| One cannot apply the principles of natural selection as an origin for life until one has a reason that a given course of development becomes the most probable through the concept of “fitness”. By that logic, the universe we observe should exist in the simplest state possible that generates the least in congruence with its principle forces. The universe we observe is in flagrant disobedience to the entropic arrow of time and presents too many ordered structures to have existed for eternity. A static universe is rendered improbable by the overwhelming evidence of an expanding universe coupled with the second law of thermodynamics. If an eternity has already passed before this moment, thermal equilibrium would already have come to pass. Essentially, the universe would be reduced to a sea of light populated only by hydrogen atoms distributed many light years apart from one another as the laws of physics drive it to its simplest and most stable form. Given that we do not see thermal equilibrium, the only other explanation is the sort of “Pac-Man” Universe, in which the universe is constantly expanding, as is most evident from astronomy, and at a certain point matter and energy is constantly being destroyed and then created near the center. This theory, of course, requires a leap of faith as it has no evidence to support it and it directly contradicts the law of conservation, or would require a field of conveniently placed wormholes. Furthermore, the revolving universe that loses momentum, contracts, and then Bangs again, has been dismissed nearly entirely as the data has shown the far more likely scenario that momentum will outstrip gravity and that on a long enough time line are instead headed towards the “Big Chill”. We also find that our current understanding of gravity supports the idea that at the singularity, the universe was in its most stable form, thus giving it no “motive” to Bang. It is not as though all of that matter being in one place creates “pressure” and eventually explodes. In reality, all that mass in one place sort of “satisfies” gravity. As a result we have a condition under which time is effectively non-existent. Most cosmologists believe in the Big Bang, yet non have submitted a compelling explanation for its occurrence. It should be noted that neither have many theologians provided an explanation for the pre-existence of God, but it is far easier to except the unanswerable happenstance of an infinite thing then a thing that is by definition finite. One could say that the Big Bang implies a Banger.
Scientific Determinism is obsolete:
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle runs deeper than the limits of technology. The statement that even if we could not gather those values, those values must exist in regards to the velocity and position of every atom is, counter intuitively enough, completely contradictory to our observed understanding of the way the universe works. The truth of it is that on atomic level it is not merely that we cannot observe but rather that these discreet values are literally undefined. This is why light conforms to diffraction patterns in a probabilistic manner even when sent in one particle at a time with no actual source of diffraction. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not merely the statement “a watched pot never boils” but on a more meaningful level “the unwatched pot is boiling and never boiling at once.” This does not imply that reality is defined in the presence of an observer, but on an atomic or very low energy level things become integrially probabilistic. Your argument essentially acknowledges and undermines the HUP at once by limiting its scope. So essentially what you are saying is, “Given a cosmology that I don’t believe in, if we were to ignore this well-attested fundamental principle of physics, then build a computer that cannot exist, we can demonstrate that things happened because they were going to happen” It should be noted of course that simply because things happened and were predetermined to happen a certain way does not mean that very predetermination is in effect the cause of those things. One cannot say, “Things happened the way they did because it was their nature to do so:” and rule out the possibility that their natures and intersections were designed. The act of design is not limited to a specific point in time and as such a deterministic universe does not discredit the existence of God. Just because things were going to happen, does not mean as well that in human experience, probability is going to accurately predict and explain the occurrence of phenomena, and if we observe innumerable events of near impossibility, we cannot rule out the possibility of a source outside of this universe. This is why the “fine-tuning” argument is still formidable even if we assume determinism. The fact that a charge of an electron could be off by a factor of 10 to the 23rd and life would be impossible, or if the expansion rate of the universe immediately following the Big Bang were off by a factor of 10 to the 17th, the universe would have either collapsed or we would have no stars. The fact that a bio-genesis (pre-biotic origin of life) assuming all the best of conditions requires astounding improbabilities that are somewhat insulting to estimate, continues to be something that we ought not dismiss when seeking an intellectually tenable worldview. |
| |
| awww... xanga. you've become so complicated in attempts to become something other than what you were.
I miss your simplicity.
please come back to me.
I remember bolt. I remember what happened to it.
please don't go that way. I love you.
|
| |
| How sweet it is to have found you.
|
| |
