Death.. Then what?

[Jake]

During my day to day pondering of life, death, and tits, I've developed some questions that really irk me. Most people can sufficiently live their lives without knowing the answers to everything... I can't. So I've come here, to a place where I can always count on intellectual people to reply meaningfully and thoughtfully.

Alright, so today the topic I want to discuss is Intelligent Design. Please, everyone, get rid of preconceived notions of ID before reading on. I'm not another person trying to make an argument for Irreducible Complexity, or trying to argue that ID can be proven at this point in time (although of course, I accept the fact that evidence could uncover proof for such a theory, but we simply cannot know based on current knowledge of the universe).

To be a little clearer on what I'm trying to accomplish here; I'm not trying to prove something to you guys, I'm just organizing my thoughts and want you guys to give me some feedback on any errors in my thinking process. Forgive me for the rhetorical questions.

Alright, so what do I know? I know that I'm alive for all intensive purposes. I know that I can comprehend things within this realm of existence. I know there are other beings that claim to comprehend things too. But why is any of this happening? Why do we exist within this chaos called the universe? The truth is undoubtedly that nobody knows. What we do know is that the answer isn't going to be simple. One thing I find interesting is how ID is rejected quite commonly in the scientific community for having no evidential basis and because it is supposedly based on religion, yet it's quite common to accept theories that explain our creation by saying "Well uhh, there was this big ball of mass". Religion has not only clouded the minds of many people following it (not everyone of course, there are very bright religionists out there and I have nothing against them), but it has clouded the minds of Atheists as well. Many people are so hell bent against religion, that they feel the only other alternative is to believe in a universe that was created without intelligence, otherwise they risk being labeled as another narrow minded theist or religionist. It's almost as if scientists are trying to prove how the universe could be created through chance alone, rather than look at all possible scenarios.

I encourage everyone to read this article.
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/god/god.html

One of the most unbiased articles I've read in a long time, which is really refreshing. Despite the fact that they end up siding slightly with Atheists, they bring up great points and are open to possibilities. Rather than relate ID to religion, they look at it for it's own scientific merits.

Let me quote what I thought was a very interesting paragraph from the article.
"But how come the universe is such as to permit life to exist? Physics and cosmology reveal that the existence of life is dependent on various physical parameters having values within certain very narrow intervals. For example, if the expansion speed of the early universe had been very slightly less than it was, then the universe would have recollapsed within a fraction of a second, and no life could have evolved. If the expansion speed had been very slightly greater than it was, then the density of the universe would have been too low for galaxies, stars and planets to form ? again no life would have evolved. There are a number of other parameters that appear in a similar manner to have been "fine-tuned" for the existence of intelligence life. (This is referred to as the so-called "anthropic coincidences".) If one uses any natural probability distribution over the possible values that these physical parameters could have, it turns out that there would only be an astronomically small probability that they would have values that permit the evolution of life."

The counter-argument that the article produces is that there are an ensemble of universes, and that ours was fine-tuned so perfectly that it is life-permitting. So what exactly makes this answer so much more plausible than ID? I seriously don't understand. Many Atheists will argue that ID has no scientific basis, yet they turn around and argue that somehow life exists in a chaotic universe that was created out of an ensemble of universes that just so happened to allow for the laws of evolution to exist and in turn, life results from this unlikely chance. Amid all this random chaos, chance, luck, whatever, I am writing this paragraph with the ability to fathom... Something which is taken for granted, yet so incalculably rare that it makes winning the lottery look likely. My argument is that both theory's are entirely plausible depending on your frame of mind, and can both be logically followed. So... Why won't they mention ID in schools? Why is it automatically related to religion? Why can't they allow some of the logical theories for ID that have arisen completely unscathed by religion? If a large group of idiots eat cake, does that mean all people who eat cake are idiots? !@#$ no, I love cake, and I am not an idiot.

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." -Albert Einstein

[Chaos]

Well, I just want to point out something on the "perfect conditions" required to allow life to exist that you mention.  I admit, I didn't read the article, and skimmed your post, except for the last two paragraphs, so that's all I'll want to address.

The statement is very similar to the question, in my mind, "How did the earth just so happen to have the exact conditions to allow life?".  The answer?  Perception and statistics.  From my beliefs and understandings, the universe, in time, will eventually collapse upon itself.  Then blow up again.  Ad infinitum.

The reason we can not find the beginning of the universe, is because there isn't one.  We live in an endless cycle.  Eventually, one of those Big Bang's are going to give off the correct conditions.  If you roll a million sided dice an infinite amount of times, it is a statistical certainty that you will eventually get the number you're looking for.  Beyond that, it is just our perception of "How did it just so happen to come out this way?".  Because if it came out in such a way where we didn't have life, there would be no one alive to ponder the question of how they just so happened to exist.  Millions upon billions of what we call 'years' pass by, universe squishes together again, rolls the die, and sees what we end up with again.

That's how I see it.  If that provides an answer, secksi.  IF I was totally off the mark, oh well.

[Scotty]

The reason we can not find the beginning of the universe, is because there isn't one.  We live in an endless cycle.  Eventually, one of those Big Bang's are going to give off the correct conditions.  If you roll a million sided dice an infinite amount of times, it is a statistical certainty that you will eventually get the number you're looking for.  Beyond that, it is just our perception of "How did it just so happen to come out this way?".  Because if it came out in such a way where we didn't have life, there would be no one alive to ponder the question of how they just so happened to exist.  Millions upon billions of what we call 'years' pass by, universe squishes together again, rolls the die, and sees what we end up with again.

I'd like to point out that I don't think of it as rolling dice.  It isn't that us humans lucked out when Mother nature rolled her dice and landed on "the human race", therefor allowing humans to have a piece of the universe capable of hosting our presence.  I have no doubt in my mind that Humans have adapted (aka evolved) to some extent or another to adapt to our surroundings.  Mother nature didn't create "humans" millions of years ago the same as she creates them now.  I look at it the opposite way.  WE are the ones that rolled the dice and landed on earth's side of the die.  We are the ones who lucked out and properly adapted to the earth's means for providing life.  Also, I wouldn't use the term "Correct conditions", as there is no such thing.  We are still prone to cancer if we breathe according to all the scientists and the FDA.  We started out somewhere (in some shape or form) as a species back when the planet was a whole different beast, and as the planet progressed and changed, we've evolved to adapt to the new and ever changing Earth.  In my opinion, referencing us lucking out on mother nature's accord isn't the best way to put it.

BTW: Am I the only one that gets a boner seeing Mother Nature in the mini-series "Planet Earth"?  She sure is drop dead gorgeous!  Wonder if she's taken?

[Jake]

Well, I just want to point out something on the "perfect conditions" required to allow life to exist that you mention.  I admit, I didn't read the article, and skimmed your post, except for the last two paragraphs, so that's all I'll want to address.

The statement is very similar to the question, in my mind, "How did the earth just so happen to have the exact conditions to allow life?".  The answer?  Perception and statistics.  From my beliefs and understandings, the universe, in time, will eventually collapse upon itself.  Then blow up again.  Ad infinitum.

The reason we can not find the beginning of the universe, is because there isn't one.  We live in an endless cycle.  Eventually, one of those Big Bang's are going to give off the correct conditions.  If you roll a million sided dice an infinite amount of times, it is a statistical certainty that you will eventually get the number you're looking for.  Beyond that, it is just our perception of "How did it just so happen to come out this way?".  Because if it came out in such a way where we didn't have life, there would be no one alive to ponder the question of how they just so happened to exist.  Millions upon billions of what we call 'years' pass by, universe squishes together again, rolls the die, and sees what we end up with again.

That's how I see it.  If that provides an answer, secksi.  IF I was totally off the mark, oh well.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with almost everything you're saying here. If we live in an ensemble of unlimited universes with unlimited possibilities, eventually one universe will get created that allows for life... Although if you look at things within our universe, specifically the big bang, you'd realize that the statistical probability of life getting created from the big bang is extremely small.

From the article - "if the expansion speed of the early universe had been very slightly less than it was, then the universe would have recollapsed within a fraction of a second, and no life could have evolved".

Not only are we going under the extrapolated assumption that our universe is going in a circle of big bangs, but it's also improbable that our universe would have the ability to create a perfect big bang that allowed for an endless repeat of them to happen. I forgot the exact theory, but it has been suggested that the chemicals in our universe would essentially burn out after one big bang (don't take my word for it. Maybe one of you can recall the name of this theory), which in turn basically concludes that we can't have an unlimited cycle of big bangs.

To me, this suggests the need for multiple universes to explain the statistical probability of life happening. It's not enough to say that there are unlimited occurrences of big bangs in our universe, because even then, those theories rely on a limited amount of probability when one brings up the improbability of these big bangs allowing for consecutive cycles as well as the ability for life to start.

So what point am I trying to make? Every theory regarding our creation is pretty much grasping at straws. Therefore, however unlikely it is that we were created through ID, it sounds of similar probability to current explanations of our universe. Of course, this brings up the question of "Who created God?", and my answer is who knows... But that doesn't mean a God doesn't exist. There could be unlimited God's all creating God's that create stuff. I really don't know.

[Chaos]

On the contrary, Scott, it is EXACTLY that we rolled the dice, and ended up with the correct conditions.  We are talking about the chances of the universe being able to sustain, well, anything (something that human adaptation will have NO effect on).  Any slower Big Bang, it would have re-collapsed on itself.  Any faster, and the planets wouldn't have formed properly, or something like that.  Humans are irrelevant.  Alternatively, there's also the part where I was talking about planets ending up with conditions for life.  Yes, there is an argument about evolution and adaptability there, but again, look at all the planets in our solar system that DON'T have life on them.  You can be as adaptable as you want, but if life never gets started in the first place...

Tell me, Jake.  Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions?  Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time.  ;)

[HamsterPants]

Humans are irrelevant.

You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?

We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.

[Chaos]

Humans are irrelevant.

You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?

We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.

Hurr durr.  Derp derp derp.  Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician!  Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".

con?text
   /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.

In this case, definition #1.

[HamsterPants]

Humans are irrelevant.

You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?

We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.

Hurr durr.  Derp derp derp.  Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician!  Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".

con?text
   /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.

In this case, definition #1.

I did it on purpose...

[Chaos]

Humans are irrelevant.

You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?

We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.

Hurr durr.  Derp derp derp.  Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician!  Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".

con?text
   /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.

In this case, definition #1.

I did it on purpose...

So you PURPOSELY decided to argue against a point I NEVER MADE?

Wow, you WOULD be a good politician or member of the media.

[HamsterPants]

Humans are irrelevant.

You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?

We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.

Hurr durr.  Derp derp derp.  Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician!  Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".

con?text
   /ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.

In this case, definition #1.

I did it on purpose...

So you PURPOSELY decided to argue against a point I NEVER MADE?

Wow, you WOULD be a good politician or member of the media.

Yup, too bad I never will be. :P

[Lingus]

The following link is an article by Philip K. Dick, author of some very interesting and thought provoking science fiction:
http://deoxy.org/pkd_how2build.htm

In this article he talks about a lot of things. A good portion is relavent, but I do believe his mind is quite a bit unhinged. I'm guessing this is what allows him to write such brilliant pieces. He talks about reality and our perception of it. This relates to some of what Jake is talking about.

All I can really say on the topic is that pretty much everything is conjecture. Anything we observe is based on our perception of the universe. Even with that in mind, we don't have enough evidence to prove anything about what we're talking about. Even in the article Jake linked, they say that the multiple universe theory is an assumption. Any result based on an assumption can potentially be false. And even if the multiple universe theory is true, and it explains how there can be a universe with the possibility of life, that doesn't mean that whole setup was not "intelligently designed." There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.

[HamsterPants]

All I can really say on the topic is that pretty much everything is conjecture. Anything we observe is based on our perception of the universe. Even with that in mind, we don't have enough evidence to prove anything about what we're talking about. Even in the article Jake linked, they say that the multiple universe theory is an assumption. Any result based on an assumption can potentially be false. And even if the multiple universe theory is true, and it explains how there can be a universe with the possibility of life, that doesn't mean that whole setup was not "intelligently designed." There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.

Exactly right.
"What you choose right here and now, that is the true reality of your universe."~ That has always been my way of looking at the perception of reality as a whole. Probably not very scientific, but hey, I never thought science was the most important thing ever.

[Lingus]

Actually, on that note, from the article I posted:  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

It's a simple statement, but when you really think about it, it makes a whole lot of sense. We can't really say the universe or that which we observe is not real. I can stop believing in it all I want, but it's still there. But those things which we believe to be true are real at least for the time we believe in them. Intelligent Design is part of some people's reality because they believe in it. Whereas for others, it is not because they do not believe in it.

[ARTgames]

Well we are always going to do what we do so why go on about it?

[Jake]

Tell me, Jake.  Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions?  Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time.  ;)

The only thing I really know about string theory is that it attempts to explain how the universe works using one theory. Anything else about it confuses me to the point of closing the window and banging my head against the wall.

There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.

I don't necessarily believe that to be true. In fact, the more people try to explain the universe, the more I'm inclined to believe in ID.

Anyways, I read *most* of the article you posted, and enjoyed it. The way he views perception and reality is very similar to my own observations. Very interesting read.