|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Danwood
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:55 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
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
<snip for brevity>
| Quote: |
Are you aware that computer modeling is and has been done in this area?
I recall reading something about this in a Scientific American.
The results of these show that other sets of constants, when varied
together, will create a universe that could house life as we know it.
Can you reference this? I would appreciate the info.
|
I'll give it a shot. At my advanced age, unless I read it yesterday or
sooner, it goes into the mush that used to be my brain  .
Much later: here is a short explanation of what he is attempting to show:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/31/initiative_will_join_physics_theology/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news: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?
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.
|
If there is an answer it might come from this group:
http://fqxi.org/who |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:kdsl64hnemujrpuqes85ibngg44isamctq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:00:19 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
i5Cak.18568$3F5.8822@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$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?
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.
I don't agree with your reading of what they said.
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
|
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
| Quote: |
Thanks,
Mr. Free (I suspect your name is John Free)
No, I took it to mock the Reagan and Bush deficits and their destructive |
tax cuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpSak.9360$CC.5745@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
snip for brevity
Are you aware that computer modeling is and has been done in this
area?
I recall reading something about this in a Scientific American.
The results of these show that other sets of constants, when varied
together, will create a universe that could house life as we know it.
Can you reference this? I would appreciate the info.
I'll give it a shot. At my advanced age, unless I read it yesterday or
sooner, it goes into the mush that used to be my brain .
Much later: here is a short explanation of what he is attempting to show:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/31/initiative_will_join_physics_theology/
I carefully read this article. It was interesting, but I could not |
find within the article where it stated that "other sets of constants,
when varied together will create a universe that could house life
as we know it".
Indeed, the article wrestled with whether or not constants could
vary over time.
Scientist have been able to trace back events in the development
of the universe up to Planck Time 10^-43sec after the big bang.
Consequently, we know that the laws of physics are constants
back to this point in time. However, scientist are unable to push
the laws of physics any further back in time beyond Planck TIme.
Danwood
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OqSak.9362$CC.2769@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:i5Cak.18568$3F5.8822@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$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?
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.
If there is an answer it might come from this group:
http://fqxi.org/who
This is good - thanks for the site.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:kdsl64hnemujrpuqes85ibngg44isamctq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:00:19 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
i5Cak.18568$3F5.8822@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$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?
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.
I don't agree with your reading of what they said.
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors |
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
| Quote: |
Thanks,
Mr. Free (I suspect your name is John Free)
No, I took it to mock the Reagan and Bush deficits and their destructive
tax cuts.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3509721-213c-4d9a-870c-6dc4176e1ab4@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 8:00 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$AJ6.3...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@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.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
And here I though you were arguing that the constants were fine tuned
so that life would arise. The persons you are quoting did not even
come close to claiming that.
| Quote: |
If you have read my post, surely you realize that I have not |
attributed this to any of my writers. Indeed, I have complained
that they sought to avoid drawing conclusions from the facts
they have presented. Instead they have offered numerous
"excapes".
Harry K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:21:43 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"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.
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.
|
I take it that you are posting to your self. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:40 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
|
....
| Quote: |
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
|
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
| Quote: |
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
|
We have no idea what choices exist.
| Quote: |
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
|
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:41 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:37:10 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3509721-213c-4d9a-870c-6dc4176e1ab4@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 8:00 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$AJ6.3...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@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.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And here I though you were arguing that the constants were fine tuned
so that life would arise. The persons you are quoting did not even
come close to claiming that.
If you have read my post, surely you realize that I have not
attributed this to any of my writers. Indeed, I have complained
that they sought to avoid drawing conclusions from the facts
they have presented. Instead they have offered numerous
"excapes".
|
Yes, you argue that they had to have supported your teleological
explanation if they would only be 'honest'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:22 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was |
in no way certain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:8clq6453tb2jvoss3h9pllre8b7kk1n83e@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:37:10 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3509721-213c-4d9a-870c-6dc4176e1ab4@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 8:00 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q0il64570caim9q33hma5upnqs4l0mfkjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:37:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
e6sak.16435$AJ6.3...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd6ea22e-219c-4b0b-a993-542e1ecd1d1b@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 7:26 am, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67aa82f9-309b-434a-ad9f-60e3c0aced8b@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 5:02 pm, "Danwood" <drw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OTaak.17427$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.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And here I though you were arguing that the constants were fine tuned
so that life would arise. The persons you are quoting did not even
come close to claiming that.
If you have read my post, surely you realize that I have not
attributed this to any of my writers. Indeed, I have complained
that they sought to avoid drawing conclusions from the facts
they have presented. Instead they have offered numerous
"excapes".
Yes, you argue that they had to have supported your teleological
explanation if they would only be 'honest'.
They refused to go there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed |
under the circumstances that do exist. You cannot draw any conclusions
about those circumstances just because life exists. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
