|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Danwood
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2Q9ck.22592$PZ6.2827@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SlWbk.10779$1I.9816@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with
different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is
1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is
no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1
Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all
changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now
so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have
nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between
the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force,
but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over a
25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current
physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to
such an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it
in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim
that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants
is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand
you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject
how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did
I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used
to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other
universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants
would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still
claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be life,
as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of
the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with
support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that
I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees,
Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that
they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations
become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology
which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
Well said, thank you.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may
have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in
the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable
with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
And you've offered nothing to support your conclusion. Your conclusion is
that a supernatural intellect fine-tuned the universe and there is nothing
to support that.
Ok, if fine tuning is real, and many astronomers as well as |
astro-physicist came to the conclusion that it is real, what is
the explanation for this fine tuning of the parameters? I would
sincerely appreciate your opinion.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:20:36 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:i6a27495gedtina1v985pksd554fpmq3im@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:36:09 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
Just by calling it fine tuned, you imply teleology. The parameters are
what they are.
Your claim about astronomers is unsupported by evidence.
What do you disagree with: fine tuning or that many astronomers
accept fine tuning?
Since you haven't backed up either claim, both. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:L69ck.22573$PZ6.17552@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would
not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with
different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is
1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is
no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1
Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all
changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now
so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have
nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between
the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force,
but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over
a
25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as
much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current
physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to
such
an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it
in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim
that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants
is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand
you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject
how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did
I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used
to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other
universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication
that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants
would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still
claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be
life,
as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of
the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with
support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that
I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees,
Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that
they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations
become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology
which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing
no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically
emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl
be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
Well said, thank you.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support
the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may
have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in
the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable
with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
|
Dr Victor Stenger says in "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and
Creationism" on p.148, "The multiple-universe scenarios suggested by modern
cosmology provide a means by which so-called anthropic coincidences may
have arisen naturally. Earth species simply emerged in that universe with
suitable properties. Our universe is then not fine-tuned for humanity;
humanity is fine-tuned for our universe."
I have pointed this out to you many times in the last few months and you
continue to walk over my statements. We all agree that without certain
coincidences there wouldn't be life in the universe, but that doesn't mean
that they were a direct result of a purposeful design.
I found the information on the computer constructs of the constants of the
universe. In "God: The Failed Hypothesis" on p.148 Dr. Victor Stenger says:
"Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that
result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders
of magnitude, and found that he could construct cosmologies in which stars,
planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise. Physicist Craig Hogan
has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. And
theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown that heavy
elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars
independent of what the exact parameters for star formation may have been." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:beSbk.22095$PZ6.17100@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6Abk.24291$AJ6.19679@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_Vxbk.17377$NQ5.2706@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IUwbk.17343$NQ5.9208@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uDubk.16912$LL4.6370@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood"
drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life
as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their
interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you,
just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it
developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no
stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what
conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations,
devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine
tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
Again Dan, the 'fined tuned' constants are only fine-tuned if the
universe has someone to observe them.
John Leslie addressed this objection by an example. You are to be
executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, You hear the
command to fire, and the sounds of the guns, then silence; you are
not dead, you hear silence. All the marksman missed!
But had they not missed you wouldn't be here to ponder your good
fortune. (don't recall his exact words, but this is the gist of his
statement.)
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
Yep, that's what I said  .
But we _are_ here and you are satisfied with just knowing this?
|
I might have to be. Hypothesizing over an imagined fine-tuned universe isn't
going to solve anything. Claiming that the laws of physics were designed
supernaturally doesn't solve the question in the least.
| Quote: |
Twenty years ago a friend and I were in a plane crash into a
large frozen lake.
This was a small private plane: I recall losing power and I
remember seeing the lake "rushing up" to meet us. This
was after dark in an extremely remote area of the midwest.
I awoke several days later in a hospital. I lived, but my best
friend had died.
Had I died, I wouldn't be able to ask questions about how
it was that I had managed to survive.
|
You've got it!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hAVbk.10761$1I.7164@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is
1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1 Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force, but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over a 25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to such
an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim
that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other
universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants
would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be life, as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees, Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
Well said, thank you.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
|
It only 'smacks of design' in the minds of ID advocates, who quite frankly,
aren't in the best of graces with those with a scintilla of scientific
knowledge. Of course they speculate, they have already speculated your
position into one which is untenable. It doesn't 'smack of design' to me. It
doesn't to many cosmologists, astronomers, astro-physicists or physicists.
You make a claim that most astronomers support the ID version of the
anthropic coincidences. Since the writings of most of those persons that I
read don't support that, one of us needs to expand out reading. It is best
explained by George Smoot who said " "If your(sic) religious, it's like
looking at God". If you aren't religious it looks like the universe was
here. so we inhabited it.
<snip portion not in reply> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:V5Zak.9552$CC.252@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpSak.9360$CC.5745@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
snip for brevity
Are you aware that computer modeling is and has been done in this
area?
I recall reading something about this in a Scientific American.
The results of these show that other sets of constants, when varied
together, will create a universe that could house life as we know it.
Can you reference this? I would appreciate the info.
I'll give it a shot. At my advanced age, unless I read it yesterday or
sooner, it goes into the mush that used to be my brain .
Much later: here is a short explanation of what he is attempting to show:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/31/initiative_will_join_physics_theology/
I carefully read this article. It was interesting, but I could not
find within the article where it stated that "other sets of constants,
when varied together will create a universe that could house life
as we know it".
Indeed, the article wrestled with whether or not constants could
vary over time.
Scientist have been able to trace back events in the development
of the universe up to Planck Time 10^-43sec after the big bang.
Consequently, we know that the laws of physics are constants
back to this point in time. However, scientist are unable to push
the laws of physics any further back in time beyond Planck Time.
|
Dan, you don't have to explain basic cosmology fro me nor do you have to
define Planck time or Planck length. I was reading cosmology books while you
were still filling teeth. I subscribe to a several science magazines and
have quite a few science books of all types in my library. When I need to
get scientific definitions I'll go my library. OK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:44 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 6, 10:46 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is
1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1 Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all
changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have
nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force,
but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over a
25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current
physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to such
an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim
that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other
universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants
would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still
claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be life,
as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees,
Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that
they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology
which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
Well said, thank you.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
WAP as defined by Barrow and Tipler: "The observed values of all
physicial and cosmological quanities are not equally probable
but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites
where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that
the Universe be old enough to do so".
The B and T's WAP: "The universe must have those properties which
allow life to develop within it at some stage of its history".
It is unfortunate that we use such similar names for ideas that are in
conflict, to a degree, with each other.
Yes that is a probelem.
|
What fine tuning you are advocating?
If I run a chemistry reaction and does not get a result that I want, I
find tune it with additional agent and I finally get what I want.
Therefore, I am the supernatural intellect?
There are so much of other undesirable defects in our system, does it
mean your supernatural intellect is sleeping?
If a loony mind wish to justify, anything is possible. Do you wish for
me to bring out a billion examples?
......I guess not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 7, 3:36 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with
different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is
1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is
no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1
Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all
changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now
so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have
nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between
the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force,
but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over a
25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current
physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to
such
an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it
in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim
that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants
is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand
you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject
how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did
I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used
to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other
universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants
would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still
claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be life,
as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of
the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with
support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that
I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees,
Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that
they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations
become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology
which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
Well said, thank you.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may
have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in
the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable
with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
...
|
I you mix two compatible oil together, sooner or later, a homogeneous
oil will appear.
Does this get into your fine tuning process?
And therefore supernatural intellect does it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 7, 6:20 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:i6a27495gedtina1v985pksd554fpmq3im@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:36:09 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
Just by calling it fine tuned, you imply teleology. The parameters are
what they are.
Your claim about astronomers is unsupported by evidence.
What do you disagree with: fine tuning or that many astronomers
accept fine tuning?
|
If you are scientific minded, you will know any system, be it solar,
be it chemicals, they will all be fine tuned with each interacting
components, and settled to a final optimum result.
Where is the element of fine tuning?
Are you saying that the moon is put in place by your creator? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 7, 8:52 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:beSbk.22095$PZ6.17100@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6Abk.24291$AJ6.19679@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_Vxbk.17377$NQ5.2706@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IUwbk.17343$NQ5.9208@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uDubk.16912$LL4.6370@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life
as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their
interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you,
just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it
developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no
stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what
conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations,
devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine
tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
Again Dan, the 'fined tuned' constants are only fine-tuned if the
universe has someone to observe them.
John Leslie addressed this objection by an example. You are to be
executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, You hear the
command to fire, and the sounds of the guns, then silence; you are
not dead, you hear silence. All the marksman missed!
But had they not missed you wouldn't be here to ponder your good
fortune. (don't recall his exact words, but this is the gist of his
statement.)
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
Yep, that's what I said .
But we _are_ here and you are satisfied with just knowing this?
I might have to be. Hypothesizing over an imagined fine-tuned universe isn't
going to solve anything. Claiming that the laws of physics were designed
supernaturally doesn't solve the question in the least.
Twenty years ago a friend and I were in a plane crash into a
large frozen lake.
This was a small private plane: I recall losing power and I
remember seeing the lake "rushing up" to meet us. This
was after dark in an extremely remote area of the midwest.
I awoke several days later in a hospital. I lived, but my best
friend had died.
Had I died, I wouldn't be able to ask questions about how
it was that I had managed to survive.
You've got it!!
|
No, he has not got it.
He think that he is alive that he must thank his creator for it.
But he didn't think for his friend....his creator's punish?
What about his friend's "soul" up in the "heaven" enjoying
eternally...?
If one has a bigotry mind, anything will end up in the hands of his
creator. There is no end to it that they will justify the "thinking". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 7, 10:52 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 5:52 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:L69ck.22573$PZ6.17552@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would
not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with
different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is
1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is
no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1
Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all
changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now
so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have
nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between
the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force,
but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over
a
25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as
much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current
physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to
such
an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it
in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim
that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants
is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand
you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject
how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did
I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used
to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other
universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication
that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants
would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still
claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be
life,
as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of
the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with
support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that
I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees,
Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that
they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations
become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology
which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing
no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically
emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl
be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
Well said, thank you.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support
the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may
have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in
the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable
with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
Dr Victor Stenger says in "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and
Creationism" on p.148, "The multiple-universe scenarios suggested by modern
cosmology provide a means by which so-called anthropic coincidences may
have arisen naturally. Earth species simply emerged in that universe with
suitable properties. Our universe is then not fine-tuned for humanity;
humanity is fine-tuned for our universe."
I have pointed this out to you many times in the last few months and you
continue to walk over my statements. We all agree that without certain
coincidences there wouldn't be life in the universe, but that doesn't mean
that they were a direct result of a purposeful design.
I have pointed out the same in this thread several times. He just
ignores it. He will not consider, or even discuss, anything that
does not support his sky daddy.
Harry K
|
Of course he is scared that you will sway his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
harry k wrote, On 06/07/08 10:52 PM:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 5:52 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have pointed this out to you many times in the last few months and you
continue to walk over my statements. We all agree that without certain
coincidences there wouldn't be life in the universe, but that doesn't mean
that they were a direct result of a purposeful design.
I have pointed out the same in this thread several times. He just
ignores it. He will not consider, or even discuss, anything that
does not support his sky daddy.
|
As have I, too, pointed out the same things to Dan many times in recent
threads.
And you'd think that I, the theist, would be the easiest to convince on
fine tuning and the Strong Anthropic Principle.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry k
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jul 6, 8:28 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
harry k wrote, On 06/07/08 10:52 PM:
On Jul 6, 5:52 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have pointed this out to you many times in the last few months and you
continue to walk over my statements. We all agree that without certain
coincidences there wouldn't be life in the universe, but that doesn't mean
that they were a direct result of a purposeful design.
I have pointed out the same in this thread several times. He just
ignores it. He will not consider, or even discuss, anything that
does not support his sky daddy.
As have I, too, pointed out the same things to Dan many times in recent
threads.
And you'd think that I, the theist, would be the easiest to convince on
fine tuning and the Strong Anthropic Principle.
|
It looks like he as quit the field. I am confident that he will
shortly appear in a new thread claiming the same old BS.
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
