BBT gives the remarkable broad picture on how the atoms and molecules, including their rough composition, came about to make up our universe. Planetary formation theories help show how planets have those compositions, roughly.
How Does Life Come From Randomness? This is the question.
"A statement by the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. "
Therefore we can accept the assumption that there is life, We represent life.
There remains the question "has life come from randomness.
I would like to return to the following:
In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.
I submit that this description of "randomness" is preferable.
This reduces the question to "Did life arise by chance"?
Since we exist, the answer must be “yes”. The only alternative is to have some supernatural ant deciding to initiate life, in which case there is still the chance whether it did or not.
Thus the question is answered. Finito.
Cat
Here is the full quote from your post, no 10;
Of course no one can ever see a first one off abiogenesis. At the big bang there was no life (hope we both agree on that) but there is now. The only rational explanation for this is abiogenesis. How that happened is what's being debated here now ie by randomness or by determinism.That is a fair idea David-J-Franks. Just keep in mind that no one observed abiogenesis happen once but we do see dust disks around stars
Sorry for the delay in replying and welcome from me.
It shouldn't be amazing to me how you've pretty much ignored every post I've done on this site. Do a count on the infinity (the infinitesimal space / infinite mass) of the Big Crunch / (the infinite space / infinitesimal mass of the) Big Hole. Count it up David! Come up with a count of more than my binary's '1'. Count the number of infinitesimal points that are, in fact, an infinity of finite universes (u) (0 (0-point)). Go ahead David, find some beginning point and start counting the infinitesimal points that will make up the head of a 0-point needle (leading edge) point. Don't forget you will have to bypass all the multi-dimensionality of a multiverse. Count the infinite depth of a infinitely flat Universe. Fold it infinitely and count the number of vertical planes you come up with. Don't forget to account for "elasticity."I think you are misunderstanding. In my post, no 20, which you quoted, I was not talking about randomness, (Einsteins dice is another subject) I was putting counter-arguments to statements from your post, no 12, which are -
"All possible paths are already there, already exist, already taken, in an infinite Universe (U) (1). All possible potentials are fulfilled (1). All possible dimensionality is encompassed and incorporated (1)."
and -
The infinite Universe (U) (1) of an infinite many finite universes (u) (0) will have it both ways, all possible ways, at once.
In response I'll say again;
All the possibilities a universe (u) can take on, belongs to the 'continuum infinity set', this set is infinitely bigger than the 'countable infinity' set of all the universes (u), which you are calling the Universe (U). Therefore all possible universes cannot all fit into the Universe. It's simple arithmetic. In other words, all possible things that can happen don't happen, there aren't enough universes (u) in the Universe (U). so your statements can't be true.
I have made more responses to your posts than any only one else on this thread! I've read all your posts. I may have misunderstood you, but certainly NOT ignored you.
An infinity number of throws isn't required since we have math and understand Lim--> infinity. Certainly a few die rolls may not often reveal the above, but that wasn't what was being said. There are only 11 combinations possible and 6 of those produce a 7, only 3 produce a 4.
Math can treat things perfectly but physics and Vegas know no such math can be applied to the craps table. They know the odds. I recall, decades ago, when physicists held a convention and Vegas, but the tables were far too empty to invite them back.
The calculated probability can be exact, but you cannot be sure the practical results will be an exact match to the calculated probability until you've thrown an infinite number of throws. There is, of course, a chance you can get the exact match after an unpredictable finite number of throws. Look carefully at the wording;An infinity number of throws isn't required since we have math and understand Lim--> infinity. Certainly a few die rolls may not often reveal the above, but that wasn't what was being said. There are only 11 combinations possible and 6 of those produce a 7, only 3 produce a 4.
Math can treat things perfectly but physics and Vegas know no such math can be applied to the craps table. They know the odds. I recall, decades ago, when physicists held a convention and Vegas, but the tables were far too empty to invite them back.
The Vegas outcomes appear to be random, but they do follow the rules of probability. Newton's laws aren't violated regardless of complexity of the use of cards or die, and we can still use the term "random" to describe what is apparent. Perhaps there is a better term that may suit your definition.
Not quite sure what you mean there, sounds like it's against Einsteins "God does not play dice" quote. I'm struggling with this one , so more discussion would be welcome. Anyway, my take on it is as follows. I don't think reality is following probabilities, I think it's all exactly clockwork. I think 'rules of probability' are just a human construct to help us predict things.
Exactly, same as for your 1 gram of hydrogen, that's determinism.
Not strictly in science, but yes in everyday language.
I've now read this post. I'm sorry but I genuinely can't understand a word your saying until here.
It's here I'll ask you for a third time. how do you get the continuum infinity of all possibilities to fit into the countable infinity of finite universes (u)? Continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than countable infinity and won't fit in! for someone who uses the word infinity as much as you, you should start saying which type of infinity you're referring to, it matters otherwise what your saying is meaningless to me.
Yes that's also central for my own theory. As one big bang expands it will mix with a neighbouring one eventually, and repeat throughout 'The Infinite' as an eternal process of finite big bangs and big crunches.
Thanks for your apology and clarification.DJF
You refer to my post 60 in another thread, which read:
"I wish you all the very best in life for your futures and (sorry if you don't like it) that includes freedom from useless semantic drivel."
Anyway, if I was careless in leaving my post open to misinterpretation, then I apologise. for that.
To me it reads that I wish you the very best in life, including freedom from (receiving) useless semantic drivel.
Cat
You can't understand a word I'm saying. That I understand. I understand you, though. I'm just not going along accepting your premises. I'll keep reading though. I've already told you I like some of what you have to say.I've now read this post. I'm sorry but I genuinely can't understand a word your saying until here. It's here I'll ask you for a third time. how do you get the continuum infinity of all possibilities to fit into the countable infinity of finite universes (u)? Continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than countable infinity and won't fit in! for someone who uses the word infinity as much as you, you should start saying which type of infinity you're referring to, it matters otherwise what your saying is meaningless to me.Yes that's also central for my own theory. As one big bang expands it will mix with a neighbouring one eventually, and repeat throughout 'The Infinite' as an eternal process of finite big bangs and big crunches.
Yes, I listed what I saw as all the faults in my reply to you, post 29 above, and in subsequent discussions with Helio. Have read of that and I'll be happy to discuss things further with you.DJF, in post 41 you stated:
QUOTE
It may seem trivial, but Catastrophe was putting it forward as scientific backing for his arguments, so it should be a bit more accurate. The people who wrote that are supposed to be experts so they should also know better, That's why I picked on it, the whole article was riddled with faults.
QUOTE
I would be most grateful if you enlighten me on the problems you have with my statement.
Cat
Einstein favored determinism over the new field of QM, where random things become the random you are addressing where only probability equations make sense and things like quantum tunneling do take place to thwart any hard ability to nail cause and effect for actions of sub-atomic particles.
That is a legitimate belief, and some might say you're probably right.
Right, that's what science does; it's part of our conversation with Nature. Probability is only inserted when no other solution will suffice.
Randomness and inevitability can only do so much. The problem with the theory of the self-manifestation of life is that - not only does the preciseness of the inanimate ingredients but also the billions of lines of code needed to operate life's "machinery" all need to come together in one instant in time. The idea of randomness spontaneously generating working algorithms and the platforms needed to run them (the software) and then all the precise chemicals in their precise amounts and form (the hardware).... If one ingredient is missing or one character of code is off the whole thing falls apart and you have to start all over. Most theories of the origins of the universe tell us that time is not infinite and that the universe "ends". Some theories say it keeps repeating, but always from another diffuse "beginning". Have you ever seen a cell at work at the electron microscopic level? It's a veritable factory fine tuned for a highly specific and specialized function. Many, many parts working harmoniously with precision and "intelligence", if you will. Knowing just what to do. You may as well call the belief in spontaneous life a religion all it's own. It is nothing less than faith. I would say that, by your own calculations, the possibility of an intelligent "creator" is more, or at the very least, equally plausible.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram