The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.




cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

Joshthefirst:
The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation o[b]f experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order[/b]? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.

Which order are you talking about? We have observed chaos and random explosion give birth to systems, like a supernova giving birth to solar systems.

dalaman:


Which order are you talking about? We have observed chaos and random explosion give birth to systems, like a supernova giving birth to solar systems.

Please show where an empirical observation has been made of a supernova giving birth to a solar system then.(This in itself is still arguable).

Order is in uniform acceleration due to gravity, transcription, translation, cellular processes and regulating mechanisms, electric conductivity and molecular structure. Order screams at us from almost everywhere, while your only example is an unobservable supposedly historical hypothesis.

Please go and build up your argument and come back if you want lets talk seriously.

Joshthefirst:
The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.




cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

Yes, it does stem from a belief that the universe can be understood by a set of naturalistic laws which appear "ordered", but ever since discoveries about the microscopic world and quantum physics(and many more observations) it's now common to see and demonstrate that random physical interactions can be responsible for ordered aspects of the things observed.

But the dilemma here isn't even the notion of randomness but what degree of it is truly useless, because a vacuum might be considered a disorderly body but in reality contain a set vacuum energy that is still useful or has capacity for work.

The fallacy here is one of misused probability,what aspect of things possible can there be an infinite number of odds against it?... what're the odds that the set of atoms in the exact same configuration and place in time would make up a person called davien?

davien:



Yes, it does stem from a belief that the universe can be understood by a set of naturalistic laws which appear "ordered", but ever since discoveries about the microscopic world and quantum physics(and many more observations) it's now common to see and demonstrate that random physical interactions can be responsible for ordered aspects of the things observed.

But the dilemma here isn't even the notion of randomness but what degree of it is truly useless, because a vacuum might be considered a disorderly body but in reality contain a set vacuum energy that is still useful or has capacity for work.

The fallacy here is one of misused probability,what aspect of things possible can there be an infinite number of odds against it?... what're the odds that the set of atoms in the exact same configuration and place in time would make up a person called davien?

Exactly on point, but I doubt if he would think deep enough to get it.

Order is relative, infact, very relative.
Order, or the appearance of order, greatly depends on the vantage point in space and time from which it is observed.

For example, if you were stuck in middle of an ocean, with waves slamming at you from all directions, you would curse the universe for the random chaos all around you.
But for a meteorologist observing the way patterns from the comfort of his office or lab, the waves would seem orderly and in harmony with the mathematical laws that govern ocean wave patterns.

So, it's all a matter of perspective, conscious perspective.

Joshthefirst:
The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.

cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

Joshthefirst,
Every random force, every random particle in universe obeys the laws of mathematics.
Every process in the universe follows and acts according to the laws of mathematics.

The particles and forces in the universe are not naturally imbued with order, rather, they configure themselves and act according to laws of mathematics.

In this case, all the particles and forces in the universe are pregnant with infinite probablities and possibilities.
Under the right mathematical thresholds, STUFF HAPPENS.

These mathematical thresholds are what we call processes, depending from which vantage point in space and time we are observing them.

Joshthefirst:
Please show where an empirical observation has been made of a supernova giving birth to a solar system then.(This in itself is still arguable).

Empirical observation? Can we create a supernova in the lab and experiment with it? Based on observation as of the result of the surrounding elements that are emitted as a result of a supernova and the composition of stellar nurseries it has been theorized that the expanding shock waves from supernova explosions sometimes triggers the formation of new stars and sometimes it results in the formation of black holes.

Order is in uniform acceleration due to gravity, transcription, translation, cellular processes and regulating mechanisms, electric conductivity and molecular structure. Order screams at us from almost everywhere, while your only example is an unobservable supposedly historical hypothesis.

Please go and build up your argument and come back if you want lets talk seriously.

There is no order there but simple process, what is the order in cell malignant mutation if cellular process is in order? Is cell mutation not a disorder? Acceleration due to gravity is a process and not an order because it decreases as you fly out of the earth into space. What is the regulating mechanism behind congenital diseases? What about compulsive abortions? My sister in law has had 5 miscarriages, the doctors say that the fetus is seen by her body as hostile cells and automatically destroyed by her immune system for some other women that suffer her fate there is an incompatibility between the blood types of the mother and unborn child that makes life impossible . Where is the order is that? What about droughts, Volcanic eruptions, mudslides, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, acid rain, heat weaves, winter storms, diseases pestilence and epidemics? Which order are they following? There is nothing like order these are just processes.

Joshthefirst:
The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.

cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

It never ceases to amaze me how consistent you are in always using your second statements to contradict your first statements.

So, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a GREAT SYSTEM for studying, examining and classifing evidence in our PHYSICAL world, and therefore the BEDROCK of all modern scientific ACHIEVEMENTS, except,.... the scientific theories of evolution and common descent?

Lolol.

Joshthefirst:
The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.




cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

Silly and contradictory thread.


Started with scientific model as the basis for the study of physical universe and contemporary technological advancement, then ended up criticizing evolution that undergo the same process.


I hate it when peeps that never taken their time to study an idea, before debunking suck idea.

Evolution is a scientific fact, get it to your ear. Scientific community are looking forward for disprove. If you can do so, millions of dollar is waiting for you and many noble prices.

Creationism have failed humanity for thousands of years, scientific model have broken the jinx.

davien:



Yes, it does stem from a belief that the universe can be understood by a set of naturalistic laws which appear "ordered", but ever since discoveries about the microscopic world and quantum physics(and many more observations) it's now common to see and demonstrate that random physical interactions can be responsible for ordered aspects of the things observed.

So give practical examples of random physical interactions that are responsible for ordered aspects of things observed, not far strung out theoretical nonsense. I have given examples, give yours. Show me how you think randomness can birth ordered processes. Not just ordered processes, but processes that tend to an increase in organization and efficiency of energetic processes.

davien:
But the dilemma here isn't even the notion of randomness but what degree of it is truly useless, because a vacuum might be considered a disorderly body but in reality contain a set vacuum energy that is still useful or has capacity for work.

Potential energy and potential capacity to do work is not useful energy. No process that results in an increase in organization has ever resulted from any random process of potential energy. But ordered processes.(under the guideline of mathematical laws as plaetton put it).

davien:
The fallacy here is one of misused probability,what aspect of things possible can there be an infinite number of odds against it?... what're the odds that the set of atoms in the exact same configuration and place in time would make up a person called davien?

Impossible odds. That even further supports my stance. Atoms, moving around in nature don't configure themselves without external purposeful influence and force. That, or I don't understand your statement.

plaetton:


Exactly on point, but I doubt if he would think deep enough to get it.
.
.
.
So, it's all a matter of perspective, conscious perspective.

I wonder why for ridiculous propositions, I have to "think" very deep. Maybe it's just to look for far fetched excuses for the obvious in my mind eh?

Processes are in order. Show me the foreign random perspective in the revolution of the earth, or the water cycle.

plaetton:


Joshthefirst,
Every random force, every random particle in universe obeys the laws of mathematics.
Every process in the universe follows and acts according to the laws of mathematics.

The presence of laws mean processes are guided under the cover of these laws. Any process that breaks away for the cover and guideline of universal laws and laid down processes and order becomes either useless or harmful. So randomness cannot yield any feasible thing.

plaetton:
The particles and forces in the universe are not naturally imbued with order, rather, they configure themselves and act according to laws of mathematics.

Ludicrous. particles and forces don't configure themselves and act. Look at what your thinking has become in an effort to trick your mind out of design. You now talk of particles configuring themselves and forces aligning themselves. smh. You contradict yourself, and the bolded statement can be an evidence of a mastermind behind the universe.

plaetton:
In this case, all the particles and forces in the universe are pregnant with infinite probablities and possibilities.
Under the right mathematical thresholds, STUFF HAPPENS.

These mathematical thresholds are what we call processes, depending from which vantage point in space and time we are observing them.

You contradict yourself again. If particles can only act under mathematical laws and thresholds, then there are no infinite probabilities and possibilities, apart from the probabilities allowed within the thresholds defined by these laws. As I have pointed out, any occurrence outside these thresholds is either useless, or even harmful. Your admittance of the presence of laws governing nature has destroyed any argument you might put up for self-organization and randomness that are the bedrock of your beliefs.


Now, lets move on to my next question: How did these laws you talk of come about?

plaetton:


It never ceases to amaze me how consistent you are in always using your second statements to contradict your first statements.

So, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a GREAT SYSTEM for studying, examining and classifing evidence in our PHYSICAL world, and therefore the BEDROCK of all modern scientific ACHIEVEMENTS, except,.... the scientific theories of evolution and common descent?

Lolol.

yes except common descent and Darwinian evolution. Because the very scientists that herald the scientific method ignore the illogical contradiction of these theories

dalaman:


Empirical observation? Can we create a supernova in the lab and experiment with it? Based on observation as of the result of the surrounding elements that are emitted as a result of a supernova and the composition of stellar nurseries it has been theorized that the expanding shock waves from supernova explosions sometimes triggers the formation of new stars and sometimes it results in the formation of black holes.

This is too far fetched an example, not to talk of the fact that the actual occurrence has never or can never be observed.

dalaman:
There is no order there but simple process, what is the order in cell malignant mutation if cellular process is in order? Is cell mutation not a disorder? Acceleration due to gravity is a process and not an order because it decreases as you fly out of the earth into space. What is the regulating mechanism behind congenital diseases? What about compulsive abortions? My sister in law has had 5 miscarriages, the doctors say that the fetus is seen by her body as hostile cells and automatically destroyed by her immune system for some other women that suffer her fate there is an incompatibility between the blood types of the mother and unborn child that makes life impossible . Where is the order is that? What about droughts, Volcanic eruptions, mudslides, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, acid rain, heat weaves, winter storms, diseases pestilence and epidemics? Which order are they following? There is nothing like order these are just processes.

Calm down. Processes can either be in order or not in order. Every example I gave is a an orderly process. The presence of auto-immune diseases and such cannot lead us to deny order and orderly processes in our universe. Like Plaetton has said, Processes follow laws. Any processes that escapes the natural order that laws provide results in harm and chaos.


Let's get back to base. The scientific method in itself, was born as a result of our ability to recognize and realize that processes follow particular orders and laws. How can you advocate randomness and chaos as a scientist then?

Joshthefirst:
This is too far fetched an example, not to talk of the fact that the actual occurrence has never or can never be observed.


Calm down. Processes can either be in order or not in order. Every example I gave is a an orderly process. The presence of auto-immune diseases and such cannot lead us to deny order and orderly processes in our universe. Like Plaetton has said, Processes follow laws. Any processes that escapes the natural order that laws provide results in harm and chaos.


Let's get back to base. The scientific method in itself, was born as a result of our ability to recognize and realize that processes follow particular orders and laws. How can you advocate randomness and chaos as a scientist then?

You still do not get it.
Every phenomena in nature tend to appear random and chaotic until we recognise the natural laws underpinning such processes.

Likewise, your phantom creator could not ever have created anything or processes without following the laws of mathematics.

Therefore, the laws of mathematics should supersede the creative potential of your creator.

But if you choose to make an exception for your phantom creator, then you must make same exception for every process in the universe as well.

Joshthefirst:
This is too far fetched an example, not to talk of the fact that the actual occurrence has never or can never be observed.

It has been theorized with different simulations. What is your own scientific explanation for star formation?

Calm down. Processes can either be in order or not in order. Every example I gave is a an orderly process. The presence of auto-immune diseases and such cannot lead us to deny order and orderly processes in our universe. Like Plaetton has said, Processes follow laws. Any processes that escapes the natural order that laws provide results in harm and chaos.


Let's get back to base. The scientific method in itself, was born as a result of our ability to recognize and realize that processes follow particular orders and laws. How can you advocate randomness and chaos as a scientist then?

Your first statements says it all. These are processes, they appeared orderly, random, haphazardly and chaotic. That is why we have the agents acting the way they are acting. To claim that nature acts only in an orderly fashion is to lie and to not know what you are talking about.

plaetton:


You still do not get it.
Every phenomena in nature tend to appear random and chaotic until we recognise the natural laws underpinning such processes.

So what are you saying then, that there is no such thing as chaos or randomness? As everything happens under the influence of natural laws? Be careful what you say Plaetton. You might find yourself in a difficult bind.

plaetton:
Likewise, your phantom creator could not ever have created anything or processes without following the laws of mathematics.

Therefore, the laws of mathematics should supersede the creative potential of your creator.

But if you choose to make an exception for your phantom creator, then you must make same exception for every process in the universe as well.

You're jumping hurdles man. First, how did the laws of mathematics come about? Who defined these laws?

dalaman:


...To claim that nature acts only in an orderly fashion is to lie and to not know what you are talking about.

This is not my claim.

Joshthefirst:
So what are you saying then, that there is no such thing as chaos or randomness? As everything happens under the influence of natural laws? Be careful what you say Plaetton. You might find yourself in a difficult bind.


You're jumping hurdles man. First, how did the laws of mathematics come about? Who defined these laws?

The laws of mathematics are self-existent.
Isn't that simple and obvious enough?

Joshthefirst:
So give practical examples of random physical interactions that are responsible for ordered aspects of things observed, not far strung out theoretical nonsense. I have given examples, give yours. Show me how you think randomness can birth ordered processes. Not just ordered processes, but processes that tend to an increase in organization and efficiency of energetic processes.

Before I address this first post, I'll need to point out that the term of "randomness" in the context you want me to vouch for or be demonstrated, is vague and/or arbitrary...this leaves room for goal-post shifting.

But I'll draw an example you should be familiar with.

Consider a simple system of ideal gases(more specifically,the molecules zipping around in a random/brownian motion), when the particles randomly collide with one another, they transfer kinetic energy across the system(thereby the temperature),and since the average kinetic energy is determined by the speed of the collisions,then work is highly dependent on increasing those random collisions..

As a living breathing being you use such a system when you use oxygen to digest food,and other metabolic processes, which allows you to grow and build more structure to your body(which can be thought of as an "orderly" anabolic process)

Potential energy and potential capacity to do work is not useful energy.

This isn't true...

Potential energy is the energy that is contained in a body and has the potential for work,an example are batteries on your phone that possess a set amount of energy and potential for work.

No process that results in an increase in organization has ever resulted from any random process of potential energy. But ordered processes.(under the guideline of mathematical laws as plaetton put it).

Again your tautology here is purely vague, and begs the question of what potential energy you consider to be random.

Impossible odds. That even further supports my stance. Atoms, moving around in nature don't configure themselves without external purposeful influence and force. That, or I don't understand your statement.

@bolded,please provide the external influence you think purposefully or has intent of any kind in configuring atoms the way they are.....

plaetton:

The laws of mathematics are self-existent.
Isn't that simple and obvious enough?

Hypocrisy. So the laws of mathematics are self-existent and you have no problems with that but a self-existent entity is not feasible for you.

Joshthefirst:
Hypocrisy. So the laws of mathematics are self-existent and you have no problems with that but a self-existent entity is not feasible for you.

Are you that ret.arded?
Seriously.

I didn't make up the laws of mathematics. Any preschooler is aware of, and can demonstrate the simple laws of mathematics.

plaetton:


Are you that ret.arded?
Seriously.

I didn't make up the laws of mathematics. Any preschooler is aware of, and can demonstrate the simple laws of mathematics.

Don't be a foolish i'diot. Does demonstration and awareness of laws and principles guiding the universe make those laws self-existent? When asked where the laws guiding the reactions of the universe possibly came from you conveniently pull up self-existence from your inner cantus. You might as well start touting the universe is self-existence also.

Stop bringing us to baseline bickering and quarrelling and address the weighty issues that you conveniently dodge in favor of I'diot clichés and name calling.

[quote author=joshthefirst] So what are you saying then, that there is no such thing as chaos or randomness? As everything happens under the influence of natural laws?...] I noticed you dodged this in favor of being childish. Answer these questions.

davien:
Before I address this first post, I'll need to point out that the term of "randomness" in the context you want me to vouch for or be demonstrated, is vague and/or arbitrary...this leaves room for goal-post shifting.

But I'll draw an example you should be familiar with.

Consider a simple system of ideal gases(more specifically,the molecules zipping around in a random/brownian motion), when the particles randomly collide with one another, they transfer kinetic energy across the system(thereby the temperature),and since the average kinetic energy is determined by the speed of the collisions, then work is highly dependent on increasing those random collisions..

As a living breathing being you use such a system when you use oxygen to digest food,and other metabolic processes, which allows you to grow and build more structure to your body(which can be thought of as an "orderly" anabolic process)

No. As a living organism, I use protein carriers and enzymes and other modalities to harness this random kinetic energy present in matter into the useful anabolic processes I carry out. Random energy can never be any use to me unless my body system harnesses it into orderly useful work. Your analogy is not an example of randomness birthing ordered processes. It is an example of modalities ordering random energy to carry out useful work.

davien:
This isn't true...

Potential energy is the energy that is contained in a body and has the potential for work,an example are batteries on your phone that possess a set amount of energy and potential for work.

Think a little farther. The presence of potential energy is useless without its utilization in an orderly system for the production of kinetic work. So potential energy of itself is useless. The Sun is a giant ball of billions of joules of potential energy, and it is only when this energy is ordered in the photosynthetic process that anabolism of glucose occurs.

davien:
Again your tautology here is purely vague, and begs the question of what potential energy you consider to be random.

My point is that potential energy cannot yield any useful thing at random. It must be utilized in an orderly process to yield useful work. This is what we recognize even unknowingly in nature, and this is what makes phenomena predictable and scrutable in science. Randomness can yield nothing good of itself.

davien:
@bolded,please provide the external influence you think purposefully or has intent of any kind in configuring atoms the way they are.....

Sorry, I wasn't astute with the bolded. What I meant to communicate was that atoms don't organize to form davien or bacteria or flies due to random processes, as nothing useful(especially davien) can arise from random movements of nature.

Joshthefirst:
No. As a living organism, I use protein carriers and enzymes and other modalities to harness this random kinetic energy present in matter into the useful anabolic processes I carry out. Random energy can never be any use to me unless my body system harnesses it into orderly useful work. Your analogy is not an example of randomness birthing ordered processes. It is an example of modalities ordering random energy to carry out useful work.

And therein lies the reason I said you seek a vague goal for one to give you, where you could easily shift the goalpost..

But having that in mind that it would be easy for you to try to shift frames here I specifically gave that example so I could then ask you what purposefully harnesses such a process for the various reactions(combustion reactions, nuclear reactions, etc) that we observe in nature to be a direct result of the collisions from random or chaotic atoms/molecules?

Think a little farther. The presence of potential energy is useless without its utilization in an orderly system for the production of kinetic work. So potential energy of itself is useless. The Sun is a giant ball of billions of joules of potential energy, and it is only when this energy is ordered in the photosynthetic process that anabolism of glucose occurs.

Need i remind you that the sun utilizes it's own fuel(hydrogen and helium) to form higher elements, which arises from the chaotic bombardment of hydrogen atoms together(fusion)...

My point is that potential energy cannot yield any useful thing at random. It must be utilized in an orderly process to yield useful work. This is what we recognize even unknowingly in nature, and this is what makes phenomena predictable and scrutable in science. Randomness can yield nothing good of itself.

This is a red herring in which you assume that a living system or observer has to utilize the potential energy of a body for it to be useful,this is fallacious in the sense that a body with potential energy would still lose the energy contained to its surroundings regardless of being utilized by any living system.

An example is the earth that loses its heat of formation through radioactive decay and the result are stable daughter products of once chaotic radioactive isotopes.

Sorry, I wasn't astute with the bolded. What I meant to communicate was that atoms don't organize to form davien or bacteria or flies due to random processes, as nothing useful(especially davien) can arise from random movements of nature.

Still the question remains,that aren't there an infinite measure of chance or odds that go against the exact molecules and atoms that make up me(davien) in the exact same configuration and yet I exist,this is the common error you make in claiming improbability from randomness when you don't have a measure of what isn't permitted by chance in the first place,nor what counts as "chance"(again, leaving room for goalpost shifting)

davien:
And therein lies the reason I said you seek a vague goal for one to give you, where you could easily shift the goalpost..
But having that in mind that it would be easy for you to try to shift frames here I specifically gave that example so I could then ask you what purposefully harnesses such a process for the various reactions(combustion reactions, nuclear reactions, etc) that we observe in nature to be a direct result of the collisions from random or chaotic atoms/molecules?

To the bolded, Reactions, occurring in definite systems, and yielding directed results, are systematic and predictable. That is my point. And I say that is the bedrock of the scientific method. If nature were unpredictable and random, and pregnant with an infinite subset of possibilities, how could we conduct definite research? and how would our research prove systematic and stable physical systems? How are there definite laws guiding systems in a random nature then? and how can we say a random universe such as ours can evolve stable organisms and cycles that are sustainable in definite environments?

davien:
Need i remind you that the sun utilizes it's own fuel(hydrogen and helium) to form higher elements, which arises from the chaotic bombardment of hydrogen atoms together(fusion)...
This is a red herring in which you assume that a living system or observer has to utilize the potential energy of a body for it to be useful,this is fallacious in the sense that a body with potential energy would still lose the energy contained to its surroundings regardless of being utilized by any living system.
An example is the earth that loses its heat of formation through radioactive decay and the result are stable daughter products of once chaotic radioactive isotopes.
Still the question remains,that aren't there an infinite measure of chance or odds that go against the exact molecules and atoms that make up me(davien) in the exact same configuration and yet I exist, this is the common error you make in claiming improbability from randomness when you don't have a measure of what isn't permitted by chance in the first place,nor what counts as "chance"(again, leaving room for goalpost shifting)

Yes. Yet you exist. Your question only makes a case for me. I have proffered a logical measure already of what isn't permitted by chance. Stability and the systematic coordination that we observe all the time is not permitted by chance. Stability and purposeful and systematic coordination requires the right environments, etc.

It is you who shifts goalposts by trying to claim that chance has infinite probabilities and systematics can be achieved in random systems while contradicting yourself in light of presiding laws and thresholds for the so called " random infinities" you suspect for the production of order. Law and order cannot exist side by side with infinite colliding systems.

Joshthefirst:
To the bolded, Reactions, occurring in definite systems, and yielding directed results, are systematic and predictable. That is my point. And I say that is the bedrock of the scientific method. If nature were unpredictable and random, and pregnant with an infinite subset of possibilities, how could we conduct definite research? and how would our research prove systematic and stable physical systems? How are there definite laws guiding systems in a random nature then? and how can we say a random universe such as ours can evolve stable organisms and cycles that are sustainable in definite environments?

I have not postulated nature as unpredictable,and random(in the context you're using this time) again begs the question of what you consider purposeful or directed under the same infinite sets of possibilities and impossibilities..

Plus it should be noted that the definitive laws you speak of are definitional statements(represented mathematically or theoretically) of reality by piecing together patterns that produce a set of result/results under certain circumstances, not verbal laws like in a judiciary system. I. e to say they are derivatives we've observed to be true provided one or more conditions are met.

And I'd hardly agree that organisms and their environment are definitively sustainable,when 9/10 of all species are extinct(dead), with each chaotic extinction event leaving room for succession of both new organisms, typography,climate, etc.

Yes. Yet you exist. Your question only makes a case for me. I have proffered a logical measure already of what isn't permitted by chance. Stability and the systematic coordination that we observe all the time is not permitted by chance. Stability and purposeful and systematic coordination requires the right environments, etc.

No it doesn't,you agreeing that there are infinite odds against unlikely chance getting the exact same atoms and molecules to makeup myself but I still existing tells of how one can't use chance as a measure to gauge already existing bodies...

This all stems from a misunderstanding and/or misuse of probability(already exposed this in my first reply), probabilities tell future data, they fail when misused for gauging the existence of an exact type of figure or configuration, out of infinite sets for and against..

It is you who shifts goalposts by trying to claim that chance has infinite probabilities and systematics can be achieved in random systems while contradicting yourself in light of presiding laws and thresholds for the so called " random infinities" you suspect for the production of order. Law and order cannot exist side by side with infinite colliding systems.

I am not shifting any goalpost here...

The post you highlighted(my post),is on the improbability(note the word, "against" in the post) of getting an exact same configuration out of an infinite set of configurations... what in that is contradictory?

It's analogous to saying what are the odds against anyone(including myself) getting the type of dna configuration in my body out of an infinite set of configurations?

davien:



Yes, it does stem from a belief that the universe can be understood by a set of naturalistic laws which appear "ordered", but ever since discoveries about the microscopic world and quantum physics(and many more observations) it's now common to see and demonstrate that random physical interactions can be responsible for ordered aspects of the things observed.
.
.
.

I say this is not true.

Even quantum physics is studied and being studied, described and being described by its own set of principles and laws.

It is not common in any way, and it has never been demonstrated that random physical interactions are responsible for order in anything. Only the opposite has been demonstrated, and only the opposite is the reason we approach things in an empirical way, because we expect order. I'm tempted to call you an I'd.iot.