BookTalk.org

The ad hoc assumption is this:

Rewind to T= 0, the theory of evolution predicts the inevitable rise of consciousness.

To say that it would is an assumption, not a theoretical law.

The algorithm would be the same???
Bull effin crap.

ant wrote:The algorithm would be the same???
Bull effin crap.

Why wouldn't it be? The algorithm is what makes evolution work.

ant wrote:Rewind to T= 0, the theory of evolution predicts the inevitable rise of consciousness.

Inevitable? Not at all. There are many things that could have wiped out life on our planet for good. A well aimed scouring blast from a supernova, or a meteor hitting us just right to knock us out of the goldilocks zone.

Hmm. Unless you mean inevitable in the sense that with infinite time, a habitable planet where abiogenesis has occurred will lead to consciousness. With infinite time, the probability is inevitable. But that's not a prediction the theory of evolution makes, unless I've missed something.

geo wrote:Based on the first three sections, I would argue that Carrier's thesis is very confused and suffers from a lack of focus.

I saw structure to it, but I agree that he spends way to much time arguing against religion.

geo wrote:Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be.

He stated clearly that his worldview was based on philosophy. He rambled about it for a while in the beginning of the book. Does he say something different further in?

Infinite time making evolution inevitable?
That is an ad hoc assumption to assist an anything can happen scenario.

The truth of infinite time has not been established scientifically.
Is this where the naturalist gets to retreat into metaphysics to win an argument?

Organisms are free to develop in many different directions.
Rewinding the clock would more than likely result in organisms developing differently with the possibility of tiny variations in play again, right?

What specific algorithmic model predicts organisms would develop the same way if the clock was set to zero again?

Its obvious the mechanism of evolution worked. Its unclear how it got started, but it worked. For us at least and not some poor extinct species.
The dinosaurs' obliteration helped a lot too or you might have had a tyrannosaurus head right now.

the theory of evolution explains how life evolved on earth. But is it a law?
Science seeks to uncover physical laws of nature. Does it not?
I say evolution is NOT a law of nature, like, say, gravity.

Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be.

Its impossible.
Thats why philosophy is not dead yet like some scientists say it is and why its Carrier's religion of choice.
Carrier dresses up most of his worldview as being empirically scientific. But its clearly not.
His is a wager that science is the only source of true knowledge and that it will provide answers to all future questions.
You know the saying about putting all your eggs in one basket, right?

Quote; Richard Carrier; "Still, both of the multiverse theories described above make a lot of sense of the idea that there was a beginning,a first moment of random chaos, which spawned, a tiny simple universe......."

And; " For the whole thing (the multiverse) just exists changeless and eternal."

O.k, Let's see if I can pick the mercury up with my fork this time.

Question 1; Did Richard's life have a beginning? A1; Yes of course it did,are you nuts or something?

Q2; Has Richard existed eternally? A;2 Why no,he came into existence some years ago, and happily is not an advanced model of Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Q3; Did our universe have a beginning? A3;Multiverse theories I kinda like, make a lot of sense of the idea that there was a beginning, I think I hear Richard say.
Q4; Did this really real multiverse exist eternally then? A4; Not a chance.
Q5; Why not? A5; Because it had a beginning, You're trying my patience here.

Objection; But if I could invoke a particular theory of time,couldn't this make Richard and the multiverse eternally existent? Answer; No it could not, because they both had a beginning.

Conclusion; Richard Carrier's belief that it could, is a useful fiction produced by his brain, to obscure certain unfortunate problems with his ideas, that exist in the real world.
Hawking and Krauss at least recognise that there is a real problem to solve. How do you naturalistically get something from nothing?
Carrier thinks that by shoveling the problem back via the multiverse to a first moment of random chaos he doesn't have to explain naturalistically how this random chaos and it's properties and constituents naturalistically emerged from nothing.
He thinks he can just wave the magic wand of his time theory and abolish nothing. Problem solved.
But if this is a process where time and space come into existence, and is measurable scientifically by expansion and every scientific indicator of times arrow then it is simply denial of evidence to pretend no problem exists.

Interbane wrote:

geo wrote:Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be.

He stated clearly that his worldview was based on philosophy. He rambled about it for a while in the beginning of the book. Does he say something different further in?

I guess what bugs me is that Carrier's worldview is to a large extent formulated as a reaction to prevailing Christian beliefs. I remember from the days of arguing with a certain Young Earth Creationist that I began to think in the same kinds of terms. For example, I would read about some aspect of evolution and I would start to wonder how the YECer would deny such and such evidence? In other words, I became so wrapped up in my continuing arguments with the YECer that I forgot to enjoy science for its own sake, as a pursuit of knowledge. It's pretty clear that a large group of our population will always need God. Instead of discussing this psychological need, Carrier continues to argue from a rational, logical angle with respect to beliefs that are emotional-based.

But anyway Carrier does suggest in the opening paragraphs that everyone's worldview should be based on the evidence. Here's what he says:

Carrier wrote:Many people call their philosophy a “Religion.” But that does not excuse them from their responsibility as philosophers. You either have a coherent, sensible, complete philosophy that is well-supported by all the evidence that humans have yet mustered, or you do not. Yet most people cannot even tell you which of those two camps their religion, their philosophy, is in. Hardly anyone has spent a single serious moment exploring their philosophy of life. Far fewer have made any significant effort to get it right.

I would suggest that only a very small percentage of the population has taken the time to develop a coherent worldview/philosophy. Carrier makes a good point here, but to him the only coherent worldview is one that is like his. I would disagree. There are emotional/spiritual/poetic dimensions of life that don't rely on evidence. Much of the annoyance comes from Carrier's obvious agenda to be right and religion wrong. It gets old for me. But for the most part I'm really enjoying Carrier's book as an overview of philosophy and some obviously speculative areas of science. That aspect at least is very interesting.

ant wrote:Infinite time making evolution inevitable?
That is an ad hoc assumption to assist an anything can happen scenario.

You get points for trying ant. It's not an ad hoc assumption because evolution has already lead to consciousness. We know this happened.

ant wrote:The truth of infinite time has not been established scientifically.
Is this where the naturalist gets to retreat into metaphysics to win an argument?

I don't get you. No, an infinite window of time for life to evolve is impossible. It has nothing to do with the eternalist version of time. I was playing along with your hypothetical scenario, using intellectual humility in trying to figure out what you wanted. Notice my first answer was that the rise of consciousness is not inevitable, because the evolutionary timeframe is limited.

ant wrote:What specific algorithmic model predicts organisms would develop the same way if the clock was set to zero again?

me wrote:The evolutionary algorithm would be the same. The path could have been different.

Try understanding first, replying second.

ant wrote:the theory of evolution explains how life evolved on earth. But is it a law?
Science seeks to uncover physical laws of nature. Does it not?
I say evolution is NOT a law of nature, like, say, gravity.

You're right. It may be a fact, but it's not a law.

ant wrote:His is a wager that science is the only source of true knowledge and that it will provide answers to all future questions.

He lists a number of methods that are the source of knowledge, and logic is at the top.

Hawking and Krauss at least recognise that there is a real problem to solve. How do you naturalistically get something from nothing?
Carrier thinks that by shoveling the problem back via the multiverse to a first moment of random chaos he doesn't have to explain naturalistically how this random chaos and it's properties and constituents naturalistically emerged from nothing.

Did Carrier actually say he believes the universe had a finite beginning, where something came from nothing? I'd like to see this, because he had me under the impression he believe in an eternalist version of time.

Not that it make the worldview untenable. For Hawking and Krauss, do they believe in an eternalist universe because they'd rather avoid the problem of showing how something came from nothing?

Again, I'm okay with both an eternalist and finite version. I don't know how you'd naturalistically get something from nothing. I wouldn't pretend to know. I also wouldn't pretend to know if there truly are infinite universes stretching across time eternally. I like the elegance of CIT, and I'd like to see progress in that area. I'd say that's my favorite. I also think it explains the apparent fine-tuning than Robert's appeal to necessity.

But if this is a process where time and space come into existence, and is measurable scientifically by expansion and every scientific indicator of times arrow then it is simply denial of evidence to pretend no problem exists.

If the universe truly did come from nothing, we wouldn't be able to understand it nor gain evidence of how it happened, even if we could track the evidence back to the picosecond it happened. For the time being, you could accept it as a simplistic brute fact. It's a brute fact with less ad hoc assumptions than the idea a supreme intelligence magicked something from nothing. I have ten thousand questions, all of which would lead to absurd ad hoc assumptions. If something coming from nothing is ridiculous, the idea of a god is moreso, if for no other reason than it doesn't solve the original problem.

Interbane wrote:Did Carrier actually say he believes the universe had a finite beginning, where something came from nothing? I'd like to see this, because he had me under the impression he believe in an eternalist version of time.

Carrier uses eternalism, in my opinion, to evade the something from nothing problem. Krauss and Hawking don't because they use the standard model. Carrier thinks the multiverse solves the singularity problem, and eternalism does away with the something from nothing problem. He shovels the problem back, but nothing has really changed in terms of something from nothing still being a problem. He just seems to think it has,or prefers to. Take your pick.

geo wrote: I guess what bugs me is that Carrier's worldview is to a large extent formulated as a reaction to prevailing Christian beliefs.

Flann 5 wrote:

Interbane wrote:Did Carrier actually say he believes the universe had a finite beginning, where something came from nothing? I'd like to see this, because he had me under the impression he believe in an eternalist version of time.

Carrier uses eternalism, in my opinion, to evade the something from nothing problem. Krauss and Hawking don't because they use the standard model. Carrier thinks the multiverse solves the singularity problem, and eternalism does away with the something from nothing problem. He shovels the problem back, but nothing has really changed in terms of something from nothing still being a problem. He just seems to think it has,or prefers to. Take your pick.
I agree with what you say Geo, about the reactionary aspect of his book.Unfortunately, it doesn't incline me to let him off the hook when I think he gets sloppy in his attempts to downgrade theism, and upgrade his theories.
I'll probably move on to his determinism soon but I doubt this will change things much. I don't especially want to ruin others reading of the book.
It is what it is,and that prompts reactions it's likely to get too.

If you're looking for an open issue at the ultimate end of a worldview, there will always be at least one. It's not as if this is a mark against the worldview. Consider the idea that a god created the universe. There are more issues than the idea of something coming from nothing.

In a single big bang universe, you have to accept the brute fact that something came from nothing. Many people accept this. The "problem" of something coming from nothing doesn't mean the worldview isn't truthful. It just means there's an unanswered question.

In an eternal universe, the "problem" is providing evidence for other hypothetical universes. The problem isn't that something came from nothing, because the universe is eternal. Again, this problem doesn't mean the worldview isn't truthful.

In both cases, the position is understood to be agnostic. We don't know, but we accept the brute fact so that we have a framework within which to explore further hypotheses.

Here is an excerpt from an article in New Scientist:

"There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," [Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally. This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole.

Even so, there is an even more mind-blowing consequence of the idea that something can come from nothing: perhaps nothingness itself cannot exist.

Here's why. Quantum uncertainty allows a trade-off between time and energy, so something that lasts a long time must have little energy. To explain how our universe has lasted for the billions of years that it has taken galaxies to form, solar systems to coalesce and life to evolve into bipeds who ask how something came from nothing, its total energy must be extraordinarily low.

That fits with the generally accepted view of the universe's early moments, which sees space-time undergoing a brief burst of expansion immediately after the big bang. This heady period, known as inflation, flooded the universe with energy. But according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, more space-time also means more gravity. Gravity's attractive pull represents negative energy that can cancel out inflation's positive energy - essentially constructing a cosmos for nothing.

"I like to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch," says Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT who came up with the inflation theory 30 years ago.

Source: New Scientist, July 23, 2011