Probability and life by Chance Alone

[cypress]

Well, for one thing heat usually flows from areas of high entropy to areas of low entropy.

 

Heat energy flows from high temperature (lower entropy) to low temperature (higher entropy).

 

Also it seems you took the term "molecular entropy" and invented your own definition that is convenient for your argument but doesn't really appear in any real physics.

 

Wrong again Skeptic. You don't have any experience with mass and heat transfer principles I take it. Here is a reference that addresses diffusion of heat and molecular diffusion. Carslaw, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

But you did pretty good considering your kind never was good with thermodynamics. Of course this is where you will mention how wrong I am or ignore me completely, rather than trying to show you were right by referencing a source.

 

Ouch, Skeptic now you are zero for three. Have a look at the reference above. Also Chemical Engineers are generally expert at thermodynamics, particularly when one works with compressible gasses for 20 years.

 

Yes, speaking of red herrings, the whole thread is based off a red herring (everyone agrees that the odds of life forming by chance alone are ridiculous).

 

Excellent my job is done here. Finally we agree that the odds of life forming by chance alone is unreasonable. Thank you for that admission.

 

 

However I decided to take that red herring and make myself a delicious fish dinner. The crux of my argument is that there is a significant chance that the universe is infinite. As I demonstrated, an infinite universe negates any tininess of probability of life forming.

 

Speculation cannot substitute for probabilistic resources and probabilistic resources that do not act on an event can't improve the odds of that event. You have demonstrated nothing. The balance of your argument is as vacuous as the errors you have already displayed. It is enough that now you agree life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. Thanks for that.

 

Therefore, the probability of life forming by chance alone is the greater of the chance of the universe being infinite and the chance of life forming by entirely chance alone given a finite universe. So far, cypress focuses on the unimaginably smaller and completely irrelevant probability of life forming entirely by chance alone.

 

Nonsense. We cannot assign probability to a speculation.

 

Yes, and I cited a source to support my claim

 

A source that you misinterpreted and is wrongly applied is of very little help. I described your errors previously.

 

(unlike you, who have just kept claiming some kind of magical non-existent unreferenced observation contradicts an infinite universe). Remember, if you are claiming that the probability of life arising by chance alone is 10^-41,000, then you are also claiming the probability that the universe is infinite is also less than 10^-41,000

 

More nonsense. The observable universe is finite. Evidence exists that it had a beginning and there is no evidence available to indicate directly what lies beyond the observable universe. The inflation model allows for speculation about an infinite universe but it is just so. I don't think I need a reference to describe the various cosmology models. Nearly any credible discussion of cosmology will confirm what I just said and there are thousands of them on the web, have a look if you wish.

 

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cosmology+models&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

I never claimed that the universe is infinite -- I claimed that it could be and if it was then your odds of life forming are 1 and the probability per unit whatever is meaningless. Beyond that I also cited a source that puts the universe as probably being flat.

 

Ifs and could be's don't help your case. I thought we were discussing science not metaphysics. Again I do appreciate the fact that you admitted my argument that chance alone is a non-starter. This thread seems done.

 

My critiques are overwhelmingly correct, it's you proselytizing a totally outdated and falsified world view that is suffering. Your constant appeals to an authority that is not considered an authority by anyone but creationists is sad, my link was an attempt to show how flawed your appeals to Hoyle really were. You have been totally dishonest in this from the very beginning, from the time you straw-manned the discussion by being dishonest about what you wanted to discuss to the pitiful attempts at appeals to an authority that was never really an authority to begin with. This is your dog and pony show but it is sadly a one trick pony that everyone has seen multiple times and is no longer much of a show.

 

 

I don't see anything relevant to the discussion here. In addition your bias is starting to show. Please remember that it was Skeptic who claimed that life from non-life by chance alone was a reasonable position. I have always maintained it was not. My use of Hoyle was intended to make a point that even someone many naturalists seem to despise can be correct (about life from non-life being unreasonable) once in a while. Does it bother you that the two of you agree on this point?

Edited August 8, 2010 by cypress

[Moontanman]

The only thing that bothers me is that I tried to discuss this with a person who uses misrepresentation, lies, straw-man, arguments, and misleading appeals to authority in place of truth and evidence. Some one who cannot win with brilliance so he tries his best to baffle the opponent with bullshit....

[AzurePhoenix]

Nonsense. We cannot assign probability to a speculation.

Hoyle's probability for the random formation of life is a long-debunked speculation that ignores reality and is widely referred to, specifically, as Hoyle's Fallacy. Yet you are basing this entire thread on this spectacularly erroneous, fallacious speculation.

 

Ifs and could be's don't help your case. I thought we were discussing science not metaphysics. Again I do appreciate the fact that you admitted my argument that chance alone is a non-starter. This thread seems done.

This thread was done from the opening post. All you've done is cherry-picked a few facts, if that much, and warped them with poor, biased reasoning, logical fallacies, and outright make-believe.

[ydoaPs]

Heat energy flows from high temperature (lower entropy) to low temperature (higher entropy).

 

 

 

Wrong again Skeptic. You don't have any experience with mass and heat transfer principles I take it. Here is a reference that addresses diffusion of heat and molecular diffusion. Carslaw, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

 

 

Ouch, Skeptic now you are zero for three. Have a look at the reference above. Also Chemical Engineers are generally expert at thermodynamics, particularly when one works with compressible gasses for 20 years.

 

 

 

Excellent my job is done here. Finally we agree that the odds of life forming by chance alone is unreasonable. Thank you for that admission.

 

 

 

 

Speculation cannot substitute for probabilistic resources and probabilistic resources that do not act on an event can't improve the odds of that event. You have demonstrated nothing. The balance of your argument is as vacuous as the errors you have already displayed. It is enough that now you agree life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. Thanks for that.

 

 

 

Nonsense. We cannot assign probability to a speculation.

 

 

 

A source that you misinterpreted and is wrongly applied is of very little help. I described your errors previously.

 

 

 

More nonsense. The observable universe is finite. Evidence exists that it had a beginning and there is no evidence available to indicate directly what lies beyond the observable universe. The inflation model allows for speculation about an infinite universe but it is just so. I don't think I need a reference to describe the various cosmology models. Nearly any credible discussion of cosmology will confirm what I just said and there are thousands of them on the web, have a look if you wish.

 

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cosmology+models&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

 

 

Ifs and could be's don't help your case. I thought we were discussing science not metaphysics. Again I do appreciate the fact that you admitted my argument that chance alone is a non-starter. This thread seems done.

 

 

 

 

I don't see anything relevant to the discussion here. In addition your bias is starting to show. Please remember that it was Skeptic who claimed that life from non-life by chance alone was a reasonable position. I have always maintained it was not. My use of Hoyle was intended to make a point that even someone many naturalists seem to despise can be correct (about life from non-life being unreasonable) once in a while. Does it bother you that the two of you agree on this point?

As a nuclear technician who works with heat engines daily, I can tell you that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

[cypress]

As a nuclear technician who works with heat engines daily, I can tell you that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

I find that engineering technicians are often wrong about such things. Go ahead and start a new thread though and explain precisely where I erred. Although I do make mistakes from time to time, it is nearly impossible that I could successfully design, construct and put into operation $200 Million dollar 30 thousand horsepower turbine driven gas compressor packages and not have the slightest clue about thermodynamics, mass and heat transfer or entropy. I'll wait for your first post in a new thread because this one is completed.

[ydoaPs]

I find that engineering technicians are often wrong about such things. Go ahead and start a new thread though and explain precisely where I erred.

If you think higher temp has lower entropy than lower temp, then you don't know jack about thermodynamics. You can't have even seen a heat cycle diagram to make such a basic error. And don't say it was a typo, as you were 'correcting' MrSkeptic on the point. Lrn2Thermodynamics

[cypress]

Hoyle's probability for the random formation of life is a long-debunked speculation that ignores reality and is widely referred to, specifically, as Hoyle's Fallacy. Yet you are basing this entire thread on this spectacularly erroneous, fallacious speculation.

 

This thread was done from the opening post. All you've done is cherry-picked a few facts, if that much, and warped them with poor, biased reasoning, logical fallacies, and outright make-believe.

 

It's funny though that everyone here, you included, and finally even the person who initially took exception and caused this thread to be created in the first place all agree with my initial premise that life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. That is hardly the outcome one would expect from the claims you are making of me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Heat energy flows from high temperature (lower entropy) to low temperature (higher entropy).

I think you've got your entropies backwards. Unless you mean something other than what I think you mean.

[ydoaPs]

It's funny though that everyone here, you included, and finally even the person who initially took exception and caused this thread to be created in the first place all agree with my initial premise that life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. That is hardly the outcome one would expect from the claims you are making of me.

Except that NO ONE AT ALL was claiming life from chance alone. You're arguing a strawman.

[cypress]

Except that NO ONE AT ALL was claiming life from chance alone. You're arguing a strawman.

 

 

Uh, no Skeptic was. It was his claim that caused me to start this thread.

[Moontanman]

Uh, no Skeptic was. It was his claim that caused me to start this thread.

 

 

Wow, 84 replies just to blame it all on Skeptic, some how that doesn't surprise me at all....

[ydoaPs]

Uh, no Skeptic was. It was his claim that caused me to start this thread.

What you quoted in the OP does not support your assertion.

[cypress]

I think you've got your entropies backwards. Unless you mean something other than what I think you mean.

 

Yes, I didn't say that quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said that heat energy flows from higher energy concentration (lower entropy) to lower energy concentration (higher entropy).

[ydoaPs]

Maybe you should start with wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_cycle

[cypress]

What you quoted in the OP does not support your assertion.

 

I'm relieved then that I didn't claim it did. He made the claim earlier in the original thread but the post I quoted was one I found particularly interesting and worthy of using as a starting for this thread. Go figure. If this is all you have against me it must be a slow night.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, I didn't say that quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said that heat energy flows from higher energy concentration (lower entropy) to lower energy concentration (higher entropy).

 

And what exactly is "energy concentration"? It's not a term I've heard used in physics or thermodynamics, except perhaps when referring to batteries or fuel sources.

[cypress]

And what exactly is "energy concentration"? It's not a term I've heard used in physics or thermodynamics, except perhaps when referring to batteries or fuel sources.

 

Would you prefer the term energy density rather than energy concentration? Here is a link that describes it this way

 

Is there a relevant point to your question, because I'm stumped. This thread is done. The conclusion is unanimous that life by chance alone is a nonstarter irrespective of any speculations about this universe.

Edited August 8, 2010 by cypress

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Would you prefer the term energy density rather than energy concentration? Here is a link that describes it this way

 

Is there a relevant point to your question, because I'm stumped. This thread is done. The conclusion is unanimous that life by chance alone is a nonstarter irrespective of any speculations about this universe.

 

Just trying to better understand your point. I'm sure you won't object to that.

 

Your link doesn't define energy density, or talk about it at all; perhaps you could frame it in terms of heat or temperature, or another physical concept with a well-understood definition?

[cypress]

Just trying to better understand your point. I'm sure you won't object to that.

 

Your link doesn't define energy density, or talk about it at all; perhaps you could frame it in terms of heat or temperature, or another physical concept with a well-understood definition?

 

 

I am fairly sure it does, here are a couple lines from the article discussing dispersal of energy and thus a reduction in the energy density in the sense I mean.

 

The advantage of uniform use of ‘dispersal' is its correct common-meaning applicability to examples ranging from motional energy becoming literally spread out in a larger volume to the cases of thermal energy transfer from hot surroundings to a cooler system, as well as to distributions of molecular energies on energy levels for either of those general cases.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So does "energy density" a combination of how dense a material is and how high its temperature is?

 

i.e. an energy-dense material would be either dense or very hot, while a different material with lower density or lower temperature would have a lower energy density. Correct?

 

Then you state that an energy-dense material is low-entropy. Correct? This is to contradict Mr Skeptic's statement that

 

Well, for one thing heat usually flows from areas of high entropy to areas of low entropy.

[Moontanman]

At one time it was quite popular. Even now there are supporters. see Koonin, "The Cosmological Model".

 

 

 

Beats me, perhaps you should ask Koonin, or why Skeptic wanted to advocate for this scenario, because as I said, I do not accept it.

 

 

At one time the idea that lightning was the result of an anthropomorphic God throwing lightning bolts around to show his displeasure, i am quite certain if you tried you could still find people who considers that a valid assertion but it is none the less no longer accepted as a way to explain lightning...

[pioneer]

Say you were asked to come up with a brand new design for a cell phone. Since this is an open request, there are many possible angles to try. Since your final design also has to be up to a high standard, it will take time to brain storm all the possibilities, narrow these down, develop a handful of alternatives, and then pick one for optimization.

 

As an alternative, say the request is to develop only design X, the process is much faster.

 

The point of this is say, hypothetically, DNA and RNA are the default genetic materials of life. They are very similar. That means the physical process needed to develop the genetic material does not have to try infinite things. It simply needs to perfect the default template material. A default improves the odds and speeds the process.

 

As an analogy, when the universe was first developing solar fusion (when no star were yet around), it was not a long winded random process of trying endless combinations until a good method for fusion appears. The laws of physics default a method for fusion. This allowed fusion to appear quickly.

 

There are no other genetic materials we know of besides RNA and DNA. The rest are speculation. If these two are the default, the goal is more direct.

 

It is not like the laws of nature don't already predefine defaults, everywhere. When the water molecule was being created for the first time, it was not an random process of trying different atoms, placing them in the lines, circles, squares and crosses. The default H2O occurred immediately.

[CharonY]

This thread started with speculations and did not improve. Thus a warm welcome to the speculations forum.

[Mr Skeptic]

Except that NO ONE AT ALL was claiming life from chance alone. You're arguing a strawman.

 

Is there a relevant point to your question, because I'm stumped. This thread is done. The conclusion is unanimous that life by chance alone is a nonstarter irrespective of any speculations about this universe.

 

Wait, no. My main point is that your calculation of probability of life forming (lets say per unit of our observable universe), is meaningless since there is a possibility that the universe is infinite. Hence my entire focus on the possibility that the universe is infinite.

 

Unless you can demonstrate that the probability that the universe is infinite is less than 10^-41,000, your claim that the chance of life starting by chance alone is anywhere close to that number is clearly false. Basically, I proved you wrong despite your use of a red herring. As I said, yummy fish dinner.

 

It is you who is demanding that the universe has to be finite. I'm just saying that it might be infinite, and gave conclusive evidence that it might be infinite. You have been completely unable to prove your claim that the probability of the universe being infinite is less than 10^-41,000, and simply dismiss such an impressive task as the other side speculating.

 

Heat energy flows from high temperature (lower entropy) to low temperature (higher entropy).

 

That's just precious. You have no less than four members disagreeing with you plus you seem to have done a search to try to confirm and you still persist in having things backwards?!?

 

Well, for one thing heat usually flows from areas of high entropy to areas of low entropy.

As a nuclear technician who works with heat engines daily, I can tell you that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

If you think higher temp has lower entropy than lower temp, then you don't know jack about thermodynamics. You can't have even seen a heat cycle diagram to make such a basic error. And don't say it was a typo, as you were 'correcting' MrSkeptic on the point. Lrn2Thermodynamics

I think you've got your entropies backwards. Unless you mean something other than what I think you mean.

The physical law constrains the average heat energy flux to flow from low entropy areas to high entropy areas and in the process increases total entropy of the system.

 

Now I don't want to make this into an Ad Populum argument, but there is a reason that people make this sort of argument: the majority is in fact quite frequently right. In any case, I suggest you pay particular attention to the last of the quotes I shared that disagree with you. It is interesting but not really a surprise. Denying evolution while being fairly well educated does require being able and willing to deny the undeniable, it is just a particularly interesting example of such.

 

 

Wrong again Skeptic. You don't have any experience with mass and heat transfer principles I take it. Here is a reference that addresses diffusion of heat and molecular diffusion. Carslaw, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

I know about diffusion of both heat and molecules. Perhaps I misunderstood your use of molecular entropy. A refrigerator can reduce the molecular entropy of its contents, yes?

 

Ouch, Skeptic now you are zero for three. Have a look at the reference above. Also Chemical Engineers are generally expert at thermodynamics, particularly when one works with compressible gasses for 20 years.

 

Perhaps, but I know an expert who claims to have worked with compressible gasses (as if there were any other kind ) for 20 years who disagrees with you.

 

Excellent my job is done here. Finally we agree that the odds of life forming by chance alone is unreasonable. Thank you for that admission.

 

All I'm saying is that even such small odds fail to make any meaningful argument unless you can prove the universe is finite, which you haven't.

 

Speculation cannot substitute for probabilistic resources and probabilistic resources that do not act on an event can't improve the odds of that event. You have demonstrated nothing. The balance of your argument is as vacuous as the errors you have already displayed. It is enough that now you agree life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. Thanks for that.

 

 

 

Nonsense. We cannot assign probability to a speculation.

 

 

 

A source that you misinterpreted and is wrongly applied is of very little help. I described your errors previously.

 

 

 

More nonsense. The observable universe is finite. Evidence exists that it had a beginning and there is no evidence available to indicate directly what lies beyond the observable universe. The inflation model allows for speculation about an infinite universe but it is just so. I don't think I need a reference to describe the various cosmology models. Nearly any credible discussion of cosmology will confirm what I just said and there are thousands of them on the web, have a look if you wish.

 

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cosmology+models&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

None however contradict what I said. Of course the observable universe is finite, I even said so myself. Which makes this a strawman.

 

Ifs and could be's don't help your case. I thought we were discussing science not metaphysics. Again I do appreciate the fact that you admitted my argument that chance alone is a non-starter. This thread seems done.

 

Your argument rests entirely on the unsupported assumption that the universe is finite. The if's don't help your argument any since I don't accept your claim that the universe is finite.

[cypress]

So does "energy density" a combination of how dense a material is and how high its temperature is?

 

i.e. an energy-dense material would be either dense or very hot, while a different material with lower density or lower temperature would have a lower energy density. Correct?

 

No.

 

First off the measure of energy density is Heat Capacity so mass density is not precisely correct and higher temperatures distribute energy over a broader set of possible states and thus represents a broader energy density distribution. Have another look at the article where it describes the distribution of possible energy states. Since this is thermal entropy the relevant consideration is all possible distributions of thermal energy and entropy is a measure of probability. Lower entropy systems have the distribution of energy occupying fewer of the total available positions since there are less permutations when the thermal energy is concentrated.

 

For the same mass of material, at higher temperatures the total number of occupied permutations is greater since broader spectrum of energy levels are occupied so entropy is higher than for the same mass at lower temperatures.

 

Then you state that an energy-dense material is low-entropy. Correct? This is to contradict Mr Skeptic's statement that

 

Systems where energy is less distributed (more concentrated) within a particular system are lower-entropy than the same system with greater distribution of thermal energy. In this way, in a system with a temperature gradient, heat energy diffuses from high density areas to low density areas and the entropy of the system increases.