Dear Banjo,
>>Belief in the supernatural is irrelevant to the project<<
I do not know what project, but if you are saying something like Laplace in his reply to Napoleon (while explaining to him the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter), who missed a reference to God: “I did not need that hypothesis”, then you are certainly right. This attitude or principle expresses what is today known as “methodological atheism” subscribed to practically by all scientists, atheist and theist.

Perhaps not science finding applications in examining what is not material (like e.g. mathematics finds applications in biology/genetics or economy) but a scientist’s or mathematician’s mind being inspired to seek similar patters when trying to understand the immaterial, where religion cannot be ignored. The classic on this is Ian G Barbour’s “Myths, Models and Paradigm: The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language”, SCM Press 1974.

Dear Oliver,
I think you are confusing the problem of the origin and occurrence of life in our universe and that of the fine-tuning of our universe (c.f. Martin Rees, “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, Phoenix 2000). Multiverse is supposed to be an answer to the latter, not the former, which is a different story as explained also by david f.

On the other hand your reference to “everything is” seems to hint at an even more radical speculation by Max Tegmark, namely that anything mathematically possible (as a physical law) is also physically possible, i.e. realised in some universe.

I share your discomfort with these speculations, especially Tegmark’s which radically redefines the concept of existence: for me what mathematically exists and what physically exists are two different things (and of different nature again is for me the existence of God; c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#157122 and the sequel).

However, it is feasible that a new physical theory will be arrived at (I do not like the “theory of everything” description, because how should we know it covers everything?) where other universes have to be assumed, although their existence cannot be experimentally verified and follows only via mathematical deductions from this new theory. This possibility is radical, epistemologically controversial, but not as crazy as that of Tegmark.

Dear Dan,

I am sceptical about the current interpretations of QM and see these interpretations as merely an exploratory attempt. It does not follow these attempts have zero value. The religions also provide frameworks which have value.

Dear George,

I was aware of Max Tegmark when referring to convenient solutions, which avoid the problem, yet might appear mathematically sound. Sound in the sense if you have all solutions you bound to find your own.

I will re-check my sources, because you are correct in saying that I was applying multiverses to the origin of life: i.e, in an infinite set of universes, proteins will assemble in an infinite number of times (sub-set of the larger infinity) and we are one of those selected universes. Note please, this is where I am again sceptical.

Dear Bugsy,

"Miracles are outside the realm of science, because if they were explicable by science they would no longer be miracles."

Exactly.

Please excuse brevity. Busy.

Dear david f,

Thanks for your post.

I will need to learn more about Stuart Kauffman.

The Miller-Urey experiment as I understand it was limited to creation of amino acids in a primative earh assumed to have an atmosphere of ammona and methane, whereas, today it is believed to have been carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

A self-organising universe would need to explain the assembly of proteins which is a far more difficult process than producing amino acids, as you know. What is also confounding is that if energy is applied to a molecule in transition towards a thirty-two amino acid chain, said energy is more likely to break-up the chain than create it. Herein, we are once again up against our old friend the second law of thermodynamics.

Certainly, there is much evidence of self-organisation in the universe, from snow flakes to galaxies. Yet, the creative software would need to be very sophisticated indeed and perhaps even deterministic to create a protein. On the hand, we are here.

From what I have read, creation of a cell could have come about from some form of self-oragnisation (e.g., bubbles formes in convection).

We come back to the assembly of the proteins, wherein the volume of the primordal soup on Earth seems far too small to support spontaneous assembly. McFadden has suggested that the internal of a proto-cell was shielded from observation by the macro-world, allowing QM effects to occur stage-by-stage inside the first cell.

Superposition of states might help to address the enormous time challenges and, an alternative reality deal with the second law of thermodynmics. The curious thing is that the first replication (second complete cell) might have occurred in a different universe. If we are the universe which received the replicator, the assembly may have happened by way ebbing and flowing from superposition to reality (to assemble the protein) in another universe.

Please note, the ready use of may and might.

Cheers

oh dear oliver/et al..multi-uni-verses/sounds much like heaven and hell...science seems so blind/taking ideas...then destroying that from whence it got them

like big/bang sounds much as unioverse shattering as let there be light...and abgenesis isnt a theory evolution cares to discuss/mainly because all its theories have been rebutted

there is no bubble./..that CAN EVOLVE[reveal the means]its opure insanity to theorise..then not explain how this/bubble evolves[or captures dna/rna[or whatever delusion follows this big bubble[alians wont cut it]thats dorkins favoured theory/if so how did alians do it[yet more alians?}

Miller used the wrong atmosphere model./The atmosphere model modern evolutionists say was around/at the time of the development of the first cell/was actually a mixture of nitrogen,..carbon dioxide.. water,/methane,..and sulfur dioxide./The current Biology textbooks (Mcgraw-Hill's "Life",/or the same company's "Biology,8th Ed")/state that when/this new model is used in the Miller-Urey experiment,.."Biological compounds are created."

The textbook provided no description of these compounds, these compounds were ACTUALLY/a mixture of cyanide and formaldehyde,..both of which,while biological/in source and nature,!..are hazardous for any protein/carbon based lifeforms..lol.

Formaldehyde/is so dangerous..that if a lab/were to have it,..it would come with a whole different set..of handling materials,..from the beakers to the droppers,..because formaldehyde destroys proteins!

The Biology(8th Ed)..states that electrical storms/were commonplace moreso than now/on the early earth,..thus the Miller Urey experiment would be repeated hundreds or thousands of times..in that atmosphere, meaning..that formaldehyde and cyanide would be commonplace.

Assuming that this cell/were to form,..then it would be quickly destroyed by the formaldehyde,..which, being heavier than water,/would make even the bottom of the ocean..uninhabitable to cellular organisms.

With all that taken into account,..before even considering the impossibillities of life/coming from the amino acids..in the Miller-Urey experiment,/how can one..consider it..as even plausible in an argument/that evolution is fact?

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Miller-Urey+experiment+doudt&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

FIRST MAKE A CELL/then evolve it...
think why it hasnt been done/by man/nor scientist

.

Dear George,

.

">>Belief in the supernatural is irrelevant to the project<<
I do not know what project ..."

I was referring to "sustained intellectual developement" as a project for mankind.

However, as you and Laplace seem to agree, it doesn't really matter what the project is, provided it is not specifically religious.

Also, you will be pleased to learn that I just gave my granddaughter a lesson in “methodological atheism”. She is just beginning to learn her table of additions: 1 + 1 = 2.

.

" ... trying to understand the immaterial, where religion cannot be ignored ..."

Do you mean that one should not ignore one's religious prejudices (or "world-view presuppositions") when trying to understand the immaterial?

.