jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 12:00
Gah - page break >:/ - why can't threads just be one huge long page?
It's just a thing that I thought one time and at the time I thought it was quite neat. As far as I can tell that's about all it's got going for it though. Not only did I forget to think of an actual reason why the brain should be self limited in that way, more importantly I can't think of a good reason why that would prevent investigation and further understanding. There are plenty of things that you'd expect to be beyond the investigation and understanding of a single person - that's what collaboration and reference books are for.
Quote Posted by Thirrith
To me it looks like you're extrapolating from one thing onto everything.
Sure. I think I'd argue that there is sufficient trend though to justify jumping ship. Over hundreds, if not thousands of years science has proved remarkably fruitful. For me Darwin's theory of evolution marked the turning of the tide when theism ceased to be the obvious choice for trying to get to grips with the big questions. There's always the possibility that we hit a big wall that we can't just get round or something entirely weird happens. And of course our understanding of life the universe and everything is limited and open to various interpretation - so there's always going to be room for ethicists and philosophical debate and so on. But these would be better referencing science, not pseudo science if they are to be considered valuable and reliable - and the religions we've relied on over the past few thousand years should be retired just like all the others have been.
suliman on 8/4/2008 at 13:56
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
The mathematical probability of life is very close to zero, whats your point?
What is this statement based on?
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 14:31
Quote Posted by suliman
What is this statement based on?
On a quotation of Nobel prize winner, Eugene Wigner. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner)
The original quote goes something like this- Life, with its continous existance, is a very odd state of affairs, a state bearing a zero probabilty.
Sorry for the shoddy translation, I couldnt be bothered to search it in English.
The_Raven on 8/4/2008 at 16:29
If you stretch anything else out to infinity, you'd be surprised what is considered probable.
jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 16:53
It's a notable misquoteable. Wigner presented, as a birthday present to a colleague, a mathematical exercise that appeared to show, using standard quantum mechanics, that the probability for the existence of self replicating units was exactly zero and then noted that of course this wasn't conclusive. That life does exist strongly indicates that the probability is more than zilch.
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 17:15
Quote Posted by The_Raven
If you stretch anything else out to infinity, you'd be surprised what is considered probable.
You'll have to delve into Winger's work- I didnt but I can assure you that you wont be saying such things once your'e through- it's not as easy as that.
Your first apparent mistake is that he wasn't talking about the
appearance of life- which is, I guess, very probable given an infinite time- but about their
continous existance which is highly unprobable in the light of the second law of thermo-dynamics.
Take just one organism- it has whole sorts of mechanismes that makes sure his chemical substances wont disintegrate as we know they tend to do according to the law of entropy, those mecanismes themselves- being nothing more than chemical substances as well, require other mechanismes that will ensure that they wont disintegrate and so on ad infinitum. This is a bizzare situation which have (according to Winger) 0% chance of being and prevailing.
Yet, we know for a fact that thats exactly whats happening- at least for 75-80 years if it's a human we're dealing with here.
Im sorry I cant give a better explanation than that but my only purpose in quoting it was to show that the sense of wonder toward life has not dwindled in those who explore it and know more than all of us combined about it, and that despite the huge breakthroughs of the recent century still dont think they have solved its riddle.
Muzman on 8/4/2008 at 19:54
Is some reputable mathematician really responsible for the 2nd Law nonsense that creationists trot out all the time? He ought to be ashamed of himself (un less he's actively trying to find credence for their view).
Entropy is only usefully calculable in closed systems. Since life apparently doesn't require the entire universe, but only a planet in a solar system to get going then we're talking about a very open system indeed
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 20:37
No, he is not. This is not the same argument at all- he doesnt claim that life appears to defile any physical law. Will you get off those paranoid auto reactions as if any little crack a scientist point out in a widely accepted theory is an attack on that theory in order to justify religion.
Will you now accuse Claude Bernard (One of the most prominent figures in the history of biology, a pioneer of the modern attidute that the research of living beings should be based on physical-chemical categories*) in supporting theism cos he said that science cant define the phenomene of life?
"Life can be characterized by its physical-chemical mechinsmes which the biology science find**, but cant be defined by those mechanisms."
*in his time scientists believed that living creatures have some unique material or "life force" which they called vitality.
**and it finds nothing but them.
Said more than 150 years ago, still true today.
Muzman on 8/4/2008 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
No, he is not. This is not the same argument at all- he doesnt claim that life appears to defile any physical law. Will you get off those paranoid auto reactions as if any little crack a scientist point out in a widely accepted theory is an attack on that theory in order to justify religion.
That's a fairly large leap. All I asked was is he responsible for this argument that creationists trot out, that life is so improbable thanks to the 2nd law that it supports god. It's entirely possible that someone I've never heard of is a supporter of fundamentalist positions, or even religous and doing some good science.
His argument, as you have presented it, is actually identical to the favourite creationist canard. Whether that's really is his argument properly represented is another matter. If he's the originator of this probability stuff then he probably has been latched on to by the anti science brigate, who illucidate it pretty much exactly as you have (with some varaition around whether it's the begining of life or the continuous existance of life being too improbable). Asking for his shame might be a little harsh since he might not be too happy about it himself. If wonder and curiosity was his goal it kinda backfired.
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 21:18
One or two more thoughts (yes, Im bored- Im at work, ok?)-
Let's examine the stand expressed by some here that science is the only way to know YO and the only instrument that can give us the true idea about our place in "life, the universe and EVERYTHING":
Any phylosophical inquiry is just a pointless metaphysical babbel.
Music, poetry and art have nothing to teach us about ourselves (only science can)- hence they are merely for fun and only have an entertainment value. Why bother to make good art than?
Psychology? Till proven itself a true science, it is closer to a phylosophical highly speculative same-kind-of-babble. Next.
Eastern philosophies? Even worse than the western. What can those stupid Indians teach us? They didnt even discover electricity before we came to light their cities.
Another way to show the absurdity of this view:
Let's say someone wants to learn what love is. Not just any ol' kind of love, let's say the romantic, passionate, mad kind of love.
The way I see it he has three options to choose from-
a. To learn everything science has to say about it- what parts of the brain are stimulated when in love, what kind of hormones are secreted, why did natural selection prefered it if it did, what were the benefiets if at all and so on.
b. To Delve into a piece of art that deals honestly with this subject- to go and watch a Truffaut movie or something like that.
c. To let himself go, take a chance and fall in love. First hand experience.
Anyone that think that a. is the superior way is emotionally fucked Im afraid.
