Today, he is trying to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to state that the universe cannot always have existed. "If a closed system is not in the equilibrium configuration, the most probable consequence is that the entropy of the system will increase monotonically in successive instants of time" Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics [Emphasis mine]
The equations of motion (as they are understood) are time-reversible. Entropy is a statistical phenomenon. When "entropy increases" it simply means the number of possible configurations that correspond to the observed state is increasing. There are simply more disordered states than ordered ones. A common illustration of the principle is the shuffling of a deck of cards. If you shuffle a deck of cards, it is highly unlikely that they will come out Ace of hearts, 2 of hearts, 3 of hearts, ... and so one through diamonds, spades and clubs. However, the cards are just as likely to come out in that configuration as they are to come out in any other configuration specified in advance.
Now, if you shuffle decks of cards endlessly, there will be occassions that full order is the result. Simlarly, if the physical universe is eternal in some sense, then "pockets" of low entropy are expected to occur.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You are really big on this "specification in advance" of data. Tell me, were statistics derived prior to experience? Didn't we have to figure them out over time as we observed phenomena? You know, flipping coins and shuffling cards. Isn't this how we came up with statistical laws...you know, after-the-fact? Then we apply this to future phenomena. Just curious, because this might help with your confusion over evolution.
BUT,
there is no reason to go ahead and consider the universe to be eternal. I'm not sure it's even worth arguing Ray on this topic.
My main problems with Ray's arguments is that at the core they always have an undefined / unaccounted for element at the base. That being of course, God.
Ray can make whatever claims he'd like to make, be right or wrong about science in every possible way, but it all amounts to mere hand waving without a foundation.
I'm not so sure I understand why poeple always engage Ray on sideline arguments like this? In other words if I claim there to be flying pink elephants in the sky, what's evolution have to do with that? Evolution doesn't prove nor disprove God (or the elephants), for all we know, he set it into motion. Show me the damn elephants. If you can’t because the elephants are “nonmaterial” and “spiritual” then define those things. Evolution and thermodynamics does nothing to prove or add to the idea of nonmaterial and spiritual. The nature of the universe and the physical laws by which we see it behaving is meaningless to the argument of nonmaterial.
What people should be asking Ray is "what is God? What is your definition of God? What is his nature? What is spiritual? What is nonmaterial?" Science starts with a hypothesis, then sets about the task of finding evidence of that hypothesis. Once science finds the evidence the hypothesis is mute and the object [the proposition] becomes definable. Ray already says that God exists, yet he treats God the same way scientists treat a hypothesis. If he exists, and he's fond of continually using science then he should be engaged on those grounds and his hypothesis should be defined.
In other words, leave is arguments alone and get the core definitions in place.
Yes, I'm pretty big on "specified in advance." Something I can read about in yesterday's newspaper is not much of a prediction if you are making it today. Statistics are certainly a form of pattern recognition. I wouldn't go so far as to call them a scientific theory, though.
I have no confusion over evolution. I recognize that you want me to accept it uncritically, while pretending that that is not what is going on. Any test in which the "prediction of a theory" (any supposed theory) is predictable in absence of the "theory" is no test of the "theory." Any test in which a failure to confirm the "prediction of a theory" would be regarded as inconclusive is no test of the "theory." If it is never "on the line," it is not being tested. What you are regarding as "confusion" is simply a failure to acquiesce and accept the idea uncritically.
Andrew Louis:
There is no reason to state that the universe is eternal. There is also no reason to state that it is not. I regard it as an open question and object only to Ray's claims of a known impossibility.
" I have no confusion over evolution. I recognize that you want me to accept it uncritically, while pretending that that is not what is going on. Any test in which the "prediction of a theory" (any supposed theory) is predictable in absence of the "theory" is no test of the "theory." Any test in which a failure to confirm the "prediction of a theory" would be regarded as inconclusive is no test of the "theory." If it is never "on the line," it is not being tested. What you are regarding as "confusion" is simply a failure to acquiesce and accept the idea uncritically."
What you are defining as testing a theory is wildly skewed! Falsifiability is not the central importance of a scientific theory nor the measure of a good one...not for philosophers of science, nor for experimental scientists. I'm not telling you to not be critical, I am telling you that your criticism is based on your own faulty understanding of the nature of science. But, I did show that you could falsify the central tenants of the theory...and you didn't even touch that, you just made the same objection. You are just arguing to argue because you don't want to be wrong. I sympathize with that, no one wants to be wrong. But you are.
What's funny is that while I provided what you asked for...and not only do you disregard it, but you misrepresent it in your silly and faulty analogies (including what I said about deriving statistics; and then inferring that I am claiming stats is a scientific theory; you clearly missed the point of that which doesn't surprise me). By the way, the theory has been "on the line" for over 150 years and it predicts what we expect to find in nature and is useful in understanding nature...that's why it is important, that is why ANY theory is kept or replaced, not because of your personal demands.
I suggest you pick up some science journals and see how scientists go about testing their hypotheses, because I'm quite sure you don't have a clue.
hereH. Eventually a scientific theory may be formulated; 1. Scientific theory = a hypothesis supported by a great deal of evidence which stands the test of time, often tested and never rejected. E.g. theory of evolution; I. A scientific theory must be falsifiable [Emphasis added]
Now, these people believe in evolution. I have no doubt that they think it has withstood falsification attempts. Few people seem to look closely. I used to believe it too. But, on looking closer, I found that evolution was "safe" in the experiments. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It only means it's not really making a prediction.
Here is a more relevant discussion, other than a brief course outline:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
Shermer dicusses this in more detail as well.
I showed you several times that the central tenants can be falsified. You refuse to acknowledge this. Your criterion is just stupid, for the following reason..
The theory predicts some transitions in the fossil record. If we fail to find some for..bats, for instance (which we now have), this doesn't falsify the theory, it is inconclusive because we might not be looking in the right place, or they simply may not fossilize. BUT, we expect to find some and we have found many in numerous lineages...this is not counting the hits and neglecting the misses because failure to fossilize is not a "miss", it is legitimately inconclusive. The point is that how else are we to explain transitions form one form to another?? What other explantion can be offered that best fits this data? Now if we have yet to find some, the theory is interesting, but doesn't hold much weight with scientists, why waste the time on a long-shot? Grant money is hard to come by, we want sure things. This is how science works in practice. Evolutionary theory allows us to explain quite alot, and allows specific predictions, like when we are to find whale transitions relative to other forms we have found, same with Tiktaalik. It is the predictive power that leads to acceptance, and as the evidence accumulates, we have more confidence that the theory is correct. If you read the article I post, it is when we begin to notice a bunch of observations that don't make sense in light of the prevailing theory that we begin to express doubt and look for other interpretations that will be more useful in predicting/interpreting. I can only point this stuff out, you can accept it or you won't. Either way, it doesn't change anything. If you really think you are on to something, I suggest you send an article to a philosophy of science journal...or better yet, Science or Nature.
pvblivs,
I understand, I'm simply saying that atheist should keep hammering Ray on the same questions and not regard his sideline meandering.
I understand though, that there is a certain enjoyment in it all as well.
Post a Comment