Proton decay Vs. Hitchens's razor

[Subduction Zone]

This is the same as the claim of life on other planets. This is hypothesized based on current theory, but has yet to be proven with the hard evidence that science requires of everyone else. It is a by-product of theory that is not exactly correct, but assumes if we act like this is a done deal, nobody will notice and nothing has to upgrade.

It might be possible to find sufficient evidence for life on other planets. A planet with oxygen gas in its atmosphere would do that.

 

[questfortruth]

It might be possible to find sufficient evidence for life on other planets. A planet with oxygen gas in its atmosphere would do that.

Or Laughing gas?

Nitrous oxide - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or Laughing gas?

Nitrous oxide - Wikipedia

Why laughing gas? Oxygen yes. Without life oxygen will have already reacted with other chemicals. On the Earth we can date when life first started to make excess oxygen because it reacted with Fe+2 dissolved in water to Fe+3. The latter is not water soluble and combines regularly with that oxygen to for Fe2O3, or rust. Rust, you may have noticed has a red color. The Precambrian redbeds mark the onset of massive oxygen production.

 

[Polymath257]

"we know that our universe is dominated by matter and not anti-matter"

Shouldn't have the BB created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?
What happend?

Yes, it should have. And we do not know in detail. There *is* an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, but it is weak. On the other hand, to get the dominance of matter we see today only requires an asymmetry of 1 part in a billion.

This is still very much a matter of active research.

 

[leroy]

There is no evidence that the proton is an unstable particle (it means it would have a limited lifetime and, after that, decays). Hitchens's razor says: ``That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'' However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science? No indirect evidence that proton is unstable. On the contrary, there must be stable particles. Hence, proton must be stable.

Please, list some scientific papers in Math or Physics journals that use the phrase "because of H. razor, the A is not equal to 23."

I know that I broke a glass last week.

There is no evidence for that (nobody saw me)

The point is that there are some things that we accept without evidence and it is rational to do so

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the same as the claim of life on other planets. This is hypothesized based on current theory, but has yet to be proven with the hard evidence that science requires of everyone else. It is a by-product of theory that is not exactly correct, but assumes if we act like this is a done deal, nobody will notice and nothing has to upgrade.

I know that I broke a glass last week.

There is no evidence for that (nobody saw me)

The point is that there are some things that we accept without evidence and it is rational to do so

True. Do you know what we accept without evidence and why?

 

[Polymath257]

I know that I broke a glass last week.

There is no evidence for that (nobody saw me)

The point is that there are some things that we accept without evidence and it is rational to do so

Well, glasses are common, easily broken, you would have access to that knowledge, and you probably have no reason to lie about it. So, in this case, your assertion can be regarded as sufficient evidence.

If it was discovered that you *do* have a reason to lie about it, more evidence would be required.

if you asserted that a glass broke when you were not around, we could require more evidence and ask how you know.

If you claimed that you broke a very rare, ornate glass that nobody else had seen, we would be very justified in questioning your claim and requiring more evidence.

If you claimed that you broke an alien spacecraft piloted by beings from the Andromeda galaxy, we would likely say you are dishonest or deluded without incredibly good evidence.

So, in the context where the event is common, you would have knowledge of it, and you have no reason to lie, your statement would consist of evidence that it happened. Violate any of those conditions and more evidence would certainly be requested for you to be believed.

 

[leroy]

True. Do you know what we accept without evidence

Intuition, logic, memory etc.

and why?

Good question……………..do you have the answer?

 

[Polymath257]

Intuición, logic, memory etc.

Intuition is only as good as it has been trained to be. It is, at best, something that can suggest new avenues to explore. But relying on it to determine truth is very risky.

Logic alone cannot go anywhere. It needs actual facts to work with.

Memory is a piece of evidence.

Good question……………..do you have the answer?

See my previous post.

 

[leroy]

Well, glasses are common, easily broken, you would have access to that knowledge, and you probably have no reason to lie about it. So, in this case, your assertion can be regarded as sufficient evidence.

If it was discovered that you *do* have a reason to lie about it, more evidence would be required.

if you asserted that a glass broke when you were not around, we could require more evidence and ask how you know.

If you claimed that you broke a very rare, ornate glass that nobody else had seen, we would be very justified in questioning your claim and requiring more evidence.

If you claimed that you broke an alien spacecraft piloted by beings from the Andromeda galaxy, we would likely say you are dishonest or deluded without incredibly good evidence.

So, in the context where the event is common, you would have knowledge of it, and you have no reason to lie, your statement would consist of evidence that it happened. Violate any of those conditions and more evidence would certainly be requested for you to be believed.

Granted, so if a claim is intrinsically very improbable, you need very strong evidence, if the claim is intrinsically probable, then week evidence (or just a claim) would be enough


Agree?

 

[Polymath257]

Granted, so if a claim is intrinsically very improbable, you need very strong evidence, if the claim is intrinsically probable, then week evidence (or just a claim) would be enough

Agree?

Overall, yes. But the probabilities have to be calculated correctly. You can't simply multiply probabilities of cases that are not independent. You have to take into account the processes involved and what is known about such.

The 'intrinsic improbability' needs to be supported by the actual evidence, not just by naive calculations.

In the case of breaking glass, it is generally known that glass is fragile, commonly owned, etc.

In the case of an intelligent designer that is not human, the evidence is far, far weaker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Intuition, logic, memory etc.


Good question……………..do you have the answer?

Oh my, you don't.

 

[leroy]

Overall, yes. But the probabilities have to be calculated correctly. You can't simply multiply probabilities of cases that are not independent. You have to take into account the processes involved and what is known about such.

The 'intrinsic improbability' needs to be supported by the actual evidence, not just by naive calculations.

In the case of breaking glass, it is generally known that glass is fragile, commonly owned, etc.

In the case of an intelligent designer that is not human, the evidence is far, far weaker.

So when you say that you need very strong evidence for ID (in the context of abiogenesis for example) …………… what you are tacitly saying is that the intrinsic probability of ID is very low. Right?

So my question would be, why do you think the intrinsic probability is very low?


It seems to me if you start with a 50% (agnosticism) the evidence is sufficient to balance the odds in favor of ID.

 

[Polymath257]

So when you say that you need very strong evidence for ID (in the context of abiogenesis for example) …………… what you are tacitly saying is that the intrinsic probability of ID is very low. Right?

Absolutely. And, especially, it is lower than the probability of abiogenesis being only from chemistry.

So my question would be, why do you think the intrinsic probability is very low?

It seems to me if you start with a 50% (agnosticism) the evidence is sufficient to balance the odds in favor of ID.

But I don't start from that position since it would be unreasonable to do so.

What is the probability of an intelligent agent existing and being interested in Earth 5 billion years ago? Certainly no higher than the probability of an alien from another star system visiting Earth today. And I discount that one as well.

The only 'intelligent designers' we know of have existed for at most the last 2 million years and have all been great apes.

 

[Heyo]

Intuition, logic, memory etc.

Memory? Do you remember how often your memory has been proven to be wrong? Probably not.

 

[leroy]

Absolutely. And, especially, it is lower than the probability of abiogenesis being only from chemistry.



But I don't start from that position since it would be unreasonable to do so.

What is the probability of an intelligent agent existing and being interested in Earth 5 billion years ago? Certainly no higher than the probability of an alien from another star system visiting Earth today. And I discount that one as well.

The only 'intelligent designers' we know of have existed for at most the last 2 million years and have all been great apes.

Ok so we should calculate

1 the probability that there was an intelligent designer (Alien or God of some type) 4B years ago, capable of creating life and willing to create life in this planet

Vs

2 the probability that chemicals randomly assembled in the correct order, such that the firs life emerged


How did you determined that 1 is less likely than 2?

 

[leroy]

Memory? Do you remember how often your memory has been proven to be wrong? Probably not.

But of course you are unable to quote a mistake ever made by me

 

[Polymath257]

Ok so we should calculate

1 the probability that there was an intelligent designer (Alien or God of some type) 4B years ago, capable of creating life and willing to create life in this planet

Vs

2 the probability that chemicals randomly assembled in the correct order, such that the firs life emerged


How did you determined that 1 is less likely than 2?

Well, we know there were such chemicals around 5 billion years ago. We know that they do, in fact, spontaneously assemble into the types of polymers found in living things.

We have no independent evidence for any intelligence around 5 billion years ago.

That makes the initial probability of the one far greater than the probability of the other.

 

[Heyo]

But of course you are unable to quote a mistake ever made by me

I'm sure I could - but I don't remember off the top of my head.

 

[Heyo]

I'm sure I could - but I don't remember off the top of my head.

But that's what the search function is for. Alas, it is frowned upon to point out old mistakes so I just inform you that I did find an example of you admitting to a failing memory.
And if you can still remember your days in school, you might remember that you didn't get strait "A"s because your memory failed you.