NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15857

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:09 MST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <emc.724948774@kehleyr>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 68

In article <emc.724948774@kehleyr>, [e-mail] (Eli Chiprout) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Isaak) writes...
>>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>>>universe coming together in such a way to create me.  Such an occurrance
>>>seemed wildly improbable.  Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>>>probability are meaningless.  The probability of my existence, given that
>>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
>
>>This seems like a bad argument, to me.  Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
>>squad of fifteen men.  They all fire, but I don't die.  I continue to
>>exist.  By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
>>at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
>>was one.  But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
>>fact there that requires some sort of explanation.  The fact that if they
>>hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
>>*not* explain what is curious in this situation.  Likewise, the fact of
>>life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
>>"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.
>
>You are using analogy in your reasonin, and analogies are interesting for
>pedagogical purposes only.  Here is where the analogy breaks down.
>In the case of a trained riffleman firing, I can make an educated guess as
>to the chance of his hitting the target given the size of my body, the
>weather conditions, his distance, etc.  If that chance is high by my
>reckoning and -- more importantly -- my experience, both personal and second
>hand through reporting, and he misses, I might be surprised.  If fifteen men
>miss, I will surely require an explanation.
>When you are discussing the universe, our personal experience, and the
>experience of our peers are useless.  What are the chances that I will come
>into being given the universe at the big bang?  Well, how can I answer that
>if I do not know what the universe is besides my own miniscule part of it,
>or what the chances of the counter event, i.e. my not existing, are.  What I
>judge to be an "unusual" event, is a valueless judgement, because I have not
>observed very many "usual" events, i.e. universes that unfold with no life
>ever arising.
>The anthropic principle is very clever in this respect, although certainly not
>a proof of anything.  It simply says, that there could easily be many worlds,
>before us, after us, besides us, that do not contain life.  Since we could
>not be part of those worlds, we are amazed at our unique existence.  In fact,
>if there was exactly one big bang and "gib gnab" (or big crunch) before us,
>(with no life) our chance would be one in two for existing in a world.  If
>there were 100? or 100^100?  The anthropic principle says that given the
>possible infinite(very large) nature of the universe, our chance for existence
>could be small, but when it happens, we will only be able to observe the
>conditions that bring about life, not the (possibly much, much more probable)
>conditions that will not allow life to exist.
>
>Probability can be tricky in this respect.  If I only observe my universe,
>and by observing it, I verify that I am alive, then the chances for my existence
>given my existence (i.e. <A|A> the chances of A given A) are 100%.  However, the
>probability of my existence given all possible conditions/universes/worlds
>is meaningless, since according the the anthropic principle, I will never
>be able to observe/count those other worlds (much less calculate the
>possibility of their existence), in sharp contrast to the 15 riflemen.

I took the question of interest to be the origin of life, not necessarily
the origin of the universe as a whole.  Surely there are probabilities
and evidence we can examine regarding life's origin (e.g., as is done
in Robert Shapiro's _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life
on Earth_).

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721