Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Terry wrote:

jnhofzinser, what makes you think that a God-created universe must be single or finite?

Terry, I said no such thing. The point was that you thought that an infinity of universes was LESS COMPLEX than a single universe with a deity. Please be so kind as to speak to what I wrote and not what you would prefer me to have written. Otherwise I might insist that you own up to your remarkable lapse in logic. :wink:

Terry wrote:

The universe as we observe it operates on relatively simple physical principles from which complexity arises naturally over time and a very large (if not infinite) volume of space.

No doubt your parroting of official materialist dogma will gain you brownie points with the other "true believers", but as with all religious pronouncements, its veracity does not increase with repetition. Razz

Terry wrote:

...if a designer were responsible...
If there were a creator...
If [a creator is involved]...

A favorite atheist gambit: as if we are in any position to use such preposterous phrases! Exclamation

Terry wrote:

Given two theories about the origin of this universe...

It appears that I am not making myself clear enough. To apply the Razor, we need "two sufficient theories..." My claim is simple: the materialist theory of the origin of this universe is insufficient. Atheist propaganda notwithstanding, the notion that we understand the "how" and the "why" of the universe on the basis of modern physics is a cosmic act of arrogance. Nothing more.

0 Replies

Two thoughts: Occam's razor should not be used to the extent of achieving oversimplication.

And why not use the razor to give God a shave?--to clean up the concept, not to do away with Him altogether. I don't need the notion of God, but a lot of brilliant theologians have worked with the notion constructively, but freed (by means of the razor in part) of all the nonsense seen in populistic fundamentalistic evangelical "relligion."

0 Replies

jnhofzinzer

Arrogant I be, no doubt about it. Smile

Also naive whilst we are at it Exclamation

Throw in a little conceit, a little awareness, and a certain talent for understanding the operations of systems and then you'll have it.

But the second time you show me something in the electro- mechanical structures of the Observable Universe that cannot be reasonably ascribed to natural causes and the interactions there of I will kiss your behind in the middle of Times Square or Picadilly Circus at high noon. You will be encouraged to call a crowd to wit.

But in the interests of fairness I will also allow you a smack if you can show any human action that cannot be shown to have evolved by purely natural means.

You will be famous and I will be privileged to announce it Exclamation

Now what do you want to wager against that Very Happy

. Wagering gets us into the realms of "probabilities" of course Confused

.

Terry, I couldn't have said it better :wink:

0 Replies

jnhofzinser

Ptolemy and Aristotle were not using the mechanics of the universe to attempt to understand it. Their theories only lasted as long as religious (attributing phenomena to unatural causes) methods of thinking held sway over mens minds.

Once somebody actually looked the Ptolemaic Universe disappeared pretty rapidly.

Until I can understand the reasoning behind string and brane theory I will refrain from espousing either. I am a studying on it Exclamation

I used those in that case simply as an example of scale (relatively speaking of course) :wink: .

There is no "WHY" probably-- just "HOW" has to suffice, whether we like it or not. There is no indication that this Universe ever did anything else than happen. We evolved to fit it. Life's like that, sorry Exclamation

0 Replies

Sounds right to me, AMS.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

something in the electro-mechanical structures of the Observable Universe that cannot be reasonably ascribed to natural causes

Let me show you a card trick sometime... Laughing

akaMechsmith wrote:

...any human action that cannot be shown to have evolved by purely natural means.

I suppose you really mean "...any human action for which the folks on talk.origins cannot speculate a far-fetched just-so-story" Rolling Eyes

akaMechsmith wrote:

Now what do you want to wager against that

I have a wad of just-chewed Juicy Fruit here... Razz

akaMechsmith wrote:

Until I can understand the reasoning behind string and brane theory I will refrain from espousing either.

You've shown considerable faith in a theory whose reasoning you find incomprehensible.

Modern physics is a model, folks. It is a model created by humans. As Mechsmith has pointed out earlier in this thread, a creator must be more complex than its creation. Therefore, modern physics is insufficient to create humans. Shocked

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Terry wrote:
jnhofzinser, what makes you think that a God-created universe must be single or finite?

Terry, I said no such thing. The point was that you thought that an infinity of universes was LESS COMPLEX than a single universe with a deity. Please be so kind as to speak to what I wrote and not what you would prefer me to have written. Otherwise I might insist that you own up to your remarkable lapse in logic. :wink:

jnhofzinser wrote:

You want to lean toward g_day's 3) or 4), which necessarily multiply the complexity of the multiverse by an infinity, but somehow you consider that to be LESS complex than a single universe with a deity. Hilarious.

[Emphasis added]You compared a single universe with a deity to an infinite multiverse. That certainly implied that you think a God-created universe is single and finite.

Terry wrote:

As I said, the addition of a supernatural deity (generally said to have the attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience) makes a given universe more complex than the same universe without a God.

Note that I did not compare a multiverse without a God to a single universe with a God. My point was that GIVEN TWO IDENTICAL UNIVERSES, the one with a God is more complex. You really need to get that log out of your eye that seems to be blocking text you don't want to see. :wink: Now, back to the question: If God had sufficient reason to create the billions of galaxies that we observe, how do you know whether he created a single universe or a multiverse? If he created a multiverse, then the multiverse with a God is more complex than the same multiverse without a god.

Quote:

No doubt your parroting of official materialist dogma will gain you brownie points with the other "true believers", but as with all religious pronouncements, its veracity does not increase with repetition.

It didn't take you long to resort to ad hominem remarks instead of addressing the issues under discussion. Sorry, here at A2K you get no points for evading questions.

Quote:

Terry wrote:
...if a designer were responsible...
If there were a creator...
If [a creator is involved]...

A favorite atheist gambit: as if we are in any position to use such preposterous phrases!

A favorite theist gambit: If you can't counter the argument, try using ridicule to change the focus. Since I don't happen to be an atheist, you only demonstrate your own ignorance by pretending that I am.

Why do you think that we are in no position to consider what the world should be like if there is indeed a creator? Are you really so browbeaten by your God that you cannot even think about the questions I posed, let alone try to come up with rational answers? Twisted Evil

Quote:

Terry wrote:
Given two theories about the origin of this universe...

It appears that I am not making myself clear enough. To apply the Razor, we need "two sufficient theories..." My claim is simple: the materialist theory of the origin of this universe is insufficient. Atheist propaganda notwithstanding, the notion that we understand the "how" and the "why" of the universe on the basis of modern physics is a cosmic act of arrogance. Nothing more.

Theist propaganda notwithstanding, "materialist" theories of how the universe evolved are more than sufficiently detailed although still incomplete in some areas. Precise measurements of the CMBR, sky surveys that catalog millions of stars and galaxies, accelerators to show how particles behave, gravitational probes, and countless other experiments have given scientists a very good idea of how the universe works. Why is another question, which theists cannot answer either except by saying, "God did it for his own reasons which we cannot know."

Since the theistic theory of how the universe began is simply: "God created the universe, by magic, out of nothing, in six days. Period." I don't know how anyone who subscribes to that "theory" could sit there with a straight face and claim that the scientific theory is "insufficient." Laughing

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Modern physics is a model, folks. It is a model created by humans. As Mechsmith has pointed out earlier in this thread, a creator must be more complex than its creation. Therefore, modern physics is insufficient to create humans.

[sigh] No one said that "modern physics" created human beings. The existence of the universe (which has evolved since the big bang in accordance with physical laws discovered by physicists and other scientists) allowed the evolution of life by means of mutation and natural selection, one species of which happens to be us.

A Creator requires only enough complexity to envision its creation and a way to accomplish it. It does not have to be more complex than its product; for instance it can build a machine that will design and build more complex machines. Simple natural laws can produce complex organisms without ever needing form an intention, plan a course of action, or strive to achieve its non-existent goals. Life just happens.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

The universe is not particularly complex. It is just big (relatively speaking ). The laws that govern all physical interactions are relatively simple but they are (perhaps) infinitely repeated.

Hi Mech.

Good point. The universe contains vast quantities of basic particles and energy that appear complex because they've had billions of years to form some interesting patterns. But its probably all just vibrating strings when you get down to the fundamental level.

0 Replies

JLN, science has been trimming God's beard for a couple of centuries now. Perhaps someday soon we will have enough shaved off to see his face. What if we find out that there is no one behind the curtain of hair?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

That certainly implied that you think a God-created universe is single and finite.

False. Rather, it expresses the fact that you must allow the possibility to apply the Razor. (basic logic, anyone?)

Terry wrote:

Note that I did not compare a multiverse without a God to a single universe with a God.

Indeed you did. You preferred g_day's 3/4) (a multiverse) to g_day's 1) (a single universe with a God)! Don't try to weasel out of it.

Terry wrote:

My point was that GIVEN TWO IDENTICAL UNIVERSES

And my point, which you have been steadfastly ignoring (evading, anyone? :wink:) is that the two hypothesized universes are by no means identical. What would you say to an enthusiastic Newton accolyte, were he to come back from the grave and dismiss relativity and quantum mechanics on the basis of Occam's Razor? Would you not (gently, I hope) demonstrate to him the insufficiency of Newtonian physics? And wouldn't he fight it? Well, I'm in the same situation. Modern physics is insufficient to explain humanity. Humanity is part of the universe. Hence, modern physics is insufficient to explain the universe.

Terry wrote:

It didn't take you long to resort to ad hominem remarks

My remarks were not ad hominem. Apparently, taken as such, they did expose a raw hypocritical nerve. (And no, that isn't ad hominem, either -- elsewhere I wrote, and I maintain, that hypocrisy is a human universal and it requires external eyes to expose our own -- I will be grateful if and when you return the favor).

Terry wrote:

...if a designer were responsible...
If there were a creator...
If [a creator is involved]...
...try using ridicule to change the focus. Since I don't happen to be an atheist, you only demonstrate your own ignorance by pretending that I am.

I did not pretend that you were. I said the gambit was a favorite of atheists (really, Terry, it is getting tiresome constantly bringing you back to basic logic). And frankly, there can be nothing so ridiculous as creatures using the phrase "if there were a creator". Here's one for you (hypocrisy noted): "if there were a creator, s/he would be so vast and unfathomable that we could not speculate (i.e., use the phrase "if there were a creator") on what his/her existence needs entail!"

Terry wrote:

you cannot even think about the questions I posed

I can and I do. However, most of the (many!) question you posed are outside the current thread (on Occam's Razor). Feel free to start a new thread with a narrow focus (a requirement, btw), and invite me. I'll come.

Terry wrote:

"materialist" theories of how the universe evolved are more than sufficiently detailed although still incomplete in some areas.

What kind of double-talk is that?

BTW, in future, I will only respond to single points (if that means "evading" other points, so be it). I do not have the time or inclination to do justice to your buck-shot approach. If you would like to return the favor, please address the only point that I have been making from the beginning: humanity transcends our "relatively simple" models, rendering Occam's Razor inapplicable to the current universe. (warning: my career has been [and my Ph.D. would have been if such a field were available back then] in Modern Cognitive Science, so you can't intimidate my with "we're just a bunch of neural networks" BS)

If you like, I'll also respond to (brief Razz

) comments on real/apparent complexity, as that is a fascinating topic and germane to the current thread. Could I propose entropy as an appropriate measure of "real" complexity (and yes, I appreciate how perilously close that brings us to the oft-abused Second Law referred to above)?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

A Creator requires only enough complexity to envision its creation and a way to accomplish it. It does not have to be more complex than its product; for instance it can build a machine that will design and build more complex machines.

You can take that one up with Mechsmith. I'll watch Very Happy

Terry wrote:

Simple natural laws can produce complex organisms Life just happens.

I challenge you to prove it without:
a) begging the question (i.e., "it happened, so it happens")!
b) dismissing me as a creationist
c) appealing to the "authority" of any one of a miriad of evolutionary bandwagon jumpers.

If you can prove it under the above conditions, I'll be happy to declare you the winner and eat crow publicly in a manner of your choice. If you cannot, you must admit that your comment above is simply an article of your faith. Then, you must publicly apologize for accusing me of ad hominem tactics: by flagging articles of faith as such, I am simply requiring that you be more honest. This should be fun!

0 Replies

Terry

I'm betting that we'll get a charge out of it, one way or another :wink:

jnhofzinser

I remarked "scale" remember.

On the scale with which we are familiar a meter represents about 1/300,000,000 of a second of space time. But as of yet there is no reason to think that the scale with which we are familiar is the only one around. Brane and string theories are an attempt to find out and define other scales should they exist, much as your theory is an attempt to find out and define a superior scale of intelligence(s) should they exist. Smile

I think it a fair subject for polite conjecture and may I point out that neither theory has much to do with observation as of yet.

Perhaps someday you will find and describe a superior intelligence, and perhaps someday someone will find and describe another dimension. But I am willing to make the wager that you won't. Since all you wish to wager is used chewing gum I suspect that down deep you have not the courage of your convictions. Sad

But neither theory has (IMHO) satisfactorily been related to observations yet. Personally I am fairly well satisfied with the "Quarks to Cosmos" scale that we perceive.

Re "card tricks", jn, There is a bridge between Manhatten and Brooklyn that you could make a lot of money off. I'll sell it to you, Give you a quit claim deed and everything. You want it

:wink:

Remarking on the jumping around, wishing to confine one post to one question and one answer. I'm all for it but since proof is difficult may I suggest that we use "show" as a standard of proof. Some time ago we tried to use "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof but that didn't work so well either.

Idea

SO, I would ask can you SHOW that OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE is unnatural; ie, a product of superior intelligence.

Idea

OR, you may fairly ask me or Terry if we can SHOW that OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE is natural; ie, a product of predictable interactions.

It would also be fair if one pointed to the observations, not necessarily the authority, which tend to support a conclusion.

Perhaps another thread would be indicated. Very Happy

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

I am willing to make the wager that you won't [find a higher intelligence].

One certainly far smarter than either of us wagered just the opposite. In fact, it might very well be the most famous wager of all time. No doubt you are familiar?

akaMechsmith wrote:

Personally I am fairly well satisfied with the "Quarks to Cosmos" scale that we perceive.

Before you get too satisfied, consider the incredible leap (including faith) between quarks and humanity (not some abstract biological humanity, either, but the self-aware humanity that debates philosophy over the internet) by natural selection. As one with a "certain talent for understanding the operations of systems", you don't find this gap a trifle disconcerting?

akaMechsmith wrote:

Some time ago we tried to use "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof

Funny, I don't recall. I do remember proof by dogma...

akaMechsmith wrote:

SO, I would ask can you SHOW that OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE is unnatural;

The point is NOT that the observable universe is unnatural (in fact, one could make a good case that your request is question-begging, as a working definition of "natural" is "shown to conform to the observable universe" Rolling Eyes

). The point is that our models are woefully insufficient to explain the observable universe. Namely, people. Children in particular. Do you have any children? Do you spend time with them? Are you aware that many of the folk who represent your position actually pretend that there is only a difference of "scale" between children and computers??? Have you any concept of how asinine this position is? Do you have any appreciation for how primitive our "sciences" of learning, understanding, cognition and consciousness are? (sorry, there's my hypocrisy again: I am perturbed at Terry for projecting some position onto me, while there I go projecting a position onto you). Strangely enough, when people are involved, the question "how" becomes considerably less interesting and the question "why" dominates. (Check my signature line Smile

)

Regarding this thread: Occam's Razor is inapplicable until the "null hypothesis" (i.e., the current theories of a materialistic universe: modern physics and biology) is sufficient to explain the children. It ain't. It ain't close.

If you would like to start another thread, I would be willing to discuss the human universal that is faith. The question is not if we exercise faith or not, the question is where we put that faith. I look forward to it.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser,
Since there is more than one comment here --One at a time from the top Exclamation

1st, Are you speaking of the Devil and Sam Brown, by Mark Twain.
or of the quest of St. Francis for a prime mover Question

Perhaps you are speaking of Lot and the circumstances by which he found himself widowed?

2nd, Actually not much of a leap, just a whole bunch of little steps.

3rd,I wouldn't expect you to recall as you were not at that discussion. I merely reported it for your edification.

4th, Natural as opposed to divine. Yes I have children and grandchildren. My delight in them is not disturbed simply because I understand that they are the result of natural processes.

5th, I beg to differ.

6th, Describe "Faith".

Have a good evening. Think hard Smile

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Are you speaking of ...

You're joking, right? As someone fond of the occasional wager, you ought to be a little more familiar with the father of probability theory (and incidentally, the creator of the first digital calculator) himself, Blaise Pascal 1623-1662. Clever guy. Genius, really. Said some neat stuff, too...

"Men despise [Christianity]. They hate it, being afraid it may be true. The cure for this is to show that it is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence...because it really understands human nature." (350 years ahead of his time, he anticipates the only "final frontier" worthy of the title: human nature. You can wager that science will eventually "crack that nut" if you like -- I'll bet against you. Both wagers represent acts of faith.)

"Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that."

Pascal's famous wager involves the choice between "betting on God", for which there is the potential of huge gain against little (no?) loss, and "betting against God" for which there is the potential of huge loss against little (no?) gain. Pascal correctly points out that the risk function being what it is, the "winning" choice is apparent.

Ah, delightful topic. Thanks for bringing it up :wink:

(almost? one topic at a time as promised, if a little late. Laughing

By all means choose a different comment to continue with, btw)

akaMechsmith wrote:

Have a good evening.

Thanks. You, too.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Terry wrote:
Quote:
That certainly implied that you think a God-created universe is single and finite.

False. Rather, it expresses the fact that you must allow the possibility to apply the Razor. (basic logic, anyone?)

The universe is what it is, regardless of whether a God created it. It may be single and finite. It may be infinite or only one of a multitude of universes. In any case, I would expect a created universe to be more complex because a Creator would not be constrained by the limits of unalterable physical laws acting on a few basic kinds of matter and energy.

Quote:

Terry wrote:
Quote:
Note that I did not compare a multiverse without a God to a single universe with a God.

Indeed you did. You preferred g_day's 3/4) (a multiverse) to g_day's 1) (a single universe with a God)! Don't try to weasel out of it.

Is English a second language for you? You seem to be missing the nuances of what people say here. As I said in answer to a comment by g___day, I lean toward an infinite multiverse without a God. G___day leans toward a multiverse or the M-theory variant of infinite universes/infinite time, with a limited God for either option. I don't know where you came up with the idea that the complexity of a multiverse was being compared to that of a single universe.

Quote:

And my point, which you have been steadfastly ignoring (evading, anyone? ) is that the two hypothesized universes are by no means identical.

My point (which you have been steadfastly ignoring) is that a created universe might not be any less complex than an evolved one.

A created universe has the potential to be infinitely more complex than one with the limited configurations provided by haphazard conjunctions of particles. It could have complex equations governing its processes, variable physical laws, every species individually designed, and a God with an observable presence. Alternately, a creator COULD have made the simplest system possible, but the billions of galaxies we see rules out that theory.

We do not (and probably cannot ever) know whether other universes exist beyond this one. So if we consider this universe alone, how do you think that a created universe would differ from an uncreated one? Consider that a creator (presumably omnipresent) is necessarily a part of the universe and therefore adds its own complexity to the equation.

Quote:

Modern physics is insufficient to explain humanity. Humanity is part of the universe. Hence, modern physics is insufficient to explain the universe.

As I said, physics alone does not explain humanity. It also takes chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, and all of the other sciences. Exactly what do you think is inexplicable about humanity? Many people make the mistake of assuming that because they can't understand something, no one else can either.

Quote:

My remarks were not ad hominem. Apparently, taken as such, they did expose a raw hypocritical nerve.

The use of deliberatly insulting language in an attempt to anger your opponent or start an arguement about words instead of substance or who dissed whom is indeed ad hominem. I did respond in kind in an attempt to show you how that style of posting comes across. Perhaps you simply do not realize how provocative your words were. If you are not a native speaker of English I will give you some leeway here.

Quote:

And frankly, there can be nothing so ridiculous as creatures using the phrase "if there were a creator". Here's one for you (hypocrisy noted): "if there were a creator, s/he would be so vast and unfathomable that we could not speculate (i.e., use the phrase "if there were a creator") on what his/her existence needs entail!"

That makes no sense. Of course we can speculate about a creator or anything else we can imagine: whether it has attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, perfection, emotions, intelligence, or a desire to be loved and worshiped. Since we cannot know what a creator would be like (if such a being even exists), all beliefs about gods are just speculation. We can also speculate about the attributes of vampires, ghosts and aliens.

I guess the main reason that I doubt the existence of a creator is that that life is a kludge: inefficiently programmed DNA that is mostly junk, inelegant design, and lessons learned from one species are not applied to others. Celestial bodies from asteroids to galaxies crash into each other. Black holes gobble up star systems. No decent engineer created this universe, but perhaps God is a dilettante.

Quote:

However, most of the (many!) question you posed are outside the current thread (on Occam's Razor).

Threads often digress, and sometimes the digressions are more interesting than the original topic.

Quote:

Terry wrote:
Quote:
"materialist" theories of how the universe evolved are more than sufficiently detailed although still incomplete in some areas.

What kind of double-talk is that?

Sufficiently detailed to give us a general idea of how the universe and intelligent life evolved, with ongoing research to refine our ideas about some of the processes (such as the first fraction of a second after the big bang and what caused some of the mass extinctions).

Quote:

BTW, in future, I will only respond to single points (if that means "evading" other points, so be it). I do not have the time or inclination to do justice to your buck-shot approach.

Sorry, I only post when I have some free time so I need to make all of my points at once. Feel free to respond to them one at a time at your leisure.

Quote:

If you would like to return the favor, please address the only point that I have been making from the beginning: humanity transcends our "relatively simple" models, rendering Occam's Razor inapplicable to the current universe.

In what way do you think humanity transcends physical laws? BTW, my degree is in mechanical engineering but I have read a few books about consciousness (Susan Blackmore, Antonio Damasio).

I guess the main reason that I doubt the existence of a creator is that that we do not transcend physical laws and life is a kludge: inefficiently programmed DNA that is mostly junk, inelegant design, and lessons learned from one species are not applied to others. Celestial bodies from asteroids to galaxies crash into each other. Black holes gobble up star systems. No decent engineer created this universe, but perhaps God is a dilettante.

Entropy is not really a measure of complexity so much as a measure of unusable energy. Yes, calculating the degrees of freedom of all of the molecules and the information needed to specify the exact state of a system is complex, but I do not see how that would distinguish an intelligently designed universe from a randomly evolved one. Either way, entropy increases over time - at least that's what we currently observe. A big crunch or a collision of branes might reset the counter to zero.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Terry wrote:
Simple natural laws can produce complex organisms Life just happens.

I challenge you to prove it without:
a) begging the question (i.e., "it happened, so it happens")!
b) dismissing me as a creationist
c) appealing to the "authority" of any one of a miriad of evolutionary bandwagon jumpers.

If you can prove it under the above conditions, I'll be happy to declare you the winner and eat crow publicly in a manner of your choice. If you cannot, you must admit that your comment above is simply an article of your faith. Then, you must publicly apologize for accusing me of ad hominem tactics: by flagging articles of faith as such, I am simply requiring that you be more honest. This should be fun!

Presumably you agree that atoms form, stars burn, planets coalesce, and amino acids form and link together in accordance with natural laws.

We do not know exactly how life on earth began, but there are many ideas and research is continually discovering clues to the original process of abiogenesis. There are no steps that are known to be impossible without the interference of a creator. No divine presence is observed when cells divide, DNA mutates randomly, and natural selection generates diverse species. It took billions of years for simple cells to evolve into complex ones, as expected for natural evolution but inexplicable if a creator took that long. The hand of God is not apparent anywhere on earth, and IMO, if God deliberately created the diseases and parasites which plague humans and animals, he is a cruel and sadistic monster.

I don't know what you would consider "proof" but if you would like more details about any of the processes, I can PM scientific sources and links to you.

Now, I challenge you to prove that any complex organism on earth required a Creator for its existence without:
1) begging the question (it didn't happen without God, so God did it.)
2) dismissing me or scientific researchers as atheists
3) appealing to the "authority" of the Bible (or any other scripture) or IDers and creationists.

0 Replies

Mech, I suppose that you are referring to ican's interminable series of threads on Abuzz. He was certainly determined to use his own standards of proof (and acronyms), and I doubt if he ever did really understand probability. Let's hope that they won't be repeated here!

0 Replies

Terry: chill, girl.

Choose a sub-topic -- a single one. If it is interesting, I'll play.

May I suggest:
- real/apparent complexity (which will let you off at least one of those hooks), and your dismissal of entropy is accepted. Please propose another measure of complexity.
- the [dogma/faith]/[evidence/reason] continuum (I predict you'll pass on this one).
- what constitutes proof
- the manifold ways in which humanity transcends our models of nature (NOT natural laws -- we cannot proceed with this one unless you are capable of making this distinction)

You choose. Or propose another. As you wish.

regards, nepo

0 Replies

Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know