David Platek says:

Dear Grace,

Thank you for responding to my post. I especially want to thank you for your observation that the first half of my comment struck you as being Bulverism. Although a potentially cogent observation, I couldn’t help but observe that it’s credibility was instantaneously destroyed with the phrase, “interesting that many atheists will start off with Bulverism when commenting on this site”, words which, in and of themselves, present the very fallacy of which you complain by introducing the irrelevant ‘red herring’ subject of what ‘many atheists’ may have done in the past in posting to the site. This introduces the wholly irrelevant necessary implication that I am an atheist through the use of another fallacy; affirming the consequent (“atheists employ Bulversim” which leads to: “I have concluded the first half of the comment to be Bulverism”, therefore: “you must be an atheist”). Finally, with all of that in place, you are then able to close the loop and ‘prove’ that the first half of my comment is, ‘in fact’ “Bulverism” through the simple application of the final necessary fallacy of begging the question that goes something like this: The poster of the comment is an atheist; atheists often start off with Bulverism when commenting on this site, therefore; the first half of the entire comment can be dismissed as ‘Bulverism’. See how easy and convenient that was?
Now that we have that out of the way, can we both at least agree, in principle, that the human animal has a strong tendency to engage in fallacious arguments? And that, even when the intent is wholly and completely otherwise, a careful critic can almost always dig deeper and deeper and deeper into any set of words or phrases to ‘expose’ fallacies in the argument to the point that the process of discourse itself breaks down into a meaningless exercise in semantics and becomes a ‘fallacy’ of a sort onto itself?
So, if you would give me some ‘wiggle room’, I will return the favor in kind and we may proceed to, as you suggest, address the topic at hand: What is the probability the universe is the result of chance?
In reply to:
“Also, just because people have been wrong in the past, does not mean that they will always be wrong in the future. By your logic, we could say that since scientists have been wrong in the past, they will therefore always be wrong in the future with their scientific theories and experiments. That’s illogical”.
I offer you a resounding ‘yes’ to the first sentence and cry ‘fallacy foul’ as to the remainder (See, discussion above). Although your reply is non-specific to my comment, I am presuming that you are making reference to those portions which illustrate that, throughout the recorded history of humans on the planet Earth, faith based ‘answers’ to all manner of inquiry have always been proven to be WRONG, 100% of the time, once the scientific community has collected sufficient data to publish, thereby removing the matter from the realm of philosophy and replacing the previous ‘faith-based-answer’ with one based upon scientific ‘fact’ (or, at least a pretty darn-good-theory).
Please note however, that in making these sorts of statements, I do not intend to attack ‘faith based solutions’ as ‘wastes of time’ or ‘meaningless exercises’, I am only commenting on the objective reality that: People used to be put in jail for ‘blasphemy’ (actions defined as ‘criminal’ by men, taken against the then current concept of a ‘deity’, also created and defined by men, and/or their proclamations as to the ‘truths’ of the faith-based-community as it existed at any given point in time). Galileo is only one of many examples of the FACT that these things occurred and no amount of fallacious reasoning could dispute this reality, right? Well, what happened? Eventually, the emerging and ever evolving field of science learned, through observation and experimentation, coupled with intellectual discourse amongst learned men, MOST OF WHICH by the way, were and remained devout in their religious beliefs, collected data and empirical evidence that began to cause the emergence of alternative explanations in the form of ‘scientific theories’, many of which were opposed to one another, that eventually evolved into verifiable ‘proof’ of a ‘reality’ that was so convincing and undeniably more correct than the ‘faith-based-proclamation’ that ‘God’ had made the heavens revolve around the Earth, that Galileo was ‘pardoned’ for the ‘crime’ of having had the foresight to replace ‘ignorance’ with a better understanding. Never mind that it took the Catholics until 1992 to do it (http://4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html), at least they did it, right? You see, ‘faith’ had no choice but to yield to science because the scientific ‘answer’ was supported by a logical, systematic and verifiable set of algorithms that left so little room for ‘doubt’ as to their validity that continued insistence to the contrary would not only ‘illogical’, but irrational as well.
This ‘phenomenon’ of systematically replacing ‘faith-based-solutions’ with those born of better reasoning producing a superior result is patently obvious. Its progression and evolution throughout history can be easily mapped and is impossible to refute with anything other than a fallacious argument. However, please further note that even when ‘science speaks’ it too does so with a certain authority of ignorance because nobody, but nobody, really “knows” anything at all. As far as I am aware, there is no credible scientist on the planet Earth (operative word: “credible”) who will declare or state a proposition with 100% certainty. We have seen that Newtonian physics has its limitations and that the ‘answers’ generated by the equations we were all tested on for accuracy in high school are actually ‘wrong’, even in our own experience, but the ‘error’ is so small that you can ignore the effects of the warping of space-time by gravity, even for the purposes of building buildings and rocket ships to the moon. However, if we learn to travel at or near the speed of light, Newtonian ‘answers’ to the equations must be thrown into the waste basket in favor of the higher and better understanding of the Universe as described by Einstein.
So yes, Grace, to more directly answer even the ‘objected to’ portion of your question: qualifiedly and subject to the phenomenon described above – ‘yes’, every answer provided by men ‘of science’ will carry with it, a certain amount of ‘ignorance’ and, consequently, will be correspondingly ‘wrong’, and remain so, until such time as a new and higher level of understanding comes along to better explain, refine, re-define, augment or replace it altogether. At any instant in time however, it has ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, that a well reasoned scientific response to an inquiry presents a better alternative in making a choice as to how to proceed than the ‘faith-based-solution’ that it has replaced. For example: If your child was struck by fever of 103°, you would call a doctor, right? You may also chose, to say a few prayers, you know, to cover your bet. However, if you did NOT pursue the ‘scientific based’ set of solutions by calling the doctor and relied solely upon prayer, most states (and most other countries around the world) would exercise subject matter jurisdiction over you and your child and you would find yourself in jail if your child should succumb and die as you continued to pray over the body. Now I am not suggesting (which would be a wholly fallacious argument) that we have come ‘full circle’ and ‘god’ has ‘lost to science’ (Galileo (‘then’) and You only praying (‘now’)) or some other such nonsense, but what I am suggesting is that these FACTS provide a basis upon which I can confidently state the phenomenon I claim to ‘observe’ is real rather than perceived and most certainly NOT the product of ‘Bulverism’.
Moreover, and even more resoundingly, YES, YES, YES, the scientific community is always, continually, openly and freely admitting that it is or has been ‘wrong’ about something, provided only, that the purported replacement ‘tearing down’ the previously positioned ‘fact’ passes the same or greater degree of scientific scrutiny than that which was applied to the proposition under attack. By this method, we obtain at least a reasonable degree of certainty that science, that is ‘good, well reasoned science’, the kind upon which an overwhelming majority of rational persons will agree, will not become inundated with and diluted by ‘hocus pocus’ and ‘slight of hand mumbo-jumbo’. What I find most fascinating is, that when anyone even suggests to a member of the faith-based-community that their then current notion of ‘god’ might have a few issues squaring with reality because we may actually have come into existence from nothing by random chance and/or that this universe may be nothing more than a holographic projection of information existing in another dimension, and so on and so on, the troops circle the wagons and ‘hunker down’ into ever increasingly small circles of circuitous reasoning, launching salvo after salvo of fallacious argument instead of simply taking pause to consider that maybe, just maybe, it’s time to ‘evolve’ and take a position of higher, deeper, and richer understanding, not abandoning ‘faith’ but simply removing however many placeholders of ignorance are required to be removed in order to ‘make room’ for the better answer.
Now, you also claim to have found some sort of ‘contradiction’ in my comments in the following terms:
“but then go on to assert that there is no God or creator in the first point of your description of the universe, even belittling belief in God, and then repeat in your conclusion “nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE in here did I say, suggest or imply that there is no God.” “.
All I can say to you in response to your claim is that it is wrong. The ‘first point’ of my theory, my idea, my offered for consideration and purely intellectual exercise, item numbered ‘1’, is clearly and conspicuously preceded by the following sentence: “Try to imagine that the reality IS that:” Either you skipped over these words or you are compelled to dismiss them so you can indulge your apparent proclivity for yet another fallacious argument. Either way the only thing I can say, once again, is that there is no ‘contradiction’ in my comment of the sort you purport to describe. Moreover, I take issue with your assertion that I have somehow ‘belittled belief in God’. You are free to believe in anything you wish to believe in. If my words have caused you to get that impression, I’m sorry, and I can assure you that such was not my intent. I have read my comment again, looking for portions that could be taken in the manner you suggest, and I see how you might come to that conclusion if you have failed to appreciate my sometimes crude attempts to paint a metaphor or merely make a point. All I can offer in this regard is my apology together with the further invitation for you to read my effort again and see if, and to what extent, your reaction to my words may have clouded your ability to see the message they were intended to convey.
Next you write: “[t]aking a look at your 14 points, you keep mentioning Time, which is irrelevant”. Wow! That is a tough one to deal with. I can’t imagine anything that doesn’t have something to do with time. I think every philosopher as well as ever scientist on the planet has some notion of ‘time’ and understands that a better understanding of ‘time’, both in the scientific and philosophical realms, is essential to a better and higher understanding of the Universe. Obviously, you don’t really mean what you say, right? I mean, if you are going to bake a cake or watch television, or even have a memory of anything that happened in your life ‘in the past’, you have to rely on the existence of ‘time’, don’t you? If not, please explain why you can remember your name or how you ever get through ‘the next day’?
Assuming the more likely case that you have not, as yet, paid much attention to the consideration of time, or, that you are confused about time, or, in the further, and equally likely case that you have blindly accepted some sort of ‘faith-based-proclamation’ as to the nature of time and are either unwilling or afraid to explore the concept further, I urge you to take some ‘time’ (pardon the pun – again) to explore these links which may give you some insight beyond your present understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
http://q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture_id=7731
I don’t want to get into any more detail than to just say I’m sorry if your faith insists on ‘keeping you in the dark’ so to speak, by clinging onto notions that are simply no longer valid. I am really NOT trying to ‘pick a fight’, but please, please, please consider that maybe, just maybe, we are all engaging in no more than a continuation of the same type of ‘intellectual arm wrestling’ that must have gone on during the time of Galileo. Maybe, just maybe, Christians, as well as each and every other organization bound only by ‘faith’ is struggling (and rightfully so) to ‘hang-onto’ its very existence out of ‘fear’ that if all the icons and ideology are replaced by higher and better reasoned explanations, there will be nothing left to ‘believe-in’, at which point, the comfortable numbness provided by blankets of ignorance will all be folded and put away leaving nothing but a cold hard ‘reality’. While I too much prefer my early childhood, one that was safe, comfortable, and predictable in all that I could perceive, my inevitable growth, learning, and intellectually maturity, all driven forward by the collapsing wave generating the relentless arrow of time, forced me to abandon my childhood ‘truths’ and ‘beliefs’ (Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, that Japan ‘snuck-up-on-us’ at Pearl Harbor, that Oswald acted alone, etc.), in favor of the often times more cold, harsh and unpleasant yet undeniable realizations that replaced them. All I can do is encourage you to explore the links above, as well as any other to which they may lead you if you are so inclined, and then consider whether it may be ‘time’ to at least reconsider your statement that, “[t]ime is purely philosophical”.
As to your inquiry as to whether I theorize that the universe came into existence by itself “because of Quantum Foam”. My answer is predominately ‘yes’. It did not arise ‘because’ of the quantum foam, but my idea is that it arose ‘from’ the quantum foam, as a consequence of the application of the laws of probability, quantum mechanics, entropy and, most likely other as yet ‘unknown factors’ all of which currently lie currently within the realm of philosophy and ‘faith-based-solutions’ (see, plenty of room left for ‘god’). Moreover, I agree with the pronouncements that there is little to no current evidence for gravity existing as a quantum field, although there is a whole bunch of math that seems to indicate such may be the case. In addition, I wholly concur that no evidence has been found to support the notion that space-time has the suggested structure of a ‘quantum foam’ at ‘these scales’ (referring, I presume, to the Plank scale). In fact, results of recent experimental observations conducted by NASA comparing the arrival time of high energy photons with that of photons having more than a million times less energy leaving a Super Nova simultaneously (several billion years ago) failed to produce the predicted ‘delay’ that was expected had they traveled ‘through’ a ‘quantum foam’. The postulate under consideration was that, if space-time were, in fact, made of a ‘quantum foam’, the higher energy photons should have ‘interacted more’ with the foam along their journey to Fermi and, as a consequence, have been ‘slowed’ by the interaction and arrived at a measurable time ‘after’ their less ‘energetic’ cousins. The failure to detect any significant difference in the arrival times is currently being offered as ‘proof’ of the non-existence of ‘quantum foam’ and even as ‘proof’ that space-time is smooth, as suggested by Einstein (See, http://www.space.com/15297-gamma-rays-prove-einstein-space-time-smooth-video.html ).
However (please pay extra close attention to this part), these ‘conclusions’ have not been ‘published as fact’ by the scientific community because they represent but one data in the search for an ‘answer’ to the question as to the nature of space-time. Because the ‘score’, if you will, in the ‘game’ of these observations is ‘one-to-nothing’ at this time, but the fat lady has yet to sing on this one. The fact of the matter is, that the Casmir Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect ), a well known and generally accepted scientific principle that has been verified over and over and over again by controlled laboratory experiments, has conclusively established that something exists in otherwise ‘empty space’ that causes two plates placed in close proximity in a vacuum to be ‘squeezed’ together. It has long been generally accepted that the ‘force’ pushing the plates together is the result of ‘wave pressure’ generated by matter-antimatter between particles and ‘anti-particles’ that spontaneously ‘appear’ out of nothing and then ‘vanish’ back into ‘nothing’ – the Quantum Foam. These events occur everywhere with the same probability of occurrence. Those that produce waves short enough to ‘fit between the plates’ have an equal affect on them, occurring in roughly the same numbers on both sides of each plate. However, those events that try to occur between the plates with a wavelength too long for them to ‘fit’ between the plates cannot happen between the plates, creating an imbalance in the ‘pressure’ of the sum of all of the waves with the higher ‘pressure’ being outside of the plates, causing them to be ‘pushed’ towards one another. This effect has been well studied and is so well known that it has been accepted as ‘strong evidence’ of the existence of a ‘quantum foam’. So, unless and until a better, more credible, more thoroughly tested and understanding explanation is offered for this effect, it would be scientifically irresponsible to declare from the NASA Fermi observations to the contrary that: space-time has been proven to be smooth and that the Quantum Foam ‘does not exist’. In fact, if you chose to watch the video linked to the ‘citation’ in the foregoing paragraph, you will note that it DOES NOT appear on the NASA website (or at least I haven’t been able to find it anywhere there) and that the ‘conclusions’ drawn by the researcher seem to be hers and hers alone. I have looked for confirmation of her assertions from other sources and, so far, it seems that these results, rather than ‘proving’ or ‘disproving’ anything stand as no more than data that will require far more investigation and a long long way to go before it is entitled to being moved ‘up the food chain’ towards acceptance as ‘fact’.
As to the rest of it all, I know, understand and can appreciate how difficult it is for anybody to get their head around the notions that ‘things can appear from nothing’, as well as most, if not all, of the other phenomenon associated with investigating the ‘world of the very small’ at the Plank length. I am a comparative moron and can’t even begin to do the math, but the existence of these principles cannot be denied. Even as hard as he tried, Einstein, before his death, was compelled to accept, as a FACT, and NOT as a matter of opinion, that quantum mechanics was real and that it obeyed certain rules and laws which governed how particles and waves behave. If you are really interested in learning more about the world in which you live, please take some time to explore the information attached to these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/wonders-with-brian-cox/videos/wonders-of-the-universe-entropy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4

Now, onto a little more detailed and direct response to your reply. You ‘dismiss’ as an ‘unprovable (sic) assumption’ that “accidental acts could give rise to order and rules, and the laws of nature”, but that is, precisely, what the proven to be correct 100% of the time so far ‘discipline’ of quantum mechanics clearly and most convincingly indicates. Please, please, please take some time to learn about the quantum properties of matter by exploring the double slit experiment. Then, if you are still in the game, follow the implications of the Schroeder’s Cat thought experiment. If you still have anything left in the tank, open the link above giving you a definition of quantum entanglement and then give these a try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/spooky-action-distance.html
And if you watch the little video appearing at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErwOK3S5IE&feature=related , which is a nice short presentation by Dr. Michio Kaku explaining entanglement in elementary terms (perfect for me), you will note that he ‘postulates’ that any ‘information’ that might be sent by way of the use of the phenomenon is ‘most likely’ going to be ‘useless’, an observation that allows him to conclude that Einstein ‘may’ as yet have the last laugh. However, and contrary to his muse, physicists have more recently used the properties of quantum entanglement to transport photons over 88 miles, instantaneously, from one physical location to another (See, http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/09/06/physicists-quantum-teleport-photons-over-88-miles/ ). Proving, in my opinion, that even within the most respected arena of the scientific community, nobody holds onto ideas so tightly as to foreclose the possibility that, regardless of their conviction in their ideas, unless supported by data sufficient to raise an idea to the level of a ‘fact’ (or at least, the best repeatedly objectively verifiable ‘theory’ so far), nobody, absolutely nobody, would stand in the way of proof to the contrary. Even at the end of his life, Einstein continued to hold onto his religious beliefs but had no choice but to accept that quantum mechanics – including entanglement, was real. How he finally reconciled the obvious resulting conflict in his own mind is known only to…..well…. (insert any convenient placeholder for ignorance ‘here’) ‘god’.

Q. So, how can something come from nothing?
A. By the inevitable probability of the event taking place.

Q. Where did the ‘laws of nature’ come from?
A. Other than those that existed prior to the singularity, they were all defined within the inflationary period that followed, when matter first took form and the process of the journey back towards maximal entropy began. We ‘exist’ as we ‘exist’ because and only because of the occurrence of those events in the first instant following the singularity. They occurred purely by chance, developing into a highly complex chaotic system (See, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory, http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/chaos/comchaos.htm ) that determined and established the rules for what we currently describe as: gravity, the strong force, the weak force, all the sub-atomic particles identified to date, dark matter, dark energy, and; whatever the heck else there is that we are capable of discovering in the future.

Q. Since when did particles have characteristics of an intelligent being where a particle can observe things and have choices?
A. Ever since they came into existence in our three dimensional universe. Please note that I am NOT claiming particles to be ‘beings’ of any sort, intelligent or otherwise. But they DO possess the ‘characteristics’ of intelligence in that, when ‘observed’, a quanta of mass (a ‘particle’) will be forced to ‘assume’ one of all of its possible ‘states’, an event characterized as being a ‘choice’ made ‘by the particle’ rather than an ‘effect’ imposed upon it by the observation. Also, the act of ‘observation’ in quantum mechanics is NOT intended (although in more complex systems may have a butterfly effect on the system as well) to mean actual viewing by a pair of human eyes. Rather, it connotes ‘measurement’ or ‘detection’ or any other method of attempting to ‘learn’ or ascertain ‘anything’ about the subject of the observation. The ACT of engaging in the attempt to gain information itself instantaneously causes the effect of ‘influencing the outcome of the observation’ in some way. In quantum mechanics, this is known as ‘decoherence’ (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence ). In other disciplines, a similar effect is known as the Uncertainty Principal which states that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, and, that the more certain you become about one, the less certain you become about the other (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) ).
Although I have no citation for you to support my idea that this effect exists at the Plank scale between ‘stings’ of pure energy and a collection of two or more of them (something that is as yet ‘unproven’ to exist), it seems logical to presume such to be the case. It has been shown that even the slightest interaction between any ‘stuff’ massive enough to produce an output capable of being captured as ‘data’, even as ‘small’ as a pulse of light from a laser, WILL, more often than not, cause an electron or even things as small as a single photon to be ‘forced’ to assume a particular state to the exclusion of all other possible states (make a choice). I can see no reason why the effect does not obey some scalar function so that it would remain viable in all directions within space-time. Although it might be expected to decline at logarithmic scales as systems grow in complexity, if, for no other reason than the sum of the wave functions involved in systems growing in complexity past one or two hundred cubits (a ‘quanta’ of anything, like a single photon) would yield correspondingly declining probabilities that the entire system would respond measurably to ‘observation’, even at the macroscopic level (which could be the ONLY REASON why we ‘stay put’ so to speak, and don’t simply ‘disappear’ into another dimension from time-to-time), but the effect would most likely grow along the same scale as we continue to discover more massive ‘particles’ existing at even higher energy levels and occupying smaller and smaller areas of space, down to what I believe to be a singular quanta of pure energy occupying no more than one (1) plank length of space and which would posses a nearly ‘infinite’ amount of energy (or at least the maximum allowable amount – more ‘rules’ yet to be discovered) and, consequently, no mass, exhibiting ONLY the properties of a wave.
At such a level of ‘existence’, the definitions of concepts such as ‘intelligence’ and ‘beings’ and all the rest would be forced to yield to the realization that the universe consists of nothing but energy, in its purest form, that obeys only the second law of thermodynamics as well as the laws of quantum mechanics and their attendant probabilities. The ‘quanta’ of all rules that are, just because they ‘are’, and nothing more. Leaving the potential for further exploration of what would then be the only matter remaining for debate: from ‘where’ did all the energy ‘come’. A concept that would make no sense whatsoever in the universe and have no meaning whatsoever once maximal entropy had been re-established because, in order to have a question involving a ‘present’, you have to have a sense of a ‘past’, which, of course, requires that time VIOLATE the laws of nature and continue to exist beyond the collapse of its own wave into the quantum foam. Sorry, but that ‘ain’t gonna happen’, and the inquiry, as well as the universe itself will come to an end.

Finally, if you have fifty-two-minutes and four seconds left, I urge you to pour yourself a nice glass of wine, sit back, relax, and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=related

Thanks for the opportunity for me to exercise my brain a little bit.
Dave