Happy Halloween

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Well, I Consider You A Friend

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 27, 2002 17:21:38 UTC

Alex,

This all fun for me, so you pointing out mistakes (even my mistakes) is all in fun. I enjoy talking with you, so feel free to be honest and frank. I wouldn't want you any other way.

***Kind of same as with you: you still firmly belive in "allmighty being" despite all clear evidences to inverse.***

What evidence? The evidence that shows that our algorithms can barely simulate simple phenomena much less a complex universe where all the thousands of laws and principles blend into a beautiful universe?

***So, now I am more tolerant to mistakes. Becoming mature, you know.***

You seem pretty mature. I'm thinking your middle age (give or take a few years).

***About SAP. Why do you need atomic structures for life? Why not nuclear, or neutrino, (or other particles which come to existense at different constants)?***

Again, I don't want to restrict what the universe could have been to support life. It is certainly far, far beyond the ability of humanity to simulate another universe capable of evolving life and intelligence by modifying the constants, but I believe that anything is possible. However, that's a far cry from slightly modifying any constant and always getting a universe with large scale structures where evolution is possible. I think that's pie in the sky if you seriously think that you can make a change that ends weak interactions and somehow end up with stellar evolution (etc).

***Also, how do you know that constants are NOT related (that you can only change one making atom unstable while all of them will change making just change in size of atom)?***

I don't know that, and don't pretend to know it. What I know is that the universe is here because of a great many features in the laws are 'just so' as to produce our universe. This shows that the combined laws are very high in algorithmic complexity. Can you take an algorithm modify it and create another working algorithm? Yes. Can you arbitrarily change lines of code (of a complex algorithm) and expect to always see a working algorithm. Absolutely not.

Alex, I don't even know why we are having this discussion. You are a smart guy. You know that the universe barely exists from many features that we know and many features we are yet to discover which shows we are here very precariously. Haven't you ever programed? Don't you know that algorithms aren't random sequences but are very particular sequences?

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins