|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
Free Lunch wrote, On 04/07/08 09:47 PM:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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"?
|
[...rest of my calling out of Dan Wood's ideological bias snipped...]
| Quote: |
Well said, thank you.
|
Danke schöne. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gpt2k5x97v.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
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.
That isn't my argument. I was quoting Carter here. This was an
arguments by critics of "fine tuning".
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"?
No, I do not believe there are other universes. But there are a |
dozens of laws. All of which are "fine tuned" according to
my writers. Also the earth is one among 9 planets, rather 8
planets that harbors life. Since none of the other 7 planets
do not have life does this mean the earth is "fine tuned" for
life? By you argument it certainly could.
| Quote: |
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?
Rees gives a range that life can exist on page 98, of his book "Six |
Numbers".
For a billion years or so after the B.B. the "permitted" range for life
was extremely narrow, gradually become wider with the passing of
time. So, I possibly your values would fall within Rees' permitted
range.
| Quote: |
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.
How can you know this? The speed of light factors into Einstein's |
equation. How do you know that a slight change in c would not
affect the energy output of stars. Whatever the change in c it must
be squared (delta) c.
| Quote: |
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.
The fact is you do not know how far you might push the boundries |
of change in any constant. The values could have infinate variations
so, it's absolutely impossible to experment with these infinite values
so as to determine which values could support life and which values
could not. A real discussion killer!
| Quote: |
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?
Surely, you recognize the difference between _hypothecial_ universes |
and fine tuned constants which Rees calls either a brute fact or a
coincidence.
No where does any of my writers call other universes a brute fact or
a coincidence.
| Quote: |
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.
Rees never says they are real, the best he can muster is to say |
"an infinity of other universes may well exist".
_May_well_exist_ hardly constitutes solid empirical evidence.
| Quote: |
You are inconsistent in what you accept and what you throw out.
No so, I simply do not place the same weight upon "hypothical" |
as I do "brute fact" or "coincidence". To be sure, the phrase brute
fact or coincidence does attest to Rees acceptance of the Constants
as fine tuned. (See Rees, Just six numbers, copyright 2000 page 4)
| Quote: |
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.
No, I have drawn the distinction. I pointed out that some |
_critics_ have appealed to the WAP as an escape. I do not defend the
WAP. It explains nothing, but the critics of "fine tuning: find refuge
in the WAP.
| Quote: |
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.
It's not an ideology. It's science. I never called or hinted at anything |
they wrote as being an idology. As scientist, they are reluctant to
draw conclusions which could possibly be seen as religious.
| Quote: |
In actually it is your ideology which cannot accept that they
are simply ending their speculations before those speculations become
utterly baseless.
No, they go as far as the evidence takes them. Beyond that they |
refuse to speculate. But I see the evidence they point to as
inferring a super intellect. They do not go there!
| Quote: |
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.
Two problems here. 1) I haven't supported or defended the WAP, |
but I have criticized it as meaningless except as a refuge for critics.
So, I have not conflated the two forms. I've supported the Strong
A.P., but not the weak. Obviously, I managed to confuse you on
this. 2) As I read what you wrote, teleology _preceeded_ my
intrepretation. This you attribute to me. But the reverse it true.
Teleology (religion) played virtually no role in my life. I didn't
care - I didn't think religion mattered. Reading these and other
scientist is what preceeded my conclusions.
| Quote: |
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.
I saw Rees infinite numbers of other universes as purely science |
fiction and I treated his universities as fiction since he conjectured
them into "existance". So, as you can see, I didn't give any consider
as to whether or not there was life in these imagionary universes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:fhht64539gjivd8rtmaak07ikn6mvc9duq@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:44:19 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ipdt641qiegrnpfjg1imq08m6cgas4t4c7@4ax.com...
...
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?
Martin Rees takes refuge in "An infinite of other universes (which) may |
well exist where the numbers are different".
| 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.
Most religious people call this _faith_, rather than knowledge.
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.
It's a theory. But there are many scientist who hypothesis and theorize |
about multiverses. Go to any search engine and type in "multiverses". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6Abk.24291$AJ6.19679@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_Vxbk.17377$NQ5.2706@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"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  .
But we _are_ here and you are satisfied with just knowing this?
Twenty years ago a friend and I were in a plane crash into a |
large frozen lake.
This was a small private plane: I recall losing power and I
remember seeing the lake "rushing up" to meet us. This
was after dark in an extremely remote area of the midwest.
I awoke several days later in a hospital. I lived, but my best
friend had died.
Had I died, I wouldn't be able to ask questions about how
it was that I had managed to survive.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:20 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the |
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts. Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may have
confused you, just as Cory said.
It is unfortunate that we use such similar names for ideas that are in
conflict, to a degree, with each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence takes |
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
| Quote: |
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions |
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
WAP as defined by Barrow and Tipler: "The observed values of all
physicial and cosmological quanities are not equally probable
but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites
where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that
the Universe be old enough to do so".
The B and T's WAP: "The universe must have those properties which
allow life to develop within it at some stage of its history".
| Quote: |
It is unfortunate that we use such similar names for ideas that are in
conflict, to a degree, with each other.
Yes that is a probelem. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
|
It doesn't.
| Quote: |
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
|
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
| Quote: |
WAP as defined by Barrow and Tipler: "The observed values of all
physicial and cosmological quanities are not equally probable
but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites
where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that
the Universe be old enough to do so".
The B and T's WAP: "The universe must have those properties which
allow life to develop within it at some stage of its history".
It is unfortunate that we use such similar names for ideas that are in
conflict, to a degree, with each other.
Yes that is a probelem.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters |
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
| Quote: |
WAP as defined by Barrow and Tipler: "The observed values of all
physicial and cosmological quanities are not equally probable
but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites
where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that
the Universe be old enough to do so".
The B and T's WAP: "The universe must have those properties which
allow life to develop within it at some stage of its history".
It is unfortunate that we use such similar names for ideas that are in
conflict, to a degree, with each other.
Yes that is a probelem.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
|
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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.
I'm sorry Free, but Cory misstated my arguments.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that those who support the
weak anthropic principle are just people who would support the strong
anthropic principle if they had any guts.
No, I think as scientist they are willing to go as far as the evidence
takes
them. But beyond that they refuse to speculate. I suspect because it
smacks of design.
It doesn't.
Your claim is mistaken.
Unfortunately, the confusing names don't help the matter, which may
have
confused you, just as Cory said.
Perhaps, maybe it's time to give some defination of the two versions
under discussion.
Brandon Carter's defination of the Weak Anthropic Principle. (I quote),
"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in
the
universe is necessarily priviledged to the extent of being compatable
with
our existance as observers". (unquote)
Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle: "the universe and - hence the
fundamental
parameters on which it depends - must be such as to admit the creation
of observers within it at some stage".
Which still doesn't include teleology, something you seem to insist on.
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants |
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
> ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:36:09 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bcf074psmkpqes1omhf25q6gnjj04jtok0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:46:56 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
|
....
| Quote: |
What I'm saying is that I think the fine tuning of the parameters
infers a supernatural intellect. You disagree, that's O.K. you've
offered nothing to discredit my conclusions.
Your problem is that you have offered nothing to support your
conclusions.
Many reputable, if not most Astronomers accept that the constants
are fine tuned. Do you disagree, if not, why not? If you agree, what
is you explanation for the observation that the parameters are fine
tuned? And how did this come about?
|
Just by calling it fine tuned, you imply teleology. The parameters are
what they are.
Your claim about astronomers is unsupported by evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:24 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SlWbk.10779$1I.9816@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cp9074pn20i804jum8i744o57m7t5qeh8j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vnsv64dgd4vhuus0tti3vcffb6ia396v4m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:15:49 -0400, "Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:okkt64lsc5anqdnp3obavbfettl72c7r8k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:08 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
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, th | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
