Chance is not a creative force.

Discussion in 'Science' started by bricklayer, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I chanced across it and decided to reply....
     
  2. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually you're way overselling it. Chance is nothing more than a placeholder for ignorance. The laws of probability are codified to draw a border between what we know and what we don't.
     
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I replied in the other thread.
    Just want to say thank you for bring that other thread to our attention because what we have now are two entirely conflicting statements from the OP.

    If the OP does not believe that chance exists but then argues that chance has attributes like randomness even if they are "not creative" that exposes confusion that needs to be clarified before it can be objectively determined.

    Chance is defined as the possibility/probability/likelihood of something occurring absent any known cause.

    The more we know about causes the lower the odds of chance being a factor but, as @Meta777 has so eloquently argued above, while it can be minimized it can never be entirely eliminated.

    With that as a basis the concept of chance playing a role in evolution can be evaluated. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to look at how we have taken advantage of the chance factor in evolution and used it for our own ends via selective breeding of crops and animals.

    Whichever subject you pick within selective breeding you see the same evolutionary factor of chance as the underlying mechanism. If you wanted to grow a potato that is the same size as a loaf of bread then you would select only the mutated potatoes that grew the largest to seed the next crop and keep on doing thus until you achieved what you wanted. Out of each new crop you would not be able to randomly pick which would be the largest mutation and it would only be by chance if you got it right. However once you know the fully grown size outcome and you selectively seed only the largest mutations you have eliminated that chance through knowledge.

    The evolutionary chance factor was not altered and still exists in all of the loaf sized potatoes just as it did in the original potatoes. The only difference between our selective breeding and what occurs naturally are the environmental changes that favor some chance mutations over others.

    From the above we have determined that the role that chance plays in evolution is beneficial for survivors. This same evolutionary chance factor has resulted in the creation of a wide variety of life forms to suit every potential environment on the planet from microscopic to macroscopic. This brings us to the difference between the terms creative and creation. Evolution is responsible for the creation of the variety of life around us. Evolution, per se, was not "creative" in doing so because this all happened via chance rather than intentionally.

    In summary evolutionary chance is responsible for the creation of the abundance of life on our planet.

    Disclaimer: Evolution has nothing whatsoever to with the ORIGIN of life on this planet. That is an entirely different discussion.
     
  4. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Possibly, but think its more complicated than that. Firstly the laws of probability play a fundamental role in quantum mechanics. They are also widely used tools in all sorts of different fields of endeavor both scientific and commercial. And they really don't tell us what we 'know' they just give us the likelihood of a particular outcome.

    Also with regards to the earlier comments about the difficulty computers have generating pure random numbers. This is a real issue impacting on things like cryptography. It also why even supercomputers have problems analyzing complex natural systems with high levels of internal randomness - hence the degree of inaccuracy in modern weather forecasts even with the best computers available.

    Nature is very good at generating random numbers and events digital computers not so much. If I recall this in part is due to the fact that they are closed digital systems and we do not live in a digital universe. Quantum computers however hold out the prospect of being very good at dealing with randomness.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
  5. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you suppose, based on our current knowledge, that living beings, intelligent or not, only exist on planet Earth?

    Why do so many people continue to believe the Earth is flat? Obviously 'all people' do not make the same observations.

    Lastly, I'm guessing if it was possible to test a human being who possesses no education, no exposure to knowledge, no preconditioning whatsoever, this human would not know the difference between an arrowhead and a rock other than shape. The design of an arrowhead, and it's subsequent use, is a learned behavior...
     
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's hoping we all mark the difference between that and subatomic particles being bound by the laws of probability.
    Did somebody say they do?
    I don't consider cryptography or analysis creative endeavors in the present context.
    The value of such a guess being...?
    Then how did the first arrowhead ever get made?
     
  7. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Birds can make complex tools out of other objects.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181024112201.htm

    https://www.sciencealert.com/goffin...-new-tools-out-of-cardboard-bird-intelligence

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-42781068/crafty-new-caledonian-crows-make-hunting-tools

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-crows-can-assemble-compound-tools-180970630/

     
  8. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principal is a central tenant of Quantum Mechanics and by default the rules of quantum mechanics based on the laws of probability.
     
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On our property we've been watching a large field rat build a nest. It is quite amazing how they collect certain materials for the construction which appears to be quite methodical. Our rat has not yet collected any arrowheads...
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still not a creative force
     
  11. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your suppositions about my estimations of the distribution of intelligent life are in error. However, they are telling in that they exposed the fact that you are not at all familiar with what I am left to believe. With that, there was no need for me to read further.
     
  12. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When we consider the physical universe and QM, we don't have to think too hard about which came first; and with that in mind, neither should it take much thought to realize that whatever governs the behavior of subatomic particles existed long before Planck was so much as a gleam in his father's eye.
     
  13. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the geothermal/tectonic forces driving the formation of new mountain ranges and the movement of continental plates are not creative force? And neither presumably is the combination of hydrogen & oxygen atoms into water molecules which, within a specific temperature range are essential for the functioning of life on Earth as we know it?
     
    roorooroo and Derideo_Te like this.
  14. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still not getting your point, just because a particular polymath/scientist/mathematician discovered a specific set of rules that apparently explain how some part of the physical world operates that doesn't mean those rules didn't apply before that scientist was born or made their discovery. Newtons laws of motion describe the movement of planets around their star. They did that before he was born, still do so today and would do so even if he had never been born at all.

    Shakespeare absolutely needed to exist to make Henry the 5th for example a reality. Einstein didn't need to exist to make E=MC2 a reality.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
    Derideo_Te and Meta777 like this.
  15. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The laws of physics as codified by the human mind are merely descriptive. The only such laws that may rightly be called prescriptive are authored by the Creator, and may not be codified so as to be decipherable by mortal minds; and if He is omniscient, we may rest assured probability is irrelevant.
     
  16. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Probability may not be relevant from a religious perspective when discussing the nature and/or intent of God but it is absolutely relevant from a scientific perspective. Science cannot function without it. Probability is one of the essential 'tools' in the science work kit. Taking it away is like prohibiting a surgeon from using a scalpel.

    Again religion is not science and science is not religion. They may both be seeking fundamental truths but they do so in fundamentally different ways in fundamentally different areas of human knowledge.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
    Derideo_Te and Meta777 like this.
  17. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What that has to do with anything I said, I have no idea.
    That can only be the case in the absence of an omniscient Creator. You get that, right?
    If the best physicists look at the universe as something that can be dissected like a frog, that might go a long way towards explaining why physics has pretty much hit a dead end.
    Nonetheless, if there is a Creator, then as Einstein observed, the second is impotent without the first. You get that, right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  18. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You stated as follows; ''The laws of physics as codified by the human mind are merely descriptive. The only such laws that may rightly be called prescriptive are authored by the Creator, and may not be codified'

    You yourself drew a clear distinction between the laws of science as deciphered by mankind and the laws of God. I pointed out that God may have no use for probability but Science does, it is essential to Science, so essential in fact that Science cannot be 'done' without it. Are we clear on that point?

    No I don't. Science requires the laws of probably to study the physical universe. That process says nothing about the existence or non existence of God and does nothing to forward either side of that argument. It is an entirely separate and independent enterprise that has nothing to do with that issue. No more in fact than the active pursuit of sport or art does.

    That's science's job in a nutshell - dissect the physical universe. God isn't on the operating table and never will be. I don't see what the issue is. And I don't think physics has necessarily hit a dead end - in fact you offer no proof that this is actually the case. Science has hit roadblocks before and will gain. Thats how it progresses. It hits an obstacle and asks 'why'. The fact that Science is currently struggling with say dark matter for example is no different to the early 20th century when it struggled with the concept of the aether.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If your imaginary "creator" is omniscient then what happened to Adam and Eve is ENTRAPMENT.
     
    edthecynic likes this.
  20. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And since there is no imaginary "creator" religion is impotent and science is the only way to obtain the relevant answers as to how our universe works.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not sure I can agree Derideo, I have pretty much been arguing from the start that the existence of God or not is a matter for the individual to decide, and most definitely NOT a matter for science to intrude upon - for oft stated reasons. A process that BTW has nothing to do with science. You argue that God is 'imaginary', others would argue this is not the case. In the end we all live and die with the consequences of the choices we make in this regard.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  22. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Monash, we agree that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like and I uphold their right to do so. This includes beliefs in aliens in Area 51 and various other conspiracies. As Jefferson noted those beliefs neither pick my pocket nor break my leg.

    However THIS is the SCIENCE FORUM and HERE the IMPOSITION of an imaginary "creator" into the discussion is not only irrelevant but it is being nefariously used as a means to disparage and denigrate the genuine accomplishments of Science when it comes to furthering our knowledge of the universe.

    The Founding Fathers were very explicit about BOTH the BENEFITS of Science and the necessity of having freedom FROM religion by erecting a wall between church and state. This is the SCIENCE forum. The purpose here is to discuss Science and NOT religion. There is a DIFFERENT forum for Religion and Philosophy.

    So when religion INTRUDES upon Science, as is happening here and now, it needs to be called out and those doing it need to be censored for what they are attempting to do to Science.

    Our nation NEEDS more Scientists and has an overabundance of theist zealots who are trying to drag us back into the Dark Ages.

    It is their INTRUSION into the Science forum that is wrong and it must be stopped.

    If anyone want to argue about the existence of their imaginary "creator" they MUST do that in the Religion and Philosophy forum which EXISTS for that PURPOSE.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  23. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good luck with that. Problem is the PFs adjudicators (and those on all other forums) don't have a 'motivation detector'. Anyone can post in any forum on any subject without ever revealing the underlying motivations for doing so. In the most recent case (like Chems) it has taken multiple posts to tease out exactly what those motives were. And it shouldn't be like that. State your position, set out your arguments and debate. Furthermore in Chems case it wasn't even his beliefs that annoyed me so much as;

    a) His almost outright refusal to explicitly state exactly what his actual position was (even more annoying in this case given he started the whole dam thread in the first place). &
    b) His habit of taking cheap pot shots at opposing positions (or posters) without ever answering any questions put to him by those same posters.

    So I don't really mind a Creationist posting in a Science thread so long as they 'man up' and state what their position is from the get go. In fact I can respect that. It just gets on my tit when they dissemble. I can state my case on a topic, I just want them to do the same.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.
  24. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is fine...just stick with whatever dogma works for you...
     
  25. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No I didn't.
    Then science can never understand the physical universe. You get that, right?
    Regardless of any of that, if the process is deliberately divorced from any consideration of an omniscient Creator, it can never yield understanding of a universe governed by such a Creator. You get that, right?
    Sure, just like the issue of conception is entirely separate and independent from the field of embryology.
    Then you understand it better than Einstein did. How very...odd.
    Name the scientists who are investigating why subatomic particles exhibit "probabilistic" behavior.
     

Share This Page