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?

[agnosticatheist]

I'm not trying to make a case for Christianity through cosmology. Actually, I would say that it's impossible to do. But, I would say that it can make a case for generic theism.

Let's assume there is a case for generic theism.

How do we get from there to Christian theism?

Would you be up for a head to head debate on this?

[Divine Insight]

Now what? Well, now you start with STEP ONE:

You must first show that the original God of the Old Testament makes sense. But we already have a huge problem right there. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all disagree on precisely what this original God is like in the details.

Actually, I would not make that step one.

If you're going to make a case for Christianity to me you absolute need to start by making a case for the Old Testament God.

Jesus can't even begin to make any sense until you first have a God that you need to be "saved" from.

But, I'm not really going to address this because it is not the point of this thread. Again, you seem to want to turn every single thread that you participate in into a Christian bashing rant.

I'm surprised you feel this way considering that you are the creator of this forum.

You are the one who entitled this forum "Debating Christianity and Religion". Clearly placing Christianity as paramount among the religions by using that title to begin with.

And underneath that you have "Christian Debate Forum"

This particular sub-form is entitled "Science and Religion".

I think it's pretty clear that all the arguments and debates on these forums are typically debates between theists and non-theists where the theists primarily support Christianity as the only valid religion.

Finally, you have made it clear many times over in many debates that you indeed are a Christian and argue toward defending Christianity. So I don't think it's unrealistic to recognize that this is necessarily where you are headed with any of your arguments in the long haul.

On a purely scientific level there is no point in even arguing about the mediocrity principle because from a purely scientific perspective there is absolutely no reason to reject it whatsoever. Every piece of observational information that we have made on the universe clearly shows that the Earth is in no special position in the universe. Any attempt to argue that the Earth is at the center of the universe is truly unreasonable.

To even argue that the Milky Way Galaxy is in a special place in the universe is equally without merit. There is nothing at all that suggests that the Milky Way Galaxy is even unique or special in any way. And our entire solar system is certainly not in any special or unique position or situation within the Milky Way.

The ONLY motivation for such arguments can only be theistic.

There is no scientific basis for arguments that the Earth is in any special location or situation that any planet in this universe couldn't randomly find itself in naturally.

No non-theistic scientist would even bother to suggest such a thing, because there simply isn't any rationale to back up that kind of hypothesis.

So your motivations for questioning the mediocrity principle are necessarily theistic motivations, even if you aren't fully aware of this yourself. And ironically even that is not a valid reason to question it. I mean, after all, if there exists a God with whom all things are possible, then why would he be restrained to make the earth any more special than any other planet?

He could put live on any planet he wants to. It's kind of funny actually when people try to make rational reasons for a God. If there exists a God then nothing needs to be rational. God would be an irrational magician who could violate rationality any time he so desires.

So rational arguments for God are kind of silly anyway. If you believe in a supernatural magical God then there's no point in even having rational or logical debates over it. God wouldn't need to be restricted by logic or rationale anyway.

So ironically "Debating Christianity" is truly an oxymoron.

You either believe it as a matter of pure faith, in which case you believe in a magical God who is above logic and rationale. Or you don't. And if you don't then there's not much sense in debating in favor of it.

Debating a "Faith-based" religion is silly. Confessing that it is indeed "Faith-based" is truly the only wise thing to do. And when that's done, then there's nothing left to debate.

[agnosticatheist]

Now what? Well, now you start with STEP ONE:

You must first show that the original God of the Old Testament makes sense. But we already have a huge problem right there. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all disagree on precisely what this original God is like in the details.

Actually, I would not make that step one.

If you're going to make a case for Christianity to me you absolute need to start by making a case for the Old Testament God.

Jesus can't even begin to make any sense until you first have a God that you need to be "saved" from.

But, I'm not really going to address this because it is not the point of this thread. Again, you seem to want to turn every single thread that you participate in into a Christian bashing rant.

I'm surprised you feel this way considering that you are the creator of this forum.

You are the one who entitled this forum "Debating Christianity and Religion". Clearly placing Christianity as paramount among the religions by using that title to begin with.

And underneath that you have "Christian Debate Forum"

This particular sub-form is entitled "Science and Religion".

I think it's pretty clear that all the arguments and debates on these forums are typically debates between theists and non-theists where the theists primarily support Christianity as the only valid religion.

Finally, you have made it clear many times over in many debates that you indeed are a Christian and argue toward defending Christianity. So I don't think it's unrealistic to recognize that this is necessarily where you are headed with any of your arguments in the long haul.

On a purely scientific level there is no point in even arguing about the mediocrity principle because from a purely scientific perspective there is absolutely no reason to reject it whatsoever. Every piece of observational information that we have made on the universe clearly shows that the Earth is in no special position in the universe. Any attempt to argue that the Earth is at the center of the universe is truly unreasonable.

To even argue that the Milky Way Galaxy is in a special place in the universe is equally without merit. There is nothing at all that suggests that the Milky Way Galaxy is even unique or special in any way. And our entire solar system is certainly not in any special or unique position or situation within the Milky Way.

The ONLY motivation for such arguments can only be theistic.

There is no scientific basis for arguments that the Earth is in any special location or situation that any planet in this universe couldn't randomly find itself in naturally.

No non-theistic scientist would even bother to suggest such a thing, because there simply isn't any rationale to back up that kind of hypothesis.

So your motivations for questioning the mediocrity principle are necessarily theistic motivations, even if you aren't fully aware of this yourself. And ironically even that is not a valid reason to question it. I mean, after all, if there exists a God with whom all things are possible, then why would he be restrained to make the earth any more special than any other planet?

He could put live on any planet he wants to. It's kind of funny actually when people try to make rational reasons for a God. If there exists a God then nothing needs to be rational. God would be an irrational magician who could violate rationality any time he so desires.

So rational arguments for God are kind of silly anyway. If you believe in a supernatural magical God then there's no point in even having rational or logical debates over it. God wouldn't need to be restricted by logic or rationale anyway.

So ironically "Debating Christianity" is truly an oxymoron.

You either believe it as a matter of pure faith, in which case you believe in a magical God who is above logic and rationale. Or you don't. And if you don't then there's not much sense in debating in favor of it.

Debating a "Faith-based" religion is silly. Confessing that it is indeed "Faith-based" is truly the only wise thing to do. And when that's done, then there's nothing left to debate.

Even if the earth is at the center of the universe, what difference does that make? Am I missing something?

[Divine Insight]

Even if the earth is at the center of the universe, what difference does that make? Am I missing something?

Well, I think it could have been meaningful at one point in history. And by that I mean before we knew as much as we do about the universe.

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.

But of course, that kind of Earth-centric universe is absolutely impossible based on what we know now.

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.

I personally don't think an Earth-centric universe would necessarily be evidence that the Abrahamic myths are true. And even if we were to go that far, it wouldn't be able to be used to make a distinction between Judaism, Christianity, or Islam since it would support any one of those.

But alas, an Earth-centered Universe isn't the case anyway. So theists and apologists today are basically doing what Otseng is attempting to do by proclaiming that perhaps the Earth is "special" in some other way, like possibly being the only planet in the universe that contains life.

The problem with that argument is that it wouldn't even have anything at all to do with modern cosmology or the principle of mediocrity as it applies to cosmology. So Otseng is still making a bogus argument against the cosmological principle of mediocrity anyway.

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

[scourge99]

And if the mediocrity principle was proven false, I doubt anyone would think it is a strong argument for theism.

Suppose that the Earth is special and unique. We are the only life in the entire universe. We are located at the center of the universe. Do you still think it would not be evidence for Theism?

Special and unique in what way? How does that NECESSITATE (not just make it logically possible) that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm not arguing that it necessitates a creator.

Please share this irrefutable or undeniable argument that has convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt that cosmology NECESSITATES an intelligent creator.

Where have I ever said that cosmology NECESSITATES a creator?

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

It could be possible that by sheer luck we are at the center.

The center of what?

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

And it's also by sheer luck that intelligent life arose on the planet that happened to be at the center.

I am not aware of any experts in the field of physics who support the idea that our galaxy/solar_system/planet is at the center of the universe. At least not anymore at the center than any other galaxy or solar system or planet.

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.

Furthermore, your explanation can be used to explain ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. 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 our galaxy is NOT at the center of the universe then there is some explanation why that is consistent with a god. What is someone to make of an argument/explanation that cannot be falsified or ever be wrong about anything?

But, I think it's more tenable to believe that we were intentionally placed here.

Why is that after several posts that you have yet to present the argument and reasoning that has convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt that
1) our galaxy exists at the center of the universe?
2) the only reasonable explanation for our galaxy existing at the center of the universe is that an intelligent being put us here?

I speculate that it is because the arguments are not very good. I think you have been convinced there is a god for other reasons unrelated to cosmology. For some unknown reason you've decided that this god has left "evidence" pointing towards his creation by putting our galaxy at the "center" of the universe.

From where did you get the idea that your god is putting little finger prints of his creation into the universe's structure?

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? Do either of those things make a natural explanation IMPOSSIBLE?

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?

It seems that many people (theist and atheist alike) have trouble admitting IGNORANCE or that we don't know the answer to some questions or problems.

I would agree with that.

Do you claim to know or have strong evidence that indicates the planet/solar_system/galaxy is at the center of the universe? Can you point me to experts in the field who agree?

[FarWanderer]

I'm no expert, but it appears to me that if you are saying the universe can be both Euclidean and finite, you are disagreeing with wikipedia:

Yes, I'm disagreeing with Wikipedia. The only reason they would think that it is infinite is because of the mediocrity principle. If the universe was Euclidean, then in order for no place to be special, it would require positing an infinite universe.

Since we both agree that that an infinite universe makes no intuitive sense, then it must be that the assumption of the mediocrity principle cannot be true for a Euclidean universe.

Actually, I don't think a finite universe makes any more intuitive sense than an infinite one.

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.

There's only two possible explanations. If the universe is non-Euclidean or the universe is Euclidean and we're at the center.

Like I said. Nonsense. False dichotomy.

You never did address stars moving on the other side of the center. Furthermore, stars on the sides of us would not appear to be moving.

You just didn't understand. Will try explaining again below.

Furthermore, what kind of alternative expansion of space are you proposing exactly? As far as I can tell from poking around some websites, "everything moving away from us in proportion to their distance" is precisely the same thing as "the metric expansion of space". As in, by definition.

No, it's not by definition the same.

The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space (emphasis mine)

Ok, I get it.

Doesn't change anything, though. The difference has nothing to do with relative location and motion of objects. The point is that even assuming a spherical expansion from the center of a universe, non-center viewpoints will still see everything receding at speed in proportion to distance just like the center will.

Now, to get back to your earlier concern about stars to the "side" of us or on the other side of the center. It's entirely a matter of geometry and algebra. It has nothing to do with the mediocrity principle. It's just math.

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.

Try it on paper and see what happens. Take a point and draw strait lines extending from it. See if you can find a pair of these lines for which their tips don't diverge as they extend from their origin. You won't be able to.

As for things on the other side of the center, it's a bit harder to explain. You have to remember, things are moving away from the center at a speed proportional to their distance from it. That means if there's something halfway between earth and the center, we'll be moving away from the center twice as fast as it is. Which means the distance between us and it will be growing, but at half the rate the distance is growing between us and the center.

Similarly, if there is something exactly opposite the center from us, it will be moving away from the center at the same speed we are. It will be twice the distance from us than the center is (our distance from the center, plus its distance from the center). We will also be separating from it at twice the speed we are separating from the center (our speed of separation from the center, plus its speed of separation from the center).

In other words, whether the expansion is metric or not if everything that exists is moving away from a center at a speed in proportion to its distance from it, then everything that exists, regardless of location, is separating from everything else at a speed in proportion to the distance by which they are separated.

Was the matter of earth not affected by this "exploding" force somehow?

Actually, I don't know what the force was. However, to my knowledge, nobody knows what caused the Big Bang to explode either.

I'm not asking about cause. I'm asking about applicability.

How do we know that the material that would later comprise the Earth wasn't affected by this same event? 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?

I'm ready to hear that story right now. I'm perfectly happy to debate both topics.

OK, if you insist. We'll go step by step.

Let's assume that at the very beginning, space-time existed. In this space-time, all the matter of the universe was in a spherical mass. The gravitational field around this mass would be so great that nothing can leave its event horizon. Would you agree that this would be equivalent to a black hole?

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

Singularities aren't spherical. They are a single point that exerts a spherical event horizon. Though that would be simplifying things a bit. Black holes have a slight wobble, and by my understanding quantum physics puts a wrench in the idea that genuine singularities are even possible. It seems to me that the very concept of "shape" brakes down within the event horizon.

As for all the mass of the universe being concentrated in one location in space, I'm not sure I'd label it a black hole. Whatever you call it, I have little idea what would be going on in there.

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.

[otseng]

Let's assume there is a case for generic theism.

How do we get from there to Christian theism?

Would you be up for a head to head debate on this?

Sure, but not now. After this thread and the atheism threads are finished, I can debate you on this.

[otseng]

Even if the earth is at the center of the universe, what difference does that make? Am I missing something?

It would mean the mediocrity principle is false.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 78 by otseng]

No, it would mean that the position of the Earth is unlikely.

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"

I.e., mediocrity principle says if you pick a (uniform random) number from 1-100, and let set A be the numbers greater than 90, and set B less than or equal, that it's more likely to be in B.

If the mediocrity principle is false... then the chance of the Earth being in the centre of the Universe is as or more likely than it being anywhere else.

[otseng]

But, I'm not really going to address this because it is not the point of this thread. Again, you seem to want to turn every single thread that you participate in into a Christian bashing rant.

I'm surprised you feel this way considering that you are the creator of this forum.

You are the one who entitled this forum "Debating Christianity and Religion". Clearly placing Christianity as paramount among the religions by using that title to begin with.

And underneath that you have "Christian Debate Forum"

This particular sub-form is entitled "Science and Religion".

I think it's pretty clear that all the arguments and debates on these forums are typically debates between theists and non-theists where the theists primarily support Christianity as the only valid religion.

It's not that I'm unwilling to defend Christianity. But, I'd rather discuss things in their proper place.

So I don't think it's unrealistic to recognize that this is necessarily where you are headed with any of your arguments in the long haul.

This forum is not just one giant thread to discuss about whatever you want. There is a reason why things are organized into subforums and threads.

Every piece of observational information that we have made on the universe clearly shows that the Earth is in no special position in the universe.

Actually, I'd argue the opposite. There is no observation that supports the mediocrity principle. It is at most an unfounded assumption.