Question for agnostic brehs

[Ghost Utmost]

The existence of the Universe is basically an impossibility.

The existence of life is basically an impossibility.

Yet all this shyt is here.

Soooo there must be something besides randomness. Doesn't have to be a Santa like figure who blinks things into being a la Bewitched.

 

[NoMayo15]

The existence of the Universe is basically an impossibility.

The existence of life is basically an impossibility.

Yet all this shyt is here.

Soooo there must be something besides randomness. Doesn't have to be a Santa like figure who blinks things into being a la Bewitched.

Basically an impossibility? No, you just don't know how probability works.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

Basically an impossibility? No, you just don't know how probability works.

According to the math, the mass of the entire Universe converted to computer chips would take 3x the current age of the Universe to randomly write one page of Shakespeare. Never mind dirt and water randomly creating DNA.

And there's no theory that you can kick to me as to why everything came forth out of pure emptiness.

Scientists agree that they can't begin to explain these things. Your belief in what you think is real is dogmatic.

 

[NoMayo15]

According to the math, the mass of the entire Universe converted to computer chips would take 3x the current age of the Universe to randomly write one page of Shakespeare. Never mind dirt and water randomly creating DNA.

...What? Source?

And there's no theory that you can kick to me as to why everything came forth out of pure emptiness.

Who says everything came from pure emptiness?

Scientists agree that they can't begin to explain these things. Your belief in what you think is real is dogmatic.

What scientists? Science can explain some things, not everything. We have ideas about how things probably happened based on the evidence we have. I'm not dogmatic... I'm willing to change my mind when more evidence is presented.

And none of this addresses your original statement -- the notion that improbable things could not happen. There are/were guiding factors that led to the universe as we know it today, but none of them are supernatural. If you think there are, then you need more to justify that then "it's basically impossible for it to happen another way".

 

[Ghost Utmost]

...What? Source?



Who says everything came from pure emptiness?



What scientists? Science can explain some things, not everything. We have ideas about how things probably happened based on the evidence we have. I'm not dogmatic... I'm willing to change my mind when more evidence is presented.

And none of this addresses your original statement -- the notion that improbable things could not happen. There are/were guiding factors that led to the universe as we know it today, but none of them are supernatural. If you think there are, then you need more to justify that then "it's basically impossible for it to happen another way".

So the entire Universe coming into existence from a microscopic point containing all matter that seems to go on forever seems to you yo be "improbable".

We have way different interpretations of that word.

What is supernatural? I am saying this stuff really happened. There's no magic to it.

And haven't you read about observers changing the physical outcome of experiments? Is that supernatural too?

If you really wanna do the one on the "likelihood" of DNA coming about randomly, just look it up.

 

[tmonster]

And there's no theory that you can kick to me as to why everything came forth out of pure emptiness

maybe we don't need a theory for that and must accept it as the state of nature
think about it
you can never explain why the universe, because any explanation brings a new why
however this does not obviate theories on what happened and the state of nature after the big bang

 

[Ghost Utmost]

maybe we don't need a theory for that and must accept it as the state of nature
think about it
you can never explain why the universe, because any explanation brings a new why
however this does not obviate theories on what happened and the state of nature after the big bang

That we know. The most elementary particles formed into more complex ones steadily up til humans, and presumably complexity will continue to increase until? ??

Kinda like the particles themselves knew what to do. Kinda like the dirt itself knew what to do.

Y'all are thinking I mean there is a humanoid being making things out of clay. That's not at all what I mean.

 

[NoMayo15]

So the entire Universe coming into existence from a microscopic point containing all matter that seems to go on forever seems to you to be "improbable".

We have way different interpretations of that word.

Maybe, but I don't know what you mean since you've avoided answering any of my questions.

I have no way to really assess how probable it is. I'm going on your words of it being "basically an impossibility". By what criteria do you make that assessment? I'm willing to concede the point, but I'm interested in knowing how you think you know this.

What is supernatural? I am saying this stuff really happened. There's no magic to it.

Fair enough then. We are in more agreement that I initially realized.

And haven't you read about observers changing the physical outcome of experiments? Is that supernatural too?

No? Who are you referring to?

If you really wanna do the one on the "likelihood" of DNA coming about randomly, just look it up.

But ultimately what difference does it make how likely it was for something to have happened if that's what in fact happened? You can use this appeal to probability to discredit anything, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

@NoMayo15

My view isn't really based on one school of thought so it would be extremely time consuming to piece it together with things I can find online. Here's a little more background on things that have caught my attention.

The stuff about DNA came from a doc I saw where they literally gave chimpanzees a keyboard and tried to see of they could randomly type a word. After months and hundreds (?) of pages, not one word. The word "a" would require *spacebar* *a* *spacebar* and they never did it. Then there was some math that calculated what it would take for them to type a page of Shakespeare (the old "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters" anecdote). I might be off on exactly what the outcome was, but bottom line: we'd need multiple times the age of the Universe for random chance to produce DNA.

Quantum physics experiments are known to have different outcomes based on what they look for. Wave/particle duality of electrons is a famous one. It's generally accepted that the observer has an effect on the quantum scale.

 

[tmonster]

That we know. The most elementary particles formed into more complex ones steadily up til humans, and presumably complexity will continue to increase until? ??

Kinda like the particles themselves knew what to do. Kinda like the dirt itself knew what to do.

Y'all are thinking I mean there is a humanoid being making things out of clay. That's not at all what I mean.

don't you see? can you imagine any scenario of discovery that does not end with, "but why?"

 

[Ghost Utmost]

don't you see? can you imagine any scenario of discovery that does not end with, "but why?"

I am willing to draw a conclusion. Yes the web of knowledge is infinite - cause we generate it - but you have to know when you're "out far" enough.

 

[tmonster]

It's generally accepted that the observer has an effect on the quantum scale.

which means you lose objectivity, until you have a different theoretical explanation, and hence until then you lose experimentation.
the queer thing is "quantum vs mechanical" is teleologically analogous-at least currently- to the "limit of knowledge vs. what we know", in that we have learned enough that th final unknown has little effect on the usefulness of what we know, just like the weirdness of quantum mechanics does not obviate the need for or usefulness of classical mechanics. In addition, within each respective group, the latter seem to have not foreseeable intelligible way of explaining the other

 

[tmonster]

I am willing to draw a conclusion. Yes the web of knowledge is infinite

I am not even sure we can say it's infinite, just limited

cause we generate it -

well who else would generate it?
how could we care if anything else did generate it? they would simply fall within one of two paradigms, understandable or not; within the former they become us-and we are back to square one-and within the latter, they immediately join the relics just beyond the limit of knowledge and we are back to square one again.

but you have to know when you're "out far" enough.

not possible for man or the quest of knowing

 

[Ghost Utmost]

I am not even sure we can say it's infinite, just limited


well who else would generate it?
how could we care if anything else did generate it? they would simply fall within one of two paradigms, understandable or not; within the former they become us-and we are back to square one-and within the latter, they immediately join the relics just beyond the limit of knowledge and we are back to square one again.

not possible for man or the quest of knowing

I am saying the number of actual facts increase as we "discover" them. The more subatomic particles we seek, the more we will "find" ad infinitum. This is very esoteric, but related to the concept of mind being the substance of reality.

 

[frankster]

.