Life by chance.

I see this come up a LOT and I've even gone over the subject previously! But I needed to put my words here to explain how I see that life is not only probable - insofar as we have direct evidence of life existing here on Earth. But is, I think, more likely than a good selection of folk would care to accept.

Understanding 'Chance'

Let's start by understanding 'chance'. Think of probability as the likelihood of a particular event happening out of all the possible events.

• Think of probability as how likely something is to happen.
• Imagine rolling a dice and trying to guess the number.

Expressing Probability

• For rolling a 6 on a dice, the chance is 1 out of 6 possible outcomes.
• We can express this as 1/6 or 1:6.
• I prefer the ratio notation, so I'd say the probability is 1:6 for a single dice roll.

In the topic of this post, there are the possible outcomes:

1. life exists
2. life does not exist

Hypothetical

Proteins and RNA

Forgive the following, but I'm going to vastly oversimplify some details about cumulative probability over time. Let us, for the sake of the following hypothetical, contemplate that the chance of life occurring on any given planet is one in four centillion. This is a phenomenally minuscule contemplation. The number representing it is gargantuan (too large to write here) - I use this as a base number as it is derived from the idea of RNA combining in just the right way such that it can cartelize for the purpose of Abiogenesis.

1:{four centillion}

Passage of Time (highly simplified)

Now, let us expand this hypothetical in that: for every year that has passed (in which there are viable places for life to exist), thirty-one million occurrences of the probability event are resolved. That means some 4.1 approximate quadrillion points of information for testing (I'm rounding to simplify).

13,000,000,000

For this hypothetical, this now reduces the probability to a still ridiculous but now more comprehensible one in one quinquagintillion (yes, that's a real number) but importantly the 'size' of the number has dropped from 602 digits to merely 164 digits. Let's continue.

1: {one quinquagintillion}

Potential locations (again, highly simplified)

This insane number must now be modified by the number of locations at which there can be a successful outcome. Our universe is so vast that even the most powerful measurements we have only account for a fraction of what is out there, and that fraction already accounts for billions, of billions of planets.

To simplify this (just to keep the thought experiment going...) let's say there are one hundred billion possible planets - and to say this is a simplification is an understatement, realistically this is closer to the number just in our local area of space, let alone the incredible space beyond it.

100,000,000,000

Well, all those events events over 100b locations (which is easy multiplication, honest!) Leaving one duoquinquagintillion. An even sillier-sounding number, but smaller - now only 153 digits. Which is, sufficed to say, still rather bloody huge odds.

1: {one duoquinquagintillion}

Impossible Odds?

This extraordinarily unlikely probability might seem to argue against my hypothesis (that the probability of life occurring by chance is 1:1) but we still have a whole raft of variables to include to further reduce the working number - I'll save you the brain space and cut to perhaps the most important determining detail I can think of and then refer to the new working probability number.

Every Possible Chemical Interaction:

Assuming that no single interaction of basic chemicals is the sole operator for the primary emergence, indeed, I will allow here that the primary interactions of chemicals that formed viable proteins and then also their further chemical interaction create such a huge gamut of possible actions somewhere in the range of 10 googol possibilities.

10 {googols}

Now we have a working number that may represent at least a 'good' guess range of our new probability-

1: {one sexdecillion}

A Review

I can, with very, very basic maths refine the probability by an incomprehensible magnitude shifting from a variable with 602 digits to just 52 digits. and I have, at every step, vastly underestimated the calculation required, If I had more time I could better determine the scope of each calculation, and likely also find additional factors to further reduce the working number.

Sadly, I am not paid for this, and as this is just a curiosity, I am happy that within a hypothetical, undercalculated contemplation the 'impossibility' becomes vastly more 'possible'.

I am suitably reassured that, given the correct parameters, and the time to properly calculate the probability would only ever shrink closer to 1:1.

But, such things are for smarter people than I to think of.

In Conclusion - Is this useful, or even interesting?

Well, to me yes, by extrapolating the numbers I found that even where there are only 13 million years of potential occurrences the probability of success is significantly higher than 0:1 likely to occur. To me, this suggests that if we were ever to come close to understanding key details we could extrapolate a probability of life.

We'd need to know how many possible 'places' life can occur, and we'd also have to determine the number of events at which life can occur, both of which are likely utterly impossible for any human to ever truly come to know.

A similar train of thought is explored here: www.science20.com - odds life could begin by chance

Continue

My thoughts...

Upon reading another atheism =/= nihilism post on Google+ I responded with the following, I think, perhaps for the first time ever, I've managed to capture a big part of why I think the way I do about gods etc. I thought I'd post it here to share:

---

Here's a fun fact, none of what any human has ever done will have any lasting impact in the reality in which we find ourselves.

The greatest artwork will fade.
The most profound thoughts ever written will crumble and rot.
The most fantastic music will fall silent.
The most brilliant cities will fall to dust.

Our planet will eventually be destroyed by the very thing which allows our existence...

In the long run, literally everything of this planet will have been wiped from reality, to be consumed by the vast cosmos.

However, that does not mean we cannot enjoy being here, it does not preclude that we can love one another in our brief lives.

That we can laugh, sing and dream, we are so very very fortunate that we have this chance, that we are here and that we can shape our lives is the greatest fortune.

As an individual, as a person I hope to have every conceivable enjoyment during my brief existence, and I hope that I can help others have that same enjoyment.

To be alive, to think, to feel - every moment of it so precious, is a wonder and just to be here excites me.

I certainly need no god at which to pour my limited time and emotion, I would, in every circumstance rather that my love and attention be given to those around me, that my time is spent enjoying my own life and helping others enjoy theirs.

If I were to waste my efforts and resource on a god I would be doing a disservice to myself and to others.

Continue

I'm right, because I say I'm right!

Another Google plus special review...
Let's crack into it.
From a chap called Adam Dobrin that places the claim: "I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... "
like hundreds of people before him he's seen the pattern that nobody else can see! Better yet he has a 'verifiable pattern' - I'll be sure to undertake a verification of this later.

Adam Posted:

I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... I'm very curious what you think. Here, I provide one example, which shows how a song "They Stood Up for Love" by Live ties the word "Menorah" to America's history... specifically the "Sons of Liberty."

It's my contention that this acronym is the "SOL" of God, which Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up. The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women; and this question ties the word Menorah (a light bringing device) to what I've called the Sang Rael--another pattern I'd love some feedback on.

-- edited out link --

I specifically discuss how this might prove the existence of God, by showing us that there is a hidden message that spans from the Bible to modern music--one that the prophets could not have known about, and the musicians of today most likely are going to be surprised to hear .. might be speaking the words of God.

-- edited out link -- talks about how the acronym for SEA shows us that there is a tie between Shekinah (the spirit of God) and "everyone," Holy Water. It ends up ambiguous, leaving the last "A" of SEA as having multiple possible suggestions: Adamah, Allah, etc.  I think the word "allah" leads us, to show that the "AH" in this context is an acronym for "All Humanity" and that this is confirmed strongly by the word Menorah, now a question through time:

Men, or All Humanity?

What do you think of the message?  I find it's existence to be compelling evidence to prove that we are literally the "light" of the Apocalyptic fire... one that might begin with 
-- edited out link --

I've taken out the links to what appears to be his blog, but I will be checking the content myself, I just don't wish to promote what I see as nonsense by linking to it.

---

1st paragraph breakdown:

Regarding the song: "They stood up for love" by Live - released in 2000
Claim: the word menorah (think Jewish Hanukkah...) is in his own words 'specifically tied, to America's history and more specifically to the group "Sons of Liberty"
First point to raise: the song does not include the word menorah. it does contain the word 'candle' but I would argue that a candle is a singular object and a menorah is a very defined thing which in itself cannot simply be called 'a candle'
From this I suggest this point Adam has simply injected a word that he has chosen as 'fitting' with no reason to back why that word is chosen.

P1 Summary:

• The reference word is seemingly chosen at random (or by subjective personal opinion)
• The reference word appears nowhere in the song against which it is referenced
• The 'Sons of Liberty' had no relevancy to either the song, it's lyrics or any form of Jewsih ideology.

---

2nd paragraph breakdown:

I'll start by stating that I personally find it very hard to read this paragraph in a format in which is actually makes sense. So this breakdown is based on how I've understood the details of this paragraph.
The term "acronym SOL of God" makes no sense, the acronym is of Sons of Liberty, and they in themselves have no reference to god, the group was formed in protestation of taxation.
Even if we read the acronym, Sol, commonly refers to the Latin for sun, and if it is related to a god then it is the god Sol a Roman deity, one that pre-dates the god of the Bible. to this end any reference to biblical interpretation is irrelevant.

Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up.

The song (and it's lyrics) seem quite intentionally bent toward the Christian ideas, which if my conjecture of Roman deity is even remotely accurate is, as I say, utterly irrelevant.

I would pose that Adam has specifically chosen to observe a song that he has a personal (subjective) affinity toward, which makes the choice of song to be quite ambiguous.
The last part of this details that a 'question' is revealed, however what follows is written as a directive not an inquisitive detail.
moving on the the next part:

The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women;

The Sons of liberty, at least from what I've found, had nothing to do with the 'waking up' of slaves or women, their history is steeped in political unrest and is directly caused by what was seen to be unfair taxation.
I'd like to add I'm presuming that in context the 'waking up' of slaves and women would be the act of emancipation of those parties, or somehow related to their respective freedoms.
In the last part of the 2nd paragraph Adam specifically refers to another hypothesis he's formed to be used as part of the supporting detail to this hypothesis, I would argue this is deliberately obfuscating details by presenting ever more personal and subjective interpretation.

P2 Summary:

• Seemingly random acronym chosen, based on nothing within the referenced song.
• Acronym definition presupposed, there are many other S.O.L acronym meanings.
• Acronym of English language referenced against Jewish concept (English/Hebrew not accounted for)
• Misrepresentation of argument - incorrect details of the Sons of Liberty group intentions.
• Song seems to be chosen based on personal affinity (subjective interpretation)
• Backing up fallacious presentation of details with a further (possibly) fallacious details.
• Possible deliberate obfuscation.

---

3rd Paragraph breakdown:

This paragraph is simply conjecture, it is a paragraph of personal contemplation and offers no basis on verification or even alluding to the format of the pattern that we are to be observing.
Adam does offer in here what appears to be a moment of hesitation or doubt by using the word "might" twice in the paragraph in place of assured words such as "definitively", or "certainly".
"might" Is a term used where one is not sure of that which is being referenced (in this context the reference point is God) it's inconsequential, but I find it amusing that the tone of language has altered from terms such as 'verifiable' (that which can independently and objectively be seen as truthful or accurate) to more vague terminology.

P3 Summary

• Personal conjecture
• Use of vague terminology

---

4th Paragraph breakdown:

This is another self-reference observation, claiming accuracy based on details of a previous assertion that was made and would appear to have equally little validity, is rife with subjective choices and details.
It further muddies the already unclear intention by adding a new deity into the mix (in this paragraph Allah is referred to) which again poses translational issues as Adam continues to reference English language observations, this time based on Arabic original content.
In this paragraph, Adam does however admit that the choice of acronym, and indeed the resultant meaning is one riddled with ambiguity.
It is this last part which I think clearly breaks down any veracity of any propose 'verifiable pattern'
I would propose that for something to be valid, it cannot allow ambiguity.

P4 Summary:

• Additional Obfuscation of original message
• Subjective (personal interpretation) of details.
• Further translational or linguistic barriers (English/Arabic)
• Self admission that there has been personal subjective interpretation and assertion of detail.

---

Wrapping up

I was about to list the various fallacy argument points that Adam has relied upon to act as cranes to his thought process, but instead of listing all the one I possibly could I'll give a few choice ones and link this page: 7 Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
If I have any closing comment it is that the proposed verifiable pattern is with some certainty simply not present due to the heavy reliance on personal subjective interpretation and detail presentation.

---

Final choices to represent my thoughts on Adam's presented idea:

• Argument by Fast Talking (presenting a lot of detail for the reader to have to read)
• Circular reasoning (enforcing presupposition)
• Cherry Picking
• Etymological Fallacy
• Fallacy of Composition
• Oh.. and Occam's Razor needs to be brought in here too!

Most importantly, I can actually see no presentation of the pattern that Adam is testing and so cannot test it for myself.
As I see it the pattern is:

1. Choose a song (one you like is better)
2. Choose a random item or concept which is easily referable to the Bible, or Qu'ran (do other holy books count?)
3. Form a link for the song and that item/concept - how you go about this is up to you.
4. Choose an article of historical relevance (finding random wiki pages can help with this)
5. Form an acronym based on that historical reference, again what letters you choose here are up to you.
6. Explain how that acronym is intrinsically linked to the song - the reason you give is up to you.
7. Present your findings as proof to something (better to choose a god or other equally deep concept such as Death or single socks missing in the washing machine)

Continue

Does Human Life Exist?

From Google Plus: "Science Fact; Acording to the Law of Probability!... Do you Think 4.55 Billions years is Enough For Human Kind To Evolved ... Give Data To Support It ... i will use your Model to win the Lottery..."

Here are my thoughts on why this essentially boils down to gamblers fallacy.
But let me put my thoughts down so you can see why I've come to this result.

Let's have a look at how I would build a probability of model of life occurring:

Does Life exist?

1, We have only one set of datum on which to compare our model that being that human life exists.
and so therefore we must declare that the probability of humans existing is extremely likely as we don't have another universe to observe for 14 billion years (and yes your 4.5 billion is wrong, I'll explain why in a moment)

2, We know that the universe exists. This fact can be tested and hopefully be declared as accurate. There are some that would posit that all existence is merely a dream etc, however, regardless of the metaphysical state of reality we can repeatedly observe, measure, test and base accurate predictions on what we know of the reality we have so until reality can be definitively proven not to exist let us take it that reality exists as it is right now.

3, We have through observation come to understand that this reality has existed in a historical sense for at least 14 billion years or so (the fractions are unimportant here) of which I seem to recall that some 13 billion years has had the universe developing planets.

4, It is hypothetically possible that any planet created has a chance of having life created, but we have only one measured instance of this (our own) there have been billions of planets that have existed, even before ours was formed. and even from empirical evidence there are currently billions of planets that exist. This detail is important later.

Can human life exist?

5, Probability suggests that at any given moment, and I mean in time scales smaller than would be sensible to measure, an event has an X chance of occurring. Where X represents a probability chance of a given event occurring. Our event to be measured is the occurrence of life (here represented as L). so we are attempting to find where X:1

I'me leaning on the occurrence of life being one of natural origin such as Abiogensis and I would see that the occurrence likelihood of such an event to be immeasurably small.

Limitation of event parameters: Where it can occur.

6, We know that X can hypothetically only occur on a planet, but we have already come to understand from point 4 there have been/there are billions of planets and so X now has to be multiplied by the number of planets (here represented as P) that ever existed so now we know that probability of life is at least X(P):1

Limitation of event parameters: When it can occur.

7, The scale of time in which the event can occur (lets call this T) is really quite immense. For example count how many 'moments' there are in a given second (rhetorical). The number of 'moments' that have ever come to pass probably surpasses comprehensible numbers in which I can express things.

There have been 14 billion years (and if you subscribe to the theory of multi-verse as I do, possibly hundreds of billions of years) or simply countless nearly infinite 'moments' at which X has had chance to occur.

Now we have that X(PT):1 is our given chance of life occurring

• X is a redundantly small number
• It is multiplied to the power of an extremely large number (P)
• It is then further exponentially multiplied by a number (T) which cannot even be quantified correctly.

I cannot even come to fathom the scale of this probability event but let us in sake of furthering my discussion point state that we arrive at a probability of 1:1,000,000. This suggests that in every million occurrences it is likely that it would happen at least once.

Gamblers Fallacy

Gamblers fallacy helpfully points out that even in something simple as a coin toss (a 1:2 probability event) it is entirely possible that if flipped a million times we may never see a 'heads' result which hypothetically should occur at least half a million times.

However the opposite is also true of Gamblers fallacy it could be that we see in a coin toss a million results of 'heads'. This is the fun thing about probability, the event outcome does not increase, or decrease its likely outcome based on previous event outcomes.

So even in a coin toss where we see one 'heads' and every other outcome is tails this adhere's to the fact that every event occurrence is 1:2

Back to life...

Back to our derived probability of life occurring, a 1:1,000,000 chance (or however large a scale you like to put in) states that at any moment life can start, and those moments have been flying by, probably several quadrillion moments have occurred while I've written this. Maybe more?

Quite frankly the scale of this now starts to confound and confuse me a little, we have a nearly infinite number of event occurrences in time with a nearly infinitely small likelihood of an event occurring.

Conclusion

I think I'll sum all of this long winded crap up by stating that I would see the probability of life as 1:1 or in terms that can be read by people: 100%.

I am happy to report that life does exist. If life did not exist, I'd have a hard time trying to explain all this. To perhaps alleviate this entire post of rhetorical nonsense, let us in stead observe from a simple top-down check.

1. life exists.

Q: Can life exist?
A: Yes.

---

Addendum, I tried looking up some things to help express my thoughts, it didn't help. I found this excerpt from a 'probability over time' thread on www.physicsforums.com

"Or, you could define a metadistribution H(x) = w F(x) + (1-w) G(x) where 0 < w < 1 is a monotonic function of time."

I don't even understand what any of that means... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Continue

Occam's - For Shiva Kumar

This post for: Shiva Kumar

I would like to apologize for the length of this post, but I hope to highlight in as simple a way possible my reasoning for arguing against your position.

I remove god from the equation of creation by applying a reasoning tool known as Occam's Razor, I'll try to explain 'my version' of this-

[ link to an article on Occam's Razor here - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam's_razor ]

As I see things you would state that the order of creation is thus:

1. there was nothing
2. there is god
3. god creates everything
4. there is everything

At stage 2, a further question arises: How does god become if before there was nothing? (In addition please see infinite regression and infinite existence notes at the end)

This adds an additional unknown prerequisite before we meet state 3.

So this now becomes.

1. there was nothing
2. god came into being by unknown means
3. there is god
4. god creates our existence by unknown means
5. there is everything

This becomes a more complex idea. If we apply Occam's Razor, which seeks to simplify operations on the grounds that a hypothesis with fewer or simpler assumptions is more direct and therefore considered more accurate.

My argument against

I would then undertake the following simplifications:

1 there was nothing

I would rephrase this to: 1. there was an as yet unknown state
I believe this to be a more accurate statement based on what we can understand based on facts.

Based on everything we as a species have learned, there is nobody alive, nor has there ever been a verifiable historical source with authoritative knowledge of what 'was' or 'was not' before our existence.

2. there is now something

This is observed fact from an anthropological stance, there is observable existence and it follows that based on such fact;- Existence must have come about by some as yet unknown means.

So, and I hope you are following this example so far...

1. there was previous to known existence, an as yet unknown state.
2. there was presumed to have been an as yet unknown event to bring about our existence.
3. there is now existence.

My example includes only 3 stages of variables, where as the version which would include a god figure would have 5 stages of variables.

Additional argument against

I would further reinforce my argument at this point with a reasoning tool known as Newton's flaming laser sword. This states that anything which cannot be settled by experiment is not worthy of debate.

From deistic creation:

• We can test existence as we know it.
• We cannot test a means by which a god figure could begin to be (or to itself exist).
• We cannot test a means by which a deity might 'create' existence as we know it.

In opposition - by way of anthropological deduction:

• We can test existence as we know it.
• By extension: we can, within this existence find testable facts which pertain to the creation of this existence.
• We do not yet understand how existence came into being.

Once again, the arguments which preclude a deity are simpler, and can by Occam's Razor be thought to be more accurate.

Infinite Regression/Existence

This is another application of Occam's Razor-

Where god can be said to have existed outside of our reality (such argument would only further complicates the deistic creation argument) and/or has done so infinitely through all history.

With the same logic (ie that something can exist infinitely) we can posit that existence has been here and/or has been here into infinity of history.

Addendum:

I don't expect that you are willing to simply accept that any of the above should be 'true' however I would ask that you think on what I've written here, there are many resources that you can use to research for yourself.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

If you have any further questions, or wish to talk further on this, you know where to find me!

Continue

Update Time

I've been busy doing other things, and have fallen away from my 'anti-theistic' tendencies, but nonetheless I've added an additional page which is a repost of another Blog I found.

It handles some details of genesis and the how and why of the discrepancies against scientific principles. It will come in handy as reference in the future should I need it.

Science Fact Vs Bible Fiction

I've also added a link to another Blog I found and one which seems to merge quite well with my own style:

Http://www.godlessmom.com

(kudos for having a top level domain, I simply can't afford such luxuries!)


Am off to go and continue doing other stuff,

ta ta for now!

Continue

Oh... Jon O

For John Omoluabi

This is a dissection of the article you had linked : http://www.christianitytoday.com/ how i almost lost bible
perhaps it is with some irony that the action of linking this article as some form of evidence is in itself somewhat logically fallacious.

While I have used the appropriate name for fallacy where found I have not explained in detail why, but (rather foolishly) I take the position that the details of why are actually quite easy to see If you read the article and compare it to my notes.

For reference of what the terms of a fallacy may mean, please feel free to reference sites such as: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Begin the dissection!

1st Paragraph
raised by religious parent (it is accepted that children follow parent religion by 'peer pressure' alone)

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-and-family-connection-social-science-perspectives/chapter-13-familial-influence
(best to skip to summary)

This part proves nothing other than (confirming) the fact that children are greatly influenced by their parents when it comes to religious matters. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

2nd Paragraph
In corroboration of early childhood (appeal to tradition), this does nothing other than to confirm the person has (a now ingrained) religious view.

3rd Paragraph
Contains subjective quote that adds/reinforces confirmation bias. Ends with Appeal to tradition (or perhaps even Appeal to ancient wisdom)

4th Paragraph
Opens with Argumentum ad populum and then enters the presumption of argument from adverse consequence, proposing by assumption that 'loosing faith' is a negative effect to be avoided.

5th Paragraph
Opens with Argumentum ad verecundiam with Ad nauseum (repetition of content does not validate it) followed by subjective content - possible appeal to motive/bribery by way of reinforcing confirmation bias)

6th Paragraph
I find no content of note other than reference to prior Argumentum ad verecundiam.

7th Paragraph
I find no content of note perhaps introducing an additional layer of Argumentum ad verecundiam.

8th Paragraph
Oddly this is the first example of any objectively recognised detail.


9th & 10th Paragraphs
(these roll together) I find these to be written in perhaps the most open format, perhaps subjective but at least written from internal rather than inferred external contemplations.

11th Paragraph
This approaches the primary Argumentum ad verecundiam but also introduces Appeal to loyalty (father)

12th Paragraph
by way of Argumentum ad verecundiam an additional Argumentum ad verecundiam is introduced.

13th Paragraph (and sub section)
I could find nothing of note other than a referenced Style over substance fallacy

14th Paragraph
This is entirely argument from adverse consequence.

15th Paragraph
This appears to be about how the writer is now accepting or reinforcing their cognitive dissonance.

16th Paragraph
Use of emotive language/reference (echoing the previously assumed argument from adverse consequence) more argument from adverse consequence.

17th Paragraph (and subsequent)
No content of note, seems to echo to previous Argumentum ad verecundiam


I find nothing within the entire article which alludes to veracity of any deity, it appears to be the story of how one indoctrinated child was about to learn about reality but thanks to emotionally invested arguments from authority was turned about such that the writer could find an appropriate comfortable level of cognitive dissonance.

Continue