Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

[otseng]

The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories" (Kukla 2009).[1] The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, the Earth, humans, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged or exceptional.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Current cosmology assumes that the mediocrity principle is true. Our solar system, the earth, and humans are not special. But, is this assumption true? Why or why not?

[otseng]

I mean after all, if the Earth truly was at the very center of the universe, and everything revolved around the earth that would indeed be a quite privileged position to be in. I think a position that profound would be hard to ignore. It would certainly imply that there is something very special about Earth.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

I mean, obviously an Earth-centered universe was important enough to the early Church that they were quick to brand anyone who rejected that ideal as being a heretic. So it was clearly important to theologians back in those days. And obviously there still exist theists today who aren't prepared to give up that specific ideal.

Actually, the Greeks proposed the Earth being at the center before Christians.

As for heresy, the Catholic church never branded Copernicus as a heretic for believing the Earth was not at the center.

Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus's theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out (see Rosen, 1975). Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

For Galileo, it was not simply him agreeing with the Copernican system that got him in trouble.

And believe it or not, the main reason the Catholic church did not accept the Copernican system was that there was no observational evidence to support it. What evidence did Galileo have to support heliocentrism?

I mean, there's nothing in cosmology that demands that Earth can't be the only planet in the universe where life had evolved. It is possible that evolution itself is that rare of an event. If that's the case, then Earth could still be "special" in that sort of way, but that wouldn't imply a creator.

Do you have any evidence that life evolved on another planet? Simply saying that earth can't be the only planet that has life is not going to cut it.

All it would imply is that life is extremely difficult to get started.

Yes, extremely difficult. But, it did come about. If the odds are very remote of life coming about, but yet it did, an intelligent agent would be a better explanation that pure chance.

[otseng]

So its not a necessity its just a logically possible explanation?

Yes.

The center of what?

The universe.

Do you think the earth is at the center of the solar system?
Do you think our solar system as at the center of our galaxy?

No.

Do you think our galaxy is at the center of the universe?

Part of it occupies the center.

Even assuming it is, your argument seems to be an argument from ignorance. I.E., i can't explain how X happened naturally. Explanation Y can explain how X happened. Therefore its reasonable to believe Y is the explanation for X because it hasn't been explained how it could happen naturally.

Actually, rather than an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from observational data.

For example, if our galaxy is at the center of the universe then there is some explanation why that is consistent with a god.

If we are at the center of the universe and we are the only life in the entire universe, then it would be consistent with a theistic god.

If our galaxy is NOT at the center of the universe then there is some explanation why that is consistent with a god.

If we are not at any special location and are indeed mediocre and we are one of many life in the universe that arose, I would not argue that it would be any evidence for any god.

I speculate that it is because the arguments are not very good.

You'll need to give counterarguments why the arguments are no good, rather than just speculate it.

stcordova already presented the main argument in post 5 and post 10. I elaborated in post 25.

What scientific theories would change or need reconsidering if the mediocrity principle was neither rejected or accepted?

We're discussing several right now.

One is whether the universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Prior to measurements being made that determined the universe to be flat, it was assumed to be non-Euclidean. Now, evidence points to it being Euclidean.

I have no idea what it means for the universe to be Euclidean or not Euclidean.

Why does it matter either way to the god question? Does it somehow PROVE theism? Seems highly unlikely.

You asked, "What scientific theories would change or need reconsidering if the mediocrity principle was neither rejected or accepted?" I'm simply answering that. And where did I ever say anything about PROVING theism?

So lets assume that the mediocrity principle is proven false or that the universe is Euclidean. Do either of those things make a creator NECESSARY?

I'm not proving that God necessarily exists. But, I'm just providing arguments to support the idea that God exists.

Do either of those things make a natural explanation IMPOSSIBLE?

I would not say it is impossible, but it's not very probable.

If not then mustn't someone proposing a creator god as an explanation for these things make an ARGUMENT to justify a creator god as an explanation? Or do you suggest a "just-so" story is sufficient?

Another argument for a creator god would be the origin of the universe, which is already being discussed in the Justify the belief that gods do not exist thread.

Do you claim to know or have strong evidence that indicates the planet/solar_system/galaxy is at the center of the universe?

stcordova and I already have provided it.

Can you point me to experts in the field who agree?

Most experts do not challenge the assumption of the mediocrity principle.

[otseng]

In fact, I find the idea of a finite Euclidean universe the most unintuitive model out of all that we have discussed, but you don't see me basing arguments off of my personal intuition.

OK, what is the most intuitive model that you propose then?

Take what you mean by "side" for example. It's mathematically impossible for two rays (a ray = a line with a starting point) to be precisely parallel to one another if they share the same starting point. This means that two distinct objects "shot" from the same point of origin at the same time will inevitably have the distance between them grow.

That's true. I'm not saying that are parallel.

(Edit. Let me think about this more.)

Why should we think it wasn't the case that it was thinly distributed over a hugely vast area in such a way that it took a relatively long time to coalesce?

Could be. But, the same can also go for the matter that was exploded out.

It sounds like you are saying that space-time is infinite and matter is finite.

I'm not saying anything is infinite. Like we said earlier, an infinite universe does not make intuitive sense. And neither does infinite space-time.

So, both space-time and matter would be finite.

Singularities aren't spherical.

I didn't posit a singularity. I simply said all the matter was in a spherical mass.

It seems to me that the very concept of "shape" brakes down within the event horizon.

I'm not too concerned about the shape. Main point is that if all the matter in the universe was at one place, it would create a black hole.

But to answer the question you probably want answered, it would require some kind of cause unknown to current science in order to break out of the event horizon. In your hypothetical, of course.

Yes, that's part of it.

But going on, suppose there was some external force that caused the matter to escape the black hole, would you agree that the event horizon would start to collapse?

[Divine Insight]

What evidence did Galileo have to support heliocentrism?

He had plenty of evidence. In fact his observations of phases of Venus sealed his case completely. It would be impossible to have observed the phases of Venus that Venus was exhibiting if Venus was in orbit around the Earth. So yes, Galileo had absolute conclusive evidence that at least one planet does not revolve around the earth. It doesn't need to be proof of heliocentrisim. All he needed to prove was that everything does not revolve around the Earth. And he most certainly did do that.

Do you have any evidence that life evolved on another planet? Simply saying that earth can't be the only planet that has life is not going to cut it.

That's a red herring that doesn't need to be proved. Especially in light of the fact that we have no way of disproving it either.

All it would imply is that life is extremely difficult to get started.

Yes, extremely difficult. But, it did come about. If the odds are very remote of life coming about, but yet it did, an intelligent agent would be a better explanation that pure chance.

Again, yet another dishonest red herring from you.

We simply don't know how often life evolves in the universe. Therefore we cannot even begin to speak about the likelihood of probability. We simply have no data upon which to base those probabilities.

For all we know our own Milky Way Galaxy could be teaming with life.

For all we know other life may actually exist right here in our own solar system.

For you to claim that the odds of life coming around are very remote is a bogus claim on your behalf. You have absolutely no data whatsoever to back up that claim.

We have no clue how common or uncommon life might be in our universe. Moreover, there are over 70 sextillion stars in our universe. That's 70 thousand, million, million, million stars. A number so vast that we can't even begin to comprehend it on any intuitively level. And that number is just a conservative estimate, it could actually be much higher.

There are somewhere between 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

So think about this. If the probability of life emerging in the observable universe is only 1/100th-billionth, then it is very likely that life has evolved at least once in every single galaxy in the universe, possibly twice per galaxy. And there would be 100 billion examples of life having evolved in the universe.

The universe is so big that even highly improbable events could occur quite often. So the argument that the probabilities are too vast to ever occur by chance is a really bad argument.

And finally we have no clue what those probabilities are in any case. So to argue that they are too high is a false argument since you can't know what the probabilities might be.

Any argument that JUMPS to the conclusion that there must be some sort of magical intervention to create life just because you don't know what the probabilities for life evolving on its own might be is a truly BAD argument.

And it's even a far worse argument if the your motivation is to support an ancient mythology like Greek or Hebrew mythologies. Those mythologies contain such absolute utter absurdities and contradictions that the probability that they are true would be even far more remote.

[Peter]

I think it's reasonable to allow that this would only apply to requests that are wholesome and righteous, but even allowing for that restriction the lack of evidence that this demigod does anything that people ask of him is overwhelming.

I don't necessarily think this is true. Jesus never said, whatever you ask that is wholesome and righteous will be answered. It all depends on what "in his name" means. Now, I'm not saying I fully understand it. But, like I've said before, I don't think it's some magical incantation that would cause anything we ask for to be answered.

Moreover, there is also an extreme lack of evidence that any of these prayers are being answered.

Sure, I can agree with that.

So there's really only two possible conclusions. Either the demigod Jesus was a liar. (and clearly that makes no sense). Or he was no demigod to begin with. That is the most likely truth.

Or it could be that what it means to pray "in his name" is not what we think.

That's a cop out. It's no different than, "god works in mysterious ways". What god worth its salt cannot make itself clearly understood to the very beings it's created? I ask you, who, in their right mind, would follow a leader that can't be clearly understood? Just admit it's all wishful thinking. That, at least, I can understand.

[otseng]

What evidence did Galileo have to support heliocentrism?

It would be impossible to have observed the phases of Venus that Venus was exhibiting if Venus was in orbit around the Earth.

I don't see why it's impossible. You'll have to explain that.

All he needed to prove was that everything does not revolve around the Earth.

I will grant that he discovered things that did not revolve around the earth. But, that does not mean heliocentrism is true.

Do you have any evidence that life evolved on another planet? Simply saying that earth can't be the only planet that has life is not going to cut it.

That's a red herring that doesn't need to be proved. Especially in light of the fact that we have no way of disproving it either.

I don't see why it's a red herring if you were the one to make the claim that life must exist elsewhere.

All it would imply is that life is extremely difficult to get started.

Yes, extremely difficult. But, it did come about. If the odds are very remote of life coming about, but yet it did, an intelligent agent would be a better explanation that pure chance.

Again, yet another dishonest red herring from you.

We simply don't know how often life evolves in the universe. Therefore we cannot even begin to speak about the likelihood of probability. We simply have no data upon which to base those probabilities.

Again, not another red herring.

We know the odds of life coming about is remote not because we have no data, but because we do have data.

For you to claim that the odds of life coming around are very remote is a bogus claim on your behalf. You have absolutely no data whatsoever to back up that claim.

It would take a long time to detail all the problems of origin of life. This is a field that has been in active research for many decades. The main result of all the research is discovering more and more problems that have to be overcome for life to originate naturalistically. If you wish, we can go over those problems that have been discovered.

[otseng]

That's a cop out. It's no different than, "god works in mysterious ways". What god worth its salt cannot make itself clearly understood to the very beings it's created? I ask you, who, in their right mind, would follow a leader that can't be clearly understood? Just admit it's all wishful thinking. That, at least, I can understand.

I'm not saying that there is NO response to the problem and just chalk it up to "god's mysterious ways". But, it's not something that can be responded to quickly (much like the problem of evil has no short response).

But, this thread is not about prayer. Feel free to create another thread to debate what does it mean to pray in Jesus name.

[otseng]

Take what you mean by "side" for example. It's mathematically impossible for two rays (a ray = a line with a starting point) to be precisely parallel to one another if they share the same starting point. This means that two distinct objects "shot" from the same point of origin at the same time will inevitably have the distance between them grow.

(Edit. Let me think about this more.)

I did some calculations and you're right, apparent recessional velocities would be the same for any point.

But, another question, would it still be homogeneous? That is, would the distribution of matter be homogeneous throughout the universe if it expanded in Euclidean space?

[Divine Insight]

I will grant that he discovered things that did not revolve around the earth. But, that does not mean heliocentrism is true.

So what? It shows that everything doesn't revolve around the earth. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the earth is the "center of creation".

He also showed the Jupiter has moons that revolve around it. We take that for granted today because we know that the universe isn't Earth-centered. But back in the days of Galileo that would be considered blaspheme.

Galileo didn't need to prove that the Sun was the center of the Solar System. All he had do to was show that the Earth is not. And he did that.

Do you have any evidence that life evolved on another planet? Simply saying that earth can't be the only planet that has life is not going to cut it.

That's a red herring that doesn't need to be proved. Especially in light of the fact that we have no way of disproving it either.

I don't see why it's a red herring if you were the one to make the claim that life must exist elsewhere.[/quote]

I never made any claim that life "must" exist elsewhere. I simply claim that based on everything we currently know about life and the universe there is absolutely no reason to think that it wouldn't.

You try to claim that it's too improbably, but where is your data to back up that claim? We have no idea how difficult it might be to get life started. But what we do know is that life doesn't require anything special. It's nothing other than a configuration of the naturally-occurring elements. And all living things can be explained by nothing more than chemistry and physics.

So why shouldn't there be other life in the universal soup?

Also, why would a God create such a vast universe if his only intent was to create humans on earth? As Carl Sagan used to say, the universal stage is far too vast for the Biblical plot.

All it would imply is that life is extremely difficult to get started.

Yes, extremely difficult. But, it did come about. If the odds are very remote of life coming about, but yet it did, an intelligent agent would be a better explanation that pure chance.

Again, yet another dishonest red herring from you.

We simply don't know how often life evolves in the universe. Therefore we cannot even begin to speak about the likelihood of probability. We simply have no data upon which to base those probabilities.

Again, not another red herring.

We know the odds of life coming about is remote not because we have no data, but because we do have data. [/quote]

What data? We don't have any data at all about how common life might be in the universe. For all we know there could be other life in our very own solar system.

For you to claim that the odds of life coming around are very remote is a bogus claim on your behalf. You have absolutely no data whatsoever to back up that claim.

It would take a long time to detail all the problems of origin of life. This is a field that has been in active research for many decades. The main result of all the research is discovering more and more problems that have to be overcome for life to originate naturalistically. If you wish, we can go over those problems that have been discovered.

I don't need to go there. And neither do you.

Do you believe in a God with whom all things are possible?

If you do, then what's the problem with a God who could create a universe that could evolve into sentient beings all own its own without the need for God to babysit it?

The very idea that a God would need to reach into the universe at some point to actually start life is absurd. And also, why bother creating billions of years of lower life forms? Why bother creating things like dinosaurs that lived for millions of years before finally creating man?

The argument that "There must be a God" because life would be too difficult to start own its own is a truly lame argument for a theist to stoop to.

And where is such an argument going anyway? If we ever get back to the Bible the very same absurdities and contradictions are still going to exist in the Bible no matter what. And I would still reject the Bible for those very same reasons.

If it should somehow be discovered that life could not possibly have started naturally (which I can't even imagine that happening), but if that were shown to be true, all that would do is cause me to look into Taoism all that much deeper. It certainly wouldn't send me running off to worship Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, or any of those absurdly self-contradicting middle eastern fables.

The middle eastern fables of a jealous egotistical God are necessarily false, and that would still remain true even if life had to have been started magically. If life had to start magically then something like Taoism or Buddhism is probably far more likely to the correct picture of reality. Certainly not a male-chauvinistic jealous God who throws temper tantrums if someone doesn't believe in him or fails to worship him.

I mean seriously. Even if it could be proven that it's absolutely impossible for life to have gotten started on its own that still wouldn't help the Abrahamic mythologies in the slightest.

[FarWanderer]

In fact, I find the idea of a finite Euclidean universe the most unintuitive model out of all that we have discussed, but you don't see me basing arguments off of my personal intuition.

OK, what is the most intuitive model that you propose then?

Just about any model without an arbitrary edge is more intuitive than one with. It could be an infinite Euclidean universe or a finite torus universe, whatever.

Take what you mean by "side" for example. It's mathematically impossible for two rays (a ray = a line with a starting point) to be precisely parallel to one another if they share the same starting point. This means that two distinct objects "shot" from the same point of origin at the same time will inevitably have the distance between them grow.

(Edit. Let me think about this more.)

I did some calculations and you're right, apparent recessional velocities would be the same for any point.

But, another question, would it still be homogeneous? That is, would the distribution of matter be homogeneous throughout the universe if it expanded in Euclidean space?

Only if mass was "launched" from the starting point in concentrations proportional to its speed. That is to say, the faster the matter sent, the more other matter was sent at that same speed to account for the necessary mass to fill up the increasing vastness of more distant areas.

This amount of mass would be larger and larger for each successive "layer" sent outward, until at some point it just stops because that's the edge of the universe.

It'd be a pretty arbitrary setup if you ask me.

Why should we think it wasn't the case that it was thinly distributed over a hugely vast area in such a way that it took a relatively long time to coalesce?

Could be. But, the same can also go for the matter that was exploded out.

Nevermind that. I thought you had a different point.

Could you explain again why it is that moving matter coalesces slower than stationary matter?

But to answer the question you probably want answered, it would require some kind of cause unknown to current science in order to break out of the event horizon. In your hypothetical, of course.

Yes, that's part of it.

But going on, suppose there was some external force that caused the matter to escape the black hole, would you agree that the event horizon would start to collapse?

Yes. The event horizon is sustained by the mass of the black hole. Take its mass away and the event horizon will evaporate.

And the cause actually doesn't matter, be it an external force or whatever.

It's actually theorized that black holes do evaporate naturally, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation