Thread: The universe and it's order.

The answer is simple.

I hate that stupid "How could all this happen by chance?! The chances of things existing in this exact state are incredibly small!" argument. Why? Because, statistically, its all probability. The chance of us existing in any other exact state is just as much improbable.

But, we must exist in some state. It just so happens to be this one. Think of it this way, you stick your hand into a bag of 10 billion different marbles. Each marble is EVER so slightly a different colour. So there are 10 billion different coloured marbles in the bag, you reach in and grab one. You get one, the chance of getting that exact one are 1 in 10 billion, but the chance of getting any is 100%. Just as if you put your hand in the bag, grabbed a different one, the chances of getting that exact one are 1 in 10 billion too.

People would be making the same argument if we existed in any other state, that living in that state incredibly improbable.

Exobyte pretty much nailed it. The only reason these rules seem "perfect" is because we don't have anything to compare them to. Why? Because these "rules" (patterns) exist, and being within those rules is the only frame of reference that we have.

If we put a grenade in a large room, and drew a small target on one of the room walls, what are the odds that a piece of shrapnel from that grenade will hit that one, particular target that we drew? The answer is very high, because the grenade will explode into thousands (for the sake of argument) of pieces. Now, if hitting that target would produce life, your argument would be the equivalent of a lifeform, produced by that explosion, asking the question "what are the chances of our tiny spot in the room being hit by shrapnel from a chaotically exploding grenade?"

The target lifeform would be looking at the problem from an ego-centric perspective. He would be thinking of himself as significant, and wondering: "of all the random places the shrapnel could have gone, why would it come here, to me?!?!" when, in actuality, hitting that target was statistically predictable, given all of the places the shrapnel was destined to go, at the time of the explosion.

You have to take into account the fact that we have found many (and are in the process of finding more) planets that seem to be nearly indentical to Earth, so we do not seem to be as unique as many people may think we are, in the universe.

And I've had a few drinks, so maybe all of that doesn't make irrefutable sense, but at least I think I know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Would you mock that child? Ridicule him/her? I doubt it, you would teach the child. Please answer my questions and then teach I am here to expand herizons and learn, not to argue the same old points over and over and over.

In all honesty i would

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

please answer my questions and then teach i am here to expand herizons and learn, not to argue the same old points over and over and over.

Jesus did it.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

But, we must exist in some state.

did we really have a cause for exsisting though? What made us exsist, quarks and anti quarks and a little bit of matter? What if the universe was never created?

you don't have to answer these because there is no way to ever know the answer but it's hard to wrap your mind around these.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You have to take into account the fact that we have found many (and are in the process of finding more) planets that seem to be nearly indentical to Earth, so we do not seem to be as unique as many people may think we are, in the universe.

Onerionaut, could you point me to your source for this? It sounds like very interesting reading.
Thanks

What was the Big Bang, anyway?

The answer can tell us more about how the universe came into being, and why things exist as they are, but there is no answer yet, and for all we know, causality, conservation of mass/energy, and existence are meaningless concepts when it comes to answering that question. Then again, there may be a fundamental problem with asking what it what instead of how it was.

Every concept in physics is, at its heart, a mathematical creature, made of nothing more than a description of how something acts, not what it is. Energy is a prime example, being defined solely by its ability to manifest itself in different, though predictable, ways, but being completely without a definition of what it is. All of the fundamental particles share this ambiguity, as do space and time.

Questions of this sort are likely to remain indefinitely, though they're at the core of all physics. Theories may become better adept at solving the dynamics of the universe, but they may never be able to explain what it's made of, and, as a consequence, what makes anything exist (if any cause--or any thing--exists at all).

As far as the original post goes, though, I'd definitely recommend some prior reading into physics before getting caught up in how elegant the dynamics of the universe are. We know what they are(mostly), but not how they got that way, at least not yet.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

did we really have a cause for exsisting though? What made us exsist, quarks and anti quarks and a little bit of matter? What if the universe was never created?

Cause is a subjective principle. If I saw the cause and purpose of the entire universe is for the moon to orbit the earth 9x10^99 times; then that is as much purpose as anything else. We don't have a cause for existing in the objective sense you mean. As a race we are the result of various reactions essentially. If the universe we know was never created we wouldn't be there to observe it. So in a sense; we HAVE to exist in this one.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

The answer is simple.

I hate that stupid "How could all this happen by chance?! The chances of things existing in this exact state are incredibly small!" argument. Why? Because, statistically, its all probability. The chance of us existing in any other exact state is just as much improbable.

But, we must exist in some state. It just so happens to be this one. Think of it this way, you stick your hand into a bag of 10 billion different marbles. Each marble is EVER so slightly a different colour. So there are 10 billion different coloured marbles in the bag, you reach in and grab one. You get one, the chance of getting that exact one are 1 in 10 billion, but the chance of getting any is 100%. Just as if you put your hand in the bag, grabbed a different one, the chances of getting that exact one are 1 in 10 billion too.

People would be making the same argument if we existed in any other state, that living in that state incredibly improbable.

Remember the part where I told those who would reply to think? Your answer to my question has a flaw. You seem to think, or at least thats what your answer gave to me, that no matter the universe we ended up with it would be functional. To use your marble analogy, who says we would end up with a whole marble? One that functions and is capable of producing planets and recycling energy? You say that if we ended up in a difrent universe we would be asking the same question but who says we would have an orderly (somewhat) functioning universe? To have a universe created by an explosion seems far fetched to me but to have a FUNCTIONING universe where things can evolve and grow seems WAY to farfetched. Besides, I wasn't commenting on the chances of our universe alone, I was commenting on complexity. All of the complex and FUNCTIONAL laws that our universe seems to me to be the hand of a creator. Couldn't we have just as easily unded up in a universe with no laws to govern it? Isn't it a little too complex?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Jesus did it.

Yes my friend he did, but he was teaching, I am learning. I am learning about my Atheist counterpart's views so that I may expand my own.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

How can an explosion, something that seperates and breaks things, be responsible for creating something so delicate?

There is really very little in the universe that is "delicate," and that which is is usually very short-lived.

I believe that most people who can't comprehend how such complex things could arise "by chance" out of chaos also have a very hard time comprehending just how amazingly huge the universe is.

The chance for a single individual to win a lottery might be one in 10 million, but have 100 trillion people play, and the chance of many people winning is nearly 1:1.

It doesn't have any flaw, you're simply looking for any flaw you can and failing at that. The whole point of the marble analogy is that you're going to get a marble. I said nothing of whether it could be a whole marble, or half of one, a beat up and chipped one, one with distinctive patterns or no pattern at all. All these represent different states the universe may possibly exist in, with one set of laws or another, in a chaotic state or a stable state. But the whole point of existence is that it is complex.

Lets say a different marble was drawn, one that didn't allow existence. We'd never know because there would be nothing to know. We exist, we're in one of the possible complex states of the universe that can support existence.

You seem to think, or at least thats what your answer gave to me, that no matter the universe we ended up with it would be functional.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting what I said, and I'm very insulted and don't appreciate that.

As I said above, there are likely an infinite number of states that the universe can exist in. And as such there are an infinite number of possibilities for states that life can be possible in. All of which have the same chance of existing, and all of which will be complex in some shape or form to support existence. Or lets just say hypothetically its not complex, that its a simple existence. All of which are equally improbable to be "so complex" or "so simple" states that we exist in.

That said, because there are a seemingly infinite number of possibilities of states that can be complex or simple, chaotic or stable, that would mean there are an infinite number of possibilities for states that support life, whether complex or simple. Therefore the fact that we exist isn't improbable in the least, nor is it improbable that we're living in a complex universe. If you were to look outside and down at that exact state and say "I want this one" the chances of getting that exact state are improbable, but the chances of getting a state are certain.

And if a state was chosen that did not support existence, we wouldn't know or even be able to have this conversation. So from what it seems, a life supporting universe, while extremely improbable isn't actually all that improbable.

And who are you to judge what is complex on a universal scale? That my friend is the arrogance of humanity. For all we know the universe is incredible simple compared to the other possible states of existence that could've happened. Simply because you can not wrap your mind around the universe does not mean its entirely complex on its own scale, it may seem complex to us, but we're only human.

Remember the part where I told those who would reply to think?

Before immaturely insulting me with such childish remarks, I suggest you do the same. Especially if you want people to take you seriously. If you cannot handle a debate without resorting to petty insults, then people here should have no inclination to answer your questions and instead leave you to fend for yourself and learn such things on your own, which is clearly not going to happen considering you're asking this question in the first place.

See? I can play that game too, but it gets no where. So drop the attitude, it doesn't make you seem better than anyone else.

Isn't saying "a universe with no laws" the same as saying "the universe which doesn't exist". How do you expect the fabric of space-time to hold together with no laws, or how do you expect it to exist.

Creators and designers are things invented by humans. Once we gained awareness we thought of ourseleves as special. We made up things and created them, claiming to be the designers and creators. I think it's pretty much scientifically proven that we are at least macro molecules... why don't you view earth and the universe as just one hige chemical reaction. Designers, complexity, beauty and other human thoughts will lose meaning and thus there would be no reason to look at things subjectively, seeing the universe without any prejudice.

Also note that we wouldn't be able to exist in a caotic and "faulty" universe. So saying why isn't the universe like that is the same as saying why wasn't someone else born instead of me, or some other question like that.

You also use the word farfetched a lot. Are you some kind of a god to know what is farfetched or possible and what not? Have you seen other universes where things were better or worse, created in more "realistic" ways? I never understood answers like this "But the universe is so beautiful!" or "It's all too perfect to just happen!".

If the universe was built differently in any way we probably wouldn't be here to see that.


So basically the only way we could see the universe is in this form.


So it HAS to be like this; it isn't even a matter of probability. If it wasn't we wouldn't exist to interpret it, our existence is confined to what will let us exist if you catch my drift.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

If the universe was built differently in any way we probably wouldn't be here to see that.


So basically the only way we could see the universe is in this form.


So it HAS to be like this; it isn't even a matter of probability. If it wasn't we wouldn't exist to interpret it, our existence is confined to what will let us exist if you catch my drift.

Its a bit out of context, but i saw a theoretical physics documentary linked to your point. Apparently our universe is perfectly fine-tuned in such a way that changing its laws in the slighest, slighest way would mean that life would not be sustainable, and everything would be drastically different. It was alleged that this supported the existence of God. But then scientists, theoretically, proposed that there must be a multiverse, billions of other universes, parallel dimensions if you like. And as a result the fine-tuned nature of our universe could be explained by probability, as opposed to God.

I would like to apologize to you exo-byte. I was incredibly rude and I would like to say that I'm sorry for insulting you and twisting your words and that last night when I wrote that and this morning when I responded I was truly not being a servant of god. Thank you, Exo and the rest, for taking the time to answer my question and explain things to me. I now see your point of view and you have definatly shown me how complexity of the universe possibly might not be an implication of god. I would once agian like to apologize and express my thanks for helping me to expand my view of life, the universe, and everything and hope that your experience with me hasn't soiled your mental picture of all christians.

Thanks again,
LB

Originally Posted by psychology student

Its a bit out of context, but i saw a theoretical physics documentary linked to your point. Apparently our universe is perfectly fine-tuned in such a way that changing its laws in the slighest, slighest way would mean that life would not be sustainable, and everything would be drastically different. It was alleged that this supported the existence of God. But then scientists, theoretically, proposed that there must be a multiverse, billions of other universes, parallel dimensions if you like. And as a result the fine-tuned nature of our universe could be explained by probability, as opposed to God.

Yeah that's fine tuning; my point was one of the basic responses to when that is pitched as an argument for whatever deity's existence.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Its a bit out of context, but i saw a theoretical physics documentary linked to your point. Apparently our universe is perfectly fine-tuned in such a way that changing its laws in the slighest, slighest way would mean that life would not be sustainable, and everything would be drastically different. It was alleged that this supported the existence of God. But then scientists, theoretically, proposed that there must be a multiverse, billions of other universes, parallel dimensions if you like. And as a result the fine-tuned nature of our universe could be explained by probability, as opposed to God.

It supports the existence of god alright, the god of the gaps.

The universe isn't fined tuned for us, we're fined tuned for the universe. But its not a product of God, we do it through adaptation. You can eliminate some laws, such as that of Gravity and that doesn't destroy the possibility for life. It just means life needs a way to compensate and will adapt to its environment as such.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Onerionaut, could you point me to your source for this? It sounds like very interesting reading.
Thanks

Here's one article. There was another one I was thinking of that talks more broadly about the theories that many of these types of planets exist, but I can't find it. If I do, I'll post it up here.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

The universe isn't fined tuned for us, we're fined tuned for the universe. But its not a product of God, we do it through adaptation. You can eliminate some laws, such as that of Gravity and that doesn't destroy the possibility for life. It just means life needs a way to compensate and will adapt to its environment as such.

Doesn't gravity...like...hold all matter in the known universe together and orchestrate its motion...?

I can't think of any law that humanity could lose without necessarily being non-existent...

:/ Physics is fun!

You can't think of anyway because this is the only state we've ever known. But life almost always tries to find a way to adapt.

How could life adapt to no gravity? How would plants that we need to survive grow?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

How could life adapt to no gravity? How would plants that we need to survive grow?

We don't need plants to survive. We need oxygen, we need nutrients. We don't need plants.

Carosoul: We don't need plants, we need oxygen and nutrients

Plants provide oxygen and without plants the nuetrients that we need would be impossible to get because the plants and animals we get nutrients from would be dead. plus, from my understanding, the processes that keep earths atmosphere going depend, in part, on life. So my question is valid and so is Traveling's comment on how changing gravity would eliminate life.