|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
harry k
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
On Jun 25, 8:24 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all other
'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily so. An
argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is always
present are we here because we were designed for the universe or are we
here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to evolve..
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
Dan
|
errmmm....Ignorance??
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
|
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the biggest
errors in the examination of these constants is that the assumption is made
that if a constant has a different value then all other 'constant' values
will remain the same. This is not necessarily so. An argument such as this,
however, is never settled as the question is always present are we here
because we were designed for the universe or are we here because the
universe met the conditions which enabled us to evolve.
| Quote: |
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
|
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<71B8k.15076$s77.9420@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote:
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
sigh> Yet another variation of the 'puddle argument'.
The Puddle argument is flawed.
|
Please explain your claim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijscj5x4i2.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
| Quote: |
Danwood wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all
other
'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily so. An
argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is
always
present are we here because we were designed for the universe or are we
here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
Probably that there's not a single iota of evidence for it.
Ok, Cory why don't you take the six constants listed by Martin Rees |
and explain exactly where Rees went wrong. As you know I have
read his and several other books on the subject.
The universe exist and life exist. So, this alone is empirical evidence
that the fundamental constants were, from the beginning, exactly right.
Otherwise, we would _not_ be here to discuss it.
Regards,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1944@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all
other 'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily so.
An argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is
always present are we here because we were designed for the universe or
are we here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to
evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
|
If you would have addressed the points in made in my first paragraph we
wouldn't be having this discussion. However, the most compelling( this was a
poor choice of words and I was relieved to see that I used it in response to
your usage) argument against the anthropic coincidences is the assumption of
life as we know it, being the only life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ZNE8k.10860$AJ6.10662@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9350c243-3c50-410e-a54f-[snip]
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
Dan
errmmm....Ignorance??
You think ignorance is the most compelling argument against
the Anthropic Principle? I'm surprised.
|
Actually, are you a big fan of the weak anthropic principle? If not, why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:40 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:17:34 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<XGE8k.10857$AJ6.6753@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:utn5649vdn1v7fk1dcu42ecugkt35acga0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9420@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote:
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
sigh> Yet another variation of the 'puddle argument'.
The Puddle argument is flawed.
Please explain your claim
The parameters of the pothole makes no difference. It
doesn't matter how deep, what shape or how large
the pot-hole happens to be, the puddle will always find that
it fits perfectly. This is not the case with laws of physics.
The universes existence depends critically upon the
parameters of the Universal constants being precisely
"tuned".
Martin Rees list six constants critical to the universes
existence and life. Had any one been "untuned" there
would be no stars and no life.
Rees, Just Six Numbers, 1999, pg 4
|
We don't know that those constants have to have happened as they have
happened to end up with a usable universe. Just like the puddle, Rees is
making false assumptions about things well beyond scientific
understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:24:07 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1944@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all other
'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily so. An
argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is always
present are we here because we were designed for the universe or are we
here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
|
It assumes its conclusion and implicitly multiplies entities needlessly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:13:01 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<1HS8k.5299$NQ5.2592@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijscj5x4i2.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Danwood wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all
other
'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily so. An
argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is
always
present are we here because we were designed for the universe or are we
here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
Probably that there's not a single iota of evidence for it.
Ok, Cory why don't you take the six constants listed by Martin Rees
and explain exactly where Rees went wrong. As you know I have
read his and several other books on the subject.
The universe exist and life exist. So, this alone is empirical evidence
that the fundamental constants were, from the beginning, exactly right.
Otherwise, we would _not_ be here to discuss it.
|
So what? That doesn't mean that the universe was created for us. That is
the absurd conclusion that people who failed logic jump to.
Maybe there would be intelligent life if the constants had been
different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
| Quote: |
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijscj5x4i2.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Danwood wrote:
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
Probably that there's not a single iota of evidence for it.
Ok, Cory why don't you take the six constants listed by Martin Rees
and explain exactly where Rees went wrong. As you know I have
read his and several other books on the subject.
|
Then you'll remember where I pointed out to you that Rees only said "An
infinate number of other universes may well exist where the numbers or
different. Most would be still-born or sterile."
Not "all", but "most".
You latch on to Rees's words and incorrectly constrain what he says into
into the idea that *only* our current set of fundamental constants
allows for life to happen, but then you go and reject the idea of
multiple universes.
Why do you agree with what you think Rees is saying on one thing but
then reject what hes says on another thing? Why do you not give both his
opinions equal credence?
| Quote: |
The universe exist and life exist. So, this alone is empirical evidence
that the fundamental constants were, from the beginning, exactly right.
Otherwise, we would _not_ be here to discuss it.
|
No. The polar bear adapts to the Arctic. The Arctic does not adapt to
the polar bear.
In any case, as I have pointed out before, everything you have brought
up by Hawking, Carter and Rees is all speculation. A very high order of
speculation requiring decent education in and understanding of physic
and cosmology, but still speculation nonetheless.
Also, you have have not come up with any actual evidence that life can
only happen with our set of fundamental constants. As I have said
before, the only way I can imagine one could acquire evidence for or
against this claim would be by visiting other universes and surveying
the to determine their constants and whether or not they have life.
However, I did ask you to put forth a method that did not require the
existence of other universes, but you never have.
Can you offer something other than speculation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FST8k.13071$3F5.3778@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1944@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all
other 'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily
so.
An argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is
always present are we here because we were designed for the universe or
are we here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to
evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
If you would have addressed the points in made in my first paragraph we
wouldn't be having this discussion. However, the most compelling( this was
a poor choice of words and I was relieved to see that I used it in
response to your usage) argument against the anthropic coincidences is the
assumption of life as we know it, being the only life.
Your first paragraph was not new. I think I've read just about every |
argument against the anthropic principle ever offered by critics. In
fact, your response was the very thing that motivated me to ask for
opinions regarding the most compelling argument against the A.P..
Cory Albrecht has offered an argument for which I have not been
able to find fault.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:H6b9k.13574$3F5.2995@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FST8k.13071$3F5.3778@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1944@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all
other 'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily
so.
An argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is
always present are we here because we were designed for the universe or
are we here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to
evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
If you would have addressed the points in made in my first paragraph we
wouldn't be having this discussion. However, the most compelling( this
was a poor choice of words and I was relieved to see that I used it in
response to your usage) argument against the anthropic coincidences is
the assumption of life as we know it, being the only life.
Your first paragraph was not new. I think I've read just about every
argument against the anthropic principle ever offered by critics. In
fact, your response was the very thing that motivated me to ask for
opinions regarding the most compelling argument against the A.P..
Cory Albrecht has offered an argument for which I have not been
able to find fault.
|
You haven't found fault with mine. You deny mine but that is what I would
expect from you. The only thing you have done so far is to
deny the weak anthropic principle, which I also expected you to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVT8k.13073$3F5.2218@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ZNE8k.10860$AJ6.10662@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9350c243-3c50-410e-a54f-[snip]
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
Dan
errmmm....Ignorance??
You think ignorance is the most compelling argument against
the Anthropic Principle? I'm surprised.
Actually, are you a big fan of the weak anthropic principle? If not, why?
No, the WAP is simply s passive selection mechanism. IOW our universe |
is one in a infinate number of other universes (multiverses) The weak
anthropic principle is no more than statistical proceedure.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:2l6864prfd977hn59i19vmvhlitknek58j@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:17:34 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
XGE8k.10857$AJ6.6753@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:utn5649vdn1v7fk1dcu42ecugkt35acga0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9420@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote:
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
sigh> Yet another variation of the 'puddle argument'.
The Puddle argument is flawed.
Please explain your claim
The parameters of the pothole makes no difference. It
doesn't matter how deep, what shape or how large
the pot-hole happens to be, the puddle will always find that
it fits perfectly. This is not the case with laws of physics.
The universes existence depends critically upon the
parameters of the Universal constants being precisely
"tuned".
Martin Rees list six constants critical to the universes
existence and life. Had any one been "untuned" there
would be no stars and no life.
Rees, Just Six Numbers, 1999, pg 4
We don't know that those constants have to have happened as they have
happened to end up with a usable universe. Just like the puddle, Rees is
making false assumptions about things well beyond scientific
understanding.
If so, he isn't the only one. But remember the universe itself did not |
have to exist. It is a result of a critical balance, Rees calls it a ratio,
between the force of gravity and the rate of expansion. Had the
expansion rate been slightly greater or gravity slightly weaker the
universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars to form, hydrogen
and helium produced in the big bang would be all there is. Conversely,
if gravity slightly stronger or the expansion rate slightly slower the
universe would have collapsed too early in a big crunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ip6864p9aq4ql7fnn0lp64vk56lj7q3e6q@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:24:07 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1944@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$s77.6549@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Bgv8k.4672$NQ5.4443@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
If this is so then life must be abundant in the universe. One of the
biggest errors in the examination of these constants is that the
assumption is made that if a constant has a different value then all
other
'constant' values will remain the same. This is not necessarily so. An
argument such as this, however, is never settled as the question is
always
present are we here because we were designed for the universe or are we
here because the universe met the conditions which enabled us to evolve.
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
Although the multiverse is an option, I wouldn't say it is the most
compelling.
What would you say was the most compelling argument against
the anthropic principle?
It assumes its conclusion and implicitly multiplies entities needlessly.
Explain please. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
