A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The probability of a world that meets such exact criteria for survival by a throw of darts is so farfetched it's nonsensical.

Ahhh peacegirl, I'd be careful what I called farfetched if I were you.

[LadyShea]

Let's expand directly from Lessans words, peacegirl. He said the chances of the Earth being the way it is without a creator or a Supreme intelligence guiding things is 1 in a Billion, correct?

Okay, so that means if there are 100 billion stars the same size as our sun, that have orbiting planets, as our solar system does, then there are 100 Earthlike planets out there....just by Lessans own reasoning.

And that 100 billion I used? Not even a drop in the ocean compared to what exists in our Universe.

[davidm]

Yeah, peacegirl, I've got an even worse dart player than Fred for you. His name is Hubert. Hubert only hits the bull's eye once every one billion throws. So the odds against him making a bull's eye are a billion to one.

How many bull's eyes will Hubert make if he throws an infinite number of times, you reckon?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You wish it was that simple. Then you could have all the worlds that are within your fantastical illusion.

Oops, peacegirl reveals her mental illness again.

So what are you gonna do with all your worlds peacegirl?

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'd like to post the relevant bits from Tegmark but it has multiple superscripts to denote exponentiality, even more than one for the same number, and I don't see a way to do superscripts in this software.

a^b^c

10^10^100 = googolplex etc.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

a^b^c

10^10^100 = googolplex etc.

Yeah, I can do that, I was just hoping to do a copypasta with ability to change the numbers into superscript the way we can italic, etc.

[The Lone Ranger]

You mean like 41012? It looks awkward, but it's do-able.

[The Lone Ranger]

There are something like 400,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, and there are something like 100,000,000,000 galaxies out there in the observable Universe.

Astronomical observations demonstrate that planets, far from being rare, are actually remarkably common. We know of well over 200 planets around nearby stars now. So it's more or less certain that our galaxy alone contains billions of planets.

What's more, experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiments show that the basic components of living cells spontaneously assemble -- and remarkably rapidly -- when you mimic the conditions that prevailed early in the Earth's history. (Before life itself started changing the atmosphere; our oxygen-rich atmosphere is a by-product of photosynthesis.)


So what would be truly shocking is if there weren't planets in our galaxy -- and quite a few of them at that -- that support life.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You mean like 41012? It looks awkward, but it's do-able.

Yeah, like that except I thought there was a way to make the numbers smaller (superscript). It's not big deal, I'll just do it the But way.

ETA: Oh, wait, that IS superscript. [ sup ] [ /sup ] Just not smaller numbers. Thanks, TLR.

[The Lone Ranger]

You can change the size of the numbers, too, which makes it look a bit less awkward:


568

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There are something like 400,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, and there are something like 100,000,000,000 galaxies out there in the observable Universe.

Astronomical observations demonstrate that planets, far from being rare, are actually remarkably common. We know of well over 200 planets around nearby stars now. So it's more or less certain that our galaxy alone contains billions of planets.

What's more, experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiments show that the basic components of living cells spontaneously assemble -- and remarkably rapidly -- when you mimic the conditions that prevailed early in the Earth's history. (Before life itself started changing the atmosphere; our oxygen-rich atmosphere is a by-product of photosynthesis.)


So what would be truly shocking is if there weren't planets in our galaxy -- and quite a few of them at that -- that support life.

But then why haven't they contacted us?

Simple answer, do you have any concept of how far it is between stars, let alone the stars that support life, then not considering how far it could be between stars with planets that support intelligent technological societies. The distances are just crazy far, and C is the speed limit. Just try to wrap your head around that and if you say you can comprehend that I'll know you are either crazy as Peacegirl, or lying through your ass. I think it's a long drive from here to Sodus NY, the Universe is just insanely spread out.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you have a misconception as to what "greater satisfaction" even means by the response you just gave. Also, we're not measuring the satisfaction quotient of each individual to determine if they are moving in this direction. We know they are moving in this direction by his proof, which I'm giving to you momentarily. Then we can discuss it.

Discuss it then. Tell me what you think my misconception is by explaining in your own words your own understanding of "greater satisfaction". Explain to me how it is defined, how we can know that people are always moving in this direction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true. It doesn't mean they are always satisfied. It only means they are picking the best choice that is available under the circumstances. They are always choosing the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. They are not choosing the lesser of two goods, the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good.

But this is wrong. People can and do choose what is not the best choice available. They often do mistakenly choose the lesser of two goods, or the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good. That is what you just agreed to. What matters is expected rather than actual satisfaction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an inductive truth known by empirical observation. Just as we know that apples fall off of trees to the ground, and we know this through observation, Lessans is showing that this knowledge is true based on his observations of human nature which are immutable universal laws.

If it is an inductive truth known by empirical observation, then you need to define "greater satisfaction" and specify exactly how it can be measured or determined in any given instance of observation. You need to explain how it can be empirically observed to be true in any instance by specifying what empirical observations would have shown it to be false. If you can't give empirically observable truth conditions for the principle, then it is not being judged empirically at all, but is instead being judged a priori as an analytic truth.

If it is an "immutable universal law" known to be true in any given instance without any empirical measurement or determination, but rather by way of an a priori conceptual proof (as you suggest in your previous post), then it cannot be an inductive truth known by empirical observation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an inductive truth known by empirical observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is definitely not an analytic truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His conclusions came from observing human nature but this also included his sound reasoning which was the actual proof. That's why this is so difficult because you can't empirically test this. You have to understand the reasoning which will allow you to know that the choices we make are under a compulsion.

You're contradicting yourself aready. If it is an inductive truth known by empirical observation, then it is empirically testable. If it is not empirically testable, then it is being put forward as an analytic truth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...so please back off in order for me to explain this discovery...

When are you going to start? You've cut&pasted Lessans' words already. When do you intend to start explaining what you think he is saying?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true. It doesn't mean they are always satisfied. It only means they are picking the best choice that is available under the circumstances. They are always choosing the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. They are not choosing the lesser of two goods, the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But this is wrong. People can and do choose what is not the best choice available. They often do mistakenly choose the lesser of two goods, or the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good. That is what you just agreed to. What matters is expected rather than actual satisfaction.

People often make mistakes, that's true. But at the time they thought it was the best choice available.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When are you going to start? You've cut&pasted Lessans' words already. When do you intend to start explaining what you think he is saying?

I'm almost finished posting Chapter One. I told you it's not that long. Then I will answer any questions you may have.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think elementary and rather silly religious apologetics are going to be remotely convincing here at ?

Who's we? How did he arrive at that figure? Was he aware that as long as the possibility is > 0 then whatever it is WILL necessarily happen given large enough numbers of chances (and the Universe offers many, many, many billions of "chances")

Yes, I still believe that. Now what?

It doesn't matter. Let's move on.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm almost finished posting Chapter One. I told you it's not that long. Then I will answer any questions you may have.

Like I said, peacegirl has little comprehension of what is going on. She is a broken record. (Or perhaps a bot.)

peacegirl, if you are human, get help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People often make mistakes and choose something that doesn't turn out to be the best choice. That doesn't mean they weren't moving in the direction of greater satisfaction...

Yes, it does. That is exactly what it means. They were not moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction, but only (at best) in the direction of greatest expected satisfaction.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter. Let's move on.

peacegirl move on? It is just not possible for her.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm almost finished posting Chapter One. I told you it's not that long. Then I will answer any questions you may have.

I'm not interested in having you answer questions after cutting and pasting. I want you to explain in your own words your own understanding of what you think Lessans is saying so that we might then discuss it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not interested in having you answer questions after cutting and pasting. I want you to explain in your own words your own understanding of what you think Lessans is saying.

Don't hold your breath. peacegirl has a comprehension of that of an average six year old.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's expand directly from Lessans words, peacegirl. He said the chances of the Earth being the way it is without a creator or a Supreme intelligence guiding things is 1 in a Billion, correct?

Okay, so that means if there are 100 billion stars the same size as our sun, that have orbiting planets, as our solar system does, then there are 100 Earthlike planets out there....just by Lessans own reasoning.

And that 100 billion I used? Not even a drop in the ocean compared to what exists in our Universe.

This was not even his writing LadyShea. It was Morrison's writing. Lessans was just responding to what he wrote regarding chance.