So, they support their conclusion with a lot of technical data that was way over my head. If you are more into the math, maybe you can critique them on scientific facts instead of their unpopular interpretation. — Gnomon

I've already pointed out that the attribution of intentionality or purpose to the universe is not supported by any established empirical results or models- that it is a speculative proposal that some scientists evidently hold as a matter of personal theology or metaphysics.

And the problem with "the technical data" is the same problem I originally pointed out wrt the fine-tuning argument; we can construct models where the physical constants can take on arbitrary values, and we can even marvel at the improbability of them taking on a certain value out of an arbitrary range, but unless/until we actually know what ranges of values these constants can take, their conclusions simply don't follow.

But, until you read the book itself you have no grounds for concluding that I'm misrepresenting the meaning of a book on cutting-edge Cosmology. — Gnomon

Sure I do, its called charity; it would be extremely uncharitable of me to assume that the hot mess of an argument is a good representation of their views since, as scientists, they are far less likely to make those sorts of errors than a random layperson on an internet forum is.

The authors were physicists, and expanding Darwin's notion beyond its limited biological application up to a universal & cosmic scale. — Gnomon

Which would be problematic for the reasons already mentioned. But I'm hesitant to take your word for what their views and arguments actually are, because professional scientists aren't likely to be as incompetent as you're making them out to be.

What you say is "well-established" is what they intended to dis-establish. — Gnomon

Oh really, they intend to 'dis-establish" evolution via natural selection for biological organisms on the planet Earth? :lol:

I'm afraid the problem here is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your emotional reaction to blasphemy of revered Scientific Truth sounds similar to Muslim's outrage at any criticism of the Holy Koran. — Gnomon

I realize you really want me to have an "emotional reaction" or be defending "revered Scientific Truth" so you can pretend that you're a Bold Internet Truth-Speaker, but sometimes we don't get what we want and should adjust accordingly.

So, nice try, better luck next time, I guess?

SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
The purpose of this non-profit organization Science Is Never Settled is to remind people of what all good scientists know, science is never settled. — Gnomon

Yep, science isn't ever settled. And cosmology is even less settled than most science. But that doesn't mean we need to uncritically accept any/all baselessly speculative proposals anyone dreams up.

This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. — T Clark

I didn't say that Einstein was "incorrect", I merely noted that he was a theoretical scientist instead of an empirical researcher. So, I agree with the second part of your reply. But, the first part completely missed my point. Smells like raw sausage. Yum! :joke:

And what does this mundane pool analogy tell of the eternal? — Hanover

The analogy points to how we distinguish intentional patterns from random activity : by rational inference from physical evidence. If you imagine the unknown Intender as the Bible-god, that's your prerogative. But. I don't.

The authors of the book I reviewed went into great detail to show how they arrived at the conclusion of premeditated creation behind the mathematical patterns of physical reality. A court of law uses the same reasoning to decide between an accidental death and intentional murder. But such inference cannot identify the one who did the planning, unless there is circumstantial evidence, such as blood stains or powder burns on the accused.

That's why the authors provide a trail of evidence pointing to an unknown perpetrator that is not in the courtroom, hence outside the system of space-time. They didn't pretend to know the unknowable. They just projected the trail of evidence into the future, to imply that the full intention has not yet been achieved. So the Cause of the creative pattern is still at large. :nerd:


legal definition of intent :
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com › intent

I've already pointed out that the attribution of intentionality or purpose to the universe is not supported by any established empirical results or models- that it is a speculative proposal that some scientists evidently hold as a matter of personal theology or metaphysics. — Seppo

And you know this absolute scientific fact how? Have you ever looked into models of reality that go beyond "established" (settled) opinion? Of course, not all hypothetical speculations are correct, but some may be the heralds of a new paradigm in science. That's why the first rule of both Science and Philosophy is to keep an open mind. And the second rule is to be skeptical of your own settled beliefs.

The responses that I'm getting on this thread, referring to "established" or "settled" Science, fall into the category that Thomas Kuhn called "conservative resistance" to a new worldview. We are indeed in a revolutionary era, that perhaps began with Big Bang & Relativity & Quantum & Information theories. They were stubbornly resisted by believers in the Classical Materialism of 17th & 18th century worldviews. But the aftershocks & implications of those matter-melting revolutions are still unfolding in the 21st century.

For example, Neuroscience and Information science are expanding the boundaries of the establishment belief system of earlier paradigms to include the observer in the observation. We are no longer able to ignore the effects of the observer's beliefs & intentions on the statistical foundations of Reality. That's why hypothetical (speculative) proposals --- to make sense of quantum nonsense and cosmic mysteries --- abound. For instance, Cosmic Inflation was an unproveable hypothesis, intended to avoid the implication of Big Bang as a creation event. Do you want to forbid any questioning of settled opinions, as the Amsterdam Rabbis reacted to Spinoza's "heretical" critique of the Torah? :cool:


The Structure of Scientific Revolutions :
His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. . . . According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. . . . This conservative resistance to the attempted refutation of key theories means that revolutions are not sought except under extreme circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

The power of intention has the ability to literally change the shape of our brains. This process is known as neuroplasticity - the brain's soft and interchangeable potential, stimulated through repetition of a particular behaviour.
https://www.balance-festival.com/Journal/February-2019/The-Powerful-Science-Behind-Setting-Intentions

Why is speculation forbidden in science? :
Speculation is not completely forbidden in science. In fact, used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be quite useful.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/27/why-is-speculation-forbidden-in-science/

Cosmic Inflation? :
A final question lies at the very borderline of science, but has recently become a subject of scientific speculation and even detailed model-building: How and why did the big bang occur? Is it possible to understand, in scientific terms, the creation of a universe ex nihilo (from nothing)?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/cosmic-inflation

Have you ever looked into models of reality that go beyond "established" (settled) opinion? — Gnomon

Yes, absolutely, that's one of the most interesting parts about contemporary cosmology (imo at least); eternal inflation, conformal cyclical cosmology, cosmological natural selection. Very cool and exciting. Heck, even string/superstring/M-theory is speculative in the sense that its never made testable predictions, let alone ones that have been observationally corroborated.

But looking into speculative proposals doesn't mean believing them, or conflating them with observationally well-established proposals.

Of course, not all hypothetical speculations are correct, but some may be the heralds of a new paradigm in science. — Gnomon

And that's a bridge we cross if/when we come to it, not before.

The responses that I'm getting on this thread, referring to "established" or "settled" Science, fall into the category that Thomas Kuhn called "conservative resistance" to a new worldview. — Gnomon

No, the responses you're getting in this thread are people distinguishing between pure speculation and things that are actually rooted in evidence. You seem to have a lot invested in this whole image of yourself as the bold truth-teller battling against the dogmatic traditionists... when that's simply not what's happening.

No, the responses you're getting in this thread are people distinguishing between pure speculation and things that are actually rooted in evidence. You seem to have a lot invested in this whole image of yourself as the bold truth-teller battling against the dogmatic traditionists... when that's simply not what's happening. — Seppo

No, the reactionary responses on this thread are defending a belief system that is threatened by investigation of its underlying values (e.g. Existentialism) and assumptions (e.g. Materialism). You are the one who is creating a false image of myself, in order to avoid grappling with the ancient philosophical controversies of Teleology and Determinism. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the topic, except indirectly, by referring to a book of scientific speculation with a tentative un-traditional interpretation of cosmic evolution..

I'm sure the scandalized rabbis hurled similar dismissive labels against Spinoza as he modestly but resolutely pursued the truth behind their "dogmatic traditions". No, I'm not comparing myself with Spinoza, I'm not a genius or a martyr. But, I do see a resemblance of the "dogmatic traditionalists" on this thread with the defenders of the Faith who anathematized him, while avoiding his calm rational philosophical arguments. It's a good thing you can't hurl rocks over the internet. :joke:


"By the decrees of the Angels and the proclamation of the Saints, we hereby excommunicate, ban, and anathematize Baruch d’Espinoza,"



Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror"

No, the reactionary responses on this thread are defending a belief system that is threatened by investigation of its underlying values (e.g. Existentialism) and assumptions (e.g. Materialism). — Gnomon

Nope. Being critical isn't being reactionary, nor is distinguishing between speculation and empirically-established proposals. And if anything, its your interlocutors who are threatening your claims with investigation (to which you react with this over-the-top hyperbole about reactionaries).

So, sort of an amusing pot/kettle situation here.

You are the one who is creating a false image of myself, in order to avoid grappling with the ancient philosophical controversies of Teleology and Determinism. — Gnomon

You're only further proving my previous assessment with the silly comment above about reactionaries: you're quite invested in this notion of the bold truth-teller and the rigid dogmatists. The problem is that this has no basis in reality. There are no reactionaries in this thread, nor are you boldly telling any truths: you're pushing speculation and religious philosophy, and receiving criticism for it. And have, apparently, built up an entire personal mythology about the situation, and for what? Protecting your ego?

I'm sure the scandalized rabbis hurled similar dismissive labels against Spinoza as he modestly but resolutely pursued the truth behind their "dogmatic traditions". No, I'm not comparing myself with Spinoza — Gnomon

You literally just did, thereby adding yet further confirmation of this ridiculous delusion you've built up. Unfortunately, criticism still isn't victimization or dogmatism.

Excerpts from posts by outraged believers — Gnomon

:lol: Imaginary outrage. Disagreement isn't outrage, any more than criticism is.

I'm sorry you're not provoking the reaction you want, but sometimes we don't get what we want. You really should adjust your rhetorical strategy to the reaction you are getting (whining about imagined outrage from fictional "believers" makes you look the one who is feeling threatened here). You would do well to take some of your own advice.

I'm sorry you're not provoking the reaction you want, but sometimes we don't get what we want. You really should adjust your rhetorical strategy to the reaction you are getting (whining about imagined outrage from fictional "believers" makes you look the one who is feeling threatened here). You would do well to take some of your own advice. — Seppo

Your apology is mis-directed. My intention was not to be provocative, but the affronted reactions to an alternative explanation for cosmic evolution inadvertently steered the dialog away from philosophical argumentation toward polarized altercation. Someone less experienced might have caved under the negativity. But I'm used to it, since my personal worldview is not mainstream in either a Scientific or Religious sense. Ironically, I get the impression that you think I'm proposing an Anti-Science position, even though the book I referenced was written by professional scientists.

My first post was actually intended to present a scientific alternative to the usual Theistic arguments. So I didn't expect the disgusted "reaction" I got, as-if a skunk had walked into the gentleman's club. The fact that I offered non-scriptural evidence for direction in evolution was dismissed out of hand. So it was not me who resorted to "rhetorical strategy", And I don't feel threatened at all. Just disappointed that a Philosophy Forum can so quickly descend into Sophistry, and finger-pointing. I was hoping for an open-minded dialog, not a debate or diatribe. :cool:
Note -- the smiley means "I'm cool"

Excerpt from original post :
"The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism". — SwampMan

My reply ended with a quote from a prominent scientist :
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein

John Archibald Wheeler (proponent of Anthropic Cosmological Principle):
Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, ..
https://phy.princeton.edu/department/history/faculty-history/john-wheeler

IRONIC RACISM

My intention was not to be provocative — Gnomon

In every single post you've made, you've explicitly told us the reactions you wish you were receiving: outrage, feeling threatened, being reactionary, and so on.

But like I said, sometimes we don't get what we want, and so you should probably adjust your rhetoric to the reactions you actually are getting.

But like I said, sometimes we don't get what we want, and so you should probably adjust your rhetoric to the reactions you actually are getting. — Seppo

Seppo ; this is not addressed to you personally. Because you've made it clear that you are not listening. I'm just mulling over the possible reasons for our failure to communicate. I prefer not to adjust my philosophical argumentation, to "react" with political feuds, as you suggest.

My blog has gone into great detail regarding the pros & cons of the long-running Teleological debate. However, the arguments I presented in favor of a non-theistic Teleonomy are not my own, but those of professional scientists with unorthodox views. Which I assumed would be at least given the benefit of the doubt. But the disbelief & denial were categorical, and I'm not even sure what category that is. So, I don't take the ad hominems and accusations of apostasy personally. They are directed at a some kind of faceless barbarian horde that I may not personally identify with. I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic.

The retorts don't even respond to anything specific I present, but to a general ideological category such as Atheism vs Theism. So, the nay-sayers have nothing positive to add to the conversation. They just cover their ears and say thru clenched teeth : "wrong, wrong, wrong . . .:" Obviously, I expected at least some minimal philosophical argumentation. But all I get in response is Ideological proclamations. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on the latest political divisions in philosophy & science. Maybe you can clue me in, to which outcast class you think I belong in. Perhaps a pigeonhole for either the intrinsic functions of Darwinism, or the extrinsic purposes of Theism. Or neither. :cool:


Teleology (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason') or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.

Apostasy : the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror" — Gnomon

I've underlined my contribution to your list. In what sense does "I believe this is not true," represent outrage? All it means is that I think you're wrong. And for the record, I am not a believer in "random determinism." I don't think determinism is a useful way of looking at the world in most situations.

I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject.

I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic. — Gnomon

This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. A quick summary:

We only have access to information from one universe, this one right here. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood of an event when we have information from only a single sample from a population of unknown size. For that reason, we have no basis for estimating the probability of there being intelligent life in our universe or any universe. And for that reason, there is no basis or need for speculation about an anthropic principle, fine-tuning argument, or multiverse to address this issue.

Seppo ; this is not addressed to you personally. Because you've made it clear that you are not listening. I'm just mulling over the possible reasons for our failure to communicate. I prefer not to adjust my philosophical argumentation, to "react" with political feuds, as you suggest. — Gnomon

In other words, you're going to ignore the things people actually say to you, and continue to lie/misconstrue about those responses- good to know... so that I don't waste any further time on you.

This is not true. — T Clark

As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation.

I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject. — T Clark

OK. What about the "believer" vs "apostate" part?
Back when I posted on another forum, various atheist vs theist arguments usually began with something approximating calm rational arguments, but quickly descended into a name-calling game. And that's what this thread reminded me of. I apologize, if my broad characterization lumped you in with the scandalized rock throwers. :joke:

This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. — T Clark

Yes. I'll give you credit for being one of the few to attempt a rational discussion of a multi-millennial debate. A quick Google search revealed that the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. It's true that the modern ACP theories did rely a lot on the statistical improbability of a long list of implausible mathematical "coincidences" in dimensionless ratios. But statistics are just abstract numbers that must be interpreted into meanings. And the translation into words typically falls into binary categories, with little overlap.

The author of the ACP book spent a whole chapter on the pros & cons -- and the real world consequences -- of those cosmic coincidences. As a non-mathematician, I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. But, if you are more numerically inclined, you can check their numbers for yourself in the book. Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist, well-versed in statistics. However, I was better able to follow the logical philosophical arguments, which again presented both pro & con positions. They also had chapters on Information, Entropy, Randomness, and Computability. And I am only well-informed on the first two.

Obviously, the conclusion -- that those dozens of highly improbable numerical coincidences and initial conditions result from "fine-tuning" -- is an inference that depends on how much creative organizing power you perceive in Randomness. As noted in the Wiki quote below, the Reason or Cause for such improbably fortuitous serendipity is "unknown". But the only reasonable options I know of are Fortuitousness or Prescience. Do you have a better alternative instead of Infinite Odds vs Goal-Directed Intention? If not, we can go on to the next item on a long list : e.g. Cosmological Constant, Inhomogeneity, Isotropy, Inflation, Boundary Conditions, etc. Yet again, I'll have to refer to the experts on the topics that are over my head.

See. We can have a philosophical dialog if we stick to well-defined terms instead of cartoon characters. :wink:

PS___FWIW. As mentioned in the beginning, I have my own objections to traditional Teleological arguments. So, my position is closer to Teleonomy or Eutaxiology.

Fine Tuning Argument :
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned suggests that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable. ___Wikipedia

Fine Tuning Odds :
In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123) . This ratio is vastly
beyond our powers of comprehension
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/List-of-Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay-Richards.pdf

Fortuitousness : random accident ; Chance ; Lady Luck

Prescience : the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge. A selection effect

In other words, you're going to ignore the things people actually say to you, and continue to lie/misconstrue about those responses- good to know... so that I don't waste any further time on you. — Seppo

That's OK. I may have found someone I can dialog with. See above. You can sit on the sidelines and watch as the grownups have a mature conversation. :cool:

As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation. — Seppo

Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair. :nerd:

"It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others."
___Seneca

the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. — Gnomon

I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. — Gnomon

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. They are just about the most basic possible statistical and probabilistic judgements. Let's say I have a box. You can't see inside the box so you don't know if there's anything in it. I tell you there are somewhere between 1 and 1,000 marbles in it. I reach in and pull out a black marble and show it to you, then put it back in the box. Now, can you tell me how many black marbles there are in the box? All you can tell me is that it's at least one and no more than 1,000, assuming I'm telling the truth. If I reach back in the box and pull out a marble at random, what is the probability it will be black?

We can't tell the likelihood of pulling a black marble out of the box and we can't tell the likelihood that other possible universes will have life in them.

Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair — Gnomon

Heh, hardly; I'm not the one deliberately misconstruing reasoned criticism or disagreement (criticism that went without rebuttal, I might add) as "reactionary outrage". And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways.

(btw, tu quoque is a fallacy, an invalid inference, not just you thinking someone did the same thing they accused you of doing... even if you weren't mistaken about that)

And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo

Actually, this is one of my favorite philosophical arguments, as elucidated by that great American philosopher P.W. Herman.

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. — T Clark

OK. But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot".

The difference between an Accidental Coincidence and an Intentional Pattern is in the continuing consistency. When life-favoring cosmic coincidences piled up in the early 20th century, astronomers and cosmologists said "whoa . . . what's going on here?" Short "streaks" of luck do occur in random sequences, but longer chains imply non-random causation.

The science of statistical Pattern Recognition has methods to distinguish between the gambler's "illusion" of patterns -- that allow Las Vegas casinos to be consistently Lucky, in order to make a reliable non-random profit -- and the statistician's meaningful measurements. But to me, those algorithmic methods are "arcane" & "sophisticated". Presumably, those who "quibble" about those causal chains tell themselves "it's better to be lucky than smart". :nerd:


The Illusion of Randomness :
humans tend to see patterns when, in fact, the results are completely random.
https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20(old)/4-Randomness.htm

Anthropic Coincidences :
The critical point was well expressed by the noted astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees:
"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life" .
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/06/anthropic-coincidences

Cosmic Jackpot :
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot

And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo

You said that you were not going to "waste anymore time" on this thread. But you continue to take boo -hiss pot-shots from the bleachers. Unless you have something positive to contribute, you are wasting everybody's time. But, hey! I'm retired, so I've got plenty of time to waste on the winding road to wisdom. What's your excuse? :joke:

PS___At least TClark is trying to contribute something more than childish retorts & recriminations.

But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot". — Gnomon

I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere.

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. They are just about the most basic possible statistical and probabilistic judgements. Let's say I have a box. You can't see inside the box so you don't know if there's anything in it. I tell you there are somewhere between 1 and 1,000 marbles in it. I reach in and pull out a black marble and show it to you, then put it back in the box. Now, can you tell me how many black marbles there are in the box? All you can tell me is that it's at least one and no more than 1,000, assuming I'm telling the truth. If I reach back in the box and pull out a marble at random, what is the probability it will be black?

We can't tell the likelihood of pulling out a black marble out of the box and we can't tell the likelihood that other possible universes will have life in them. — T Clark

I don't agree with your math. Let's reduce your number from 1000 to 2 to make this clearer. You know one marble is black. You also know there is only 1 or 2 marbles in the box. What we therefore know about our box is that it has one of the following combinations:

1 black marble
2 black marbles
1 black marble and one not black marble

There are three scenarios, one guarantees black, two guarantees black, and the third guarantees a 1/2 black and 1/2 non-black. I'm going with 5/6 chance for black based on the information provided.

How that plays out with 1,000, I don't know, but the analysis could be done.

My statistical analysis could be wrong above, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a statistical analysis that can be done here.

I'd also say the likelihood of there being life on another planet approaches 100% as the number of other planets approaches infinity.

I don't agree with your math. Let's reduce your number from 1000 to 2 to make this clearer. You know one marble is black. You also know there is only 1 or 2 marbles in the box. What we therefore know about our box is that it has one of the following combinations:

1 black marble
2 black marbles
1 black marble and one not black marble

There are three scenarios, one guarantees black, two guarantees black, and the third guarantees a 1/2 black and 1/2 non-black. I'm going with 5/6 chance for black based on the information provided. — Hanover

I started out with the assumption that there are a finite number of marbles in the box. I chose 1,000 for the illustration because it's a pretty big number. I didn't choose 2 because it isn't. I acknowledged we know there's at least one marble and no more than 1,000. One or all of them might be black. So, if I take another marble out of the box, the odds of it being black are anywhere between 0.001 and 1. The range of probabilities for any possible event is between 0 and 1. So, I have slightly better than no information at all about how unusual black marbles are. All I really know is that they're possible.

So... do I need a special theory to explain why the marble I pulled out of the box was black?

I was trying to keep things simple, but there could be a trillion marbles in the box. Or a google (10^100). Or a googleplex (10^100)^(10^100). Given the current theories of multiverse formation (quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation) the number would probably be very big. Or maybe not. Maybe just one.

I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. — T Clark

OK. I understand that you believe evolution is "not getting anywhere". But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. I have lots of stuff to indicate the contrary : that Natural Selection weeds-out non-progressive options from Random changes. We've only scratched the surface of such evidence for upward evolution, apparently programmed to produce better & better adaptations for life in a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. Each step upward costs many individual lives, but overall the progressive beat goes on, after millions of lifetimes.

I get the impression that those-who-see-only-digression-in-evolution like to think that (cautious) optimists are not seeing the obvious. Yet what you see does depend in part on where you look. If you watch TV news, you'll see Russia threatening WWIII, and Covid pestilence killing millions of innocent people around the world. But, if you look out the window, you'll see healthy happy people going about their business, as-if the end of the world is not nigh. However, evolution is a collective holistic process, not a reductive individual Horatio-Alger-rags-to-riches story. Evolution is about Time & Chance, not about me : I could be run over by a truck tomorrow for no apparent reason, but the evolving world will still get somewhere --- onward & upward. :up: :up: :up: :grin:

PS___Long ago, a wise man said, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."

But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. — Gnomon

I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend.

a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. — Gnomon

We have no idea of how rare life is in this universe.

evolution is a collective holistic process, — Gnomon

Sorry, I don't know what this means in the context of this discussion.

Ok, ok. No more. This is fun but we're not going anywhere.

I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend. — T Clark

Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculativeTeleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. Would that be less polarizing and more productive? Perhaps a discussion of "orthogenesis" or "orthoselection". I don't know much about them, but Orthoselection seems to be what Darwin had in mind as Natural Selection. That might provide the means for progression or digression toward some short-term or ultimate state -- that we could evaluate as positive or negative relative to our current status. We can only speculate about the future, but the past is subject to some empirical evidence. Then, if there is some sign of a non-random pattern, we can project it into the near future, and see what happens. :smile:

What are the major evolutionary trends? :
For example, McShea (1998) listed eight potential large-scale trends, including overall directional changes in “entropy, energy intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0055-6

evolutionary trend A steady change in a given adaptive direction, either in an evolutionary lineage or in a particular attribute (e.g. height of shoot). Such trends are often apparent in unrelated taxa. Formerly they were attributed to orthogenesis; now orthoselection or the contending theory of species selection are invoked.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/biology-general/evolutionary-trend

Ortho is a Greek prefix meaning “straight”, “upright”, “right” or “correct”.

Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculative Teleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. — Gnomon

My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. You disagree and want to keep on examining the issue. I'm not going to convince you. You're not going to convince me. We've run through the same arguments over and over.

I don't see any point in going on.

It's not that evolution has a telos, it's that such an interpretation is possible. It's not that you committed the murder, it's that it looks like you did. That should count for something, oui?

If there was a designer, given the cirucumstances, evolution via random genetic mutation is exactly what this designer would have opted for. Mind, no mind, there's no difference.

My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. — T Clark

OK. But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. I appreciate the Stoic state of mind, but not to the point of complete indifference to the dynamic system we humans are vital components of. Even the godless Existentialists retained some involvement in the wider world around them --- something bigger than Self. Philosophy must be motivated by some mystery to be solved.

I suspect that a Reductionist focus on tiny details, may result in a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" myopia. Of course carrying Holism to an extreme could have the opposite effect of not noticing the ground under your feet. Yet, a happy medium perspective is a best-of-both-worlds compromise. You can "get-real" about the here & now, while also dabbling in probable future scenarios, such as the ultimate destination of the mostly deterministic world.

I'm not a very passionate person, but I find the possibility that the world is progressing toward some kind of meaningful resolution to be fascinating. At the least, it provides a little positivity for those who are dismayed by the the current end-of-world doom & gloom outlook ; to wit, at least half the recent output from Hollywood has been dystopian-Post-Apocalyptic-wallowing-in-misery movies. Although they usually feature lone Greek heroes fighting against Fate, I try to avoid them because they are depressing for us non-super-heroes. Anyway, I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s, when optimism was re-blooming. Besides, my personal BothAnd worldview allows me to take the bumps gracefully, while looking at the road beyond the headlights.

Sorry! Sounds like I'm preaching. But I can't help it. My life is almost over, but LIFE in the universe is just beginning. :smile:


20 Best Post-Apocalyptic Movies on Netflix Right Now :
https://thecinemaholic.com/best-post-apocalyptic-movies-on-netflix/

"Philosophy is important because it's the leading edge of human inquiry. Maths, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, ..."
https://dailynous.com/2018/08/08/why-is-philosophy-important/

"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein, one of my favorite philosophers