NYT hacker: Universe "algorithmically designed" - Page 2

DarkWizard12 · 08-08-08, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

I don't buy those arguments. They basically state that life is so incredible and complex that there is such a low probability of it arising by chance, so there must be a creator. What it fails to address is that an omnipotent, omniscient creator is a much more incredible and complex being than any alive, whose existence is even more difficult to justify. If life is to improbable to naturally arise, what are the chances that a being capable of creating life on a whim naturally arose?

IF my math is correct(which I doubt, I'm not a mathmatician): 25%. Why?

The idea of a creator, or "god" of some sort creating the universe, is incredible, but not complex. For the creation of a 4 deminsional universe, all you would have is a creator who exists either in the same or greater dimension.

So you would have to establish 2 things: 1. Does he exist and 2. did he create the universe?

1. This provides us with 2 choices, does he or does he not exist? 50% or 1/2 chance that either statement is true.

2. Provides us again with 2 choices. Did he or did he not create the known universe? again, 50% or 1/2 chance that either statement is true.

(1/2)(1/2) = 1/4 or 25%.

Kernel Sanders · 08-08-08, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

IF my math is correct(which I doubt, I'm not a mathmatician): 25%. Why?

The idea of a creator, or "god" of some sort creating the universe, is incredible, but not complex. For the creation of a 4 deminsional universe, all you would have is a creator who exists either in the same or greater dimension.

So you would have to establish 2 things: 1. Does he exist and 2. did he create the universe?

1. This provides us with 2 choices, does he or does he not exist? 50% or 1/2 chance that either statement is true.

2. Provides us again with 2 choices. Did he or did he not create the known universe? again, 50% or 1/2 chance that either statement is true.

(1/2)(1/2) = 1/4 or 25%.

Firstly, 2 choices =/= 50% chance for each choice.

Secondly, I'll play your game. Let's say that those numbers are true.
50% chance he does exist -> 50% chance he doesn't, and the universe arose naturally
(50% chance he created the universe)|(he exists) -> (50% chance that he exists, but didn't create the universe, so it arose naturally)|(he exists)

Look's like, by your numbers, there is a 75% chance that either there is no god, or the universe arose naturally even though there is a god.

Thirdly, a god that can, at will, create life or the universe is more complex than a universe without such a being. Any line of thinking that results in a sentient being that created life can be presented as a line of thinking in favor of sentient life arising on its own, but without the last step of some being creating life. That sentence was more than a bit convoluted, so I'll rephrase. However you think a god came to be, be it by extra dimensions or whatever, can be the process by which life came to be. Any solution involving a god, however, necessarily has the extra step of this sentient being creating all life. I say that life arose naturally. You say a divine being arose naturally, then gave birth to all life in the universe. It is just complex a process and then some

Frank Talk · 08-09-08, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

So, you say its not luck, well....I know a site that begs to differ: Intelligent Design of the Cosmos: A Mathematical Proof accourding to math, the chances of the whole universe being the universe as we know it is 10^92.

If that's not luck...

An infinite number of monkeys typing on infinite typewriters given infinite time would eventually produce the entire works of William Shakespeare.

DarkWizard12 · 08-09-08, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Firstly, 2 choices =/= 50% chance for each choice.

Secondly, I'll play your game. Let's say that those numbers are true.
50% chance he does exist -> 50% chance he doesn't, and the universe arose naturally
(50% chance he created the universe)|(he exists) -> (50% chance that he exists, but didn't create the universe, so it arose naturally)
|(he exists)

Look's like, by your numbers, there is a 75% chance that either there is no god, or the universe arose naturally even though there is a god.

Thirdly, a god that can, at will, create life or the universe is more complex than a universe without such a being. Any line of thinking that results in a sentient being that created life can be presented as a line of thinking in favor of sentient life arising on its own, but without the last step of some being creating life. That sentence was more than a bit convoluted, so I'll rephrase. However you think a god came to be, be it by extra dimensions or whatever, can be the process by which life came to be. Any solution involving a god, however, necessarily has the extra step of this sentient being creating all life. I say that life arose naturally. You say a divine being arose naturally, then gave birth to all life in the universe. It is just complex a process and then some

Again, I'm not a mathmatician. But you put words into my mouth(or...post).

The percentages I gave you where not based on THE UNIVERSE(in caps) but rather the, or as I phrased, "a 4 dimensional universe". Caps meaning this universe we currently live in, and the other is a universe of any kind of random characteristics within the realm of reasonable probablity. THE UNIVERSE does not exhibit random characteristics within in the realm of reasonable probability.(as proven by the other article).

tryreading · 08-09-08, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conservationist

7. On your LiveJournal blog, you claim that "[e]verything is clearly algorithmically designed." What is the relation between the mathematical language of a computer and the organization of the universe? What is the role of a hacker in this relation?

Bullcrap. If the design is so clear to him, I'd like to read his theoretical information. Where does he post his formula?

DarkWizard12 · 08-09-08, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Talk

An infinite number of monkeys typing on infinite typewriters given infinite time would eventually produce the entire works of William Shakespeare.

No, they would just make an infinite number of bull****.

Frank Talk · 08-09-08, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No, they would just make an infinite number of bull****.

That wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is when you consider the possibility of a cyclic universe or multiverse leading to the existence of an infinite number of past, present and future universes then the probability of this finely-tuned one existing will be 100%.

obvious Child · 08-15-08, 03:18 AM

Penrose is a Joke.

Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics

DarkWizard12 · 08-15-08, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Penrose is a Joke.

Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics

Unfortunately, it does not reject penrose's claim in the slightest. In fact, he is only mentioned once and then goes on to talk about Hoyle's argument.

good day.

obvious Child · 08-15-08, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Unfortunately, it does not reject penrose's claim in the slightest. In fact, he is only mentioned once and then goes on to talk about Hoyle's argument.

good day.

Penrose and Hoyle's arguments are essentially and for all intellectual purposes, the same.

Furthermore, Penrose's argument is hardly original. The notion of ID probability has been refuted a thousand times so much that it's commonly referred to as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times).