Comic Genesis Forums

rkolter wrote:But... but... the universe isn't infinite. It's not even infinitely old.

Agreed on the not infinitely old part... but how does that prove or relate to the spatial finiteness?

rkolter wrote: Creationism - a widely held belief by one of the major religions on Earth. This belief is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Ditto Intelligent Design, which is nothing more than Creationism with a twist of lime.

Evolution - Well grounded theory of how life came to be as it is today. Grounded in science. SCIENTIFIC.

Religion - Significant to well over 95% of the world population. Irresponsible to discard it for that reason. Equally irresponsible to teach it as science.

Science - Significant to well over 95% of the world population. Irresponsible to discard it for that reason. Equally irresponsible to use it to try to lend credence to a religious debate.

Have a KiwiCookie for saying what I wanted to say more simply than I could hope to.

To tie it back to the FSM's reason for being:

Science curriculum in state-funded schools should be limited to teaching SCIENTIFIC theories. It should, at most, teach ABOUT opposing RELIGIOUS theories. It should NOT teach RELIGION, which is faith-based, as SCIENCE, which is fact-based.

*hugs*

YarpsDat wrote:

rkolter wrote:But... but... the universe isn't infinite. It's not even infinitely old.

Agreed on the not infinitely old part... but how does that prove or relate to the spatial finiteness?

Infinietly old? Relates a bit.

Case 1: Universe is finite in size. Universe is expanding. Universe (and existence) infinite in time. Eventually, infinite size results; theory ok.

Case 2: Universe finite in size. Universe static size or contracting. Existence infinite in time. Eventually, infinite size results; theory ok.

Case 3: Universe finite in size. Universe finite in time. EXISTENCE finite in time. After existence ends, no more probabilities will be generated; theory NOT ok.

Here's where age matters -- Case 3. For there to be a NON infinite amount of space for the probabilities to work out, there would have to be a set, fixed amount of universes that would exist and cease to exist, and this number would have to be not infinite and utterly unchangeable.

That is, there would have to be a beginning and end of all existence for the his theory to fall through.

Which I believe some religions believe in. Thus their discrediting abiogenesis.

On a side note, can we stay on this infinity discussion or go back to FSM comic day? Intelligent Design/Evolution has had everything said about both sides that can be said without breaking from the mostly abstract terms in which we're discussing it.

RemusShepherd wrote:But back on topic, can anyone really prove that Jesus is *not* the son of the flying spaghetti monster?

Either way poor Joseph winds up looking like a cuckold, eh?

Anyway, all debating aside, I drew up my FSM strip last night and with a few cracks of the whip and a little luck my collaborator will have it inked up in time for the appointed day.

[edited for spelling]

black sparrow wrote:My parents are firm believers in Intelligent Design, and they have a way of presenting evidence that's hard to refute.

Well since there isn't any evidence supporting ID, I don't see why it'd be so hard to refute. Don't let your parents bully you.

wishmaster wrote:Anyway, all debating aside, I drew up my FSM strip last night and with a few cracks of the whip and a little luck my collaborator will have it inked up in time for the appointed day.

just ink it yourself

Gengar003 wrote:

rkolter wrote: Creationism - a widely held belief by one of the major religions on Earth. This belief is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Ditto Intelligent Design, which is nothing more than Creationism with a twist of lime.

Evolution - Well grounded theory of how life came to be as it is today. Grounded in science. SCIENTIFIC.

Religion - Significant to well over 95% of the world population. Irresponsible to discard it for that reason. Equally irresponsible to teach it as science.

Science - Significant to well over 95% of the world population. Irresponsible to discard it for that reason. Equally irresponsible to use it to try to lend credence to a religious debate.

Have a KiwiCookie for saying what I wanted to say more simply than I could hope to.

To tie it back to the FSM's reason for being:

Science curriculum in state-funded schools should be limited to teaching SCIENTIFIC theories. It should, at most, teach ABOUT opposing RELIGIOUS theories. It should NOT teach RELIGION, which is faith-based, as SCIENCE, which is fact-based.

*hugs*

YarpsDat wrote:

rkolter wrote:But... but... the universe isn't infinite. It's not even infinitely old.

Agreed on the not infinitely old part... but how does that prove or relate to the spatial finiteness?

Infinietly old? Relates a bit.

Case 1: Universe is finite in size. Universe is expanding. Universe (and existence) infinite in time. Eventually, infinite size results; theory ok.

Case 2: Universe finite in size. Universe static size or contracting. Existence infinite in time. Eventually, infinite size results; theory ok.

Case 3: Universe finite in size. Universe finite in time. EXISTENCE finite in time. After existence ends, no more probabilities will be generated; theory NOT ok.

Here's where age matters -- Case 3. For there to be a NON infinite amount of space for the probabilities to work out, there would have to be a set, fixed amount of universes that would exist and cease to exist, and this number would have to be not infinite and utterly unchangeable.

That is, there would have to be a beginning and end of all existence for the his theory to fall through.

Which I believe some religions believe in. Thus their discrediting abiogenesis.

On a side note, can we stay on this infinity discussion or go back to FSM comic day? Intelligent Design/Evolution has had everything said about both sides that can be said without breaking from the mostly abstract terms in which we're discussing it.

The observable universe expanding at the speed of light. The universe is give or take, 13.7 billion years old. Even if it's absolute size is infinite, the portion we are capable of observing and interacting with is only finite in size.

rkolter wrote:I haven't really entered this discussion because it's probably obvioius where I stand, but I'll throw my voice in now...

Any hypothesis that is accepted as fact in the absence of evidence, or is accepted as fact despite evidence to the contrary, is not science.

Intelligent Design requires us to accept on faith that a higher power created, or had a hand in creating, some of the complex systems that makes life as we know it possible. Disregarding the question of religion as a whole, the arguement can come down to this:

Intelligent Design requires us to accept a higher power's hand in the creation of life. This is in absence of evidence. Without evidence, this hypothesis fails to meet the requirements for science.

Further, if a higher power did have a hand at creating the complex systems required for life, there is a very basic tenant in science:

Whatever can be done artifically, can be done naturally.

Not only has this tenant been observed repeatedly, it's been tested extensively. It's as much fact as fact can be. That means, any higher power who did create complex life, did so using the existing laws of physics, and thus it could happen without the hand of a higher power.

Meaning... people who accept Intelligent Design do so for a single reason only - it makes them feel good about the way the world works. And while I applaud people for feeling comforatable in the world they live in, that comfort does not equate to good science.

kolter FTW. *glomp!~*

rkolter wrote: The observable universe expanding at the speed of light. The universe is give or take, 13.7 billion years old. Even if it's absolute size is infinite, the portion we are capable of observing and interacting with is only finite in size.

Doesn't matter, though, in terms of his theory... as long as infinite size EXISTS, whether we can interact with it or not to see the results of the life being created is irrelavant... the fact that it CAN happen suffices.

Gengar003 wrote:

rkolter wrote: The observable universe expanding at the speed of light. The universe is give or take, 13.7 billion years old. Even if it's absolute size is infinite, the portion we are capable of observing and interacting with is only finite in size.

Doesn't matter, though, in terms of his theory... as long as infinite size EXISTS, whether we can interact with it or not to see the results of the life being created is irrelavant... the fact that it CAN happen suffices.

No... not quite true.

The universe cannot be infinite in size; I should have clarified. We know roughly how rapidly inflation grew the baby universe. Now, the theory that allows the visible universe to be merely a bubble of visible light expanding into a much larger universe suggests that inflation never stopped.

Inflation was not infinitely fast. Ergo, given a finite amount of time, it could not have expanded the universe into an infinite size.

LibertyCabbage wrote:just ink it yourself

Spoken like a person who has never seen my hamfisted attempts at inking something.

christwriter wrote:odds for abiogenesis

There's a simple proof.

Take the odds of the certain set of conditions required for the first chemical reaction required to make the barest beginnings of life. Then go out on a very clear night with no moon in a place where there are no city lights and look up. Multiply that insignificant probability by the stars you see in the sky. Then remember than some of those stars aren't really stars, they're galaxies which have as many stars in them as you see when you look up. What's more, there are stars and galaxies that are so distant and faint that you can't see them and THEY have as many stars as you see when you look up in them.

Stating the odds becomes pretty pointless when you think about it. More to the point, life had to happen. If it didn't happen here, it would have happened somewhere else. And there's no reason that life happened ONLY here.

Argue semantics. Argue probability all you like.

I don't care if God was involved in the creation and/or evolution of life. That belief/fact is irrelevant to understanding the mechanism. If God created the mechanism, that doesn't change how the mechanism is studied. What it does mean is that we are capable of understanding God on a new and exciting level. If God wasn't involved in the mechanism, we still have a method of understanding the world around us. If God doesn't exist, that doesn't invalidate the mechanism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI
This is a list of many ID claims including refutations.

rkolter wrote:

Gengar003 wrote:

rkolter wrote: The observable universe expanding at the speed of light. The universe is give or take, 13.7 billion years old. Even if it's absolute size is infinite, the portion we are capable of observing and interacting with is only finite in size.

Doesn't matter, though, in terms of his theory... as long as infinite size EXISTS, whether we can interact with it or not to see the results of the life being created is irrelavant... the fact that it CAN happen suffices.

No... not quite true.

The universe cannot be infinite in size; I should have clarified. We know roughly how rapidly inflation grew the baby universe. Now, the theory that allows the visible universe to be merely a bubble of visible light expanding into a much larger universe suggests that inflation never stopped.

Inflation was not infinitely fast. Ergo, given a finite amount of time, it could not have expanded the universe into an infinite size.

Do you mean to say that the expansion was DECELERATING, not ACCELLERATING? Beause as long as the rate of expansion is positive, (meaning it's growing at a steady or increasing pace), it will eventually grow infinitely large if we assume that time and existence are infinte as well.

Fizzle wrote:

BeefotronX wrote:A comprehensive scientific comparison is necessary-- for the purposes of the test, all sides that care to take part must temporarily scrap all of their currently held data, start their theories over from scratch, and do joint experiments, with all sides making their own predictions as to the results, but the actual observations being made jointly. This must happen in order to resolve the controversy. If the main factions continue on as they are, doing their own research and publishing in their own separate journals, they will keep on ignoring each other's evidence whenever it suits them, or accuse each other of doing so. What is important is that a test of this nature is done as soon as possible, not the legal minefield surrounding the discussion of origins in public schools.

Although that's a good idea they already did that shortly after evolution was created and came to the conclusion that evolution was the right theory. (And this was when a majority of the scientific community was in support of creationism)

Back in the 19th century evolutionism was little more than a highly extended extrapolation of the observations made by Darwin and company. They knew very little about DNA and genetics, nuclear reactions, sophisticated meteorological models, and several other fields, and yet the theory gained acceptance with what little evidence was known back then. That's all well and good, but ID and creationist people today seem to have no real trouble interpreting more recent discoveries as corroborating their model, and like it or not, a creationist geneticist from today would likely be able to fly circles around any 19th century evolutionist. The fact is that whether or not the evolutionist model of prehistory is correct, a sizable number of people including learned scientists have continued to find reason to reject it even after considering everything we have discovered in the past century, therefore a serious critique as I described before is very much necessary. Whatever the Flying Spaghetti Monster was meant to do is not so important as what it does do, and that is shut down meaningful dialogue on the topic of origins. There may be a time for that, but it is not now. Not until after that gigantic series of experiments happens. Unfortunately, it would probably cost a few million dollars to get going, which I do not have, and so I'm done talking about this.

Gengar003 wrote:

rkolter wrote:

Gengar003 wrote: Doesn't matter, though, in terms of his theory... as long as infinite size EXISTS, whether we can interact with it or not to see the results of the life being created is irrelavant... the fact that it CAN happen suffices.

No... not quite true.

The universe cannot be infinite in size; I should have clarified. We know roughly how rapidly inflation grew the baby universe. Now, the theory that allows the visible universe to be merely a bubble of visible light expanding into a much larger universe suggests that inflation never stopped.

Inflation was not infinitely fast. Ergo, given a finite amount of time, it could not have expanded the universe into an infinite size.

Do you mean to say that the expansion was DECELERATING, not ACCELLERATING? Beause as long as the rate of expansion is positive, (meaning it's growing at a steady or increasing pace), it will eventually grow infinitely large if we assume that time and existence are infinte as well.

The rate of expansion of the universe ITSELF is accelerating, yes. However, the viewable area is expanding at the speed of light. Inflation was either a terribly brief period, or continuing period of super-luminal expansion, but even that was not accelerating expansion, but expansion at a tremendous albeit constant rate.

Time may be infinite (in actuality it too is finite - time is an aspect of this universe; we cannot meaningfully suggest it existed before the start of the universe, nor guarantee that it will continue on forever), but the time since the birth of the universe is not infinite it is finite. Existance is not infinite - as shown earlier, we can only meaningfully speak about what we can actually access, and that is the visible universe, which is not infinite.

rkolter wrote:

Gengar003 wrote:

rkolter wrote: No... not quite true.

The universe cannot be infinite in size; I should have clarified. We know roughly how rapidly inflation grew the baby universe. Now, the theory that allows the visible universe to be merely a bubble of visible light expanding into a much larger universe suggests that inflation never stopped.

Inflation was not infinitely fast. Ergo, given a finite amount of time, it could not have expanded the universe into an infinite size.

Do you mean to say that the expansion was DECELERATING, not ACCELLERATING? Beause as long as the rate of expansion is positive, (meaning it's growing at a steady or increasing pace), it will eventually grow infinitely large if we assume that time and existence are infinte as well.

The rate of expansion of the universe ITSELF is accelerating, yes. However, the viewable area is expanding at the speed of light. Inflation was either a terribly brief period, or continuing period of super-luminal expansion, but even that was not accelerating expansion, but expansion at a tremendous albeit constant rate.

Time may be infinite (in actuality it too is finite - time is an aspect of this universe; we cannot meaningfully suggest it existed before the start of the universe, nor guarantee that it will continue on forever), but the time since the birth of the universe is not infinite it is finite. Existance is not infinite - as shown earlier, we can only meaningfully speak about what we can actually access, and that is the visible universe, which is not infinite.

Then why does the "infinite probability" theory only apply to what we can access? It seems to me rather self-centered to believe that things are not happening where we can't see.

Even then, though, the universe itself is expanding at an accellerating rate, and our comprehension is expanding at a constant rate. As long as there is no overall end of existence after which nothing will ever again exist, we've still got an effectively infinite space.

Primo. Big points for faub.
I wanted to say something along these lines, except I got caught in scientific nit-pickiness, and sounded all too confusing.

Secundo, Gengar did a fine job of explaining some of the confusion. Good job.

And finally:
rkolter, you do realize that whether the universe is finite or not, is a really important question.
If one could prove one way or another in a forum post, then the answer to that fundamental question would be widely known.
So you can stop trying.*



*unless of course, you have some new evidence, or some new and conclusive interpretation of the available evidence, in which case, please share.
(I understand you may be hesistant to do so before cashing out the nobel prize for that... but nobody here is going to steal the article and publish it under their names, to try to steal the prize... right guys?)

You may also want to browse through this.

I have proof! The universe is infinite becaues you can't prove it isn't*!

I thought of something else, though... "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" Remember that question? I think this infinity thing is kinda like it... Whether not we're there to "hear" the "falling tree" of life starting, it's illogical to assume that the natural laws governing the behavior of our universe that we've observed stop working where we can't see.

Maybe they do; but that still wouldn't be a logical conclusion... until we find out that they do and find out why.

That question could have its own thread *drool*

Because, you know, the tree, does make a sound. discuss.

* Not to be confused with acutal scientific theory or evidence

YarpsDat wrote: And finally:
rkolter, you do realize that whether the universe is finite or not, is a really important question.
If one could prove one way or another in a forum post, then the answer to that fundamental question would be widely known.
So you can stop trying.*

YarpsDat, you have a very condesending manner that I am going now going to proceed to beat out of you. Please don't take offense - but I'm a little tired of you going holier than thou without really bothering to read what I have written.

I have never once stated the universe is finite in size, nor that the universe is infinite in size.

What I have stated is that meaningful observations can only be done on the visible universe. It contains the sum of all possible human knowledge. What lies beyond the visible universe? Chickens. Trillions and trillions of chickens. Or a brick wall if you like. Or God. Or an infinite universe. Whatever you choose requires you to take it on faith.

Were it otherwise, and you could prove it so, you would be getting the nobel prize, and not me.

That said, your original arguement that amoebas are generated via the tunneling of particles is false. Since an infinite universe is not proveable, your "proof" relies on the same thing that Genesis relies on - faith in something that cannot be scientifically determined.

Incidentally, the website you suggested I read mimicks my statement in the very first paragraph:

We don't really know in either case. Since the Big Bang happened a finite time ago (about 14 billion years), and since light travels at a finite speed, there is an unbreakable upper limit to how far away we can see in the universe. Up to the limits of the observable universe, what we observe is consistent with a uniform distribution of matter and energy that could easily extend forever. On the other hand, it might eventually turn into something very different, beyond what we can see; indeed, this might arise naturally as a result of inflation (see the really early universe). Similarly, we can straightforwardly extrapolate the current evolution of our universe, dominated by dark energy, to predict a future in which the universe continues to expand for all time (see the dark universe). However, the dark energy might someday change its character into something different, in which case the universe might very well collapse. So, given how little we currently understand about the nature of dark energy, we can't say anything for sure about the ultimate fate of our universe.

rkolter wrote:What lies beyond the visible universe? Chickens. Trillions and trillions of chickens.

Looks like I need to start re-evaluating my diet.

rkolter wrote: YarpsDat, you have a very condesending manner that I am going now going to proceed to beat out of you. Please don't take offense - but I'm a little tired of you going holier than thou without really bothering to read what I have written.

I have never once stated the universe is finite in size, nor that the universe is infinite in size.
[...]

Hmm, condescending? I guess. Sorry about that, I guess.

I did read what you've written, but I guess there must have been some misunderstanding.

I just thought that when you said

The universe cannot be infinite in size; [...]

Inflation was not infinitely fast. Ergo, given a finite amount of time, it could not have expanded the universe into an infinite size.

It was meant as a statement that universe is not infinite in size, backed up with an attempt to prove it.
I objected to that, and I believe my previous post proved it wrong.
Be it either for your benefit, or for other readers, who, as gengar, might have assumed you meant to say that universe cannot be infinite in size.


Anyways, if all this time you meant the visible part of the universe, then I agree with you. The visible universe is finite in space, time, and in time-space volume, however, that conclusion is absolutely irrevelant to my original reasoning, so why bring it up?

rkolter wrote: That said, your original arguement that amoebas are generated via the tunneling of particles is false. Since an infinite universe is not proveable, your "proof" relies on the same thing that Genesis relies on - faith in something that cannot be scientifically determined.

Umm...
I explicitly made the assumption, so it's all fair to argue with the assumption of the infinite universe.
However, you are twisting my words to argue against something completly different.
Where in my post have I used "visible universe" or whatnot?


Incidentally, I now that you mentioned the Trillions and trillions of chickens, that lie just beyond the visible universe, I realize I made a little mistake, I forgot to include the assumption the universe is unimorphic- ie. there is no special point that would be the center or axis or whatever. (with that assumption, if the invisible part of the universe was filled with chickens, so would the visible part, because no part could be "special")

Hmm, to argue against "[...] relies on faith in something that cannot be scientifically determined", there's a lot of philosophy involved...
Are you familiar with "Plato's cave"- the universe we see may not necessarily be the one that's real.
We can be forever trapped in a matrix-like simulated world, and have no chance to ever touch the actual laws of physic of the "real world".
Of course, allowing that assumption would be counter productive, so to make a base for science and development we do need to make some different assumptions, eg:
the universe exists
no point or direction in space is special
and the other rules of empirysm, and relatyvizm, or whatever.


BTW, my oryginal argument was inspired by an article about "Parallel Universes" by Max Tegmark, published in ScientificAmerican, some 2 years ago (may 2003) later republished in february 2005. Which I think, is also available online .

rkolter wrote: Incidentally, the website you suggested I read mimicks my statement in the very first paragraph:

Actually, I was going to put the emphasis on the first sentence in that paragraph:

We don't really know in either case.

To sum it up- I'm saying the universe may as well be infinite, you're saying that visible universe is finite, these are not mutually exclusive, so why not end the argument.