Fine-tuning of the Universe for life

Originally posted by sonship

[b]
There is no need to "downgrade" the human race at all. What you are doing however is the direct opposite, namely upgrading the human race which is equally unnecessary.

Even if we took mankind out of the picture altogether, it is still quit amazing, this finely calibrated universe for animals.

I happen to think that among al ...[text shortened]... tep back and have more of a sense of awe about the universe then say, a fish or a mountain goat.[/b]

Yes, we are the most intelligent beings on earth and more capable to wonder about the universe than any other lifeform. No argument there.

Well I don't know why I bother trying to explain logic to someone who thinks logic is damaging his mind.

Your kind sometimes does give induce a strong will power to deny some things which should be obvious. Look at what you are doing here. So many voices declaring an apparent Anthropic principle.

You working hard to suppress what many agree seems both logical and intuitive. For example Sir Isaac Newton who said intelligent ordering of creation was his view and that it was unphilosophical "to pretend that it might arise out of chaos by mere laws of nature."

So here you hope to find a loop whole by making an issue about what life is. I am not concerned with imaginary life. If I was concerned with imaginary life then that would sidetrack the clear thinking that the fine tuning issue has on life as we know it.

Then there should be no need to either imagine multiple universes of an infinite number. That's seems the loophole you are employing to shrug at the one universe we know.

Well then all your claims become trivial, and you wasted an awful lot of words and quotes trying to substantiate something nobody would dispute in the first place. We all agree that any changes to initial conditions would mean that 'life as we know it' would not exist. In fact you could quite happily add a few billion zeros to every one of your figures and I would not dispute it in the slightest.

Life "as we know it" is the only life we know.
Plenty of logical minds are rather taken with the matter of the apparent tuning.

I think it is appropriate to consider what they say.

In varied fields of science people have had no problem believing in intelligent ordering:

In Physics - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
In Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsey
In Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur
In Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz
In Astronomy - Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

Some latter minds contemplated the astounding coincidence of life permitting parameters. Not everyone shrugs it off like you.

I am trying to explain basic logic to you, and you are trying not to listen because you fear it will damage your brain.

Not brain so much, but mind and conscience. You are shrugging off a lot of capable other minds that have commented on an Anthropic principle of Fine Tuning.

The rationales you offer to shrug off their comments are not all that sound in reasoning as you wish they were.

But it is not that helpful to the analysis of the data we have so far.
At one moment, you are making claims about all possible universes and what could not exist in them, then the next moment you insist on only talking about the universe we have before us. And this is the root of the problem.

No I didn't seriously entertain the multiverse. I think my reference to it was obviously more tongue in cheek.

So your "root of the problem" does not lie there.

You have a lottery ticket, and because it is the only ticket you know of, you assume it must be the winning ticket.

The lottery ticket analogy was your idea. But in that analogy the so-called winning is the arrival of life in the one universe we know that suggests some powerful rigging has taken place.

This powerful rigging to allow life to arise is considered by some minds (and not all Christian by any means) as Fine Tuning.

You seem to be working to undermine any recognition of this Fine Tuning which I find a legitimate observation.

Why don't you go and argue with Arthur Compton, Nobel Prize winner in Physics who said:

" Science is the glimpse of God's purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything ... An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: "In the beginning God ..."

Too bad we couldn't have caught you sitting down with Compton explaining lottery tickets.

Winning = life existing in your lottery parody.

I know that if we think of winning we have to do so by saying we made only ONE draw. And I understand questioning what "winning" is.

I think it is obvious that if everyone noticing the result of life's arrival had the same cavalier shrug that you fanatically insist on, the term "Anthropic Principle" would have probably never arisen and been so widely referred to.

sonship:
So I don't think multiverse could possiibly be a real infinite number of things.

twhitehead:
That's all well and good, but you need more than a lack of acceptance if you want to make some sort of logical argument.

Well and good is all I intend in this medium. I do not intend to write a book here.

This is another element of your oft used debating tactics - "Go off and do more work."

Flat statement, which I do not intend to rigorously prove. But I can refer you to writings - "An actual infinity of things does not exist."

You can say "Go off and do more work and come back with a thesis." But for Forum discussion, that is all I intend to present.

I notice that you did not YET contradict the statement.
So far, if you do not positively object below, all I see is your typical "Go off now and do more work."

But as I read I'll see if you take a position CONTRARY to the belief that no infinite number of things in the real world exists.

I must also point out that an infinite number of universes is not required to counter your claims. All that is required is a finite number that is several orders of magnitude bigger than whatever number you quote as the probability of getting our universe - then our universe existing becomes highly probable.

So you did not say there are an infinite number of universes.
And you did not say there are a finite number of other universes.
You just say if there were a finite number of other universes we can shrug that ours has been fine tuned to support life (depending on what you call life).

We know of one universe. We know that there are multiple features which have been calibrated so exquisitely finely that without these tunings the universe would be vastly different and vastly incapable of allowing life to exist.

That we know.

Paul Davies doesn't just shrug it off:

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Tony Rothman didn't shrug it off:

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

George Ellis didn't just shrug it off:

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Henry Schaeffer didn't shrug it off:

[quote] Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

What's so special about you yawning and hand waving about lottery tickets to shrug it off ?

But this is a side point because a multiverse is not required at all to debunk your claims.

My claims are neither debunked nor unbunked.

My claims essentially in this thread is the SAME as a claim of the MIT Physicist who remarked thus:

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Your vested interest in denying the divine requires you to shrug off this Fine Tuning evidence.


My claim is in harmony with this NASA scientists musing:

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

No, it isn't. Just read what I write. I have no idea whether or not there are other universes and have no beliefs either way.

I am impressed with the Anthropic Principle so called, and the Fine Tuning of the universe. It seems the universe knew we were coming.

I am impressed with that.

I am not required to take a position, and further would be foolish to take a position without any reason to do so.

I can safely take a position that the evidence for intelligent Fine Tuning is too strong to shrug at. That's all the time I have this morning.

Originally posted by sonship
You working hard to suppress what many agree seems both logical and intuitive.
...
I think it is appropriate to consider what they say.
...
Some latter minds contemplated the astounding coincidence of life permitting parameters. Not everyone shrugs it off like you.
....
Why don't you go and argue with Arthur Compton, Nobel Prize winner in Physics who said:

Once again, you attempt to drown me out with quotes. I am not impressed. Not one of your quotes contains a logical argument for the conclusion you wish to draw. Not one of your quotes is a scientific claim. Why is that? If your claim is on such good footing and has such support from so many eminent scientists, why has it never made it into science? Why is it not taught in schools? Why is it not in the text books?

I am impressed with the Anthropic Principle so called
Its a pity then that you didn't bother looking up the Anthropic Principle on Wikipedia, or you would at least be talking about the 'Strong Anthropic Principle.'
The Weak Anthropic Principle is actually my claim and argues against your claim.

Originally posted by sonship

Well I don't know why I bother trying to explain logic to someone who thinks logic is damaging his mind.

Your kind sometimes does give induce a strong will power to deny some things which should be obvious. Look at what you are doing here. So many voices declaring an apparent Anthropic principle.

You working hard to suppress wh ...[text shortened]... for intelligent Fine Tuning is too strong to shrug at. That's all the time I have this morning.

So for you, this was a SHORT rebuke? If you can't study logic for fear of damaging something in your psyche, why do you bother to argue at all? Arguing REQUIRES a knowledge of logic or else all you have is opinions. BTW, all the people you quoted are religiously biased before they begin, one can match the other side man for man. Just because a Nobel prize winner spouts religious views doesn't mean he is right, it just means he is spouting religion.

Originally posted by sonship
Would that necessarily make atheism true just because I had previous good reasons for believing in God ?

Absolutely not.
And if you had an inkling about logical debate you would know that.

But we are not debating the truth of atheism.

You started this thread with the proposal "Fine-tuning of the
Universe for life". And one of your premises is the existence
of god. (Which you presumably backup with the fine-tuning ...
and around and around we go!)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Absolutely not.
And if you had an inkling about logical debate you would know that.

But we are not debating the truth of atheism.

You started this thread with the proposal "Fine-tuning of the
Universe for life". And one of your premises is the existence
of god. (Which you presumably backup with the fine-tuning ...
and around and around we go!)

Scientists have not only discovered that the universe is fined tuned for its own existence but also for the existence of life. The conclusion is that a supremely powerful and intelligent being must have purposely done this. The one true God of the Holy Bible is the only one that fits the bill.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientists have not only discovered that the universe is fined tuned for its own existence but also for the existence of life. The conclusion is that a supremely powerful and intelligent being must have purposely done this. The one true God of the Holy Bible is the only one that fits the bill.

There was an experiment once, long ago: A scientist tried to train a spider to do a certain trick. Not getting it to do that, the guy figured he would give it negative attention, so cut off one of its legs. Still no go. He yelled at it to do the trick. No help. Cut off another leg. Yelled at it again to do the trick. No go. Pulled off another leg. This went on till the spider had no legs left.

Scientist writes in his journal: Pulling off legs of spider has obvious consequences. This action makes the spider deaf.

Originally posted by sonhouse
[

b]So for you, this was a SHORT rebuke? If you can't study logic for fear of damaging something in your psyche, why do you bother to argue at all? Arguing REQUIRES a knowledge of logic or else all you have is opinions. BTW, all the people you quoted are religiously biased before they begin, one can match the other side man for man. Just because a Nobel prize winner spouts religious views doesn't mean he is right, it just means he is spouting religion.[/b]

I didn't say studying logic per se damages my mind. Now if someone came along and was very methodical and logical about how I should do something I really feel is wrong to do, like play Russian Roulette or some masochistic sport like activity, I would be concerned.

Some of the so proposed logic that I have heard over the years from one or two posters, I find to be products of a mind with some twisting and distortion problems.

That would include attempting to convince oneself that what is a notable coincidence is not or should not be viewed at as anything particularly unique.

Ie. shrugging that several exceedingly finely tuned factors were together calibrated that we have the universe in its present form suitable for higher life.

'You also follow my reasoning until you say "Ho Hum, no big deal" ', that kind of reasoning I think is damaging to the mind and conscience.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] b]So for you, this was a SHORT rebuke? If you can't study logic for fear of damaging something in your psyche, why do you bother to argue at all? Arguing REQUIRES a knowledge of logic or else all you have is opinions. BTW, all the people you quoted are religiously biased before they begin, one can match the other side man for man. Just because a Nobe ...[text shortened]... Ho Hum, no big deal" ', that kind of reasoning I think is damaging to the mind and conscience.

Still, it looks more and more like there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be in the one that happens to allow us to be in it.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]Absolutely not.

And if you had an inkling about logical debate you would know that.

If I recall rightly, we were talking about genetic fallacy.

"Oh, you believe in Fine Tuning because a prior, you be a Christian theist."

I agree that I found some confirming evidence to a previously held view. However, the point of importance is whether this Fine Tuning is true or not, #1, secondly could it be evidence for an intelligent Creator.

And I said that is the truth which we should be concerned with.

But we are not debating the truth of atheism.

Twhitehead went even further. He said we weren't debating at all.
LOL. We're Always debating theism verses atheism on this forum.

You started this thread with the proposal "Fine-tuning of the
Universe for life".

RJHinds started the thread. I was an early contributor.

And one of your premises is the existence
of god. (Which you presumably backup with the fine-tuning ...
and around and around we go!)

That's right. I think Fine Tuning and the so called "Anthropic Principle" (a phrase coined not by theists ) are good evidence for an intelligent Creator.

Originally posted by sonhouse

Still, it looks more and more like there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be in the one that happens to allow us to be in it.

There cannot be an infinite number of anything in the real world. Infinity is a conceptual matter useful in doing math on paper.

That's purely a layman's explanation. If you need something more rigorous I can find you a link.

Now, the very last discussion I heard on multiple universes said to me that the idea is getting less attention then in the past. And I think it was said that the reason is that these multiple universes, if like bubbles, should have been colliding together running into each other long long ago.

I am willing to look into the current state of multiple universe theorizing. But I have to tell you that it appears to me to be an idea that people like yourself really want to keep alive because of the Fine Tuning evidence.

I could be wrong, but I think suppressing the recognition of extreme coincidence is the unstated goal of the multiverse agenda.

"If we can just imagine a trillion other huge universes like this one, that will make our own not so special. Then we can somehow avoid admitting a near miraculous arrangement of this one for life."

Say Jerry L Wilson gets a car for his birthday. He goes to the Motor vehicle and they issue him a random license plate - KJH 61255. That would be no deal.

Suppose though that Jerry L. Wilson's birthday fell on October 10, 1958. Now he gets a random license plate from the DMV and they issue him, at random license place JLW 81058.

The license plate coincidentally coincides with his birthday. Now would you expect him to say the following ?

"Oh that's no surprise. SOMEBODY had to get that license plate. So it just happened to be me whose birthday is 8/10/1958. Somebody had to get that one."

You can hardly deny the uniqueness of the coincidence. You might imagine deliberateness in the fact. Probably somebody at the Department of Motor Vehicles knew that that was Jerry L. Wilson and issued that plate on purpose.

To come up with reasons to suppress the feeling of surprise would be ridiculous. And I think some of the multiverse advocates are working to do whatever they can to water down the sense of surprise in a finely tuned universe that seems to have anticipated our arrival.

Originally posted by sonship
That would include attempting to convince oneself that what is a notable coincidence is not or should not be viewed at as anything particularly unique.

So basically, you have made up your mind that your claim is correct and anyone who disagrees with you must have "a mind with some twisting and distortion problems."?
And you are not basing this on any problems with the logic I present, but on the fact that you don't like the conclusions i get to.
You on the other hand find yourself forced to use bad logic to try and support a conclusion you desire, but which is not currently supported by logic or evidence.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Still, it looks more and more like there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be in the one that happens to allow us to be in it.

There cannot be an infinite number of anything in the real world. Infinity is a conceptual matter useful in doing math on paper.

That's purely a layman's explanation. If you need s ...[text shortened]... own the sense of surprise in a finely tuned universe that seems to have anticipated our arrival.[/b]

You simply don't want to comprehend the fact that we/life were/was not the goal when this universe began, do you? It just won't click.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So basically, you have made up your mind that your claim is correct and anyone who disagrees with you must have "a mind with some twisting and distortion problems."?
And you are not basing this on any problems with the logic I present, but on the fact that you don't like the conclusions i get to.
You on the other hand find yourself forced to use bad log ...[text shortened]... and support a conclusion you desire, but which is not currently supported by logic or evidence.

Some of what I write, you say is "gibberish".
Some of what you write, I say is "distorted".

Concerning your lottery ticket analogy paste in the most significance words you wrote which you think causes that analogy to shed light on the Anthropic Prinicple.

If you don't think you yet wrote your most significance words concerning that Lottery Ticket example, write them in your next post. What is the most important point about that example ?

Originally posted by Great King Rat

You simply don't want to comprehend the fact that we/life were/was not the goal when this universe began, do you? It just won't click.

That may be true.

But it is also true, I think, that the evidence does seem to point to the universe being deliberately prepared for our arrival as a higher life form.

What do you want me to do ?
What do you want the so many scientists (theistic and non-theistic) to do?

Those were not all bible thumpers I quoted.