Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Darth Crater]

(Sorry if this is a bit long too; I would snip the quotes, but we're on a new page)

The universe is as most of you would agree, expanding. That expansion, is finely tuned at the right speed, to allow life to be sustained. Like stretching a rubber band, if you pull to fast it snaps, if you pull to slow it contracts back into itself. A noted physicist and astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell said “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence.” So the gravitational pull allows the elements to keep their form.

The same is with the electromagnetic force. If that was slightly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom, which would then be unable to combine to form molecules. If it were stronger the electrons would be trapped on the nucleus preventing the chemical reactions between atoms, again resulting in no life. Once again this would require a finely tuned electromagnetic force.
Then there are the nuclear forces that bond the nucleus of the atoms together, if the strength of this force was 2% weaker, then only hydrogen would exist, if it was stronger, the heavier ones could exist but no hydrogen would be found.

In all of those cases, the universe would not be suitable for our form of life. Since conscious life exists, the universe must be in a form where it can support conscious life. This is the Anthropic principle - it is unremarkable that the universe is compatible with us, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here. None of this indicates any designing force being involved.

Is it possible the extremely fine tuning of these forces came about purely by chance? Yes it is possible, but now I want to add one more factor to the equation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here is the definition:
An expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the natural entropic dissolution of the system itself.

Basically when elements are left to themselves, things tend to break down. As a quick example, if you’re a homeowner, you know that you must maintain your house or it will deteriorate, and break down. If left completely alone a bicycle or an automobile will become scrap. In the universe the law applies as well, so if your position is that these forces all came into order by pure chance, why then are they not following the laws of physics? The only answer to this is that the universe as a whole is a highly organized state that came from a highly organized source. Chaos cannot produce and maintain order

-The universe follows the Second Law in the sense that the Second Law describes the way the universe works. There is no "enforcer" of that law, and it the universe does not choose to follow it.
-The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent temporary (read: mere billions of years) ordered structures from arising. In fact, since there are predictable forces acting on the universe, it seems horribly unlikely that ordered structures would not form. The law merely describes the overall end state.
-Chaotic processes absolutely can produce patterns. Roll two 6-sided dice many times, and you'll end up with a bell-curve centered at 7. Place many atoms into a vacuum, and gravity will pull them together into stars.
-Your examples of homes and vehicles are false analogies, because those are not closed systems.

In general - the universe looks exactly as I would expect it to look if it were not designed, and nothing at all like I would expect it to look if it were designed by a being with mental processes equal to or greater than our own. (I speak only of events after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no evidence, so believe whatever you want.)

[Col. Hstar]

In all of those cases, the universe would not be suitable for our form of life. Since conscious life exists, the universe must be in a form where it can support conscious life. This is the Anthropic principle - it is unremarkable that the universe is compatible with us, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here. None of this indicates any designing force being involved.

This is not a scenerio, these are actual facts on our universe. It is suitable for supporting the elements that allow us to live.

-The universe follows the Second Law in the sense that the Second Law describes the way the universe works. There is no "enforcer" of that law, and it the universe does not choose to follow it.
-The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent temporary (read: mere billions of years) ordered structures from arising. In fact, since there are predictable forces acting on the universe, it seems horribly unlikely that ordered structures would not form. The law merely describes the overall end state.

The law does apply to the universe. It shows that the natural tendency for all things is to go back to an unorganized state. Your argument is that the change is happening over billions of years yet now you show no proof that this is the case. The fact that all the forces are tuned to support the existence of the elements we require for life, is one thing. That they deny the laws of physics is another. If evidence is required for this debate you must give proof of why this law doesn't apply. Not "It just doesn't apply" or "it's going to happen over billions of years" since none of us are immortal, you can't possibly prove that without showing that the universe has decayed even slightly.

-Chaotic processes absolutely can produce patterns. Roll two 6-sided dice many times, and you'll end up with a bell-curve centered at 7. Place many atoms into a vacuum, and gravity will pull them together into stars.
-Your examples of homes and vehicles are false analogies, because those are not closed systems.

Chaos can produce order but it cannot maintain it. Since a dice only has six numbers and your talking an unlimited amount of rolls, 12 numbers is hardly chaotic. Atoms in a vacuum create a star yes but then what creates the force of a vacuum? The car and house analogy explains the law in simple terms. Your examples do not encompass the entire law.

In general - the universe looks exactly as I would expect it to look if it were not designed, and nothing at all like I would expect it to look if it were designed by a being with mental processes equal to or greater than our own. (I speak only of events after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no evidence, so believe whatever you want.)

[/quote]
So you assume to know what someone with mental processes greater then yours would think? How is that possible? Or is that an assumption on your part.

[Yanoda]

We'll look at the elements that are vital for us to be alive, carbon, oxygen, and iron.

You have not indicated anything in your post of why, or the reason for mentioning, the elements.

The universe is as most of you would agree, expanding. That expansion, is finely tuned at the right speed, to allow life to be sustained. Like stretching a rubber band, if you pull to fast it snaps, if you pull to slow it contracts back into itself. A noted physicist and astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell said “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence.” So the gravitational pull allows the elements to keep their form.

Please define what it exactly means if the Universe is finely tuned. Current data, observations, research and evidence indicate that the Universe varied expansion rate within the current known age of the Universe. It is Theorized (some evidence and data to back the claim) that the space of the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light (termed inflation) within 10^-30 seconds. After that, the inflation/expansion decreased considerably and we are now observing an increasing rate of expansion. So the claimed assumption that such a minor difference of the speed of the expanding universe is flawed.
Furthermore, Lovell has added theological twists into those cosmological questions. Making an inherent assumption that something exists that created the Universe (i.e. God).
There's also the point left out that if the Universe did not have the necessary conditions life wouldn't have developed, but ignores the fact that the conditions need to present before hand. There can be several Universes that exist (Multiverse) that may have different properties. Of course this is not known for sure.
Other experiments have been conducted that examines if the Universe can be able to support stars on different fundamental parameters (Gravitational Constant, the Fine-Structure Constant and Nuclear Reaction Rate). The experiments indicate that based on these values, the ability of stars to form have a wide range. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3697v1.pdf

Unfortunately, I was not able to find the source for the quotation of Sir Bernard Lovell, no document or journal. Only several Creationist posts in forums that pasted the quote (with some slight variations), could you aid me in finding the document so I can read further into it, thanks.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=167
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=387
http://scienceline.org/2007/07/ask-romero-speedoflight/
https://community.emc.com/people/ble/bl ... ark-energy
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... oblem.html

The same is with the electromagnetic force. If that was slightly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom, which would then be unable to combine to form molecules. If it were stronger the electrons would be trapped on the nucleus preventing the chemical reactions between atoms, again resulting in no life. Once again this would require a finely tuned electromagnetic force.
Then there are the nuclear forces that bond the nucleus of the atoms together, if the strength of this force was 2% weaker, then only hydrogen would exist, if it was stronger, the heavier ones could exist but no hydrogen would be found.

I was unable to find the information you were indicating, mind providing the source?

Is it possible the extremely fine tuning of these forces came about purely by chance? Yes it is possible, but now I want to add one more factor to the equation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here is the definition:
An expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the natural entropic dissolution of the system itself.

Basically when elements are left to themselves, things tend to break down. As a quick example, if you’re a homeowner, you know that you must maintain your house or it will deteriorate, and break down. If left completely alone a bicycle or an automobile will become scrap. In the universe the law applies as well, so if your position is that these forces all came into order by pure chance, why then are they not following the laws of physics? The only answer to this is that the universe as a whole is a highly organized state that came from a highly organized source. Chaos cannot produce and maintain order

As Crater stated, so I have nothing much else to add.

Cheers

Yandoa

[Darth Crater]

This is not a scenerio, these are actual facts on our universe. It is suitable for supporting the elements that allow us to live.

Agreed completely. The universe is capable of supporting our form of life. What I am saying is that this is not in any way special or remarkable.

The law does apply to the universe. It shows that the natural tendency for all things is to go back to an unorganized state. Your argument is that the change is happening over billions of years yet now you show no proof that this is the case. The fact that all the forces are tuned to support the existence of the elements we require for life, is one thing. That they deny the laws of physics is another. If evidence is required for this debate you must give proof of why this law doesn't apply. Not "It just doesn't apply" or "it's going to happen over billions of years" since none of us are immortal, you can't possibly prove that without showing that the universe has decayed even slightly.

The problem here is that you do not have the background to understand what the law actually does or doesn't imply. You're talking about the laws not applying or being defied; whereas that can't even happen (and I certainly wasn't arguing that it was). Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to explain it at the moment. If you know any actual physicists, feel free to have them critique my descriptions of the Second Law so I may improve my understanding.

Chaos can produce order but it cannot maintain it. Since a dice only has six numbers and your talking an unlimited amount of rolls, 12 numbers is hardly chaotic. Atoms in a vacuum create a star yes but then what creates the force of a vacuum? The car and house analogy explains the law in simple terms. Your examples do not encompass the entire law.

Those examples were aimed at defying the notion of "chaos cannot create order", by showing that rules applied to chaotic systems do produce overall order. Do you reject this, and if so, on what grounds?

For the house and car, they are not closed systems. They are impacted by outside factors such as sunlight, rain, and human action. None of these are comparable to "entropy", which is simply energy moving to its equilibrium. In fact, a world at maximum entropy is extremely uniform and ordered...

So you assume to know what someone with mental processes greater then yours would think? How is that possible? Or is that an assumption on your part.

I apologize; I thought I had made it clear that this section was based on my personal judgment of the evidence. You are right that the thought processes of a sufficiently advanced entity are out of my reach to predict. Their works, however, should either be within our comprehension (in which case we should be able to understand something of their operation, and their goal), or not (in which case they are too far out of reach to meaningfully impact our life). I see no evidence of works within our comprehension, and have no need to consider those outside it.

[Col. Hstar]

You have not indicated anything in your post of why, or the reason for mentioning, the elements.

Sigh – Yanoda, I’m tired of having to tell you to read a post and look at it as a whole. Right above my words that you’re quoting was a quote from Crater asking me to give my evidence that there was design in the universe. So in response I took the route of showing that our universe is built to allow the existence of the elements, carbon, oxygen, and iron. All are elements that we as humans require to exist. Please instead of automatically think how your going to knock my next argument, think about what I am saying.

Please define what it exactly means if the Universe is finely tuned.

Fine Tuning
To make small adjustments for optimal performance or effectiveness

Current data, observations, research and evidence indicate that the Universe varied expansion rate within the current known age of the Universe. It is Theorized (some evidence and data to back the claim) that the space of the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light (termed inflation) within 10^-30 seconds. After that, the inflation/expansion decreased considerably and we are now observing an increasing rate of expansion. So the claimed assumption that such a minor difference of the speed of the expanding universe is flawed.

Have you ever blown up a balloon? At first it expands fast, then as it covers more area the rate of expansion appears to slow, but the force going into it does not. That force is what is finely tuned. I am not referring to expansion, but the gravitational force.

Furthermore, Lovell has added theological twists into those cosmological questions. Making an inherent assumption that something exists that created the Universe (i.e. God).
There's also the point left out that if the Universe did not have the necessary conditions life wouldn't have developed, but ignores the fact that the conditions need to present before hand. There can be several Universes that exist (Multiverse) that may have different properties. Of course this is not known for sure.

"Not known for sure" yet you criticize me for making claims that have no basis

Unfortunately, I was not able to find the source for the quotation of Sir Bernard Lovell, no document or journal. Only several Creationist posts in forums that pasted the quote (with some slight variations), could you aid me in finding the document so I can read further into it, thanks.
<snip>
I was unable to find the information you were indicating, mind providing the source?

No problem. It was in a radio program called the Reith Lectures. The broadcast that he gave was entitled: The Individual and the Universe, took me about 30 sec to Google it for you. Of course you are already predisposed to reject him because earlier you said “Lovell has added theological twists into those cosmological questions.”
But just so the record is straight he is a well known and well respected scientist, physicist, and astronomer :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lovell

So I’ve given evidence, instead of addressing it, you want to argue the validity of the sources. I began to see that no evidence is ever going to satisfy you, since you only believe in what Yanoda finds. While I didn't agree with Narg that you have a superiority complex, I can definitely see where that idea comes from.

Agreed completely. The universe is capable of supporting our form of life. What I am saying is that this is not in any way special or remarkable.

Not remarkable? Obviously an opinion you’re entitled to. Not one I agree with

The problem here is that you do not have the background to understand what the law actually does or doesn't imply. You're talking about the laws not applying or being defied; whereas that can't even happen (and I certainly wasn't arguing that it was). Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to explain it at the moment. If you know any actual physicists, feel free to have them critique my descriptions of the Second Law so I may improve my understanding.

Ahh I see. So like Yanoda, nothing I say will mean anything to you. In fact you go further by saying that unless I have the same schooling and intellectual background that you obviously do, I can’t possibly match you in this argument. That’s a very elitist remark, and not one that I am surprised to hear really.

Those examples were aimed at defying the notion of "chaos cannot create order", by showing that rules applied to chaotic systems do produce overall order. Do you reject this, and if so, on what grounds?

I’m not rejecting it. Read my words again please. I said Chaos cannot produce AND maintain order. Two functions. You examples were only geared toward the produce part, show me where it will then maintain that order

I apologize; I thought I had made it clear that this section was based on my personal judgment of the evidence. You are right that the thought processes of a sufficiently advanced entity are out of my reach to predict. Their works, however, should either be within our comprehension (in which case we should be able to understand something of their operation, and their goal), or not (in which case they are too far out of reach to meaningfully impact our life). I see no evidence of works within our comprehension, and have no need to consider those outside it.

Ok so again that’s your opinion.

[Darth Crater]

So I’ve given evidence, instead of addressing it, you want to argue the validity of the sources. I began to see that no evidence is ever going to satisfy you, since you only believe in what Yanoda finds. While I didn't agree with Narg that you have a superiority complex, I can definitely see where that idea comes from.

The validity of a source directly affects the quality of the evidence. Which do you trust most for predicting tomorrow's weather: a computer model, a trained expert looking at radar, one of your classmates, or a groundhog? In any case, he now has the source and can consider the argument in context.

Not remarkable? Obviously an opinion you’re entitled to. Not one I agree with

Start with one basic fact. "I exist." From that, it follows that any conditions necessary for my existence must be true. This is true 100% of the time (actually 100%, not one of those infinitesimals I was talking about earlier), regardless of what the rest of your model says or predicts. The causality goes as (if not "conditions" then not "we exist"); we derive the contrapositive of (if "we exist" then "conditions"). None of this is affected by opinion.

Since we know it must be true, it is therefore uninteresting. If the universe contained only hydrogen, either no life would arise, or hydrogen-based life would be observing that "only hydrogen" was true. The information is only interesting to you if you believe humans are inherently special; that the entire universe was meant for us. Aside from this being colossally arrogant, we have found nothing suggesting that we are particularly unique among the residents of Earth (merely the first to cross the bend on the exponential tech development curve), or that Earth is particularly unique among the planets, or even that our galaxy is particularly unique.

Ahh I see. So like Yanoda, nothing I say will mean anything to you. In fact you go further by saying that unless I have the same schooling and intellectual background that you obviously do, I can’t possibly match you in this argument. That’s a very elitist remark, and not one that I am surprised to hear really.

It is not unreasonable or elitist to expect that you have a basic understanding of the subject you want to debate. I'm attempting to correct misconceptions as they arise, but the more education you receive on a subject, the less that gets in the way of discussing the issues. I will do my best to keep the discussion going, however; I apologize if I've offended or attacked you directly and not your beliefs.

I’m not rejecting it. Read my words again please. I said Chaos cannot produce AND maintain order. Two functions. You examples were only geared toward the produce part, show me where it will then maintain that order.

This discussion has actually made the second law a bit clearer to me, so I'll try to explain. Entropy is not chaos. Entropy is not rot. Entropy is the decrease in available, usable energy in the form of temperature differences. At maximum entropy, everything is the same temperature, and no work can be done. Entropy has nothing to do with the development of ordered structures. The discussions about chaos are ultimately irrelevant, though I don't believe I've said anything untrue about chaotic systems. If anything, the universe is most ordered at maximum entropy - everything is alike, everything is identical, nothing changes.

I was not exactly clear on this earlier in the discussion either, so perhaps we should begin again on the subject of the Second Law. With the understanding that it is not about chaos or order as we know them, in what way do you feel the Second Law implies a designer?

For another explanation, perhaps these articles by a theoretical physicist might help:
What Is Entropy?
Entropy Is Not Disorder

[Col. Hstar]

I was not exactly clear on this earlier in the discussion either, so perhaps we should begin again on the subject of the Second Law. With the understanding that it is not about chaos or order as we know them, in what way do you feel the Second Law implies a designer?

From the way I understand it, the 2nd Law Put simply, states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder. Here is my question and purpose for bringing this law up. How does the universe defy this law.

Energy is needed to turn disorder into order. For example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. What about the universe? The law applies there too. So you might think that the order throughout the universe should give way to complete disorder. Professor of Mathematics Roger Penrose discovered when he studied the state of disorderliness (or, entropy) of the observable universe that it is not falling into disorder.
http://www.eoht.info/page/Roger+Penrose

Astrophysicist Alan Lightman admitted that scientists “find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.” He also said that “any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem” Basically, why hasn't the universe become chaotic

His Book - Ancient Light 1991 pg 63 (You'll have to buy it or get it from the library there is no ebook)
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720 Paragraph 11 is also where I got some of the data about the forces of the universe, in case your still wondering.

So here is my position. If in fact, our existence is contrary to this recognized law, why is it that we are alive here on earth? It's because our universe was created, and has been maintained by a creator. God.

And BTW, I really do like debating these issues, I will though be keeping this section to one post per night as I am spending way too much time on the compy

EDIT: Sorry want to add one more thing into here - As far as the multiverse theory Allan Lightman says this "Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture". A leap of faith for science. perish the thought.

[Darth Crater]

When I said we would be starting over, I intended that we would be keeping things to the idea of entropy, and leaving nebulous terms like "disorder" out of it. The second law does not use the "disorder" meaning of entropy, but rather the "unavailable energy" meaning. Do you understand the science as I explained it to you or in those articles I linked? I'm attempting to establish a baseline so we know we're talking about the same thing, but you insist on bringing the idea of disorder into things and making false analogies to decay. Again: Entropy is not chaos. Entropy is not rot. With the understanding that it is not about chaos or order as we know them, in what way do you feel the Second Law implies a designer? I'll address Penrose after this is settled and I've had time to read on him.

I haven't looked into the single- or multi-universe theories in detail, so I'm not particularly prepared to discuss it. I do not see any problem with that statement, however - Lightman is affirming that the multiverse idea, like any other in science, must make testable predictions. Certainly nothing we've discovered prevents the existence of other universes, and it might simplify some of the quantum mechanics, but it's only useful if we can tell it apart from a single universe.

[Col. Hstar]

When I said we would be starting over, I intended that we would be keeping things to the idea of entropy, and leaving nebulous terms like "disorder" out of it. The second law does not use the "disorder" meaning of entropy, but rather the "unavailable energy" meaning. Do you understand the science as I explained it to you or in those articles I linked? I'm attempting to establish a baseline so we know we're talking about the same thing, but you insist on bringing the idea of disorder into things and making false analogies to decay. Again: Entropy is not chaos. Entropy is not rot. With the understanding that it is not about chaos or order as we know them, in what way do you feel the Second Law implies a designer? I'll address Penrose after this is settled and I've had time to read on him.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the natural entropic dissolution of the system itself.

Don't get hung up on the word Chaos, it fit for simplicities sake but your nit picking the words instead of answering the question. The law does apply to the universe, very notable physicists and scientists agree with this, so please answer the question. Why does the cosmic forces in our universe defy this law of physics? I stated my reason, that a creator has designed it that way. Now it's your turn

[Darth Crater]

Are there any other readers with enough background in this to contribute? I'm fairly certain I'm not getting through to you, Homestar, and I know you're not getting through to me because I read you as claiming the universe violates the Second Law. I'd really appreciate a fresh, informed perspective on this.