If someone finds a radio that was built in 50 CE then the most logical explanation is that someone built the radio. That is first year university 101 philosophy logic. It's also any reputabl;e logical introductory book on clear thinking.
psychic chess masters
Sort:
reflectivist wrote:
Do you personally believe it is within the realm of possibility that there are chess masters who win because of their ability to see into the future or read minds?
They can't read minds but strong chess players can feel chess opponents through their intuitive powers and they are very good at reading their opponents body language and tells professional and expert poker players are very good at that too.
May 11, 2013
0
#104
linuxblue1 wrote:
If someone finds a radio that was built in 50 CE then the most logical explanation is that someone built the radio. That is first year university 101 philosophy logic. It's also any reputabl;e logical introductory book on clear thinking.
That would be the most logical explanation nowadays, yes.
But if someone back in 50 CE found a radio, the most logical explanation would have been that it was a gift from the Gods, or the product of some sort of magic.
First year philosophy 101 back in 50 CE worked a little differently than it does today.
May 11, 2013
0
#105
Basic logic is that the right explanation is the MOST likely. It's like the bit where Sherlock Holmes says that now that the probable causes are dealt with the improbbale is all that remains.
linuxblue1 wrote:
Basic logic is that the right explanation is the MOST likely. It's like the bit where Sherlock Holmes says that now that the probable causes are dealt with the improbbale is all that remains.
That's all very well. But the fact that life and consciousness exists (which might be the unlikeliest of all possibilites) indicates that truth -- or the right explanation -- is the result of the most likely AND also the least likely.
May 11, 2013
0
#107
We have no idea how likely life and consciousness are. Given the number of bodies in the visible universe... hundreds of billions in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions of other galaxies, each with their own set of bodies... they might be very likely indeed.
blueemu wrote:
We have no idea how likely life and consciousness are. Given the number of bodies in the visible universe... hundreds of billions in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions of other galaxies, each with their own set of bodies... they might be very likely indeed.
Our inadequate brains tell us that you cannot make something from nothing, as you need bits or things to put together to build something. Yet out of empty space we behold a universe sprang into being. To build even a common sparrow that flies, feeds and reproduces itself, a designer would require a vast knowledge of electronics, avionics, chemistry and the means to obtain the required elements. To conjecture that this would occur (maybe on rare occasions) simply because there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, lends huge cpability to randomness and chance, which I cannot believe exists at all. You would have to believe something akin to getting all of the junk from junkyards on earth, pouring the lot into a huge pot and shake it for eternity and expect at some point it would deliver an identical replica of the Titanic. It just won't happen. But here we DO have a real sparrow -- and you and me -- jungles full of life. And it's totally incomprehensible! All is extremely impossible. Yet it IS. So what does this say for looking for the likeliest explanation -- like Occam's razor? NOT MUCH!
May 11, 2013
0
#109
ash369 wrote:
linuxblue1 wrote:
Basic logic is that the right explanation is the MOST likely. It's like the bit where Sherlock Holmes says that now that the probable causes are dealt with the improbbale is all that remains.
That's all very well. But the fact that life and consciousness exists (which might be the unlikeliest of all possibilites) indicates that truth -- or the right explanation -- is the result of the most likely AND also the least likely.
*******
I was trying to avoid esoteric issues like consciousness. 
May 11, 2013
0
#110
ash369 wrote:
To conjecture that this would occur (maybe on rare occasions) simply because there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, lends huge capability to randomness and chance, which I cannot believe exists at all. You would have to believe something akin to getting all of the junk from junkyards on earth, pouring the lot into a huge pot and shake it for eternity and expect at some point it would deliver an identical replica of the Titanic. It just won't happen.
Rubbish. You sound like a "Creation Scientist".
Atoms don't combine randomly. They combine according to specific built-in laws, undergoing reactions that are by now pretty well understood.
Seal some of the simplest compounds found in nature (Methane, Ammonia and Water, with a few crystals of the naturally-occuring mineral Apatite) into a flask; provide any sort of energy input... weak ultraviolet light, an electrical spark, whatever... and the chemicals that "randomly" form will already be well along the path that leads to life. After less than a week, you will find amino acids, nucleo-phosphates, sugars, aldehydes...
blueemu wrote:
ash369 wrote:
To conjecture that this would occur (maybe on rare occasions) simply because there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, lends huge capability to randomness and chance, which I cannot believe exists at all. You would have to believe something akin to getting all of the junk from junkyards on earth, pouring the lot into a huge pot and shake it for eternity and expect at some point it would deliver an identical replica of the Titanic. It just won't happen.
Rubbish. You sound like a "Creation Scientist".
Atoms don't combine randomly. They combine according to specific built-in laws, undergoing reactions that are by now pretty well understood.
Seal some of the simplest compounds found in nature (Methane, Ammonia and Water, with a few crystals of the naturally-occuring mineral Apatite) into a flask; provide any sort of energy input... weak ultraviolet light, an electrical spark, whatever... and the chemicals that "randomly" form will already be well along the path that leads to life. After less than a week, you will find amino acids, nucleo-phosphates, sugars, aldehydes...
Bad-calling my humble contribution as "rubbish" only reflects on your lack of manners when you meet an opinion contrary to yours. I am not a creationist, as you accuse, or even a total evolutionist but I do see merit and ingredients of both in the real world.
However, the originator of this thread, and Occam himself, cite the merit in looking for the likelier explanations, rather than the least likely in search for the truth. I think this is more for the economy of time, than anything else. Because of simple logic, correct answers are more likely to be found using Occam's razor -- choosing the explanation with the least number of assumptions. But the only point I tried to make was that the truth might lie with less likely explanations. In which case Occam would take even longer to find it. Don't try to make this a battle between evolution and creation. Wise scientists see merit in both -- not either or.
May 11, 2013
0
#112
I reacted rudely, not because your opinion was contrary to mine, but because you abused of the word "randomly" in exactly the same manner and to exactly the same effect that "Creation Scientists" do.
Chemical reactions are random only within the constraints imposed by physical laws. Your junk-yard analogy is inept, on two counts:
1) The junk has no pre-set affinities for assembling itself in certain patterns. Atoms do. They are highly constrained, both by valence and by minimum-energy limits, to assemble into specific families of compounds... and a large number of these compounds lie on the road that leads to life.
2) The Titanic. If I had claimed that carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus would inevitably assemble themselves into Justin Bieber, then your analogy would be apt. The Titanic was singlar. So... thank the Lord... is Justin Bieber. But while the atoms on the inner moon of the second planet of Tau Ceti might very well be self-assembling into some form of life, I don't expect them to precisely duplicate anything (or anyone) that we are familiar with.
A better question is not "How could atoms randomly come together into living creatures", since this outcome seems almost inevitable given the known properties of atoms and the size of the sample-space... but "Why are the physical laws so finely tuned to create a Universe in which life was almost certain to form".
Because they really are finely tuned. Just to give an example, a change of only a few percent up or down in the magnitude of the fine-structure constant (which governs the relative strengths of electro-magnetism and the weak nuclear force) would result in stars that either failed to shine at all, or which burned through their supply of Hydrogen in a time much too short to allow the evolution of life.
blueemu wrote:
I reacted rudely, not because your opinion was contrary to mine, but because you abused of the word "randomly" in exactly the same manner and to exactly the same effect that "Creation Scientists" do.
Chemical reactions are random only within the constraints imposed by physical laws. Your junk-yard analogy is inept, on two counts:
1) The junk has no pre-set affinities for assembling itself in certain patterns. Atoms do. They are highly constrained, both by valence and by minimum-energy limits, to assemble into specific families of compounds... and a large number of these compounds lie on the road that leads to life.
2) The Titanic. If I had claimed that carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus would inevitably assemble themselves into Justin Bieber, then your analogy would be apt. The Titanic was singlar. So... thank the Lord... is Justin Bieber. But while the atoms on the inner moon of the second planet of Tau Ceti might very well be self-assembling into some form of life, I don't expect them to precisely duplicate anything (or anyone) that we are familiar with.
A better question is not "How could atoms randomly come together into living creatures", since this outcome seems almost inevitable given the known properties of atoms and the size of the sample-space... but "Why are the physical laws so finely tuned to create a Universe in which life was almost certain to form".
Because they really are finely tuned. Just to give an example, a change of only a few percent up or down in the magnitude of the fine-structure constant (which governs the relative strengths of electro-magnetism and the weak nuclear force) would result in stars that either failed to shine at all, or which burned through their supply of Hydrogen in a time much too short to allow the evolution of life.
Yep I think you are on to it. Life as we know it can only exist in the Goldilocks zone. For such a Goldilocks zone to occur the environment needs to settle on a very narrow band of multiple spectrums -- each one of which is huge, yet the narrow band to permit life on each has to be very narrow and constant for, perhaps billions of years. The fact that anything at all exists is a mystery, let alone life and consciousness. There is something going on that is weird to say the least. And isn't quantum mechanics proving to be weird? We are all composed of the the extremely small -- quantum mechanics. By the way I'm not a qualified scientist, but I've been an enthusiast all my life. There's room for all opinions to be respected. Nobody -- But NOBODY really knows what the hell is going on!
May 11, 2013
0
#115
ash369 wrote:
Yep I think you are on to it. Life as we know it can only exist in the Goldilocks zone. For such a Goldilocks zone to occur the environment needs to settle on a very narrow band of multiple spectrums -- each one of which is huge, yet the narrow band to permit life on each has to be very narrow and constant for, perhaps billions of years. The fact that anything at all exists is a mystery, let alone life and consciousness. There is something going on that is weird to say the least. And isn't quantum mechanics proving to be weird? We are all composed of the the extremely small -- quantum mechanics. By the way I'm not a qualified scientist, but I've been an enthusiast all my life. There's room for all opinions to be respected. Nobody -- But NOBODY really knows what the hell is going on!
In our universe, these "Goldilocks zone" conditions will recurr countless times. Even if we assume that the hundred billion galaxies within range of our telescopes are the only ones that exist, and that only one star out of a thousand million has a "Goldilocks zone" suitable for the development of life... that's still a total 10,000,000,000,000 places as hospitable for life as Earth itself. Life is not an unlikely fluke. It is inevitable.
The big question is WHY the universe works this way. Why are the electromagnetic and nuclear forces so finely balanced, when even a small change in the initial values would have ruled out life entirely.
I do have a logical answer for that question, but it would require a fairly long post, or even two or three posts. I won't bore you with it unless you also find that question... and a possible answer to it... an interesting subject.
I personally think the you think therefore you are theory governs the rules for the universe. I think the fact that we are here and alive forced the mechanics of the universe to behave the way they do. Given infinite possibilities and infinite time it is inevitable. Regardless of what is visible to us.
If there is such a thing as a mind-reader... I would think you should be more worried they will take over your country and make you a slave than beating you in a chess game...
May 11, 2013
0
#117
secrekept wrote:
If I had telepathy, I would use it to find out if I'll lose my virginity by age 18.
Since I'm over 50, that question has already resolved itself as far as I'm concerned.
May 11, 2013
0
#118
ThreePawnSac wrote:
I personally think the you think therefore you are theory governs the rules for the universe. I think the fact that we are here and alive forced the mechanics of the universe to behave the way they do.
I'm under the impression that cause-and-effect works in the other direction, though.
Sure.. but one could argue "one direction" is just another rule spawned by your necessary universe. The theory of everything is something that I personally believe is silly. You could learn all there is to learn but you are still overshadowed by the fact that everything you know may only apply to a very tiny portion of existence.
blueemu: given the near inevitability of life (which I also believe), the Fermi paradox becomes an even more pressing question than for those that think we were a one-off fluke.
What do you believe is the reason that we have not yet seen evidence of advanced extraterrestrial intelligence? A recent paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381) gave an interesting new answer, or at least a new justification for an old answer, but I think the paper was very flawed even if the ideas themselves (and their new approach) are intriguing.
yes the unexplained is exactly that. backing up a few pages if I have a radio in the 1700's then does that make it magic?
That would have been a good working hypothesis at the time, yes.
Explanations (scientific or otherwise) only make sense in the context of the society that gave birth to them.