Scientists Disprove Evolution

That got your attention, didn’t it?

Scientists haven’t disproved evolution. But I found it interesting that some cosmologists are putting a lot of effort into doing just that, albeit indirectly.

To be fair, in this context, the cosmologists can’t prove a negative. They can’t demonstrate that evolution didn’t happen. They can only show that evolution is infinitely unlikely compared to an alternative explanation.

That potentially better explanation, subject to much dispute, is the idea that your existence and consciousness is far more likely to be a free-floating brain created instantly by random fluctuations of the universe, and imbued with false memories of your past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I don’t think the free-floating brain theory will ever replace the standard concept of time or evolution. But it’s fascinating that scientists are working on it.

So here is my question of the day for people who accept evolution as a fact: If cosmologists someday reached a consensus that free-floating brains are infinitely more likely than our current notion of reality, would you agree with the following statement:

“The theory of evolution is false.”

Comments

[Wholesale Electronics]

More than likely this will just be an add on to the other more readily accepted theories. Yes, your brain is random fluctuations, but it is evolving, and it was created by god.

[Steffen]

Probability measures always depend on the state space one defines them on. Therefore, I would only agree to the statement “The theory of evolution is false.” if I would agree with their constructed state space. Moreover, in order to have two events whose probability of occurrence differs by a factor of infinity, then one event (evolution) must have a probability of zero. Note, that this does not mean it cannot occur. More likely, they will show, that evolution has a probability of 1 to 10 billion against and their brain story has a probability of 1 to 1 billion against. And actually, how does their theory include the development of plants, fungi, bacteria and viruses whose capacity is rather short. If the random fusion of brains is only about humans then I would disagree on the grounds that our genetic ancestry is too close to mammals to be pointing in any other way...

[Kim]

Late comment here. Your constant anti-evolutionary stance still pains my poor scientific heart! ;)

Question: Have you ever met a biologist? What do you think they do all day? What is so controversial about the contemporary take on Darwin's theories of natural selection? I can't see anything remotely wierd about it.

I haven't followed the link, just posting a knee-jerk reaction.

Please believe me. The idea that living creatures slowly change (or 'evolve') due to the way our replicators（genes) and reproductive systems (naughty bits） work is not a subject that needs people to agree with it. It just is.

Or maybe it isn't. If not, then I have a few bones to pick with all these so-called "biologists” who claim to know about life as well. Their results are obviously OK or we wouldn't have things like medicine and the human genome project, but maybe they're secretly studing voodoo in the basement...

-k. (currently freezing my bum off in Beijing)

[Tenelus]

Mark:

I agree with Hawking's idea of time, because i have no better theory, but he himself admits that the theory still requires a cause and a beginning. Yes, I know that there is no 'before time' because it is inconceivable, but that doesn't excuse the universe from cause and effect, even if that cause and effect doesn't follow the laws of physics as they apply in day to day life.

The reason that scientists (and myself) believe in the theory of evolution is that it is the best explanation of the evidence we have. The theory of god as the 'uncaused cause' is not only the best explanation we have for the evidence we have (i.e. that existence exists), it is the only explanation that anyone has come up with besides denying that existence does exist at all, which, as you said, is a pointless argument.

Please correct me if i am wrong, but i believe that the reason that people want more proof of God is that they don't want to believe in him. God wants us to give things up and change, and give up an hour on Sunday. The belief in God has consequences that we don't want to live with. But if you take God out of the evolution equation, it seems to suggest that living like animals (do what you feel, do it now) is only natural for us.

I believe that man has walked on the moon, but the only proof i have of that is some black and white footage and photographs, which we know could have been faked. Most people don't argue that we did it, because the belief that man waked on the moon has no consequence.

- tenelus

[Ling Ling]

Boycott China! Damn spammers. If you want something cheap, tho', go ahead. But I'll have to kill you! Mwuah-hah-hah-hah-haaaaah!!!!!
I like Chinese people. But their government is up to something!
Actually, I bought a Rough Rider knife(made in China) for my dad, and it's pretty cool. Did I mention that I love the people of China? There's no doubt about it, though - the government of China definitely shows the signs of Communism... Their own people know that.
Go Beijing Olympics, 8-8-08!
I think I just hate their infiltration of the web. It's pissing me off. O.K. time for Ling Ling to drink some coffee. Coffee, yummy! Mmmmmm.....

[Mark]

Teneleus,

I wasn't clear enough. Space and time can be represented as a tensor (first order, IIRC) although this is just a mathematical representation of what space and time can do under certain stresses. The result of this caluclation leads to black holes or time dilation (which is needed for GPS signal processing else we'd drift all the time).

But if you take solutions of the tensor for the universe as a whole, you get some certain mathematical views. If you multiply the space coordinate by the square root of -1 (i) you get a solution for the universe that describes a four-dimensional sphere. And the earth is a sphere. So asking what happened before time is rather like where is north of the north pole.

But the central issue is that this is a mathematical model of what time really is as far as we can ascertain it. It doesn't mean it IS what time is, but that it acts like it under the circumstances we have applied it to. The truth will be something different.

However, asking whether time really exists or not doesn't help except in an epistomological discussion. If there is no time, then the illusion of separation of events is not the truth. However, if it acts as if it were really there because my only actions within the sphere of the universe made it seem like true, then there's really no reason to deny it a truth.

Like "I think, therefore I am", if my insanity makes a prediction that will come true, then my insanity (my perception of life, existence or time) is as true as it needs to be. It would only be when I leave the conditions where this insanity has any relevance and no longer predicts anything that I can make any progress into finding out this new reality. Which has no more likelyhood of being true than my previous insanity.

Or in other words, when you meet God, how do you know it's Him? Surely you could be imagining Him.

So as a thinking person with a belief in themself, I will act as I see fit and ignore the possibility that god exists or that evolution is false until I enter a state where the perception I have will notice the differences. And when I see them, I will continue to criticise them to find out any deeper truth or new perception that may result later on.

[raymo]

World of Warcraft Gold
Be a wow gold supplier, we understand that our buyers’ time is valuable. For this reason we offer an instant delivery of wow gold 24 hours a day. So if you want to buy gold wow in hurry. It is no need to go to anywhere, but http://www.buywowgold.org.cn . It is the cheapest wow gold for sale online. You will save a lot of money, if you buy gold wow from our website. This is a golden opportunity!!! Come and buy gold wow, the cheap wow gold, the cheapest wow gold here. You will get a great fun of saving huge!

[Matthew Glenville]

I think people seem to be missing the point.

The original 'Boltzman problem' is that the laws of physics (thermodynamics) say that concentrated structures (e.g. people, planets, etc.) are very unlikely and that over time, everything will turn back into a gas.

This itself isn't a problem - except that our past involves even more complicated structures (right back to the big bang). Therefore the laws of physics say that that it's actually much more likely the whole of existence as we know it popped into being a second ago, rather than billions of years ago.

In which case all of our past - which is our evidence for believing in evolution - is a fiction, and thus no evidence at all.

However - our past is also our evidence for the laws of physics. So if everything did pop into existence a second ago then we have no reason to believe in the laws of physics either (and therefore no reason to believe the the world popped into existence a second ago!).

So there it is: if you believe in the laws of physics (thermodynamics in particular) then it's much more likely that everything 'began' a moment ago - so we don't have any real evidence for evolution. But then we don't have any real evidence for the laws of physics either.

(Nothing to do with floating brains really).

[Tenelus]

Mark, i don't want to finish yet, I'm having fun, but if you're bored with me I'll stop.
The conclusion of the lecture in which Professor Hawking explains the imaginary time theory / fact is as follows:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. "

This is the proof. What has a beginning must have a cause, but as you said, there is no time before time, it's absurd to think of it, so the cause of time must be outside of time.

-tenelus

[mp4 watch]

epathchina CHINA wholesale MP4 watch
China Electronics Wholesale
MP4 watchmp4 watch
cheap and high quality mp4 player watch, pocket watch,Browse our unique MP3 watches,MP4 watches,pocket watches,sport watches etc. and especia

http://www.epathchina.com/index-bluetooth-watch.html

[Mark]

Tenelus,

I did read (obviously).

Stephen Hawking had some idea about making space "imaginary". A mathematical trick. And in that case, the universe is a slice along a sphere. "before time" then comes down to a similar question "North of north". It's a silly question because we know there's no "north" from north, everywhere is south.

Your ideas aren't provably wrong and therefore could be right. However, because they aren't provably wrong, there's no need to believe in it.

That's the short of it.

Ta.

[Tenelus]

Mark, Sorry, it may be too late for you to read this... well, actually there is no point apologizing, because you won't read the apology unless it doesn't apply... anyway:

I actually really like your explanation of why time must exist, but we have to think even more outside the square of 'reality' - if time didn't exist, neither would the proof that you proposed i.e., if it's an illusion, so is the fact that things happen progressively... it's all a bit weird, again, because if it's true then the whole proof is also non existent - you can't prove much about the reality while living in the illusion.

What that leaves us with, then, is the second option - that time is an illusion to us, and that God is real. I should apologize for using the work illusion, i couldn't really think of a better one, but i will explain what i mean - If God is real and beyond our time and space, which i believe he is, we are part of his creation, and time is part of his creation, it isn't as real as the reality of God, but i shouldn't have said it was an illusion, that's misleading, sorry. But i hope you can see my point? In a world of time there must have been a beginning, and what has a beginning must have a cause, and if there is nothing beyond time, and nothing before the beginning then there can't have been anything, but if there is something that is beyond time, it wouldn't need a cause, because cause is a time thing, but it could cause time to exist. It's not that God existed 'forever', but that the concept of forever means nothing for God. Sorry i can't explain it properly, but philosophers have been trying for quite some time and still can't either. Any thoughts?

[Steven McDaniel]

Steve from Ohio says: "..I am quite amazed at the ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd.
Remember that for hundreds of years it was a "proven scientific fact" that spontaneous generation fully explained the origins of life.
Then came Darwin who believed characteristics passed from parent to offspring by the environment. This was called "Acquired Characteristics" and was undebatably considered truth. You remember the old experiments where they would cut off the tails of mice for several generations believing that eventually the mice would be born without tails."

[Actually they don't remember it, unless they were eye witnesses - because to relate such incidents in school would risk denigrating the theory of evolution and so violate the separation of Church and state..Steve from Oklahoma]

"Then the science of genetics came along and totally disproved yet another "proven scientific fact". Now you believe that we evolved through random genetic mutations. We are still looking for an example of even one positive genetic mutations, but you believe that countless billions and billions of them have taken place.
The more we learn about the complexity of DNA the more it looks like your latest "proven scientific fact" will fall by the wayside..."

*************

Hi, Steve! Dear Lord that all was so worthy of repetition!!! ***What he said***!! And actually there have been quite a few of the posts from non christians (ie, people not like us neanderthal, superstitious, Fundamentalist, totally non-scientific firebrands) daring, just like Scott*, to question the established paradigm because of patently valid scientific and logical issues with it. This indicates the theory of evolution is in far more trouble than its condescending sonorous adherents would like us to believe.

*Well, OK, just like Scott does, or is it doesn't, dare?? I haven't figured him out!! Still he lets the monkeys on both sides of the argument lead the dancing, which is far more than America's schools do...

[Steve from Ohio]

I am quite amazed at the ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd.

Remember that for hundreds of years it was a "proven scientific fact" that spontaneous generation fully explained the origins of life.
Then came Darwin who believed characteristics passed from parent to offspring by the environment. This was called "Acquired Characteristics" and was undebatably considered truth. You remember the old experiments where they would cut off the tails of mice for several generations believing that eventually the mice would be born without tails.

Then the science of genetics came along and totally disproved yet another "proven scientific fact". Now you believe that we evolved through random genetic mutations. We are still looking for an example of even one positive genetic mutations, but you believe that countless billions and billions of them have taken place.
The more we learn about the complexity of DNA the more it looks like your latest "proven scientific fact" will fall by the wayside.

The whole floating brain theory is actually a rehash of a Zen Buddhism teaching. One branch of Buddhism teaches that all reality is false and that we may very well be a frog sitting on lily pad imagining all of this.

I wish my stupid frog would have imagined me a hell of a lot richer and better looking.

Maybe a "Frogbert" character could help guide Dilbert and crew through their reality.

[Azi]

Hey scott. Did you see this "Open Challenge To Skep-Dick Scott Adams" on youtube?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6tKRzsB-NMI&feature=related#

[Mark]

"As I said, the same way that if I fall off the surfboard I'm never going to be landing on Mars and with the silver surfer's shiny new body.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel"

A) You never said that
B) It doesn't answer the question

If you fall off your surfboard, you have a one-in-a-million chance of breaking your neck.

With enough people falling off sufrboards, we will see someone die.

Get a graph paper. Spot in centre. Two dice. 1 dice is how many cm you move, and the other dice is how many degrees you turn from your current heading (straight north to begin with).

You're only going to be moving 3.5cm a time, so will it be necessary to get a graph paper 1m on a side to contain your drawing? 1m is a lot longer than 3.5cm, so you shouldn't should you? You'll just be mooching around the centre because you're able to move backwards and forwards equally. Yes?

Or not?

[andrew]

..i think this is actually very funnny in a way..

these cosmologists may be realizing that the theory of evolution, which they held so dearly, does not satisfy their desire to believe in something sure. so they turn to this instead..

[Akym]

Interesting thought. What I wonder is what a brain floating in space has to gain from imagining a guy sitting behind a computer desk for 8 hours. I suppose that if you can exist without nourishment or other forms of energy supply, you'd be thinking about sex all day, wouldn't you (or at least the cosmological brain equivalent)?

[TC]

I love the "spot the falacy" game. I guess this one was an example of "begging the question", wasn't it?

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark "["...We've observed evolution in labs...." Lupus

Observing a fruit fly develop different shaped genitalia over generations in a laboratory indicates the evolutionists' assertion that we all developed from a primal goo....

Posted by: Steven McDaniel ]

No, it proves that a process of evolution is happening.

Now, please explain why it only makes small differences and NEVER leads eventually to a large difference.

I'll wait..."

As I said, the same way that if I fall off the surfboard I'm never going to be landing on Mars and with the silver surfer's shiny new body. But Mark, you and I have been over this before, including your previous reference to differences in photosensitive mechanism being virtual proof against design (a ludicrous assumption - my Chevy doesn't have a Dodge's 'Hemi' engine, but they were, I would venture to say, both 'designed'). However, I do know you could argue the hind leg off a donkey and then call it evolution. I admire your persistence. You are a valiant protagonist for the evolutionary cause. My next answer will be from Mars. Don't hold your breath waiting for it...

[David Martin]

Since in all likelihood no one person is AT THIS MOMENT independently discovering the theory of evolution, wouldn't the theory, along with all the research supporting it, be a part of the false memories, and as such wouldn't it be true in our imaginary world even if the free-floating brain theory was proven?

[Mark]

["...We've observed evolution in labs...." Lupus

Observing a fruit fly develop different shaped genitalia over generations in a laboratory indicates the evolutionists' assertion that we all developed from a primal goo....

Posted by: Steven McDaniel ]

No, it proves that a process of evolution is happening.

Now, please explain why it only makes small differences and NEVER leads eventually to a large difference.

I'll wait.

[Steven McDaniel]

"...We've observed evolution in labs...." Lupus

Observing a fruit fly develop different shaped genitalia over generations in a laboratory indicates the evolutionists' assertion that we all developed from a primal goo which is our ancestor into the billions of species we see on Earth today to the same extent as you seeing me falling off a surfboard on the Californian coast means I am the Silver Surfer and just travelled to Mars yesterday. Of course, the evolutionists gave the fruit flies change in sexual architecture a sonorous sounding name - 'speciation'. If you'll pardon the pun it is just 'specious.' Actually the least disingenuous post I've ever seen on this Website is that from Eric: "I have too much invested in the concept of evolution. Cognitive dissonance will prevent me from stating it's false." Evolution will continue to be totally disproven in spite of the huge numbers of fanatical adherents it has.

[Conor]

I would think that the vast majority of educated persons would concede that evolution may absolutely one day be considered scientifically unsound. We no longer think the earth is flat, or that sickness is caused by an imbalance of the humors.

I actually hope that our scientific paradigm shifts so drastically that we're forced to at least rethink, if not outright discard, the foundational underpinnings of Western scientific thought.

I don't see it happening in this lifetime, though.

[Jen, writer MembershipMillionaire.com]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Okay, if the day comes that Science has indeed confirmed that our consciousness is merely a free-floating element, I might just end up not exerting any effort to excel at all. I will literally become a free-floating being.

[Mark]

(interestingly, the process of genesis is actually the same order that we believe evolution happens)

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

WHAT??????

So day and night came after? Stars turned up after the sun? Man was created last? All the beasts of the field came along before birds (who were around in the time of the dinosaurs). insects before flowering plants?

Either my bible is hella different from yours or you've got a really weird science book.

[Mark]

Tenelus, point 1 is fine, just an interpretation of abiogenesis. Not evolution, though.

As to point 2, to requote Terry Pratchett, If there is no spoon, why is there soup?

Space is the distance between bodies. When something happens to body A, body B doesn't find out about it until some time later. Space is the delay. Time is what stops everything happening at once. So if we don't perceive everything all at once, in what sense does time not exist? When we aren't all in the same place, in what sense does space not exist?

Our *explanation* of space or time may be merely a convenient lie (convenient in that it explains what we could expect to happen, a lie in that it isn't actually the way it does it), but it doesn't mean the elements of reality doesn't exist.

[Bob]

If the theory is true, them I am a genius capable of arguing all the sides of the argument and finding 5000 web links to support them, which by the way I must have put there since I invented the internet, oh what the heck, make that the whole world.

Now all the random thoughts in my floating brain which pass themselves of as separate human beings are going to proceed to call themselves geniuses.

[Rick in China]

I believe evolution is very likely and consider it to be the closest explanation of our existence as I currently understand. I do not believe it to be fact, because it has not been completely proven, hence being a theory.

That being said, if cosmologists universally agreed upon something such as their floating-brain theory and believed it was far more likely than evolution, I would not simply accept it as fact. It would require the cosmologists to not only make a convincing argument to other cosmologists, but make a convincing argument which battles that of respected groundworking evolutionists and changes their perceptions and acceptance, as well as, more importantly, an argument which changes my own. If they can convince eachother that has no impact on me - if they can convince me, then, well, obviously I'd be forced to follow my own understanding and altar my beliefs to that which makes most sense to me.

[Tenelus]

Mark:
1: Out of the Christians, the only ones who believe that the Genesis story means that the earth was created in 6 Days in the order stated (interestingly, the process of genesis is actually the same order that we believe evolution happens) are the 7th day adventists and possibly the baptists and AOG, Catholics, Wesleyans, Methodists etc, etc, all believe that genesis was written to say why the world was created and by whom. The most important part of genesis is the words 'let us create man in our own image'. The Jews may still take it literally, but anyway, my point is that a belief that the world was created (creationism) does not mean that what created the world didn't do it in the form of evolution.

2: I was hoping that you had looked into the theory that Scott had presented a little deeper, the idea is that time (And space, probably) are non existent, therefore the idea of cause and effect are null. They aren't the first to think about it either, the earliest philosophy that we know of (in ionia) was about that very issue, the conclusions are two possibilities: time is an illusion, or that there must be something beyond time (still having it as an illusion to us, really). The idea that time is an illusion is what this 'new' theory is about, and it is entirely plausible, but we can't really argue it, because once you get rid of that, no facts can exist, and there is no argument. The other option is that a god exists, and it is the thing that is beyond time, it doesn't need a cause, because cause and effect mean nothing beyond time, it also doesn't occupy space. You can argue that God is not interested in his creation, or that he doesn't have a will, or that Jesus, or Zeus, or Ganesha are not God or gods, but the fact that God, as the thing beyond time, exists, is really the only logical argument.
- tenelus@gmail.com

[Graham]

Hell, if I was a free floating brain drifting in the cosmos I'd be imaging a better reality than this!

All you other free floating brains get the hell out of my way!

[Free William]

I dont believe any scientific theory is fact. That is why we call them 'Theories'.

This article and the comments I bothered to read are a clear indication as to why it would be better for scientists to stick to observation and experiment and leave philosophy to others...LOL

[AFailedScientist]

Probably too late for anyone to read, but here goes...

What this cosmological theory apparently says is that the universe(s) can potentially exist in an infinite number of possible states. Some (a Vanishly small proportion in fact, to use a Dennettism) will necessarily be some kind of "brain-sized" simulation. In that simulation, and you can get scared when you think of the number of alternative possibilities, the world we live in appears to us - whatever we then are - be what it is. This is for all I know theoretically possible. Similarly you cannot disprove that the universe as we perceive it is not a giant computer simulation created last Thursday. Nevertheless, in our universe - however instantiated - there are physical laws that govern the observed behaviour. That behaviour, imagined or not, is composed of events that can be empirically observed, and from which theories can be generated and outcomes predicted. On that basis, evolution is a superior explanation (being highly probable to be correct) as compared to the alternatives within the universe we perceive. So the answer is, no.

Now, you can, if you wish, accept that we are in fact in that simulation. This cannot perhaps be disproved absolutely, other than to note that the probability of that "brain-state" existing might well be lower than a universe that has followed a simple evolutionary process based on nothing more than a load of basic atoms starting out pretty much at random.

This is because, even if there are an infinite number of universes, then the Vast majority of them would start out disordered.

[st512]

Nope. I would not be able to follow there arguments anyway. So I would stick to my intuition and guess that they got something wrong.

[Scott]

It's a catch 22 situation. If the theory of my existance as a floating brain with all of these false memories were true then my memory of them proving it true would also be false.

The only way to find out if it really is true or not would be to somehow break free of the false memories and be able to perceive reality as the floating brain. Then again, who knows? Maybe that's what happens when we "die".

[Joshua Jacobsen]

The biggest problem with science is that too many people want to be Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin. Too few are trying to be Jack Kilby or Philo Farnsworth.

Theory is kinda cool and all, but the field of science needs a lot more engineering and a lot less day dreaming, imo.

[Malek]

Isn't this similar to Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy?" Cosmologists are simply reworking older theories that have been universally rejected by a thinking populace, right?

[Anthony Howe]

I wager 500 quatloos for evolution.

[Mark]

[O.K. I get it now. (Sometimes I'm slow)

Traffic to your website. You evil man. You hold personal gain in higher esteem then seeking for the truth...

Capitalist!

Posted by: BobNL]

I have no problem with him doing this (well, I do, but that's MY problem, so it's not really fair to tell Scott off about it). What I DO have a problem and I CAN pin on Scott is that he occasionally complains that he doesn't understand why people don't like him, he's only trying to show us a different way of thinking.

Well, if he's trolling for hits, he shouldn't be complaining when people react flamishly to the troll. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF A TROLL.

And as to "different ways of thinking", he still hasn't acknowledged that his idea of gravity just being things getting bigger doesn't explain how orbital mechanics work (or, indeed, why orbitals aren't all decaying spirals ...), so he's not too hot on grounding his ideas in reality.

Trollish, in other words. But hearing a dumb idea does help you work out what your theory REALLY means because unless it's really dumb (the expanding object one had a lot going for it, so wasn't really dumb), you have to work out WHY it's wrong, rather than the wrongness being obvious. And that helps you understand your theory better.

[Mark]

[There used to be a consensus about the earth being flat not so long ago, wasn't it ?

Posted by: pierre]

Define "flat", pierre.

The table I'm typing on is "flat" but that would mean slightly bent as far as geopotential surfaces are concerned. If I get up close, I can see ridges, so it isn't *really* flat but undulating or ridged, so even a "flat table" isn't.

My garden is, I would say, flat, but it does go down one end (still flat) and if I look close enough, I know it ISN'T flat. But for kicking a ball around, it's flat. Now, since I know that the earth doesn't continue down beyond my garden forever, I know (even if I can't see it) that it turns up at some point (so it can't be flat, can it). I know that the land doesn't keep going higher the other end, so it must turn down.

So even on a flat floodplain, you know that "the earth" isn't flat. It doesn't make much difference to your everyday life, though.

In the first world war, artillery shot a long way, but it wasn't necessary to account for the earths curvature. In the second world war, it started to be important for the big coastal guns. For ICMB's, the curvature of the earth is hugely important. But it still doesn't affect how you walk to the shops, does it.

3,000BC they knew the earth was round. But since it's only recently that mattered, it was merely just an esoteric piece of science. So "people" still worked as if it was a flat earth.

[someguy]

This is an example of a physicist's favorite sport, mathturbation.

[Rick]

Paragraph three, sentence two:

"Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things really work, however."

Infotainment apparently still means that you latch onto what you like, and discard what you don't. Kinda like interpreting the Bible.

[wernman]

If the floating brain theory is more likely then evolution, how much more evidence do you need for creation? Proof ad absurdum...

[rabbitpirate]

Surely if the free-floating brain theory turns out to be correct then all scientific theories would be called into question, including evolution, as reality itself would be in question. Nothing we see around us could be taken as real, would would have to start again from a whole new perspective.

That said the question of "how did the free-floating brains come to be" would still exist and evolution would be a perfectly valid theory to explain this.

[Joelle]

I have to say that if scientists did manage to prove that evolution was infinitly improbable compared to the floating braiin theory or the creationists theory, or any other ridiculous theory out there then I would be willing to seriously consider it, but they would have to be able to show me some pretty convincing evidence. Quite frankly I would be willing to believe in the coming of the great handkerchief if that could be proven. Personally, I think human beings are too unevolved to really get any of it right quite yet, so whatever seems the least inane is what I ascribe to at the moment.

[eD]

YES! Thank you, thank you uncle Scott.

C'mon you monkeys...

So much going on out there, leaves us hanging in the air
And it's all that we can do to face each day and see it though

Life's a dance, put on your dancing shoes (you monkeys), take a chance

Steve Winwood 1988

[A Wart]

If one set of scientists proved the existance of GOD and another set of scientists proved there is no God, would we disappear in a puff of logic.
I'd like to believe that I am a free floating Brain in the cosmos making my life up as I go along, but then again I must also believe that I am mentally deranged because instead of humping in the playboy mansion, I am here typing at my made up desk, therfore if I am sane then I have proved that I am not a free floating free thinking brain but a pre programmed moist robot, and therfore GOD does exist and he's a bastard, because only sleazy bastards get to hump in the playboy mansion, or my grip on reality has gone a this is punishment and I am a preprogrammed free floating brain and GOD is still a sleaxy bastard. I will never think again or thank GOD unless of course I get to hump in the playboy mansion.

[simon]

"infinitely more likely " is not "most likely to be correct "

It is infinatly more likly that a person found dead died or a road traffic acident (the most likely cause of death in the US/UK) , but the EVIDENCE of a hole in thier forhead means that a gunshot IS more likely to be correct.

Science shouldnt be bound by senatics

[Johnboy]

This is what's known in the business as a 'thought experiment'. Basically, present a hypothetical scenario based on the Universe as (we think) we understand it, replacing one key established theory with another. Does it explain what we see? Does it say anything new about it that established theories don't? is it rationale? Does it make anything that we think we already know seem impossible or irrational or needing a rethink? Basically, if it says nothing new and would take a huge leap off the beaten path to get there anyway, then it's probably no good.

In other words, at this stage at least, what we're talking about is a theoretical 'brain toy'. Be interesting to see where it goes, if anywhere.

[Anfauglir]

"(Cosmologists posit) the idea that your existence and consciousness is far more likely to be a free-floating brain created instantly by random fluctuations of the universe, and imbued with false memories of your past.
.....
If cosmologists someday reached a consensus that free-floating brains are infinitely more likely than our current notion of reality....."

If cosmologists reached that consensus, would that not mean that I was, in fact, a brain created instantly with that false memory? That there were, in fact, no such thing as cosmologists (they being just a false memory) - so how could they reach a consensus if they did not exist?

[David, Hungary]

The article has nothing to do with biological evolution. The floating brains are unrelated to any form of biological evoltion.

The modern human cerebral evolution (making more and more technically incredible devices etc) could be called a form of cerebral evolution, which could theoreticlly be related to the floating brians. But only the most cerebrally challenged anti-evolutionists could cling to this argument to support an unsupportable position :-)

So your "if" statement has nothing to do with your suggested conclusion.

Slightly Confused of Hungary.

[David, Hungary]

The article has nothing to do with biological evolution. The floating brains are unrelated to any form of biological evoltion.

The modern human cerebral evolution (making more and more technically incredible devices etc) could be called a form of cerebral evolution, which could theoreticlly be related to the floating brians. But only the most cerebrally challenged anti-evolutionists could cling to this argument to support an unsupportable position :-)

So your "if" statement has nothing to do with your suggested conclusion.

Slightly Confused of Hungary.

[pierre]

There used to be a consensus about the earth being flat not so long ago, wasn't it ?

n people agreeing on something wrong does not mean it is correct, it just means n people agree they've got the same information leading them to the wrong conclusions.

[Mayuresh Phadke]

I would not agree with “The theory of evolution is false.” since my memory will say that it is true.

[Mark]

"Let it go - nobody cares.

[Says commenter #257 -- Scott]"

So when more people disagree with you, the moer right you are?

[Mark]

Ned, eyes are a done deal.

Did you know the back of your legs are light sensitive? Pit vipers have areas of skin that are light sensitive (the pits that give them their name) and they are better at "seeing" than the back of your leg. Flies have compound eyes that are nowhere near as complex as our eyes but are better than pits. Spiders have lots of specialised and simpler eyes. Our eyes are not all that great: cats work better in the dark, birds have better acuity, octopusses don't have their eye inside out like us.

We have a wide spectrum of eyes in the world.

If they were designed, why not make one and stick to it?

[Fifidebruxelles]

Who said cosmologist were scientifics?

[bee4]

If I'm a free floating brain, and everything is a figment of my imagination, then my brain is sick.

Also, if I really believe that I'm just a brain, will everything disappear?

[Mark]

IF they found that infinite brains were the explanation, then I'd be more likely to agree.

However, things DO evolve. The theory of evolution is really the theory about what drives evolution.

Unless we find that the existence of infinite brains is making us see thinks that look like evolution happen.

Would you now agree with us that the theory of evolution currently explains the mechanism better than any other explanation?

Or can't you admit to being wrong (in which case you're guilty of faith-based science!)?

[fajensen]

Well, as a free-floating brain I would be GOD in MY universe, so I would just create Evolution in order to spite people.

And I would be one of the Old Golds too ... After sorting out evolution, I would get to work on just punishments for the wicked, the heretics, red-haired people, fat people and so on and so forth. Occasionally I would send Gabriel round to sort them out or create the odd natural disaster (while shorting insurance stocks). Life would be FUN.

[twounicycles]

Ned,

You say

precursor items (light-sensitive sensors) have no evolutionary value

come on - even wikipedia disagrees with that.

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

This kind of deliberate self-deception and determination to be ignorant does worry me.

Evolution does not and cannot say whether there is a "God". But it can explain the massive range and diversity of life on earth.

[D:]

admiral krunch:

OMG ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO BREATHE?

CHRIST ON A CRACKER, AREN'T YOU EMBARRASSED?

Look up cosmologist. Do you know what a dictionary is? Use that.

[Tormod]

Annoying question.

In essence, yes.

But the hypothetical situation is hampered by there being some interesting roadblocks.
Scott, you are using the argument of authority ("what if scientists say", which I don't adhere to. It needs to be sound research.

How do they explain the evidence which today is explained by the theory of evolution? The genetic lineage, the fossil record, the dozens of dating sciences which concurs on a species timeline.

I would have to say "Yes, I would then agree that evolution would be false", but you are presupposing a huge "if", which goes way beyond what a small group in a lab can hope to achieve.

There is a reason why the theory of evolution sets firmer and firmer the more it is attacked. And, for other reasons than yours, it is under more attack than any other of the sciences.

[aahhrrgg]

Free floating brain,..flying spaghetti monster,...coincidence? I think not.

[Arturo]

"Scientists disprove evolution" isn't really so bad.

"Scientists prove Creation", now that would be a shocker.

[TONY]

the fact that i am free floating brain makes you & dilbert non existent. Indeed i am the only one in the world. the rest of you are figments of my imagination.

and when you are reading this, the fact that you are the only one in the world makes me a figment of your imagination.

[Nimrod]

I have a clever comeback for the guy who asked, "So here's a questions for you -- if you don't exist, how did you write your blog?"

The answer is: "I didn't."

...

I JUST BLEW YOUR MIND!

[Bromond]

Anyone who believes, with 100% certainty, that they descended from apes, probably did.

[Neal Miskin]

I think it's kind of funny how people turn the debate about the theory of evolution into a dog-fight between Charles Darwin and Jesus Christ.

It's true that if you take a look at the statistical probability of random genetic mutation creating a new species, the odds against it are staggering, seeing cellular mutations are surprisingly rare coupled with the fact that upwards of 95% of cellular mutations cause the cell, if not the entire organism to die. However it's a huge and illogical leap from "not entirely random" to "created by God".

Just because Darwin based parts of his theory on assumptions that were made prior to the discovery of DNA, that were later contradicted in light of new information doesn't mean that the theory in its entirety is debunked nor does it mean that children should be forced to read the Bible in school every morning.

[:)]

"Posted by: Will | January 25, 2008 at 08:26 PM"
ah, I think I'm in love ;)

[sam]

"Let it go - nobody cares.

[Says commenter #257 -- Scott]"

...but hey, who's counting?? Oh - sorry, Scott, obviously you are...

[DRAMbo]

@Jay
---------------------------
I'm not answering your question, but pointing out that the second paragraph of the article says:

"Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things really work, however."
---------------------------

Maybe Scott was really trying to see how many people wouldn't even be bothered to click on the link and read the article before commenting.

Considering the number of allegedly intelligent people that post here, I am greatly troubled by the tendancy for induhviduals to take a statement for face value without being bothered to do their own research and form an opinion.

This example does a great job of pointing out just how easy is to foster an opinion by citing a few bits of information taken out of context. It's far easier to believe what you hear than it is to take the time to look for more information to determine the real facts.

DRAMbo

[Bruce Lawrence]

No. High probability does not equal certainty. On the other hand I might try to use it on the IRS.

[Bruce Lawrence]

No. High probability does not equal certainty. On the other hand I might try to use it on the IRS.

[Tom]

"it’s fascinating that scientists are working on it."

It's a bit of a stretch to refer to cosmologists as "scientists" in my opinion.

[David Cheatley]

Here's someone who would agree with you:

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

[The Hollywood Nun]

I believe what makes the most sense scientifically and to the degree that it is proven/accepted within the greater scientific community. I figure they are much smarter than I am about such things and trust the scientific method and ethics to bring us closer to truth, but I check things out for myself because the media and special interest groups like to promote their personal agendas that have nothing to do with truth or science. That's the best I can do. If floating brains heads in that direction then I'd like to think I'd accept that given the assumtions and criteria I have made above.

[Jamie]

It's worth pointing out (can't be arsed to check through and see if anyone else has) that if this is actually the case, discussion of it is meaningless because our UNDERSTANDING of it is totally unrelated to the actual FACT of it - because it too is just a random, instantaneous fluctuation, unrelated to the real world, never mind a whole collective of cosmologists postulating of the universe.

[Spanky]

So... bored.... with.... this..... lame.... stale..... topic.....

[Mark]

to Tenelus:
1) Are you talking about any religion in particular? I know of no creation story that fits what we now know about the universe. Unless you are implying the earth is 6000 years old...

2) Ok... what caused god to exist then? It's funny how religious people claim it doesn't make any sense how the universe could appear out of nothing but have no problem with a god that appears out of nothing.

[BobNL]

O.K. I get it now. (Sometimes I'm slow)

Traffic to your website. You evil man. You hold personal gain in higher esteem then seeking for the truth...

Capitalist!

[Snazzydragon]

Just to impliment a little anti-media logic into this debate (i'm a british physics student, and have been recently learning the fundamentals behind these ideas)

Firstly, the whole recurring big bang/big crunch idea is growing evermore unpopular with the discovery of the acceleration of the observable universe (which makes the big crunch increasingly unlikely)

The origional idea of the boltzman brains was a thought experiment regarding what type of universe the universe would be when it died a entropy death - an infinately expanding, cold, empty desolate universe, but due to the wonders of quantum theory, if you have forever, everything eventually appears, albeit for very brief amounts of time

And thus, to the point : Cosmology does not suggest that we are these boltzman brains, but rather, in the far distant future, these entities, along with random footballs, shoes, half empty jam jars and whole solar systems filled with nothing but badger-worriers are, as we understand them, mathematical definate.

But, and its a very very large one, the larger and more complicated an object is, the less time it is allowed to exist for
So something as complicated and large as a working brain, of whatever complexity, would only be allowed to exist for such a short time that not one single neuron would have time to fire, thus rendering it inert

Even very low mass particles created through this space-time quantum uncertainty exist only for tiny fractions of seconds, and only the massless particles exist forever

Phew.

S.D

[Nimrod]

I don't really like to think of myself as a "floating" brain in outer space... I'm more the "hovering" type.

[Danny S.]

Under that particular set of circumstances (infinitely more likely), yes, I could say that. However, I would also be able to say that the theory of gravity is false, all of science is false, the ten Commandments are false, any internal moral feelings are false, and anything we "know" about ANYTHING is false. If I (the floating brain me) am just making this existence up as I go along, anything I have made up is, well, "made up".

[Tenelus]

Mark said:
I like the theory of evolution more than a divine theory because there are more testable things pointing to evolution than there are things pointing to an existence of some sort of god.

1: What part of the theory of evolution says there is no divine existence? and what part of creationism says that there was no evolution?

2: What caused the Big bang etc, etc, or better put, how come anything instead of nothing? There must be something that is beyond our idea of time (hence, the cosmo-geeks are looking to theories that reject our idea of time, but apart from that) And that something must have had 'reason' to cause what we call existence, therefore it has a will, and we can call it a god, or God for short, because that's what the word means. There is no evidence for that besides the fact that we exist.

please, send me angry emails, it makes me feel like I have friends - tenelus@gmail.com

[Transplanted Lawyer]

Making the astonishingly huge mental leap to say that these guys could convince the appropriate experts in their field to say that this is something with substantial evidentiary support instead of crack-smokingly stupid solipsism, I would agree with this statement: "The THEORY of evolution is false." Note that my predicate for agreement with that statement isn't even on the horizon.

But unless it could be proven that the universe consisted of more than my brain in a bottle -- that is to say, if the objective existence of forms of life other than myself was still a part of this cosmology, I would still argue in favor of this statement: "The PHENOMENON of evolution is real." There would have to be a different way of understanding why and how it happens, but it would still be happening.

[_Goth]

The theory of evolution cannot be false, as is it merely a theory.

It can be invalid, inaccurate, disproven, or as you suggest, unlikely. But as a theory it does not claim to be truth.

And therein lies your answer.

[Neil Wilson]

If there is sufficient data to prove the issue then yes. Otherwise you are creating another religtion.

But there is a long leap in physics between the theoretical ideas and the machines that collect the data to verify the theories.

But are you sure that this isn't simply a bunch of people pursuing a null hypothesis?

[George of the Alps]

When I was a little toddler I used to believe that everything comes from something. Now I tend to believe that nothing comes from nothing and we are still monkeys.

[David]

Question- if this were true, than would you agree with the statement "The Holocaust never happened"?

I suppose you'd have to. But would you base a blog post on this possibility?

[Kevin Kunreuther]

1.)Addressing Matt, right off the bat:Contrary to current popular belief, not many people in Columbus's time ever believed the world was flat. In fact, the Ancient Greeks had proven that the Earth (and many other celestial objects) is round about five hundred years before the birth of Christ (for want of a good placeholder for perspective). What was popular belief was the Earth was the center of all creation. It took Copernicus and others to stand up to the status quo (The Church in Rome) and show otherwise.
2.)Show or prove to me a herd of free-floating brains are out there, and we'll discuss this. It's an entertaining and jarring thought experiment, nothing more.
3.)Evolution as we currently accept it can be broadened definition wise, if need be. But you can't discount it totally because some Einstein got it on with the flotation tank and dreamed this theory up. But I get your point about other Einsteins building a consensus - that's why string theory is accepted by so many people as gospel today - if physicists had to have a religion, a belief that requires faith and not proof, it is string theory. In that respect, the free floating brain theory is just as likely to become another widely accepted orthodoxy in next twenty or thirty years (if we all the survive the Singularity).

[alyssa]

Um actually, if you look at GOOD scientific fact, evolution pretty much has been disproved. And, um creationism has been around alot longer than evolution. Evolution is like 200 years old; creationsim is as old as humans/the world, and creationism actually disproves evolution if anything (in refernce to the second comment)

[Senthil]

If the theory sufficiently accounts for something evolution doesn't, we can surely take that in place of the theory of evolution. I think we shouldn't have belief in any theory the way a poster has said that the belief in the idea in evolution wouldn't be let go.

In a way, it would be nice if evolution, and evolutionary psychology in particular, is found not to explain something or have better theories in place. They explain a lot about humans by taking us like any other animal. We can use it as just a model and get things explained. But there as difference in the hypotheses that electrons may be having an orbit like the solar system and the hypotheses that men are attracted to women with a certain proportion because the selfish gene has done the "thinking" for us to do so as the proportion is one which has more chances of begetting more offspring.

Darwin is said to have done a lot of what you say as sitting and thinking and also from what I read about Darwin I guess it'll be pretty hard to beat him :)

[admiral krunch]

uh...

A cosmologist isn't a scientist: an ology does not not a science make

Either way the floating brain hypothesis isn't a scientific theory whoever came up with it: It isn't testable of disprovable.

[Jon]

Sounds like Weasel Science to me. I'll believe it if the scientists in question make free copies of all of their research available to all members of the public, rather than the traditional Weasel Scientist practice of charging money for books.

[Tim]

"Impossible odds" don't disprove something. If someone wins the lottery at odds of 300,000,000 to 1 or so, can you say that they didn't really win because the odds were so high?

[Speaker to Animals]

Yes. Why the hell not? I try to be governed by evidence.

[Bloodboiler]

Would these cosmologists happen to be the same crackpots who made the media believe that observing black matter causes the end of the universe (or something)?
Free floating brain theories sound a bit too much like studying possible angel concentrations on needle tips.

I don't care how cosmology and quantum physics explain reality, because they still have no continuous theory of everything (e.g. quantum scale "reality" vs. human scale "reality"). At our scale basic physics and biology explain our reality far better than any simulation or floating consciousness probability theory.

[Captain Assclown]

Wow, if anyone was worried about what chaos ensued once people accepted the "wet robot" theory that we're not responsible for our actions, what's gonna happen when everyone decides nothing exists because it's all a blip in their free-forming brain?

[Greg]

It depends how the infinately more likely theory accounted for the existance of the floating brains :P

[A.Mac]

Well, I may be a little out of my depth myself, but:
In the theory of probability, the statement "Event A has 0% probability of happening" is very distinct from the statement "Event A will not happen," just as "Event B has 100% probability of occurring" is not the same statement as "Event B will not happen." So for events A and B with probabilities 0 and 100%, respectively, B is infinitely more probable than A.

To illustrate: imagine we pick a perfectly random number between 0 and 1. The probability that we pick exactly 0.3342 (let's call picking this number Event A) is one in an infinite number (1 : infinity), so there's exactly 0% probability it will happen. Consequently, there is 100% probability that the number chosen is not 0.3342, which is Event B. So Event B is infinitely more probable than Event A. However, it is conceivable that we actually do pick the number 0.3342. We'd be idiots to say that this is impossible, because it happened and we need to deal with it.

Just as in our case you are talking about. Suppose it's infinitely more probable that our memories are BS than that our intuitive conception of evolution and time are valid. That doesn't mean that our brains are floating cosmic silliness machines. We have good reason to assume that time is reasonable and good reason to assume that memories aren't completely useless, so we choose to use the former assumption. For all intents and purposes, the infinitely less probable condition is useful, and the infinitely probable condition is neither testable nor illuminating, so we continue scientifically adopting useful basic assumptions and ignoring the infinitude of useless ones, which this new hypothesis may be.

[Azi]

Gee... everyone else felt compelled to make a comment on this post. If I don't make one I'll feel like I'm letting you down Scott.

Evolution as a process for change almost certainly exists. There are far too many things that can be explained and predicted by it for it to be a worthless theory (and forget about humans and apes, take a look at microbiology or even psychology/sociology for some really convincing evidence). It may well be an incomplete theory, or even one that can only be applied under certain circumstances (like Newtonian physics... not false, but just not universally applicable).

I'm pretty sure you understand this, which means that making this topic a recurring theme is an attempt to do something else.

In the spirit of monkey dancing I will say this: "Evolution is useful and meets all of the prime requirements of a scientic theory. Until something more useful comes along I will subscribe to it. Anyone who does not is less intelligent than me and is probably as complete an ass-hat as you."

By the way, have you ever heard of parellel-incarnation? Probably not, I made it up. It's the theory that there is only one soul and when it reincarnates it is not bonded by time and so can reincarnate as any physical body anywhere and anywhen. So basically I am you, I am Jessica Simpson and I am also my own father. I just keep on doing it to gain experience. It's a valid theory, it explains all the facts (as much as any such theory can explain any fact) but it's infinitely more difficult to apprehend than the more simple, "There is only soul. It flicks its consciousness billions of times per second, spending only an instant in each body, and therebye creates the illusion of a vast population of people." The first theory may well be true, but given that the second achieves the same purpose and is simpler there is no need to to subscribe to the first at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "You're an Ass-hat!"
(but only because I'm playing along with you)

[quantum_flux]

The biggest lesson to be learned here, is not to read the New York Times anymore.

[Ryan]

I farted. mmmfbgfbgh!

[Ryan]

I thought Cosmologists picked winter fashion and the like.

[Eric Murphy]

No. If the universe is infinitely large (which these researchers believe to be the case), then even infinitely unlikely things can—indeed must—happen. Even if evolution were infinitely unlikely, in an infinite universe it would definitely happen at least once. Since the evidence that it has happened on earth is conclusive, one could logically infer that this is one of the places, which must necessarily exist, where evolution has happened.

[Ned]

I already agree that evolution is false - but that's because I find it improbable in the extreme for specialized items (such as eyes) can evolve when precursor items (light-sensitive sensors) have no evolutionary value - and because so many of these specialized items seemed to spring full-blown, as if from the brow of Zeus.

Evolution made sense when scientists could only look at gross aspects of one species vs. other species - but when you get down to the atomic, molecular and cellular levels, the whole thing breaks down. The number of changes needed to evolve from a useless light-sensitive spot to a fully-functional eyeball are literally numbered in the billions, and a break-down in any one interim change would destroy the whole potential.

C'mon, think. Why would a dinosaur evolve both feathers and hollow bones (both necessary to flight) before flight was possible. What would an interim being do with feathers (stay warm in the world's pole-to-pole steam-bath tropical climate?) and what would an interim being do with fragile hollow bones? Not much - yet both are necessary before flight is possible (aerodynamics for one, weight for the other) ...

This is improbable in the extreme. Which suggests, thanks to Occam's Razor (who shaved the barber?), that some mechanism other than evolution was in charge. What - intelligent design? Free-floating brains created spontaneously out of cosmic strings? Bob? I don't know - but I know that "evolution" no longer works, and all you need to do is consider evolution at the cellular level (and the plight of interim beings saddled with useless partial steps in the evolutionary chain) to realize why.

Unless, of course, your scientific "religion" demands that you believe in evolution (or "global warming" or some other non-proven scientific theory that requires "belief" to pave over the gross inconsistency of the theory itself.

I'm often amazed at how many people (scientists included) who "believe" in theories and defend them the way fanatic Muslims protect the honor of Mohammed from the insults of Danish cartoonists and Dutch film-makers. Stephen J. Gould - the eminent Harvard Natural Historian (and proud atheist who believed only in logic and science - and the Chicago Cubs) who "disproved" Darwin's Theory of Evolution by putting forth the "punctuated equilibrium" theory. He jumped through flaming hoops to claim that punctuated equilibrium, which challenges virtually every tenet of Darwin, nonetheless "proved" Darwin. Darwin was his religion, and he was that faith's Martin Luther - challenging the conventional elements of faith, but proving the larger belief system.

Look at what others have written here who "believe" - don't they treat evolution like a religion? And look how they treat non-believers, then think about the fanatic Muslims who right this very minute are calling for the death of a Dutch documentary film-maker who is making a 10-minute film proving that Islam is NOT the religion of peace (as if 9/11 and decades of suicide bombings in Israel, Saudi and Iraq didn't already prove that). See the similarities?

Believe or die (or - in the academic world, believe or lose your tenure and be exiled to East Bumfuk Community College.

[Santa Claus]

You have to look at it from a higher level in order to address something like this. Evolution as a theory describes what we see. However, if there is something else at play beyond our senses then it's very possible that another explanation could describe it more accurately.

Santa,
http://christmaseveryweek.com

[Shawn]

>"Let it go - nobody cares.
>
>
>[Says commenter #257 -- Scott]"

Scott

I think he means no one cares about your boring attempts at provoking arguments about evolution with your tenuous "logic". But we still care about you and we're looking for the "funny". I hope it comes back soon.

[Shawn]

Scott, of course the only rational thing would be to agree with the statement “The theory of evolution is false.” However, this would of minor concern (even for those who have dedicated their lives to studying evolution). You would also have to wrap your head around such statements as "This child I love doesn't exist" and "What happened in Vegas didn't really happen". Why do you keep harping on evolution? It's not even remotely relevant to the topic at hand.

[Telanis]

Sounds good to me.

Posts like this really bring out the idiots, eh?

[Gustaf Sjöblom]

I accept that Evolution can be 100% false given that reality is an illusion, yes. Evolution is no more and no less a fact of life than gravity. They can both be illusions.

Now are there other circumstances that theoretically could undermine evolution? Sure. We just haven't seen anything at all in that department in 150 years, and a LOT of people have been working on finding something. They have all failed miserably. Meanwhile more and more facts come in that supports evolutionary theory or even fulfill predictions made by evolutionary theory. Its hard to exagerate how certain we are about the fact that we have went through evolution today, its up there with the earth beeing in orbit around the sun.

[tubaguy]

Brilliant post - judging by the amount of traffic generated. You are truly one of my heroes.

If you follow the floating consciousness idea as far as it will go you get to the Cartesian idea that all you can really prove is your own self awareness.

I came to this conclusion after reading "Stranger In A Strange Land" and "Mysterious Stranger" back in junior high. I had to decide what to believe, and so decided that the safest bet is to treat everyone as if they are real, and as if they have feelings the same as I do. That way I'm less likely to be hurtful, and more likely to be helpful.

Then, at the end, if I was wrong and the cosmos spring from my imagination, I'll have no regrets.

[Alphus Wampus]

Waiting for Godot

[mijj]

.. there's a bit of a problem in the discussion ..

i mean ... the word "evolution" is used .. e.g. "evolution is infinitely unlikely" ...

but .. "evolution" is merely "change" with arbitrary significances and value judgements implied by the observer ..

so .. do things change? .. Yes they do. Is it proveable? .. I would say, yes .. it is provable that things change.

For change to be evolution, all that is needed is for somone to regard the change to have significance in their value system. A machine could be built for this purpose. Thus, any change can (and thus will) be regarded as evolution.

So, yes .. evolution is a provable fact.

[Lucius]

If there was more evidence pointing towards the free-floating brain theory, then yes, I could agree with the statement that "The theory of evolution is false"

[LA Clay]

I guess I could believe "the THEORY of evolution is false".

However I could never believe "the BELIEF of evolution is false"

Everything is a belief system with a bunch of supporting evidence pointing to that specific "truth".

Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

[William]

Scott Adams, you're out of your depth. You're in the wrong ballpark. You're neither really a philosopher nor a wise scholar, and certainly not a researcher. You're a humble cartoonist. Please, act your part. Say as much as you wish to say, but don't try to give the impression that you've invented anything of an intellectual nature, above all ideas and theories. As we say in French, don't try to fart at a higher level than your asshole.

[I promise I won't try to fart higher than you. -- Scott]

[steve]

Yes, if you could mathematically prove that every fact we know, except the math you used, was wrong, then evolution would be among the disproved facts. Brilliant.

[msharkey]

Since you asked for responses from those who believe that evolution is a fact you are bound to get a lot of stupid answers and fewer of the thoughtful types like the one copied below. It is from a person who clearly does not believe in evolution but thinks that it is the most robust thesis to explain biological change over time. If people believe in anything we should have a problem taking them seriously, as I suspect you do (and that is your point I'm guessing). Sexual selection theory explains this irrational behavior in humans (especially males) quite well. Male humans have a tendency to be less concerned if they are right or wrong, more important is the desire to have others agree with them, in this way they are asserting their dominance, and those that agree are allying themselves with the most powerful and the most likely to dominate. In this respect they are no different than dogs or other social animals. Of course we are wired, moist robots that we are, to believe our own lies. There is a lot of interesting literature on self desception.

[minister of silly walks]

"... a free-floating brain created instantly by random fluctuations of the universe, and imbued with false memories of your past."

You mean to tell me that the past I remember is the "best" that the universe could come up with?

[Volker Hetzer]

They wouldn't have to figure out that free floating brains are more likely, they would have to figure out that very likely /we/ are free floating brains.
In that case, I'd agree.

[give me strengh]

'infinitely more likely', so that would be a certainty then. You busy today, so you got your donkey to write the blog? And don’t deny it, you must own a donkey! Only so you have it to turn to when someone calls you an ass, and say ‘hey they must be talking about you’.

[Ari]

If we were one collective brain we would've evolved to have pockets. Is there anyone who disagrees with the usefulness of pockets? No.

If you poll your readers as to what body part they would add (not enlarge!) I'm sure pockets will come up top, right near wheels (because walking is bad for your knees).

[oyun hileleri]

I suppose it would be neither false nor true, but also both true and false, because perceived reality would be unique to the individual and objective reality would be... well, fluctuations in the universe.

[fatmantheinvincible]

At the risk of poaching from previous entries, here goes -
the free-floating brains theory is unprovable by definition.

If all of our memories are false, wouldn't the facts necessary to prove a free-floating brains hypothesis also be merely false memories?

Are we even having this conversation?
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
(sorry, I couldn't resist another "Matrix" reference)

[Calvin Spealman]

I was right!

[SJ]

Now if we were to go by scientists' opinion there are many more in reputed institutions who go with evolution. I would be ready to believe that evolution didn't happen if a better argument exists against it than for it. So far I haven't seen any.

[Mark]

I like the theory of evolution more than a divine theory because there are more testable things pointing to evolution than there are things pointing to an existence of some sort of god.
So if there's another theory that better fits the data we have then why not prefer that theory over evolution?
It's how science evolves. It's survival of the fittest ideas ;-P

[Hugh Dalton]

So...the Matrix is real? Hello Neo.

[Mike Jackson]

Under this hypothesis, EVERYTHING we thought we knew would be false, so why single out evolution?

[Arturo]

I'll believe it if the evidence is good enough....

Problem is that things like that are borderline religion so evidence will be hard to come by.

[ShirtBloke]

Nope -

If I was just a free floating brain, how come I've imagined into existence the music of Beethoven, Bach and the Beatles when I have no musical talent at all?

The music could just be auditory hallucination of course, but it's so much better than anything I could consciously imagine that there must be something outside the floating brain that makes it.

That might just be another floating brain of course, but it kind of shoots down the whole proposition though doesn't it?