Search
User login
Navigation
Recent comments
- Apophis Keyhole
3 years 28 weeks ago - Polkinghorne
3 years 41 weeks ago - Apophis
3 years 42 weeks ago - immigration effect Europe
3 years 50 weeks ago - paleoclimatologists
3 years 50 weeks ago - immigration
3 years 50 weeks ago - From Junk Science
3 years 50 weeks ago - out of pocket
4 years 2 weeks ago - Third: Sacrament Controversy
4 years 2 weeks ago - Second: Nature of Sacrament
4 years 4 weeks ago
Generally, I like statistics. However, I've never found statistical arguments for creationism all that convincing. It usually goes something like:
I mean, yes, I can't fathom how random mutations and natural selection could get from molecular building blocks to life in all of its complexity via a path that was viable at each step (so I buy it on that qualitative level)...but I have no real way to evaluate whether X and Y are accurate estimates and it's hard for me to imagine what is and isn't possible over a span of 13 billion years.
Mark,
Would the analysis be more appropriately couched in a Bayesian (i.e., rare event) approach? Does this change your perspective?
JS
Joey,
That last comment about about statistics was from me (Jonathan) not Mark.
Sure, the more appropriate the statistical analysis, the better...but I suspect I'll always be stymied by unfathomably low probabilities vs many billions of years.
Jonathan,
Sorry about the mistaken identity. Consider your odds at winning the lottery. I think this is usually 1:4x10^9. A really big number and franlky a hard number to imagine.
Notably, however, we are used to dealing with numbers that are even more unimaginable in science, like the following:
charge of proton 1.6 x 10^-19 C
Boltzman constant 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K
Plank constant 6.6 x 10^-34 J s
There are others, all really really hard to get your mind around, so what's the issue with 13 x 10^9 years coupled with one chance in 10^30 ??? Basically, you deal with the same odds in bimolecular kinetics in the gas phase at low concentration.
I think we should look at the odds that the gravitational constant is what it is and that it cannot differ by one ppb or we wouldn't be here. This is actually somewhat disturbing - right what does the sensitivity analysis say? - are we in a robust system or a really rare one? - this could give us a sense for the rare event statistics.
JS
Jonathan,
Interesting. How many universes need to form and collapse before you get one that will sustain life?
Interested in the number and how it comes about,
Joey
Ross' "Just Right" universe chapter is reproduced here:
http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html
The following site describes a panel discussion at American Museum of Natural History in New York where "five top physicists and astronomers...debate[d] whether universes beyond our own exist."
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060330_multiversefrm.htm
From that article:
Wikipedia's multiverse article (which I haven't read yet) is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Presumably we can find a good, serious reference or two discussing the "just right" argument and the multiverse theory
Jonathan,
That was a really interesting read. I was unaware of the numerous additional and highly improbable balances that occur in the universe. Several of these balances were ordered in the extreme (e.g., 1 part in 10^40 etc.).
I like the fact that they included the arguments of atheists. It seems to me that the burden is quite heavy now to be wearing the atheist backpack.
My gut feel is that by the time you get to a multiverse theory you have shirked intellectual honesty. This discussion presumes that God is a possibility - simply adopting a multiverse theory requires more faith than I require of Christanity - albeit without the benefits.
Thanks for taking the time to find those links,
Joey
Here's an article by Paul Davies (prof., Arizona St.) titled "The Universe's Weird Bio-Friendliness ": link
He discusses the multiverse explanation and then his view of the most promising path to explaining why our universe is the way it is.