|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:10:28 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:2l6864prfd977hn59i19vmvhlitknek58j@4ax.com...
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.
|
So? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:11:01 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ip6864p9aq4ql7fnn0lp64vk56lj7q3e6q@4ax.com...
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.
|
Given our current lack of information about all other possible
universes, drawing conclusions about the likelihood of this one is
meaningless. All we know is that we are in it and that it exists, trying
to assert purpose is beyond the scope of our knowledge, so the anthropic
priciple is completely speculative and to a great degree religious. In
explaining the universe, there is no need to assume purposefulness on
the part of the universe, so it also fails on the second part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dkdj5xnia.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
| Quote: |
Danwood wrote:
"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.
To borrow your phrase,"there's not a single iota of evidence" for |
multiverses. As I pointed out to you before, this multiverse is
a science-fiction idea. There is no logical bases for appealing
to science-fiction as a valid objection to observations.
| Quote: |
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?
The constants are real, this is not just _his_ opinion. His multiverses |
are nothing more than supposition.
| 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.
The polar bear did adapt to the Artic because it was there and his ancestors |
migrated there. But, we must first understand how the universe acquired
it's several constants with the just the right values to allow the universe
and stars and glaxies and matter to come into existance before we can
discuss life.
| Quote: |
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.
All admit the "fine Tuning" of the constants seem to be real, but they, as |
scientist are unhappy with this reality. So, they appeal to speculative
universes
and other devices to avoid taking the final step.
| Quote: |
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.
Which is an obvious impossiblity, even if they existed. Assuming |
there are other universes beyond our universe, they would be so
far away that light will not have time to reach us.
| Quote: |
But this is not your best argument, Cory. The argument you advanced |
earlier dealt with "set of constants" was one that I had no answer.
For proof that only the set of constants in place in our universe alone
can permit life to develop, I need to show that other sets of constants
with differing values could not give rise to life.
There is no possible way to address this.
| Quote: |
However, I did ask you to put forth a method that did not require the
existence of other universes, but you never have.
Again if there was only one critical fundamental constant, the odds |
of it having the right value would be one. But where there are
multiple constants, the odds against each and every one of them
having just the right value approaches infinity. It's far more
incrediable than you winning the Lotto 26 times in as many
drawings.
| Quote: |
Can you offer something other than speculation?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:PBd9k.16164$s77.2461@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dkdj5xnia.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Danwood wrote:
"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.
To borrow your phrase,"there's not a single iota of evidence" for
multiverses. As I pointed out to you before, this multiverse is
a science-fiction idea. There is no logical bases for appealing
to science-fiction as a valid objection to observations.
|
I don't know that I would call multiverses science fiction. It may be
something like strings which we may never gather enough evidence to support,
but it isn't totally out of the question. Your buddy Rees even says that
consequences of inflation and other theories of the early universe have
implications which lead to ideas that ours isn't the only universe.
| Quote: |
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?
The constants are real, this is not just _his_ opinion. His multiverses
are nothing more than supposition.
|
The constants are real but they could be something else. As I told you
earlier, and you totally ignored, constants can change without adverse
effects if other values are considered as variable. There are theoretical
physicists and cosmologists who share this wild-ass supposition with Rees.
You share many of the common characteristics with theists, a closed mind.
| 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.
The polar bear did adapt to the Artic because it was there and his
ancestors
migrated there. But, we must first understand how the universe acquired
it's several constants with the just the right values to allow the
universe
and stars and glaxies and matter to come into existance before we can
discuss life.
|
No, the first thing we must do is to determine which constants are real and
which constants can change if other values change with them.
As one physicist states,work done on the initial universe, particularly the
inflation model, show the four fundamental forces were unified. The universe
started in a state of perfect symmetry, the symmetry of 'nothing' from which
it arose. The symmetry was unstable and as the universe cooled, a process
called spontaneous symmetry breaking resulted in the forces separating into
the four basic forces we have today, at much lower energies and their
strengths evolved to their current values. They were not fine-tuned all that
was required was for the symmetry to break.
| Quote: |
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.
All admit the "fine Tuning" of the constants seem to be real, but they, as
scientist are unhappy with this reality. So, they appeal to speculative
universes
and other devices to avoid taking the final step.
|
The "final step"???? Now just what might that be  )))))?
| Quote: |
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.
Which is an obvious impossiblity, even if they existed. Assuming
there are other universes beyond our universe, they would be so
far away that light will not have time to reach us.
|
Every hypothesized universe I have read about as here 'amongst' us.
| Quote: |
But this is not your best argument, Cory. The argument you advanced
earlier dealt with "set of constants" was one that I had no answer.
For proof that only the set of constants in place in our universe alone
can permit life to develop, I need to show that other sets of constants
with differing values could not give rise to life.
There is no possible way to address this.
|
You might attempt computer modeling. Aw shucks, already been done.
Interesting results, however, that would cause a devoted theist to wonder.
| Quote: |
However, I did ask you to put forth a method that did not require the
existence of other universes, but you never have.
Again if there was only one critical fundamental constant, the odds
of it having the right value would be one. But where there are
multiple constants, the odds against each and every one of them
having just the right value approaches infinity. It's far more
incrediable than you winning the Lotto 26 times in as many
drawings.
|
As I have told you, there really aren't that many constants. Try to come up
with a real number for us but remember that 'dimensionless' numbers don't
count.
We are here and the physical world was available for us. I really don't see
getting my knickers in a twist about it. You as an Intelligent Design or
creationist advocate, which ever you are, think you are really on to
something. To show you how little modern cosmology or theoretical physics is
concerned about this, read the indexes of books from these areas of science
and see how much attention is devoted to this area.
Your biggest problem before you can go running down the streets screaming,
"gawd did it", is to show that he did. You ca n start by explaining why this
universe that is so finely-tuned for life appears to have so little. Many
times probabilities are given for this fine-tuning with attention to divine
design. The resulting numbers cry 'goddidit', until you compare the
probabilities that 'goddidit with naturalistic probabilities. Then god
doesn't loom so large. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9420@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote:
The laws of physics (constants) are such as to permit the
rise of life. IOW the physical constants have been found
to be precisely tuned at the values that are necessary for
the rise, order and the sustaining of life. Is this just a series
of incrediable coincidence or is it the result of "fine tuning"?
There is compelling evidence for the idea that the universes
physical constants are fine tuned. However, several arguments
have been raised against this. Perhaps the most compelling is
the argument that there could very well be an infinite number
of other universes where the constants are different. Then
it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe with
the right combinations to permit the rise of life.
sigh> Yet another variation of the 'puddle argument'.
The Puddle argument is flawed.
Please explain your claim
|
Dan isn't worth bothering with. No matter how often you correct him,
he'll be back a few weeks later spouting the same old drivel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry k
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Jun 28, 9:41 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:61pa64h3rms677b2qqd1ki8bj9v8lce5e4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:11:01 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ip6864p9aq4ql7fnn0lp64vk56lj7q3e6q@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:24:07 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"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?
It assumes its conclusion and implicitly multiplies entities needlessly.
Explain please.
Given our current lack of information about all other possible
universes, drawing conclusions about the likelihood of this one is
meaningless.
The only universe we know anything about is the univere we reside in.
Invoking other universes, (multiverses) is nothing more than an escape.
a fortress to seek refuge.
Paul Davies recognized this when he pointed out. "Unhappy that
fine-tuning of the laws of physics smacked of some sort of devine
design, they (atheistic scientist) seized on the multiverse as a neat
explanation for the uncanny bio-frendliness of the universe. So,
confusingly, the anthropic principle came to be seen, at one and
the same time as both a scientific alternative and a quasi-religious
theory.
All we know is that we are in it and that it exists, trying> to assert purpose is beyond the scope of our knowledge, so the anthropic
priciple is completely speculative and to a great degree religious. In
explaining the universe, there is no need to assume purposefulness on
the part of the universe, so it also fails on the second part.
Actually, the parameters of each of the constants is precisely
what is needed in order for the universe to have emerged and
develop living organisms.
This _is_ fine tuning. Perhaps, there is an alternative, but turning
to science-fiction universes as a way out, is not it.
Danwood- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Still refusing to look at it from "life fine tuned to fit the
conditions" I see. But then that would cause a shock to your belief
system.
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:61pa64h3rms677b2qqd1ki8bj9v8lce5e4@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:11:01 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ip6864p9aq4ql7fnn0lp64vk56lj7q3e6q@4ax.com...
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.
Given our current lack of information about all other possible
universes, drawing conclusions about the likelihood of this one is
meaningless.
The only universe we know anything about is the univere we reside in. |
Invoking other universes, (multiverses) is nothing more than an escape.
a fortress to seek refuge.
Paul Davies recognized this when he pointed out. "Unhappy that
fine-tuning of the laws of physics smacked of some sort of devine
design, they (atheistic scientist) seized on the multiverse as a neat
explanation for the uncanny bio-frendliness of the universe. So,
confusingly, the anthropic principle came to be seen, at one and
the same time as both a scientific alternative and a quasi-religious
theory.
| Quote: |
All we know is that we are in it and that it exists, trying
to assert purpose is beyond the scope of our knowledge, so the anthropic
priciple is completely speculative and to a great degree religious. In
explaining the universe, there is no need to assume purposefulness on
the part of the universe, so it also fails on the second part.
Actually, the parameters of each of the constants is precisely |
what is needed in order for the universe to have emerged and
develop living organisms.
This _is_ fine tuning. Perhaps, there is an alternative, but turning
to science-fiction universes as a way out, is not it.
Danwood |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:41:53 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:61pa64h3rms677b2qqd1ki8bj9v8lce5e4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:11:01 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ip6864p9aq4ql7fnn0lp64vk56lj7q3e6q@4ax.com...
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.
Given our current lack of information about all other possible
universes, drawing conclusions about the likelihood of this one is
meaningless.
The only universe we know anything about is the univere we reside in.
Invoking other universes, (multiverses) is nothing more than an escape.
a fortress to seek refuge.
|
I didn't invoke a multiverse.
| Quote: |
Paul Davies recognized this when he pointed out. "Unhappy that
fine-tuning of the laws of physics smacked of some sort of devine
design, they (atheistic scientist) seized on the multiverse as a neat
explanation for the uncanny bio-frendliness of the universe. So,
confusingly, the anthropic principle came to be seen, at one and
the same time as both a scientific alternative and a quasi-religious
theory.
|
All he has to do is show that it is possible for there to be other
constants. Until he does, he's the one looking for refuge is silly
speculation.
| Quote: |
All we know is that we are in it and that it exists, trying
to assert purpose is beyond the scope of our knowledge, so the anthropic
priciple is completely speculative and to a great degree religious. In
explaining the universe, there is no need to assume purposefulness on
the part of the universe, so it also fails on the second part.
Actually, the parameters of each of the constants is precisely
what is needed in order for the universe to have emerged and
develop living organisms.
|
Please provide the evidence and show us who did the work.
| Quote: |
This _is_ fine tuning. Perhaps, there is an alternative, but turning
to science-fiction universes as a way out, is not it.
|
I wasn't, so your argument appears to be an attempt to avoid the
problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:55 -0700 (PDT), harry k
<turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 9:41 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:61pa64h3rms677b2qqd1ki8bj9v8lce5e4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:11:01 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ip6864p9aq4ql7fnn0lp64vk56lj7q3e6q@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:24:07 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
QUD8k.10837$AJ6.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8B8k.15080$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?
It assumes its conclusion and implicitly multiplies entities needlessly.
Explain please.
Given our current lack of information about all other possible
universes, drawing conclusions about the likelihood of this one is
meaningless.
The only universe we know anything about is the univere we reside in.
Invoking other universes, (multiverses) is nothing more than an escape.
a fortress to seek refuge.
Paul Davies recognized this when he pointed out. "Unhappy that
fine-tuning of the laws of physics smacked of some sort of devine
design, they (atheistic scientist) seized on the multiverse as a neat
explanation for the uncanny bio-frendliness of the universe. So,
confusingly, the anthropic principle came to be seen, at one and
the same time as both a scientific alternative and a quasi-religious
theory.
All we know is that we are in it and that it exists, trying> to assert purpose is beyond the scope of our knowledge, so the anthropic
priciple is completely speculative and to a great degree religious. In
explaining the universe, there is no need to assume purposefulness on
the part of the universe, so it also fails on the second part.
Actually, the parameters of each of the constants is precisely
what is needed in order for the universe to have emerged and
develop living organisms.
This _is_ fine tuning. Perhaps, there is an alternative, but turning
to science-fiction universes as a way out, is not it.
Danwood- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Still refusing to look at it from "life fine tuned to fit the
conditions" I see. But then that would cause a shock to your belief
system.
|
But he goes a step further and claims the universe could not possibly
have existed at all if it didn't fit this magical tuning. No evidence is
provided or even deemed necessary since in Dan's mind, Dan is always
correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:23 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:4dkdj5xnia.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Danwood wrote:
"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.
To borrow your phrase,"there's not a single iota of evidence" for
multiverses. As I pointed out to you before, this multiverse is
a science-fiction idea. There is no logical bases for appealing
to science-fiction as a valid objection to observations.
|
So then the question still remains - why do you reject Rees's obvious
acceptance of multiple universes yet accept what he says about fine
tuning if neither one has any evidence?
| Quote: |
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?
The constants are real, this is not just _his_ opinion. His multiverses
are nothing more than supposition.
|
Then also what Rees says on fine tuning is nothing more than
supposition. So why do you accept one supposition but not the other?
| 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.
The polar bear did adapt to the Artic because it was there and his ancestors
migrated there. But, we must first understand how the universe acquired
it's several constants with the just the right values to allow the universe
and stars and glaxies and matter to come into existance before we can
discuss life.
|
Like the Arctic was there before the polar bear, the universe was here
before there was life, so this seems like nothing more than attempt to
avoid. Or do you also contend that we need to do a complete geophysical
analysis of how continental drift created the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago and that we determine how Milankovitch Cycles and
continental drift affect Arctic climate before we study polar bear
evolution?
| Quote: |
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.
All admit the "fine Tuning" of the constants seem to be real, but they, as
scientist are unhappy with this reality. So, they appeal to speculative
universes
and other devices to avoid taking the final step.
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.
Which is an obvious impossiblity, even if they existed. Assuming
there are other universes beyond our universe, they would be so
far away that light will not have time to reach us.
But this is not your best argument, Cory. The argument you advanced
earlier dealt with "set of constants" was one that I had no answer.
For proof that only the set of constants in place in our universe alone
can permit life to develop, I need to show that other sets of constants
with differing values could not give rise to life.
|
And how, pray tell, would you propose to show that without access to
multiple universes?
Again - why do you accept what Rees says about fine tuning but reject
what he says about multiple universes? Why are you inconsistent about this?
| Quote: |
There is no possible way to address this.
However, I did ask you to put forth a method that did not require the
existence of other universes, but you never have.
Again if there was only one critical fundamental constant, the odds
of it having the right value would be one. But where there are
multiple constants, the odds against each and every one of them
having just the right value approaches infinity. It's far more
incrediable than you winning the Lotto 26 times in as many
drawings.
|
And if I shuffled a deck of cards and dealt you all 52 cards at once the
chance of that order of cards is 1 in 52! or approximately 1 in
8.06*10^67 - an amazingly small chance, yet it still happened.
| Quote: |
Can you offer something other than speculation?
|
So? Can you offer something other than speculation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3mfij5xouh.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
| Quote: |
Danwood wrote:
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dkdj5xnia.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Danwood wrote:
"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.
To borrow your phrase,"there's not a single iota of evidence" for
multiverses. As I pointed out to you before, this multiverse is
a science-fiction idea. There is no logical bases for appealing
to science-fiction as a valid objection to observations.
So then the question still remains - why do you reject Rees's obvious
acceptance of multiple universes yet accept what he says about fine
tuning if neither one has any evidence?
Rees affirms that this tuning is a _brute fact_ or a _coincidence_. |
OTOH, he says he doesn't accept either. He isn't happy with either
choice. He continues by stating, that "an infinity of other universes
_might_ well_ exist where the numbers or different".
| Quote: |
I think Rees is being cautious. However, his comment _might_ well_ |
exist, pertaining to other universe doesn't have the same import of a
brute fact or a coincidence. There is no question, in his mind that
fine tuning is real - of this he is confident "An infinity of other
universes" might well exist, is no where near the same level of
confidence.
| Quote: |
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?
The constants are real, this is not just _his_ opinion. His multiverses
are nothing more than supposition.
Then also what Rees says on fine tuning is nothing more than
supposition. So why do you accept one supposition but not the other?
This is your intrepretation of Rees statements - unjustified, because |
nowhere
does Rees make the claim that fine tuning is supposition.
| 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.
The polar bear did adapt to the Arctic because it was there and his
ancestors migrated there. But, we must first understand how the
universe acquired it's several constants with the just the right
values to allow the universe and stars and glaxies and matter
to come into existance before we can discuss life.
Like the Arctic was there before the polar bear, the universe was here
before there was life, so this seems like nothing more than attempt to
avoid. Or do you also contend that we need to do a complete geophysical
analysis of how continental drift created the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago and that we determine how Milankovitch Cycles and
continental drift affect Arctic climate before we study polar bear
evolution?
No, you begin with a universe, a habitable planet and an Arctic region. |
And once you have such a world, it's possible for life to adapt to it's
enviroment whether it's the Arctic, the deep oceanic sulpher vents or the
mountain islands of South America. But the universe had to have a
beginning with the "right" numbers embeded at the beginning.
This was not the case with the polar bear and the Arctic.
| Quote: |
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.
All admit the "fine Tuning" of the constants seem to be real, but they,
as
scientist are unhappy with this reality. So, they appeal to speculative
universes
and other devices to avoid taking the final step.
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.
Which is an obvious impossiblity, even if they existed. Assuming
there are other universes beyond our universe, they would be so
far away that light will not have time to reach us.
But this is not your best argument, Cory. The argument you advanced
earlier dealt with "set of constants" was one that I had no answer.
For proof that only the set of constants in place in our universe alone
can permit life to develop, I need to show that other sets of constants
with differing values could not give rise to life.
And how, pray tell, would you propose to show that without access to
multiple universes?
As you know it's impossible to search infinite numbers of possible |
universes. You have ensconced yourself in an impenetrable defense.
And this makes your mind inaccessible to new ideas and new facts.
Again this defense makes it a discussion killer.
An analogy, I may believe that life exist _only_ on Earth. Your
response might be: how pray tell would you propose to prove this
without going to every planet in the universe and searching every
nook and craney in the universe to find life. It's impossible!
It's illogical demand.
| Quote: |
Again - why do you accept what Rees says about fine tuning but reject
what he says about multiple universes? Why are you inconsistent about
this?
You fail to understand that his infinate multiple universes _is_ his |
escape from the unacceptable reality of a fine tuned universe.
| Quote: |
There is no possible way to address this.
However, I did ask you to put forth a method that did not require the
existence of other universes, but you never have.
Again if there was only one critical fundamental constant, the odds
of it having the right value would be one. But where there are
multiple constants, the odds against each and every one of them
having just the right value approaches infinity. It's far more
incrediable than you winning the Lotto 26 times in as many
drawings.
And if I shuffled a deck of cards and dealt you all 52 cards at once the
chance of that order of cards is 1 in 52! or approximately 1 in
8.06*10^67 - an amazingly small chance, yet it still happened.
Yes, but this "order" of cards could be in any random sequence |
of numbers in suits. Consequently, nothing special about this hand.
Ok, but reshuffled the deck and deal it out again, what is the
chance that that exact same sequence of cards will happen again?
And do this six times in secession and each time the cards dealt
are the exact same sequence. If this happened I would suspect
intelligence behind either the "shuffling" or the dealing.
Likewise, the number of just one constant have any given value
is nothing special. But when six and even more have the right
values, this explains why I'm convinced an intelligence is behind
the numbers that conspired to create our universe.
| Quote: |
Can you offer something other than speculation?
So? Can you offer something other than speculation?
|
The numbers are not speculative they are known. Where the
problem comes in is explaining why the numbers are just
right to express for a universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAg9k.16245$s77.14326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:PBd9k.16164$s77.2461@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dkdj5xnia.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Danwood wrote:
"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.
To borrow your phrase,"there's not a single iota of evidence" for
multiverses. As I pointed out to you before, this multiverse is
a science-fiction idea. There is no logical bases for appealing
to science-fiction as a valid objection to observations.
I don't know that I would call multiverses science fiction. It may be
something like strings which we may never gather enough evidence to
support,
but it isn't totally out of the question. Your buddy Rees even says that
consequences of inflation and other theories of the early universe have
implications which lead to ideas that ours isn't the only universe.
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?
The constants are real, this is not just _his_ opinion. His multiverses
are nothing more than supposition.
The constants are real but they could be something else. As I told you
earlier, and you totally ignored, constants can change without adverse
effects if other values are considered as variable. There are theoretical
physicists and cosmologists who share this wild-ass supposition with Rees.
You share many of the common characteristics with theists, a closed mind.
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.
The polar bear did adapt to the Artic because it was there and his
ancestors
migrated there. But, we must first understand how the universe acquired
it's several constants with the just the right values to allow the
universe
and stars and glaxies and matter to come into existance before we can
discuss life.
No, the first thing we must do is to determine which constants are real
and which constants can change if other values change with them.
As one physicist states,work done on the initial universe, particularly
the inflation model, show the four fundamental forces were unified. The
universe started in a state of perfect symmetry, the symmetry of 'nothing'
from which it arose. The symmetry was unstable and as the universe cooled,
a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking resulted in the forces
separating into the four basic forces we have today, at much lower
energies and their strengths evolved to their current values. They were
not fine-tuned all that was required was for the symmetry to break.
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.
All admit the "fine Tuning" of the constants seem to be real, but they,
as
scientist are unhappy with this reality. So, they appeal to speculative
universes
and other devices to avoid taking the final step.
The "final step"???? Now just what might that be )))))?
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.
Which is an obvious impossiblity, even if they existed. Assuming
there are other universes beyond our universe, they would be so
far away that light will not have time to reach us.
Every hypothesized universe I have read about as here 'amongst' us.
But this is not your best argument, Cory. The argument you advanced
earlier dealt with "set of constants" was one that I had no answer.
For proof that only the set of constants in place in our universe alone
can permit life to develop, I need to show that other sets of constants
with differing values could not give rise to life.
There is no possible way to address this.
You might attempt computer modeling. Aw shucks, already been done.
Interesting results, however, that would cause a devoted theist to wonder.
However, I did ask you to put forth a method that did not require the
existence of other universes, but you never have.
Again if there was only one critical fundamental constant, the odds
of it having the right value would be one. But where there are
multiple constants, the odds against each and every one of them
having just the right value approaches infinity. It's far more
incrediable than you winning the Lotto 26 times in as many
drawings.
As I have told you, there really aren't that many constants. Try to come
up with a real number for us but remember that 'dimensionless' numbers
don't count.
We are here and the physical world was available for us. I really don't
see getting my knickers in a twist about it. You as an Intelligent Design
or creationist advocate, which ever you are, think you are really on to
something. To show you how little modern cosmology or theoretical physics
is concerned about this, read the indexes of books from these areas of
science and see how much attention is devoted to this area.
Your biggest problem before you can go running down the streets screaming,
"gawd did it", is to show that he did. You ca n start by explaining why
this universe that is so finely-tuned for life appears to have so little.
Many times probabilities are given for this fine-tuning with attention to
divine design. The resulting numbers cry 'goddidit', until you compare the
probabilities that 'goddidit with naturalistic probabilities. Then god
doesn't loom so large.
I think the is just a hope that Rees harbors.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
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
Dan isn't worth bothering with. No matter how often you correct him,
You are totally arrogant and without any source or authority to |
backup your arrogance.
| Quote: |
he'll be back a few weeks later spouting the same old drivel.
If you don't speak the language, it sounds to you like drivel.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
