|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
harry k
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:41 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
On Jun 30, 5:02 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$Xe.14658@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_F7ak.15837$AJ6.12413@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood" <drw...@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.
And you aren't?
Just you. You cannot give references for your views and you are
not an authority on anything, as far as I can tell.
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.
Which language is that, Dan, the language of religion?
You are claiming that astronomy and the views of Rees, Hawking
Wheeler, Davies are religious. I challenge you to show where I
have defended religion. I suspect you views, whatever they are
is anti-religion based.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Anti-religion or no, his views at least match reality and don't have
to be filtered through 'beliefs'.
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$Xe.14658@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_F7ak.15837$AJ6.12413@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$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.
And you aren't?
Just you. You cannot give references for your views and you are |
not an authority on anything, as far as I can tell.
| 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.
Which language is that, Dan, the language of religion?
You are claiming that astronomy and the views of Rees, Hawking |
Wheeler, Davies are religious. I challenge you to show where I
have defended religion. I suspect you views, whatever they are
is anti-religion based.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Kpeak.24888$s77.12648@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$Xe.14658@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_F7ak.15837$AJ6.12413@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$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.
And you aren't?
Just you. You cannot give references for your views and you are
not an authority on anything, as far as I can tell.
|
Yes, I know that as a dentist you are a cracker jack physicists. At least I
have taken enough physics courses to understand what I read. I give
references for my views if asked. For many of my positions I have melded
those of many scientists and would have to search for an exact quote or
source. When asked I can direct you to a book from my library.
| 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.
Which language is that, Dan, the language of religion?
You are claiming that astronomy and the views of Rees, Hawking
Wheeler, Davies are religious.
|
No I'm not. I only asked a question. I have books by Hawking, Wheeler and
Davies. I have several writings by Rees in some of my books, one of which I
think I used not too long ago.
| Quote: |
I challenge you to show where I
have defended religion. I suspect you views, whatever they are
is anti-religion based.
|
Dan, whether or not you defended religion anyone in these groups knows your
views on religion. Too needle you occasionally makes this exchange
worthwhile. For example, you have evidently purchased a book by Rees and are
now using it as a bible. I learned many years ago to never stake my position
on one person's point of view, even if that person is an expert in the
field. Experts disagree a lot and it is best to understand the principle
involved and the ideas of several qualified persons. My replies to you
concerning the 'fine tuning' have all come from my general knowledge and
certain readings from various experts in the field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dbaak.17404$Xe.15752@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB7ak.15835$AJ6.3899@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAg9k.16245$s77.14326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:PBd9k.16164$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 would take you more serious, Ralph if you really had something to |
say. But in the time I have dealt with you, and gone into detail with you
regarding issues you have raised. You inevitable respond with personal
insults and attacks. I don't need this, and I don't chose to feed your
complexes.
I find you a loathing character. So I have generally taken to ignoring
you.
you've had nothing of value to offer. I have not
inject a specific god or a specific religion into this discussion. I have
no idea as to the identity of the intellect that "tuned the paramentser
You cannot get it through your thick skull that whoever disagrees
with you doesn't have religious motivations. I draw my conclusions
based upon the writings of reputable scientist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8bfak.24911$s77.5503@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dbaak.17404$Xe.15752@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB7ak.15835$AJ6.3899@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAg9k.16245$s77.14326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"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 would take you more serious, Ralph if you really had something to
say. But in the time I have dealt with you, and gone into detail with you
regarding issues you have raised. You inevitable respond with personal
insults and attacks. I don't need this, and I don't chose to feed your
complexes.
I find you a loathing character. So I have generally taken to ignoring
you.
you've had nothing of value to offer. I have not
inject a specific god or a specific religion into this discussion. I have
no idea as to the identity of the intellect that "tuned the paramentser
You cannot get it through your thick skull that whoever disagrees
with you doesn't have religious motivations. I draw my conclusions
based upon the writings of reputable scientist.
|
I did offer something but you ignored it as you have every time I called
you.
For example:
| Quote: |
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 )))))?
|
I wanted to know what the final step was. Of course you can see why, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8bfak.24911$s77.5503@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dbaak.17404$Xe.15752@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB7ak.15835$AJ6.3899@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAg9k.16245$s77.14326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:PBd9k.16164$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 would take you more serious, Ralph if you really had something to
say. But in the time I have dealt with you, and gone into detail with you
regarding issues you have raised. You inevitable respond with personal
insults and attacks. I don't need this, and I don't chose to feed your
complexes.
I find you a loathing character. So I have generally taken to ignoring
you.
you've had nothing of value to offer. I have not
inject a specific god or a specific religion into this discussion. I have
no idea as to the identity of the intellect that "tuned the paramentser
You cannot get it through your thick skull that whoever disagrees
with you doesn't have religious motivations. I draw my conclusions
based upon the writings of reputable scientist.
|
For example you never made a comment on the variance of these 'constant'
values:
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.
You also didn't comment on this:
But this is not your best argument, Cory. The argument you advanced
| Quote: |
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.
Me: You might attempt computer modeling. Aw shucks, already been done. |
Interesting results, however, that would cause a devoted theist to
wonder.
Are you aware that computer modeling is and has been done in this area? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5_qak.14842$LL4.7921@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aqfak.6185$CC.1814@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8bfak.24911$s77.5503@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dbaak.17404$Xe.15752@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB7ak.15835$AJ6.3899@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAg9k.16245$s77.14326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"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 would take you more serious, Ralph if you really had something to
say. But in the time I have dealt with you, and gone into detail with
you
regarding issues you have raised. You inevitable respond with personal
insults and attacks. I don't need this, and I don't chose to feed your
complexes.
I find you a loathing character. So I have generally taken to ignoring
you.
you've had nothing of value to offer. I have not
inject a specific god or a specific religion into this discussion. I
have
no idea as to the identity of the intellect that "tuned the paramentser
You cannot get it through your thick skull that whoever disagrees
with you doesn't have religious motivations. I draw my conclusions
based upon the writings of reputable scientist.
For example you never made a comment on the variance of these 'constant'
values:
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.
If the constants were set at the moment of the big bang, then one would
expect them to be immutiable. There is no reason to think the values
have changed or could change. However, there is no reason to think
they could not have been set differently at the big bang.
|
Only mentioned becasue it shows that the values w ehave in the universe can
be difference and we would still wind up with the same universe. I'm not
saying they did or didn't change.
| Quote: |
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.
Funny, I think this about you! I have changed my mind. A few years ago
I didn't care about any of this. I didn't know and didn't think it
important.
I still don't know, but I do think that some intelligence is behind the
"fine tuning". Who or what I have no idea and make no claims regarding
this.
|
Ever read Behe, Dembski, Johnson or any of the other ID writers?
| Quote: |
You also didn't comment on this:
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.
Me: You might attempt computer modeling. Aw shucks, already been done.
Interesting results, however, that would cause a devoted theist to
wonder.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pdxak.15012$LL4.10235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5_qak.14842$LL4.7921@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aqfak.6185$CC.1814@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8bfak.24911$s77.5503@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dbaak.17404$Xe.15752@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB7ak.15835$AJ6.3899@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAg9k.16245$s77.14326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"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 would take you more serious, Ralph if you really had something to
say. But in the time I have dealt with you, and gone into detail with
you
regarding issues you have raised. You inevitable respond with personal
insults and attacks. I don't need this, and I don't chose to feed your
complexes.
I find you a loathing character. So I have generally taken to ignoring
you.
you've had nothing of value to offer. I have not
inject a specific god or a specific religion into this discussion. I
have
no idea as to the identity of the intellect that "tuned the paramentser
You cannot get it through your thick skull that whoever disagrees
with you doesn't have religious motivations. I draw my conclusions
based upon the writings of reputable scientist.
For example you never made a comment on the variance of these 'constant'
values:
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.
If the constants were set at the moment of the big bang, then one would
expect them to be immutiable. There is no reason to think the values
have changed or could change. However, there is no reason to think
they could not have been set differently at the big bang.
Only mentioned becasue it shows that the values w ehave in the universe
can be difference and we would still wind up with the same universe. I'm
not saying they did or didn't change.
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.
Funny, I think this about you! I have changed my mind. A few years ago
I didn't care about any of this. I didn't know and didn't think it
important.
I still don't know, but I do think that some intelligence is behind the
"fine tuning". Who or what I have no idea and make no claims regarding
this.
Ever read Behe, Dembski, Johnson or any of the other ID writers?
No, I once thumbed through Behe, but never Dimbski or Johnson |
or any other such writer. I have read Wheeler, Barrow and Tipler,
Carter, Rees Hawking and Davies to name but a few.
| Quote: |
You also didn't comment on this:
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.
Me: You might attempt computer modeling. Aw shucks, already been done.
Interesting results, however, that would cause a devoted theist to
wonder.
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.
Which constants could change and house life?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<e6sak.16435$AJ6.3997@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd6ea22e-219c-4b0b-a993-542e1ecd1d1b@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 7:26 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67aa82f9-309b-434a-ad9f-60e3c0aced8b@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 5:02 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$Xe.14658@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_F7ak.15837$AJ6.12413@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch
lu...@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@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.
And you aren't?
Just you. You cannot give references for your views and you are
not an authority on anything, as far as I can tell.
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.
Which language is that, Dan, the language of religion?
You are claiming that astronomy and the views of Rees, Hawking
Wheeler, Davies are religious. I challenge you to show where I
have defended religion. I suspect you views, whatever they are
is anti-religion based.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anti-religion or no, his views at least match reality and don't have
to be filtered through 'beliefs'.
And what beliefs might that be? You know nothing about my
beliefs or lack there of. Yet, you have no compuncture about
speaking out in ignorance.
Harry K- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Quite true but the old adage..."If it walks like, looks like, quacks
like..." The only people pushing the 'fine tuned' bit I have seen are
creationists.
Then you should have no problem showing that Brandon Carter,
Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, who were the first to
advocate the Anthropic Principle were creationist. Also,
John Wheeler, Martin Rees and Paul Davies were creationist.
|
Please show us where any of them advocated a teleological version of an
anthropic principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$AJ6.3997@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd6ea22e-219c-4b0b-a993-542e1ecd1d1b@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 7:26 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67aa82f9-309b-434a-ad9f-60e3c0aced8b@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 5:02 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$Xe.14658@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_F7ak.15837$AJ6.12413@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch
lu...@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@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.
And you aren't?
Just you. You cannot give references for your views and you are
not an authority on anything, as far as I can tell.
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.
Which language is that, Dan, the language of religion?
You are claiming that astronomy and the views of Rees, Hawking
Wheeler, Davies are religious. I challenge you to show where I
have defended religion. I suspect you views, whatever they are
is anti-religion based.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anti-religion or no, his views at least match reality and don't have
to be filtered through 'beliefs'.
And what beliefs might that be? You know nothing about my
beliefs or lack there of. Yet, you have no compuncture about
speaking out in ignorance.
Harry K- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Quite true but the old adage..."If it walks like, looks like, quacks
like..." The only people pushing the 'fine tuned' bit I have seen are
creationists.
Then you should have no problem showing that Brandon Carter,
Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, who were the first to
advocate the Anthropic Principle were creationist. Also,
John Wheeler, Martin Rees and Paul Davies were creationist.
Please show us where any of them advocated a teleological version of an
anthropic principle.
They all were proponents of the anthropic principle which they |
all accepted and wrote about. Not one of them ventured an
explanation as to how the fundamental constants came to have
the precise values required for the universe to emerge. I think the
matter begs for an explanation. But one has yet to come forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:00:19 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<i5Cak.18568$3F5.8822@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$AJ6.3997@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd6ea22e-219c-4b0b-a993-542e1ecd1d1b@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 7:26 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67aa82f9-309b-434a-ad9f-60e3c0aced8b@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 5:02 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$Xe.14658@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_F7ak.15837$AJ6.12413@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bhcc641qpboknvgprmltmvgisrkr8pm0qm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:11 -0500, Free Lunch
lu...@nofreelunch.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:08:21 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
71B8k.15076$s77.9...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:c21564dtbauk3oraethrtd11gt5lmtiv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:34:51 -0400, "Danwood"
drw...@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.
And you aren't?
< | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
