbable to have occurred is obvious nonsense.

[AnonEyeMouse]

I love it when Creationists start throwing out massive figures of improbability and use that as a lever for their origin theories.

I have an illustration for that.

The UK Lottery is roughly a 14 million to one chance to win the jackpot. That is an astoundingly unlikely chance.

Most weeks there is a winner and often the jackpot is split between several. How can this be when the chance is so remote...

Answer is the number of tickets bought - SOMEONE winning is extremely likely.

...

[AnonEyeMouse]

As far as how WE came to be here, it's the same function.

We ourselves were incredibly unlikely to predict millions of years ago - however the chances that SOMETHING would appear is much more likely.

We can only ask the question because we were the ones lucky enough to evolve.

It seems strange that an 'honest' creationist couldn't grasp this simple concept.

[askegg]

That's it exactly. In a very real way, the questions of probability have nothing to do with our existence, nor the physical constants.

Have you ever met an honest creationist?

[AnonEyeMouse]

Yes, and I'm proud to say he no longer is one. He's still christian but after sitting him down and explaining things carefully he came to accept evolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis. He reads the bible much more now that he realises it isn't literal truth and seems considerably happier in himself.

The honest ones are usually much quieter than the usual kind and don't last long if you can sit them down and baby step them through the flaws in their beliefs.

[kukulza]

technically we aren't "lucky" and our odds aren't bad.

"we" are inevitable. ("sentience" technically)

If our universe never produced sentient life then it simply would of expanded and dissipated without anything knowing it existed. if this is the only universe then what's to say it existed at all? if we aren't the only universe, but the others can't detect us, still then, who's to say this universe existed at all?

"we are a way for the universe to know itself." -Neil deGrasse Tyson

[AnonEyeMouse]

By 'we' I mean specifically the exact form we take and the individuals we are - not sentient life as a whole.

This in fact was my main point.

Sentient Life was quite likely ( I doubt inevitable, too many extinction level events possible for that to be true)

However, me personally, or you specifically, held a much higher rarity. However because you or I DID appear, we are the only ones of all the potential you's and me's that are able to ponder our chances of existance.

Now, enough semantics.