|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Danwood
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:s73r64pacr69pbuj6virmlaaops2apn0t3@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:23:47 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:8clq6453tb2jvoss3h9pllre8b7kk1n83e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:37:10 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
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.
Because they knew the limitations of knowledge. Ignorant speculation is
not evidence that there is a purpose to the universe, no matter how many
times religionists claim otherwise.
No, it's called "refusal to speculate. This occurs when the obvious |
conclusion seems to fall outside their worldview. This happened to
Einstein when his general theory of relativity seemed to point to an
expanding universe and not to the conventional static universe that
he thought to be the case. He altered his formula to reflect a static
universe. After his "error" was discovered afterwards by
Alexander Friedmann, he called this the biggest blunder of his career. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars |
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
You cannot draw any conclusions
| Quote: |
about those circumstances just because life exists.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
|
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
>You cannot draw any conclusions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising |
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
| Quote: |
You cannot draw any conclusions
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:16:25 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
|
So, explain to me what sort of experiment you have in mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uDubk.16912$LL4.6370@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just
as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
|
Again Dan, the 'fined tuned' constants are only fine-tuned if the universe
has someone to observe them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IUwbk.17343$NQ5.9208@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uDubk.16912$LL4.6370@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just
as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
Again Dan, the 'fined tuned' constants are only fine-tuned if the universe
has someone to observe them.
John Leslie addressed this objection by an example. You are to be |
executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, You hear the
command to fire, and the sounds of the guns, then silence; you are
not dead, you hear silence. All the marksman missed!
But had they not missed you wouldn't be here to ponder your good
fortune. (don't recall his exact words, but this is the gist of his
statement.)
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:rj5t64t0be3qlgsrhgh8m70iolrpkmolng@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:16:25 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just
as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
So, explain to me what sort of experiment you have in mind.
I'm not a scientist. But if the exact values of the two dozen or |
so constants are known, Scientist should be able to figure the
odds for any of the constants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:16:38 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:rj5t64t0be3qlgsrhgh8m70iolrpkmolng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:16:25 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just
as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
So, explain to me what sort of experiment you have in mind.
I'm not a scientist. But if the exact values of the two dozen or
so constants are known, Scientist should be able to figure the
odds for any of the constants.
Why? What causes you to think that there are other possible constants? |
How do you determine that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:15 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 07:16 PM:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:rj5t64t0be3qlgsrhgh8m70iolrpkmolng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:16:25 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
So, explain to me what sort of experiment you have in mind.
I'm not a scientist. But if the exact values of the two dozen or
so constants are known, Scientist should be able to figure the
odds for any of the constants.
|
How?
How will they figure out these odds without access to alternate universes?
Your sample size is still one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ipdt641qiegrnpfjg1imq08m6cgas4t4c7@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:16:38 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:rj5t64t0be3qlgsrhgh8m70iolrpkmolng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:16:25 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood"
drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their
interaction
is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you,
just
as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no
stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what
conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
So, explain to me what sort of experiment you have in mind.
I'm not a scientist. But if the exact values of the two dozen or
so constants are known, Scientist should be able to figure the
odds for any of the constants.
Why? What causes you to think that there are other possible constants?
How do you determine that?
Ironically, many experts who view the fine tuned constants of our |
universe reprehensible, envision infinite numbers of other universes
with _different_ constants.
Consequently, it's inevitable that there would be universes that by
chance appeared with constants having the right values.
Our universe happened to be one within this multiverse which hit the
jackpot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:44:19 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ipdt641qiegrnpfjg1imq08m6cgas4t4c7@4ax.com...
|
....
| Quote: |
Why? What causes you to think that there are other possible constants?
How do you determine that?
Ironically, many experts who view the fine tuned constants of our
universe reprehensible, envision infinite numbers of other universes
with _different_ constants.
|
Do they claim such exist?
| Quote: |
Consequently, it's inevitable that there would be universes that by
chance appeared with constants having the right values.
|
We can imagine many things. We imagined gods, but that doesn't mean they
exist.
| Quote: |
Our universe happened to be one within this multiverse which hit the
jackpot.
|
Maybe, but there really isn't any evidence to back up such speculation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
| Quote: |
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
|
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is 1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is no
more than 6.626*10^−34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1 Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force, but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over a 25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to such an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be life, as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees, Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_Vxbk.17377$NQ5.2706@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IUwbk.17343$NQ5.9208@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uDubk.16912$LL4.6370@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:45fs64d21j9qmot9577din7p08jf4mbi8d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:52:32 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:953r64plgs819k9nb9nmdua8q8hnh6dqrl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:22:42 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d7lq64hm08rtdldpoo69ocqjtoje4nj3id@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:25:58 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:aq2o64lqlnv5jik4bekt13dn5lhfg4cqgq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:57:59 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
Z_Cak.18265$Xe.13577@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
...
Ok, what is your reading of what they wrote? I really
would like to your view.
That there was no intent in the universe. It may be that life as
we
know
it cannot form if there are other constants, but we cannot say
anything
about the possibility of other constants or what their
interaction is.
None of the people you mentioned think that the universe was
formed
for
the purpose of allowing life to result (the teleological, or
strong
anthropic principal).
This is true, they do not go there. But none of my authors
even attempt to explain how the constants came to have the
values they do. Some call it "fine tuning" of the constants
or the Goldilocks Universe, but they try to avoid anything
that smacks of design, purpose or that which might seem
teleological. For many, they appeal to a hypothecial idea
of infinate numbers of other universes.
Because there is no evidence that there was a goal.
The reasoning being, if there are infinate numbers of other
universes and each with constants of different values, then
it becomes inevitable that some of these countless numbers
of universes will have the right values to permit life to form
and flurish. Our universe happens to be one of the lucky
ones. It just hit the the jackpot. Other scientist subscribe to
weak version arguing that if the constants were different we
would not be here to discuss them. This is self-explanatory.
We have no idea what choices exist.
Others have argued that the constants could not have been
different. And finally some have denied there is any fine
tuning. It's just that we find it amazing that the universe
"fits" us. The puddle argument is presented as an analogy.
The puddle is amazed how well it fits the pot hole.
Yes, you seem to think the universe was designed just for you, just
as
the puddle thinks the hole is designed for it.
You seem to have forgotten that life adjusts to the available
environment.
I keep saying there must first be an enviroment: which was
in no way certain.
Your argument is still meaningless. Life exists because it developed
under the circumstances that do exist.
If there is no universe, there would be no stars, if there were no
stars
there could be no heavy matter, if there was no matter, what conditions
could exist in such a failed universe which could bring forth life?
So what? That is not the case. Your speculation about what could
possibly cause that is completely without foundation and meaningless.
I disagree: this is what science is about: making observations, devising
a theory to explain what is observed and testing the theory through
predictions. Then checking to see how well the theory fits the
predictions,
then repeating the test. No matter how many times your theory is
confirmed, one failure is sufficent to falsify the theory.
So, it behooves science to attempt to explain just how the "fine tuned"
Cosmological Constants came to have the values that are observed.
Again Dan, the 'fined tuned' constants are only fine-tuned if the
universe has someone to observe them.
John Leslie addressed this objection by an example. You are to be
executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, You hear the
command to fire, and the sounds of the guns, then silence; you are
not dead, you hear silence. All the marksman missed!
But had they not missed you wouldn't be here to ponder your good
fortune. (don't recall his exact words, but this is the gist of his
statement.)
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
|
Yep, that's what I said  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
<coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
Danwood wrote, On 04/07/08 06:58 PM:
The point being if the laws of physics were different we would not
be here to contemplate the Cosmological Constants.
How do you know? Can you point to an alternate universe with different
fundamental constants and be able to say "Look, it has no life"?
It is easy enough to imagine a universe where the speed of light is 1m/s
slower, the strong nuclear force 1 Planck unit (i.e. the change is no
more than 6.626*10^?34) weaker and the electromagnetic force 1 Planck
unit stronger and gravity 1 Planck unit stronger. These are all changes
that we could measure/detect with current physics.
What is the result?
Well, the universe still expands at virtually the same rate as now so
star & galaxy formation still happens and we still have nucleosynthesis
with supernovae exploding into nebulae for Population III stars to
condense out of with planets like our solar system, and thence for
abiogenesis to happen and evolution to start.
Yeah, nuclear fusion easier because of the different ratio between the
weaker strong nuclear force and the stronger electromagnetic force, but
the amount by whch it is easier is insignificant in real terms -
nuclear powerplant might product 1 single extra Watt of power over a 25
year lifespan.
The reduction in the speed of light wouldn't even make a noticeable
difference, in human perception, to the delay of satellite voice
communications and OC-192s in that universe would still pump as much
datas as in ours.
But still, these differences would be detectable by our current physics
such that we suss them out if we suddenly had a magic gateway to such an
alternate universe.
IOW, it is possible to have a universe different set fundamental
constants and still have Life As We Know It, and if we can show it in
such a simple gedankenexperiment like this it means that your claim that
life can only exists with out current set of fundamental constants is
blown out of the water.
If course, the real issues in this debate is that on the one hand you
accept what people like Rees, Hawking and others say about the Weak
Anthropic Principle (W-AP), but then on the other hand you reject how
they all accept they idea of multiple universes. How many times did I
point out to you that in the the quotes from Rees which *you* used to
support your claim, that he said that only "most" of the other universes
with different constants would lifeless and obvious implication that
therefore *some* of those other universes with different constants would
have life? Yet each time you blasted right on past that, still claiming
that only with our set of fundamental constants could there be life, as
if Rees had said "all" of those other universes would be sterile.
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
You also conflate Rees's, Hawkings, Carter's and others support of the
W-AP, which doesn't require teleology, and conflate that with support
for the Strong AP (S-AP) which does require teleology. An dnow that I
think about, that is the real issue.
I feel that conflation is why you keep trying to say that Rees, Hawking
and others are "unwilling" to take the next step because of their
ideology. In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations become
utterly baseless. It is you ideology which requires the teleology which
makes you conflate the S-AP with W-AP so you can believe that these
cosmologists are supporting your view when in fact they are doing no
such thing. It almost seems as if you have an ideologically emplaced
mental block which prevents you from accepting that Rees only said
"Most" other universes with different fundamental constants woudl be
lifeless, rather than the "all" you want him to have said.
|
Well said, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
