[~ot] why is programming so fun?

Gregor Richards Richards at codu.org
Mon Jun 2 21:50:05 PDT 2008


John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Gregor,
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> Reply to Simen,
>>>
>>>> Chris Wright Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BCS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The chances of life happening by chance are something like that,
>>>>>> if not worse. You could probably calculated a relative number for
>>>>>> it with quantum physics and/or information theory and/or string
>>>>>> theory or some such. IIRC there is a theory about how much info
>>>>>> can be in a given volume.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think anyone has come close to describing the odds of
>>>>> abiogenesis.
>>>>>
>>>> I did some fun calculations after being given a book by Jehovah's
>>>> Witnesses, as I've always been of the opinion that life being
>>>> created by some higher being is less probable than it occuring
>>>> naturally.
>>>>
>>>> Way I figured was, I get 1 cubic centimetre of the simplest,
>>>> carbon-based, self-replicating molecules, on this planet of 1
>>>> trillion cubic kilometers (one cubic centimetre was chosen as some
>>>> arbitrary amount that might come into being by chance). Not by any
>>>> chance a big chunk, but is it enough for life to survive? Let's
>>>> first see how many self-replicating molecules we can fit into my
>>>> small cube - 1.6 quintillion. That ain't half bad. (Actually, I
>>>> think the number was 1000 times bigger, but I don't remember the
>>>> name of that number [Hexillion?], plus you can think of it as a bit
>>>> of safety :p)
>>>>
>>>> Now, spread that evenly across the world (258 billion square
>>>> kilometers), and you get 162 such molecule for every square meter.
>>>> With enough resources nearby, I'd give it a fairly good chance of
>>>> survival.
>>>>
>>> Someone once told me that if you take all the ways that you can
>>> assemble the parts of the simplest form of life and put them in once
>>> place, the ball would be something like the size of earth. (I havn't
>>> checked the math or anything like that)
>>>
>> I love that all arguments against natural abiogenesis come down to an
>> argument from ignorance. The fact is that we haven't got the foggiest
>> bit of a clue what the entire range of things that could have
>> /potentially/ formed life are, we just happen to have been formed from
>> a particular set of amino acids. We like to believe that only amino
>> acids, or even only the set of amino acids life on Earth are based on,
>> could form life, but that's just stupid. Given the uncountably many
>> planets in the universe, life has probably come into existence and
>> evolved in ways we could never remotely predict, and idiots on their
>> planets are saying "The chances that a simple life based on hexavalent
>> chromium would form naturally are so unlikely, we must have been
>> created by some higher intelligence!" As it turns out, when you
>> consider your very low but extremely ignorant statistic given the
>> number of planets in the universe, and the potentially huge number of
>> possible ways life could form (a number we can't even begin to
>> fathom), it turns into 99.9999999999%. Unfortunately, the general
>> populous doesn't understand statistics even in the slightest, and so
>> they think "Wow, given the extremely low odds that a protozoan would
>> appear by random chance, we must have been created by a higher power!"
>> Idiots.
>>
>> - Gregor Richards
>>
> 
> 
> Count me an idiot then, Mr. Gregor. ;)
> 
> Those that claim any level of certainty of "natural" abiogenesis are 
> subject to a conflict of their own making: is it better to suppose 
> something came from nothing, in which no abstract physical law existed 
> to make sure such processes could survive before hand; where means, 
> motive, or reason for causation apparently spontaneously self-generated 
> from a mass of nothing?  Or is it more ludicrous to believe in a 
> spritiual sphere of existance outside of time that is not subject to the 
> physical law, a God that created all things for his Own purpose. 
> Interestingly, the bizarre and unnatural is often pursued relentlessly 
> even to those that aspire to "realism" and reject the existance of a 
> God:  a look at modern physics theorists and science fiction to see the 
> yearning they have for an existance that, while relentlessly 
> circumventing the spiritual (accusing it of not being observable), still 
> doggedly pursue ideas and existances that amount to the same. 
> Nothing seems to ever be adequately explained in a world that denies an 
> absolute Creator, nor is there any basis for social, ethical, or 
> ideological constraints, nor is there any meaning to existance, no 
> motivation to hope in a future, no meaning or reality to respect life, 
> no subjection to conscience, rules or authority, no existance of right 
> or wrong beyond a rapidly changing social definition of morality; such 
> an existance is one without laws and rules, self-perpetuated by survival 
> of the fittest; no room for mercy, care, or gentleness in the ever 
> "evolving" pursuit to the be the most evolved.  The existance of a  
> person who perceives himself only subject to what is "real" is forever 
> without hope describing what is real or what real means, or if what he 
> observes through science is really "real".  Instead, he is finally 
> dominated only by a will to self-indulge and self-satisfy -- an entirely 
> empty existance for anyone who has pursued that mode for any amount of 
> time (most of us know what that feels like).
> 
> Evolutionary "Scientists" have long used the claim of general ignorance 
> to justify their own conjectures on reality -- the masses apparently can 
> never understand these higher matters, and thus we must be wrong because 
> of knowledge is too hard to understand... such arrogance!  The true 
> scientist, I think, is much more humble.  Their own general ignorance of 
> what can or can't be possible renders them no closer to having a solid 
> understanding of metaphysics than anyone else.  Science is not and never 
> was designed for philosophical considerations -- that exists in parallel 
> in the biases of the scientist's personal worldview.  Nor does science 
> lend itself to making conclusions on the universes beginnings or 
> development.
> 
> Evolution (abiogenesis) is not science... but merely a faith based 
> movement, a philosophy, a worldview that attempts to 
> manipulate/interpret observations to understand what is considered 
> reality.  It is just as much a worldview as any system that believes in 
> a God that created this world.  I would submit that evolution is a more 
> "supernaturual" ideology in its incredible something-from-nothingness 
> than any idea of a Creator and a Creation.
> 
> If that makes me ignorant, so be it.  :)
> 
> My apologies if this comes across as strong statement, but hey you guys 
> seems to like discussing this stuff. ;)
> 
> -JJR
> 
> 

Abiogenesis is life forming naturally from constituent matter, not 
existence forming from nothing. These are two completely unrelated 
arguments, and the existence-from-nothing one is one I've chosen not to 
touch at all since it cannot be reasoned about.

However, since you brought it up, sure, I'll argue.

The reason that scientists explain things in a naturalist way (that is, 
without assuming or questioning a creator) is because we cannot reason 
about a creator, we cannot make conjectures about a creator, and so we 
cannot make theories about a creator based on anything but imagination.

So, to counter some specific arguments:

 > is it better to suppose
 > something came from nothing, in which no abstract physical law existed
 > to make sure such processes could survive before hand; where means,
 > motive, or reason for causation apparently spontaneously self-generated
 > from a mass of nothing?  Or is it more ludicrous to believe in a
 > spritiual sphere of existance outside of time that is not subject to the
 > physical law, a God that created all things for his Own purpose.

Neither is a reasonable argument. The conjecture that the universe 
objectively exists within a causal framework is not one we can argue 
about. That is to say, we have no evidence that the universe objectively 
was created at all, not to mention whether it came from nothing or was 
created by a higher being. We have no evidence to support the assumption 
that the universe itself exists within a causal context, we're just used 
to causality because it exists /within/ the universe. The big bang 
theory (which might be what you're arguing against, I have no idea) does 
not argue about /existence/ coming from /nothingness/, it explains how 
the current shape of the universe came from a singularity. It is only 
believed to be such because the evidence suggests such. So, to answer 
your fundamental question of whether it's better to suppose one or the 
other, the answer is no. It's illogical to believe either, because we
cannot argue about either. This piece of knowledge is forever beyond 
human understanding, and any arguments you make to answer it are no 
better than the foolish gibbering of a child. The usual response to this 
is "don't you want to know, doesn't your innate drive of curiosity cause 
you to try to know?" Sure, but not at the cost of reason: I will never 
sacrifice reason and accept faith.

 > Interestingly, the bizarre and unnatural is often pursued relentlessly
 > even to those that aspire to "realism" and reject the existance of a
 > God:  a look at modern physics theorists and science fiction to see the
 > yearning they have for an existance that, while relentlessly
 > circumventing the spiritual (accusing it of not being observable), still
 > doggedly pursue ideas and existances that amount to the same.

Scientists seek knowledge. Ultimately science seeks to have all 
knowledge, although that is of course impossible. The fact that you have 
a convenient and unprovable answer is not useful: Science seeks 
knowledge which is testable and repeatable.

 > absolute Creator, nor is there any basis for social, ethical, or
 > ideological constraints, nor is there any meaning to existance, no
 > motivation to hope in a future, no meaning or reality to respect life,
 > no subjection to conscience, rules or authority, no existance of right
 > or wrong beyond a rapidly changing social definition of morality; such
 > an existance is one without laws and rules, self-perpetuated by survival
 > of the fittest; no room for mercy, care, or gentleness in the ever
 > "evolving" pursuit to the be the most evolved.

And yet, atheists are significantly under-represented in prisons. The 
fact that you find such a universe to be distressing is irrelevant, the 
evidence should not be weighed against opinions. In all probability 
there is no purpose to life that we can discern by any means other than 
ludicrous faith. Boo-hoo, get the hell over it.

 > The existance of a
 > person who perceives himself only subject to what is "real" is forever
 > without hope describing what is real or what real means, or if what he
 > observes through science is really "real".

Our understanding of the universe is and will always be subjective. This 
is a fact. I do not claim that the universe I perceive and act upon is a 
true, shared universe, I only act within it because I have no other option.

 > Instead, he is finally
 > dominated only by a will to self-indulge and self-satisfy -- an entirely
 > empty existance for anyone who has pursued that mode for any amount of
 > time (most of us know what that feels like).

This has not happened to me. I do not believe in your bizarrely 
personified deity, nor do I believe that it is possible to reason about 
the existence of an omnipotent being, and I think that the concept of an 
omnipotent being who gives a damn about us is silly. And yet, I go 
through life without this problem you believe that I must have. This 
worldview is based on extremist individualism, not atheism.

And more importantly, again, the fact that you find it distressing is 
irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that one should believe in a higher 
being out of fear. Fear subsumes reason, and then you choose to believe 
that you have some higher purpose determined by a grand and powerful 
entity. As I've already said, I will /never/ allow reason to be overcome 
by faith. (To read the previous statement, you must realize that I 
consider faith to be a flaw, and so I spit the last word). It's possible 
that faith in general is a result of fear, but that's a whole argument 
I'm not getting into.

 > Evolutionary "Scientists" have long used the claim of general ignorance
 > to justify their own conjectures on reality -- the masses apparently can
 > never understand these higher matters, and thus we must be wrong because
 > of knowledge is too hard to understand... such arrogance!

This is a really rude and nonsensical way to describe science. You 
believe the Earth is round and orbits around the sun I presume (if you 
don't, you're beyond redemption). At a time, people believed that 
scientists were evil for conjecturing this, and yet now it's common 
knowledge. The evidence eventually outweighed the desire people have not 
to change. Yes, the majority of the population of the US disbelieves 
evolution. Yes, they are all wrong.

 > The true
 > scientist, I think, is much more humble.  Their own general ignorance of
 > what can or can't be possible renders them no closer to having a solid
 > understanding of metaphysics than anyone else.

Science does not try to explain metaphysics, that's ridiculous. Neither 
evolution nor abiogenesis are in the realm of metaphysics. Your belief 
that life has some higher purpose is not based on evidence, and there is 
plenty of evidence that life is a persistent self-replicating 
physical/chemical/electrical reaction.

The only rational belief, metaphysically, is no belief. We can, however, 
explain things that happen in the physical world, and we know evolution 
to happen in the physical world (the evidence is overwhelming). Some 
people place a line between abiogenesis and evolution (the GOD line), 
but that line is arbitrary. Until we have any evidence otherwise, we 
must investigate everything in terms of the physical universe we 
inhabit: No other arguments can be reasoned about.

 > Science is not and never
 > was designed for philosophical considerations -- that exists in parallel
 > in the biases of the scientist's personal worldview.

Abiogenesis is not a philosophical consideration.

 > Nor does science
 > lend itself to making conclusions on the universes beginnings or
 > development.

Of course it doesn't. There is no belief in this field based on reason, 
and so the reasonable person can not hold any belief. You seem to have 
some bizarre belief that science is trying to describe the origin of 
existence ... it is not.

 > Evolution (abiogenesis) is not science... but merely a faith based
 > movement, a philosophy, a worldview that attempts to
 > manipulate/interpret observations to understand what is considered
 > reality.  It is just as much a worldview as any system that believes in
 > a God that created this world.  I would submit that evolution is a more
 > "supernaturual" ideology in its incredible something-from-nothingness
 > than any idea of a Creator and a Creation.

This is so stupid I can't even argue against it. First off, lumping 
together evolution and abiogenesis is like saying "I don't believe in 
gravity because it doesn't explain how matter forms." They are two 
different theories.

Evolution is based on overwhelming amounts of evidence, and yes, I'll 
say it: Anyone who does not believe in evolution when presented with the 
evidence is irreparably incompetent. I have no respect for these people. 
Evolution is repeatable, and evolution has been observed numerous times 
and in numerous situations, not just in the fossil record but in current 
times. That includes speciation, although these idiots generally choose 
to ignore all the examples of speciation.

Abiogenesis is not as well-studied a field, but attributing it to a 
higher being just because science has not fully explained it yet is 
criminally stupid and dangerous to human progress.

 > If that makes me ignorant, so be it.  :)

This does not make you ignorant. The ignorant person is the person who 
has simply never been given the knowledge necessary. You clearly have 
the knowledge, but choose to attribute things to a higher power which 
have been fully explained naturally.

  - Gregor Richards



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list