Friday, November 12, 2010

The pagan origin of the biblical "rib" story.

Memory is a funny thing.  I recently was completely convinced that the story of Gilgamesh, which I had read many years earlier, contained a goddess throwing a rib into a forest to create a person, the wild man Enkidu.

When I went back to look at it, thanks to someone requesting the exact wording, I found that it was, in fact, not a rib.  In Gilgamesh, a goddess throws a rock (lump of clay) into a forest to create a person.
"When Anu in the sky heard this, he said to Aruru, great goddess of creation that she is: "You created humans; create again in the image of Gilgamesh and let this imitation be as quick in heart and as strong in arm so that these counterforces might first engage, then disengage, and finally let Uruk's children live in peace."

Hearing that, Aruru thought of Anu. Then she wet her creative fingers, fashioned a rock, and tossed it as far as she could into the woods.

Thus she fathered Enkidu, a forester, and gave birth in terror and in fright without a single cry of pain, bringing forth another likeness of Ninurta, god of war."

The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the first known complete stories. The 12 clay tablets in cuneiform script describe the adventures of the historical King of Uruk who lived around 2750 and 2500 BCE.

The Gilgamesh story we have comes from the collection of a 7th century Assyrian king named Ashurbanipal. The original Assyrian version was copied from a composition in Old Babylonian times, based on legends and stories from older Sumerian sources. Sumer was in southern Mesopotamia the geographical area that is today called Iraq. The city of Uruk was on the Euphrates River.  (Source: History Dept, University of Texas)

The rib story seems to come from a different Sumerian tale.  This is still an earlier pagan source for the Bible story I read as a boy. Gilgamesh does, however, contain the flood myth with Noah (here named Utnapishtim taken from the earlier and more detailed story of Atrahasis), the ark, and other familiar elements.

Getting back to the rib, here is the quote from the ancient story, ENKI AND NINHURSAG:
"What hurts you most, dearest? ' My rib hurts me.' ' To the goddess Nin-ti, the Lady of the Rib and the One who makes Live, I have given birth for you to set your rib free.'

As soon as Ninhursag uttered the last sentence, Enki felt no pain or ache, revitalised and stronger than ever. Indeed, as if he himself had been reborn in the close embrace of Ninhursag."

How old is this story? I'm still searching for that answer. Clues: There was  (according to one historical time line of milk) a temple of Ninhursag in the Sumerian city of Tell al-Ubaid in 3,000-2,500 BCE.  Confirmed by a copper bull in the British Art Museum from Tell al-Ubaid, "around 2,600"  BCE. Also, according to the New World Encyclopedia,  Ninhursag's symbol, the omega (Ω), is depicted in art from around 3,000 BCE.
"Some commentators see the Bible's Eve as related to Nin-ti, Ninhursag daughter known as the "Lady of the Rib."

It is exiting to be able to reach back to stories that may be 5,000 years old, to meet the earth goddess Ninhursag who was the omega! As well, to find the origin of the "Greek" omega symbol, which is not generally known. The omega was most likely a stylized womb. Using the birth symbol as the last letter of the Greek alphabet is so Ouroboros.

It find it no stretch of the imagination that these ancient two stories merged and became the story of the creation of Eve though multiple oral re-telling over 1000 or more years..
... one of the great pleasures of studying Sumerian myths is exactly to trace resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical motifs. Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they had ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews in the land later known as Palestine' (Kramer, Samuel Noah, History Begins at Sumer, The Pennsylvania University Press,1981:142). Some comparisons with the Bible paradise story that are described in this myth

1) the idea of a divine paradise comes from Dilmun, the land of immortals situated in southwestern Persia. It is the same Dilmun that, later, the Babylonians, the Semitic people who conquered the Sumerians, located their home of the immortals. There is a good indication that the Biblical paradise, which is described as a garden planted eastward in Eden, from whose waters flow the four world rivers including the Tigris and the Euphrates, may have been originally identical with Dilmun;...

4) most remarkably, this myth provides an explanation for one of the most puzzling motifs in the Biblical paradise story - the famous passage describing the fashioning of Eve, the mother of all living, from the rib of Adam.

Why a rib instead of another organ to fashion the woman whose name Eve means according to the Bible, 'she who makes live'? If we look at the Sumerian myth, we see that when Enki gets ill, cursed by Ninhursag, one of his body parts that start dying is the rib. The Sumerian word for rib is 'ti' . To heal each o Enki's dying body parts, Ninhursag gives birth to eight goddesses. The goddess created for the healing of Enki's rib is called 'Nin-ti', 'the lady of the rib'. But the Sumerian word 'ti' also means 'to make live'. The name 'Nin-ti' may therefore mean 'the lady who makes live' as well as 'the lady of the rib'.

Thus, a very ancient literary pun was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible, but without its original meaning, because the Hebrew word for 'rib' and that for 'who makes live' have nothing in common. Moreover, it is Ninhursag who gives her life essence to heal Enki, who is then reborn from her (Kramer, Samuel Noah, History Begins at Sumer, The Pennsylvania University Press, Philadelphia, 143-144).

via Enki and Ninhursag - www.GatewaysToBabylon.com.

Agreement on wikipedia:
Ninti (Lady Rib), is also a pun on Lady Life, a title of Ninhursag herself.

Here is confirmation in the form of the same text in a PDF from Professor Stephen Hagen at Kennesaw Sate University shows that birth was given out of a rib in this story.

For my satisfaction, I'd like to know the location and I'd like to see images of the  actual tablets, the shards of pottery or whatever upon which ENKI AND NINHURSAG and Gilgamesh are written. What is the source of professor Kramer's translations of these myths? A transliteration, a word for word into English would be ideal. Anyone?

The Archaeological Evidence for Gilgamesh, according to SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London), is the following:
The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is preserved on three groups of manuscripts (clay tablets), which give an account of the poem at different stages in its evolution, from the eighteenth century BC to the first millennium BC.

So far eleven pieces of Old Babylonian versions of the epic are extant, and eighteen pieces are known from later in the second millennium (Middle Babylonian and other intermediate manuscripts). If these twenty-nine fragments were all that had survived we would not be able today to give an accurate account of the poem's narrative and plot. Fortunately we have 184 fragments from the first millennium (count at January 2003). These come from ancient libraries in Assyria, most notably the library of the seventh-century king, Ashurbanipal, and from slightly later collections of tablets found in Babylonia, chiefly at Babylon and Uruk.

You can see how the different sources for the same story fit together in transliterations of the 12 tablets at this link.

If the Sumerians  did deeply influence the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews, yet Christians still consider the older Hebrew version of the Genesis story to be correct.

I was led to believe the Bible's account of creation in the Old Testament sprang forth complete from divine inspiration.
According to Jewish tradition the Torah was revealed to Moses in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai. ... the Torah is accepted by Christianity as part of the Bible, comprising the first five books of the Old Testament. - wiki

(The Torah could not have come to Moses all at once, however, since the book of Deuteronomy describes his death.)

Regarding the parallels of the creation myths, you can believe they are due to coincidence, or that the Genesis story, including the rib, is a distorted retelling (without mention of the sources) of several different stories 1,000 years older, written between 2750 and 2500 BCE.

In the second case, claims of divine authorship are debunked.

45 comments:

Ian C. said...

Here is another theory.... The existence of the baculum is unlikely to escape the notice of pastoralist and hunter-gatherer cultures (see also below), but there is no specific term for it—nor for the penis itself—in Biblical Hebrew. This leads to one interpretation on the origin of Adam's rib, or his 'bony part' as a direct translation from Hebrew, in the creation of Eve as told in the stories of Genesis. Tee hee penis bone!

Alex Dalton said...

You're really arguing with your own previous fundamentalism (or at least religious naivete) moreso than modern theological notions of inspiration. Accommodation, condescension, progressive revelation, inversions in polemical counter-Creation myths - all of these are very standard in many modern theories of theological inspiration. You may not have been introduced to them in Sunday school, but then again, Sunday school isn't so much a place of serious religious education.

Xeno said...

I am arguing that your entire religion evolved from earlier pagan views. I think that there are the ideological equivalents of transitional fossils. There is evidence for the historical belief in Jesus, but not for the person himself. But putting that debate aside for a moment...

Do you think Jesus had DNA? Was he the result of a virgin birth? How does that work genetically? :-/

Xeno said...

Nevermind I found the answer. They've thought of everything. You see, Jesus had God's perfect Y chromosome, one with "no defects". (Biology fail. Our entire genetic make up actually consists of "defects" which were at some point useful or at least not harmful. Could Jesus's body process sugar into vitamin C, for example, as we once could? ) Wow. Christians believe their Savior is the result of an extraterrestrial impregnating a human woman with super DNA. Wild. That's a DNA sample worth collecting. I wonder if the secret government has a copy of it. Yes they must. I think it would probably be what gave Jesus his ability to do some miracles, like walking on water. Now I know how a few modern mystics did some of their stunts. Secret government DNA bank samples have obviously been stolen and used over the years... but only bits and pieces because they are stored in different locations to keep anyone from accessing the full perfect set... until the time is right. The clone of Jesus taken from blood on the Shroud of Turin has probably already been born in some quiet little town. God, this should really be a movie. I will call my movie "Project 888" because this is a number associated with Jesus. Of course, the humans screw it up and accidentally create the Anti-christ then the Real Jesus comes back with a buffed up Santa Claus and shoots missiles from his kneecaps. Explosions! The anti-christ is dust.

Xeno said...

Thanks much.

As far as I can tell, the greatest discoveries have resulted from ignoring entrenched dogma. Experts, however, are typically great for locating primary sources, and for pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of various points of view.

Xeno said...

Besides calling the Flavian hypothesis crap and saying historical scholars believe in a historical Jesus for good reasons, could you tell me what those reasons are? I still don't see the details from history that would rule out Roman war propaganda. Thanks.

Alex Dalton said...

Ann - I'm referring to the fact that alot of these are mere fabrications - like saying Mithras was born of a virgin (when he sprang from a rock and this whole iconography is about him being greater than the cosmos per Ulanssey), or saying Buddha was born of a virgin. There just aren't primary sources that back up these claims. In other cases, we have miraculous births or gods taking on physical form and impregnating humans, but these, like I said, are to be expected in the culture at the time and are already present within Judaism. We don't to posit borrowing to account for ideas like this.

Ann said...

Thanks, Alex. As I understand you, then, Mithras and Buddha were not born of a virgin, because they aren't any primary sources about these events. So, if I may (only wanting to understand), what is a "primary source"? (By the way I never heard that about Buddha, but about Mithras there's a lot. At least, I thought there was.)

And, doesn't the legend or story of Mithras pre-date Judeo-Christianity? That is, isn't its origin from the Middle East somewhere?

Thanks again.

Xeno said...

You point out that Mithraism was not one set thing, that, as with Christianity, there are different varieties and that adherents from different places and times disagree over interpretations and practices. Do not current versions of beliefs for all religions result from competition between the mish mash of views? It seems so to me. Religious evolution.

As with biological evolution, changes were punctuated. They took place at a speed outside of our normal threshold of perception, too slowly to see, or in some cases, too quickly. Like an earthquake, there are rumblings for years, then rapid change. The quake, to most people, is the only part that is real. It is easy to ignore and deny the slow build up of pressure.

razorface said...

Hi Xeno,

Congratulations on stimulating some interesting discussion here. I wasn't aware of the "rib" connection so thanks for sharing this. I wish to comment on your Gilgamesh quotation and on links between the civilizing of Enkidu and the garden of Eden story.

Firstly, the quotation from Gilgamesh that you use is not a translation from the original texts. It is, at best, a very loose paraphrase that includes elements not found in the original. I would recommend a more literal translation (Dalley and AR George are good).

Secondly, there are a number of parallels between the story of the forbidden fruit and the civilizing of Enkidu. Firstly, Enkidu is a primeval man like Adam, created by the gods. Secondly, his relationship to animals is highlighted. Thirdly, both stories involve the man being "tempted" by the woman, succumbing to temptation, and experiencing a dramatic change from one state of being to another. This state is described in each text as "[becoming] like a god". Both texts speak of the man becoming "wise". Fourthly, the man and woman clothe themselves after their experience. Fifthly, the woman convinces the man to eat food that he has never tasted before. Finally, the couple move irrevocably from one realm to another (away from the garden, away from the wild) as the episode comes to a close.

Incidentally, frequent scholarly suggestions of sexual innuendo in the story of the garden of eden seem to be supported by these links with Gilgamesh.

Like the flood story, it seems clear that Genesis is in dialogue with an older Mesopotamian tradition. However, it is equally obvious that the perspective of Genesis conflicts with that of the older story. Whereas in Gilgamesh the journey away from the wild to the city is viewed as a great, civilizing step forward, in Genesis when the couple leave their "garden" home it is depicted as a tragic loss of innocence. The city in Genesis is embodied in the tower of Babel and later on in the national story as a place of captivity and hardship. So yes, Genesis uses older materials to construct its narrative, but it does so from the viewpoint of a people who have been harmed by their contact with more dominant civilizations.

I hope that this gives you a better idea of the dynamics of what is happening in Genesis. I agree with Alex that it doesn't automatically suggest that the bible is inauthentic, derivative, or fraudulent. Rather, it contradicts conservative views of biblical inspiration and inerrancy that try to make Genesis out to be something that it is not. Please note that I find the mesopotamian versions to be wiser and more humane in some cases - particularly in the case of the flood story.

Xeno said...

Thanks much, interesting parallels!

If I stay true to my analogy, the same type of features or ideas do pop up from different sources when the environment is right. That happens, and there are interesting examples where different species look like the same thing, but are not.

Still, most creatures inherited what they have now from the past, mostly by the imperceptibly slow morphing of each new generation to fit the times.

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno, I have to say that I see alot of this overuse of the analogy of biological evolution when you're discussing the history of ideas. In this case of Persian vs. Roman Mithraisms, no, there was probably not any gradual or punctuated evolution. What we have evidence of in the historical record amounts to little more than the same name for the deity, hence the revolution in Mithraic studies post-Cumont. If you want to say some ideas stem from another, you need evidence of this, not just a vague idea about how things change.

Ann said...

Xeno, please note, razorface (what an i.d.!, wouldn't want to meet him/her in alley at night) stayed put on Genesis at level of time (few thousand B.C.) and found parallels between biblical accounts and other contemporaneous sources. The ancient Jewish people did a lot a migrating and without doubt they picked up or influenced those with whom they intermingled.

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno, again. Try to find where I have made any extraordinary claims in any of the convos that we have had here. I have primarily been rebutting your claims. But indeed, I would be glad to share my reasons for accepting theism. And I think there is an abundance of evidence. Over the next few weeks, I'll share my views on these matters here. Be patient with me as I have my daughter on and off throughout the week.

Kayl said...

The Sumerian tales were intentionally distorted myths loosely based upon more accurate oral accounts of the true happenings of creation and the flood. The Hebrew version is accurate and was received from GOD as a needed reminder of historical facts and other essential information. Jewish tradition cannot be always relied upon, however the Scriptures (which can always be relied upon) are clear that the LAW (TORAH) was given to Moses at Sinai and it was.

The writer of this baloney would like to be so sure that the Bible is errant that their biased desire to reach that conclusion blinds them to many possibilities and facts.

Xeno said...

Hi Kayl,

Thanks for stopping by.

Well, honestly, I see no evidence to support the Hebrew version being more accurate than earlier versions of these myths. I call baloney right back.

History shows us that Gods, spirits and angels were invented because people once did not understand lightning, thunder, rain, gusts of wind, planets, phases of the moon, hormones, what the sun was, why the "light of the world" rose and set, why people got sick, or even why living things breathe. We take these things for granted today, but imagine how scary it would be if NO ONE on earth knew the reasons for these day to day experiences!

So, the word "GOD" is actually just a way of saying, "I'm pretending with great certainty to know the answer because that is comforting, but I really have no idea." You have never seen GOD, other than as depicted in art or other human imagination. As proof of GOD you have only a collection of things you do not understand which you attribute to GOD because you've been told stories written by men a long time ago who claimed they witnessed miracles and such.

But those men whose writings you let dictate your views in the year 2010, well, they were smart in their own ways, but they were clueless about what every 7 year old kid knows today. The sun is not a powerful father lighting the word with his heavenly glory, ... it is a star.

We are not evidence for GOD, even if you define god as "The UNKNOWN". We can do a bit better than throwing up our hands and giving up in our attempt to understand.

We are evidence that self-organizing systems exist. Does GOD put all of the atoms together and hold the protons and neutrons to each other? Does GOD make electron clouds orbit the center of atoms? No, the nuclear forces are not intelligent. While not understood completely, they are predictable, very basic. These forces cause atoms to self organize. Similarly, on up the scale, molecules form because of the properties of atoms. And so on with RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes, cell membranes, tissues, organs, and people.

From small to large, past to present, we are the natural result of local interactions adding to something bigger. Interactions happen due to local environments: gravity, osmotic pressure, dissimilar electric charges attracting each other, and so on.

The whole thing is self sustaining, self regulating, and amazing!

Xeno said...

Welome back Alex, You seem to me to simply choose to see no connection or no significance if something disagrees with your beliefs. I don't find your denials here compelling and I'll say why when I find time, but could you please tell me about the god you do believe in and why? Thanks!

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno - you don't always have to post if you don't have something substantive to say. It isn't the end of the world if you wait until you have more time to do so. There is no rush. I'm more interested in your lines of reasoning and your logical rejoinders than how you feel about my arguments. Posting ad hominems and psychological speculation about my "powers of denial" may be something that makes you feel like you've scored some rhetorical points, but this isn't a political campaign. Let's just discuss these things as time permits. I apologize if I seem like a relentless contrarian, but I disagree very strongly with most of what you say on religion, so I hope you won't mind if I continue to advocate another point of view. In fact, I've been holding back for the sake of time! There are often so many things that I disagree with in your posts that it would take 5 posts of my own, of equal length, to address them all.

Alex Dalton said...

As far as the God I believe in, I'm a somewhat liberal Christian. I thought that much was clear by now. I've outlined some of the reasons I favor theism as a metaphysical explanation for the cosmos already. I'll wait until you respond to those rather than flood you, and build into a more robust argument from there. To start off, we can discuss bare theism, and then from there, we can get into why I hold specifically Christian beliefs.

Xeno said...

I think you misunderstood my question. Alex, assume I am an alien and I have never seen a god. What makes the god of your belief real for you? What is the evidence? Please describe your god and give actual reasons for your belief. ( If possible, avoid the use of biblical jargon that non-Christians would not understand.) Thanks.

Xeno said...

Is not the substance of gods ( or lack thereof) the main point of our exchange?

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno - all of that is implicit in my recent comments. In speaking of "God", lets start with a working definition of a mind or intelligence, that stands behind material reality. On atheism, the ultimate explanandum must be a material or physical one. On theism, the ultimate explanandum is consciousness. This is a very basic and clear way to frame the discussion that doesn't get us bogged down into all sorts of theological speculation.

Xeno said...

Sorry, I don't get it. Are you saying god is a consciousness that created everything? What is the evidence for that? Thanks.

Alex Dalton said...

P.S. - are you moderating my comments now? I've been having trouble getting my posts to go through, and some of them are saying that they are "awaiting moderation".

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno - do you think its best to go back into your own comments and change the content like you are? It makes me look a little nutty when I quote you, and those words are now nowhere to be found.

Xeno said...

Wait, I'm with you all the way to the last point. The conditions had to be just what they are for us to be what we are. Okay... So? Where do you get a creator from that?

The corn grows where it does because the conditions are right. This does not mean an intelligence makes the rain fall there because it loves the corn. The condition of rain comes first, and what grows there then grows.

What am I missing?

Alex Dalton said...

Makes sense.

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno - we infer design, because the conditions are specified all within a very narrow range. The precision to which this fine-tuning occurs is what has startled scientists and caused many to see this as evidence of design. Let's envision the laws and constants as a series of 10 dials on the wall (by some estimations, there are at least 20 parameters). All of these dials are enormously large, let's say millions of miles wide. And they have millimeter-sized notches on them. One notch on each is marked red, and if the all dials are tuned to this precise notch, this will allow for the emergence of life. Now, anywhere these dials are tuned to, is as equally improbable as any other combination of tuning. So it is not mere improbability. What we have is enormous improbability for even one dial to be turned right, but not only this, we have a *specificity* in that all the dials are tuned to the red notch. We have something conspiring within the laws to allow for this pattern. This, not just mere improbability, is why scientists wishing to deny the fine-tuning as evidence for design, have resulted to multiverse explanations in which they suppose that there are an infinity of unobservable universes, in which all possible combinations of physics occur, therefore this combination had to come up somewhere. I think this is a very poor alternate explanation, but take note - they understand that this specified improbability *does* require an explanation beyond "it is what it is". If we come upon a safe with 10 numbers that had to be turned to, in order for the safe to be opened, and we see that the safe is open, we should conclude that the person who opened it *knew* the combination.

Ann said...

Is a chance event, even if astronomically minuscule [Alex, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:29 pm], the proof of the existence of God? It's merely a chance physical event that's all.

Further, despite whoever originally asserted it, isn't this a bit of an imaginative exaggeration: "an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target"? I'm mean really! Even if it were possible to prove such a statement, arousing awe do not thoughtful statements make.

Kyle [#6] merely made certain assertions, Sumerians believed in myths, but the Hebrews didn't, he didn't prove anything or say anything widely accepted, that is, beyond a perhaps religious Judeo-Christian community.

Xeno said...

I love your example of the safe, because, yes, you could conclude that someone opened it, but you could also conclude other things. For example, the safe was opened by your phone number which happens to be a common pattern when random pebbles blow around and hit safe buttons... And this safe is one of a trillion trillion different safes all with randomly selected 10 digit combinations.... But you only see the one safe.

... Or simpler still, the situation is an illusion because... The safe was never locked in the first place! :-)

It could be that our one universe is all you need to have the variability at random needed, because we may only so far be able to grasp a tiny portion of it. The big bang my just be a bright light that creates a time barrier which keeps us from seeing the rest of the universe. In that case, life is not miraculous, it is unavoidable.

Xeno said...

It is my view that you are making the same mistake the Church made all those years ago: You assume constant laws in the universe, as below, so above...but we are finding this is not the case. Our own spacecraft reaching the edge of our solar system are showing that we are short sighted. The "laws" are turning out to differ in different places and under different conditions. Thus, as we see more and more examples of local differences the entire argument about the universe being designed "just so," turns out to be based on a wrong assumption.

Alex Dalton said...

Response to this is way at the bottom [November 25, 2010 at 5:41 am]. Posted it there accidentally.

Short answer is "nope!"

Xeno said...

"As far as your objection to the safe analogy, the point of it is not for you to tweak it with all of these other alternate scenarios ..."

You seem unaware of your own power of creation, the power of the observer. By selecting only your one right situation, you are only saying you are right because you are right, another tautology.

I am saying the universe is not a clock, it is a cloud. It is not an orderly device, though we may wish it to be. It is a random self created mess. No one assembles the clouds for our enjoyment.

The universe is big and a mystery, we agree on that. But I don't see how you help anything by creating an even bigger mystery "god" as your answer.

Who created god? No one, right?

Then I have a universe which is eternal or created itself, but you have a god who is either eternal or created himself, and then created the universe. I see my concept as being one big mystery simpler.

You have not described god yet. Size, speed, power source, gender, home planet, hair color, political party, favorite ice cream...

Ann said...

If the universe, within which we're living and the only we know something about, has such a low chance of existing that it couldn't be a chance event? No, it's still chance event. A royal flush is still a chance event.

Further, who is to say that this universe was the result of a chance event among a near-infinite, if not infinite events in the past? After all, one of cosmologists "wish list" is to "Make the mulitiverse go away." But, it hasn't.

Cosmologist Michael Turner says “The dilemma is, we have evidence that inflation took place and the equations of inflation say that if it took place once, it took place twice and it’s sort of like the mouse and the cookie – if it took place twice it could have taken place an infinite number of times,”

[A Cosmologist’s Wish List: Four Most-Wanted Discoveries, Universe Today, Nov. 17, 2010]

Xeno said...

Fine tuning by a mysterious unknown consciousness, eh? You like this idea, but how do you know the fine tuning was not done by two or more gods ... Or by a machine? This is a leap of logic.

I still think the so called fine tuning is an illusion created by our self importance. I'm not getting why you can't accept random chance happening to create these exact conditions.

I suspect things are not as unlikely as they seem because there are physical constraints that guide the forces to be as the are, non conscious constraints, which remain as yet undiscovered.

Hope you are enjoying the holiday.

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno wrote: "Fine tuning by a mysterious unknown consciousness, eh? You like this idea, but how do you know the fine tuning was not done by two or more gods … Or by a machine? This is a leap of logic."

Alex: Well, any cause we postulate for space-time itelf (see my first argument), would have to transcend space-time and thus be timeless, and hence eternal. It would also have to transcend space and the physical world, and thus would not be a physical thing (like a machine). There are really only two non-physical entities that are considered in the philosophical literature, and these are abstract objects and conscious minds. Since abstract objects by definition lack causal efficacy, a conscious mind is better suited to the task. Further, if it were a law-like entity w/o volition, we'd have no explanation for why the effect of the universe's existence was instantiated at any particular point, and not co-extensive with the law, existing from eternity past. Agent causation, an ability of conscious minds can account for this. Thus we see that this is not a logical leap, but a logical inference.

Random chance doesn't create anything. Chance has no causal power and is rather a measure of our epistemic limitations of prediction. The origin of the universe is the origin of matter, energy, space, and time - thus all of physical existence.

Further, there is no physical thing to *vary* and bring anything else into existence. That's why speculative self-organizational scenarios fail. Further, to suppose that there is any ability for things to vary, and bring about dynamical complexity in the first place, is to suppose at *minimum* the regularity of causation itself, which is a type of order.

But really - the main point your are missing is that you can't invoke chance for low-probability events that have specifications like this. Have you read the Koons paper yet? Its a very poor explanation. You're free to believe it, but it goes against the evidence.

Your last faith-based appeal to as yet undiscovered laws ("physical constraints") just pushes the problem back further for you, and lands us in the same place. That the whole of existence should be ordered in such a manner to bring about this fine-tuning, and give rise to self-organizing complexity that eventually results in the universe becoming aware of itself through conscious living beings, self-sustaining biospheres, is better explained as the product of conscious intention than a brute fact, whether or not you look at the fine-tuned laws as they are, or appeal to some faith-based deeper laws that brought them into being.

Happy holidays to you as well. Not really celebrating the holiday this year, but having an ok time nonetheless....

Ann said...

Alex, I don't understand the "logical leap." If I stub my toe wearing flip-flops, but keep wearing the same type of shoe, it's likely I'll stub my toe again. Anyway, it isn't not a "logical leap" for Michael Turner.

Do I detect a bit of disgenuineness about Vilenkin as being one of two of the greatest living cosmologists? I mean who decides who is what? Personal opinions I can understand. But, a search of reviews of Vilenkin’s "Many Worlds in One" one quickly finds his views are not entirely accepted within the scientific community. Tim Folger in Discover Magazine said Vilenkin's ideas are as controversial now as when they were first forwarded in the mid-1980s. ...

The anthropic principle - that idea that the universe was made for us - first appeared in 1973 by Brandon Carter in a conference in Poland
honoring, ironically enough, Copernicus. It was this 16th century astronomer that overthrew the ecclesiastical view of the solar system, but it is Carter who opened the gate to allow that same sort of interpretation to enter cosmology.

Allowing religious notions to penetrate all the sciences is the popular trend within our culture now, so it seems. So, why shouldn't I expect the same especially in cosmology?

Xeno said...

Quicksand? Funny, I'm here on the beach, enjoying a drink, listening to you tell me your analogy is not an analogy. ;-)

Yes, you do get it! The laws themselves are dynamic based on local conditions.

You challenge the variance of the fine structure constant (which is not debated, but not refuted, btw) but care to explain the voyager gravity mystery?

The fact that consciousness requires a brain follows from the evidence: 1) general anesthesia: propofol results in medial thalamic inactivity and consciousness is gone. 2) conjoined twins Tatiana and Krista who share a thalamus hear each other's thoughts, 3) out of body experience is caused by electrical stimulation of the brain. 4) no consciousness has ever been identified outside of a brain.

Xeno said...

Judging from our discussion so far, we would need lawyers to draw up agreements as to what the word "is" means. Lol.

Xeno said...

So if G is variant, which I think it is, even if this is not the explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly, you'll send me a real valid check for $10,000? Neat. I'd love to have that Taylor guitar and Newumann microphone for Christmas. Who is the judge as to what evidence counts and what evidence does not? Is your criteria a consensus? Of how many physicists? And on the flip side, how long does G have to stay invariant before I send you a check for $10,000? We'd have to agree on how much time would go by before we declare that G is invariant. The indisputable discovery may not happen for years, for example.

Alex Dalton said...

Xeno - so you are a musician?

All joking aside, I don't have 10k to bet, but please do show me what evidence leads you to conclude that G is not a true constant.

Xeno said...

Yes, Lots of good live music in my life. I write, sing, play guitar, bass, piano, and post my original songs here from time to time. Xenophilia was a band I started with a theme of "songs about strange stuff"... But eventually I decided that I enjoy recording more than playing live... And the strange stuff research for the songs took on a life of its own and eventually became this blog. Playing music is one of my favorite ways to connect with people.

Okay, now that the big bet is off the table, whew, I'll tell you my first clue that G varies in different places: the Russian Gravitational Society's Gravitation & Cosmology vol 8, 2002, no 3 (31), pp 243-246 gives experimental evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation.

I'm still checking this out... Not sure if anyone has repeated this or even taken it seriously.

Xeno said...

My view: consciousness is an umbrella term that means many things, because consciousness is a nexus of many different things: internal dialogue, sense inputs, body image, language processing, memories, etc...but in essence consciousness is what it is like to have your particular experience of your mental model of yourself and the world while being fed by your sensory inputs.

Consciousness happens in the thalamus where many different parts of the brain connect.

A neurosurgeon can make your consciousness leave your body or turn it off completely by acting on your brain. The same is not true of your heart, lungs, liver, or big toe... The brain only.

You could argue that stopping the heart removes consciousness, but it doesn't unless blood flow to the brain is stopped as well. Keep pumping the blood and a person remains conscious, I think.

Further, and this is really the key, the individual aspects of consciousness such as language, memory, recognition, planning, love, pain, pleasure, revenge, math ability, even religious mystical experience can be observed with brain monitoring devices, and can be changed, brought on or turned off by changing the brain. This includes a person's "personality". We have learned some of this due to brain injuries, some due to brain surgery on conscious patients, etc.

Finally, people with joined brains (the thalamus) have joined consciounesses!

You say all of this proves nothing, but I find the above points completely convincing.

Consciousness without a brain is wishful thinking by the brain, a defense mechanism against anxiety caused by the big bummer of knowing the lights will one day go out forever. But fear not, for the dead care not. Nonexistence is 100% painless.

[this post was edited by the author to make it less insulting and to include more support for the argument presented.]

Alex Dalton said...

I'll look into the source on gravity. If it was published almost a decade ago, and no one is really pushing that line at present, that speaks volumes, IMO. I need a break from all this God-arguing for a bit though. I've gotten myself into some other arguments on other boards where I'll have to do some heavy-lifting....

That's a cool idea for a band. I love music myself. I listen to mostly instrumental music though - and that mostly electronica that involves heavy sampling...Odd that our ultimately purposeless universe burped up something as beautiful and transcendent as music upon us, eh? How did you get into all the conspiracy theory/UFO stuff, btw?

Xeno said...

Go get em. :-) You are a great mind and I'm sure you will make others in addition to me consider their views more carefully.

I got into UFOs because my step dad was into them ... I must have been about 11 years old. We went camping and heard a big foot. It was eerie. Then I got into Star Trek and In Search of Ancient Astronauts since Spock/Nimoy hosted the show. Later, Art Bell kept me interested in the topic.