wedrifid comments on Rationality Quotes: November 2010 - Less Wrong

5 [deleted] 02 November 2010 08:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (354)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PeterS 03 November 2010 09:51:17PM 5 points [-]

Isaac Newton's argument for intelligent design:

Were all the planets as swift as Mercury or as slow as Saturn or his satellites; or were the several velocities otherwise much greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the distances from the centers about which they move been greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the quantity of matter in the sun or in Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth (and by consequence their gravitating power) been greater or less than it is; the primary planets could not have revolved about the sun nor the secondary ones about Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, in concentric circles as they do, but would have moved in hyperbolas or parabolas or in ellipses very eccentric. To make this system, therefore, with all its motions, required a cause which understood and compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets and the gravitating powers resulting from thence.... And to compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies, argues that cause to be, not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.

-- Letter to Richard Bentley

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 06:15:43PM *  0 points [-]

Elements of this argument make an error related to numberplates. I'm surprised this was received so (+4) positively.

Comment author: Perplexed 05 November 2010 04:44:25AM 5 points [-]

I voted up both Newton quotes because they show how a very smart man can make a very plausible argument which is nevertheless very wrong.

And the reason Newton failed to guess the rather simple explanation is that he observed a solar system that was stable and unchanging and assumed that it must always have been stable and unchanging since the creation. His "biases" just didn't allow him to imagine an evolutionary model of planet formation by accretion from a more-or-less random initial state.

Nowadays of course, we tend to invent evolutionary or historical explanations for everything. We don't even limit ourselves to explaining the origins. We go on to predict how things will likely come to a contingent historical end ... or should I refer to it as our next great adventure?

Comment author: [deleted] 09 November 2010 09:54:29PM *  1 point [-]

Second to this. The planets that remain in sequence and orbit survived the transition from entropy to stability in a way that didn't result in them being ejected or destroyed. Their presence represents them making it through the pachinko machine of amalgamated physical parameters, not intentional design.

Newton's inferences were like assuming a gold tooth has mystical properties because I've put you through a woodchipper and it's the only thing that came out the other end. There is so much to understand about the internals of the machine before you make any solid judgments about the inputs and outputs.

Comment author: magfrump 05 November 2010 05:23:48PM 0 points [-]

I thought it was obviously ironic, since planets do actually move in ellipses and general conic sections; Newton makes a falsifiable claim in favor of ID and it is clearly false.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 05 November 2010 09:29:18PM 1 point [-]

Wait, something seems wrong here. Newton knew the planets moved in ellipses. Probable conclusion: He was just referring to the low eccentricity of these ellipses?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 15 November 2010 09:49:47PM *  0 points [-]

I think that the issue was the number of planets. If you had just one planet orbiting the sun, that orbit would be a nice stable one. But if you have multiple bodies orbiting the sun, their paths will interfere chaotically. I think that Newton expected that, in general, you would get wildly erratic orbits, with some planets being thrown clear of the system altogether. As I understand it, he expected such catastrophes to be inevitable, unless you started with a very carefully-selected initial state. God was then necessary to explain how the solar system started out in such an improbable state. But in fact Newton just lacked the mathematical sophistication to see that, according to his own theory, typical initial arrangements could result in systems that are stable for billions of years.

Comment author: PeterS 05 November 2010 04:13:58AM 0 points [-]

Numberplates?

Comment author: wedrifid 05 November 2010 04:30:23AM 1 point [-]

"The chance that the numberplate of my first car was EIT411 is one in a whole lot. Wow! It happened! There must be a God!" (crudely speaking.)

This seems to be relevant to, for example, yabbering on about the exact speeds of Saturn et. al. The Saturns that were going the wrong speed all fell in to the sun (or cleared off into space.)

Comment author: PeterS 05 November 2010 10:27:48AM 1 point [-]

Oh... I in no way endorse the above argument! Pierre-Simon Laplace's, a century or so after Newton, gave a naturalistic model of how the Solar System could have developed. "Rationality quotes" is not only about sharing words of wisdom, but also words of folly.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 November 2010 10:44:00AM 0 points [-]

:) I certainly wasn't intending to accuse you.