Those greater minds than ours that pursue these things may eventually come to a complete understanding of the birth (or otherwise) of the universe which will presumably involve an explanation for the nature of the constants which fox you so.
Why are you so sure it will "presumably involve an explanation" that rules out intelligent ag ...[text shortened]... y and Religion; A Reader and Guide; and Reasons for the Hope Within. The Well Tempered Universe[/b]
You keep on arguing against positions I'm not holding. I don't know how the universe came into being. It could all be divine creation, maybe those greater minds than yours or mine will prove this.
The weak anthropic principle really isn't something that can be proved or disproved. I'm sorry that you are having such a hard time understanding it. It doesn't 'argue' for or against a numinous or prosaic origin of the universe. It just means that it really isn't a surprise that the universe in which we find ourselves is amenable to our evolution. Unless and until you can demonstrate the existence of other universes which are not so amenable, it's just not reasonable to consider our universe to be "tuned".
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
15 Oct '21 08:172 edits
One of those old fashion linear radio dials in proposed by Richard Collins to illustrate. But this linear radio dial extends across the entire universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments altogether spanning the width of the known universe.
Collins explains that the entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity.
If on such an imagined dial the current value of the strength of gravity is set to its present value. If you move it one inch in either direction the result for life would be catastrophically prohibitive. That is one inch compared to the breadth of the entire universe.
The way the law of gravity (among the other thirty of so finely set values) is set is maybe the most striking example of miraculous like calibration for our existence. It just has to be that it has to be that varied in precision by billionths of billionths of billionths of a degree to an absurd level of precision, we wouldn't have a life permitting universe.
The smallest change in adjustment from where the value is set would result in a billion fold impact. Animals the size of people would be crushed. The smallest insects would have to have incredibly powerful legs.
A planet with a gravitational pull a thousand times that of the Earth would have a diameter of only forty feet. That's not big enough to sustain an ecosystem.
" . . . compared to the total range of force strengths in nature, gravity has an incomprehensibly narrow range for life to exist. Of all possible settings on the dial, from one side of the universe to the other, it happens to be situated in the exact right fraction of an inch to make our universe capable of sustaining life."
I think there is some authority over this calibration. I don't think it is coincidence without enforcement. I think you are asking me to imagine there is no "legislator" (for lack of a better word) with authority over how this law's detail was set so precisely at the big bang.
@sonshipsaid One of those old fashion linear radio dials in proposed by Richard Collins to illustrate. But this linear radio dial extends across the entire universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments altogether spanning the width of the known universe.
Collins explains that the entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the we ...[text shortened]... of a better word) with authority over how this law's detail was set so precisely at the big bang.
Yes I know, I've read all this stuff. Thanks for the effort though.
It just means that it really isn't a surprise that the universe in which we find ourselves is amenable to our evolution. Unless and until you can demonstrate the existence of other universes which are not so amenable, it's just not reasonable to consider our universe to be "tuned".
We just have to agree to disagree then. Surprise is reasonable. Look at the available space. And then look at the comparatively minute amount of it given to life.
That is why secularist are searching for life elsewhere in the universe. They would be surprised if it is only here on this one planet.
Are you saying SETI should be informed that there is no reason for them to have this suspicion that intelligent civilizations simply SHOULD be elsewhere in the universe? Are you saying there is no reason for them to assume this astronomical specialty of life and civilization in one speck in the vastness?
They are searching because it is inconceivable to them that if nature's laws permit us it not have done so many places elsewhere.
You cannot take Divegeester as an accurate representor of my views. He is governed totally pretty much by hostility and cannot help put words in my mouth to serve his purposes.
Be careful when he says something was "famously" said by me.
He is here to derail the discussion, just to let you know.
It just means that it really isn't a surprise that the universe in which we find ourselves is amenable to our evolution. Unless and until you can demonstrate the existence of other universes which are not so amenable, it's just not reasonable to consider our universe to be "tuned".
We just have to agree to disagree then. Surprise i ...[text shortened]... is inconceivable to them that if nature's laws permit us it not have done so many places elsewhere.
There you go again, arguing against positions I don't hold and have never intimated that I do.
I fully support the search for extraterrestrial life, I think it's a truly worthwhile endeavour that we should be far, far more serious about. What have I said that has made you think otherwise?
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
15 Oct '21 08:49
Extraterrestrial intelligent life seems pretty likely I'd think, but I doubt they'd find themselves swayed by Sonship's arguments.
I think the issue at hand is about the one place we know where we do find life.
If I understand you, you are saying it is not reasonable to be surprised how the whole huge cosmos seems tuned to allow us to exist.
The fact of the matter is that as science advances (not retreats but ADVANCES) the more surprised we are.
You are trying to arm yourself pre-emptively with a nonchalant reaction running contrary to mainstream astonishment of what is more and more unfolding.
The literature I am reading somewhat distinguishes between WAP objection to fine tuning argument from what you more recently propose. the inscrutability of the odds argument. As Sinnott Armstrong and Parsons object to fine tuning by saying the odds of our existence high or low are inscrutable
They say the uniqueness of the situation make calculating the odds indiscernible.
Extraterrestrial intelligent life seems pretty likely I'd think, but I doubt they'd find themselves swayed by Sonship's arguments.
I think the issue at hand is about the one place we know where we do find life.
If I understand you, you are saying it is not reasonable to be surprised how the whole huge cosmos seems tuned to allow us to exist.
...[text shortened]... e inscrutable
They say the uniqueness of the situation make calculating the odds indiscernible.
Exactly. Unless and until you can demonstrate other universes with different constants, trying to figure the odds is a pointless excercise.
I wish you'd stop pretending I've said things that I haven't; trying to extend my position on this one issue to encompass the entirety of scientific progress is just facile and entirely disingenuous.
If you're surprised that the universe - where you exist - is amenable to the evolution of intelligent life, well, good for you. I'm not. That seems painfully (expletive deleted) obvious to me, and I'm pretty sure you're talking balderdash when you imply that most mainstream scientists share your surprise.
It is a personal decision.
It is interesting something touching such universal significance can also be so personal a choice as to one's attitude. Something very interesting is going on there in us.
I don't think I have pretended and misrepresented your words. But if you have a striking example in this conversation where I deliberately misrepresented what I thought you were saying, please point it out clearly.
It is a personal decision.
It is interesting something touching such universal significance can also be so personal a choice as to one's attitude. Something very interesting is going on there in us.
I don't think I have pretended and misrepresented your words. But if you have a striking example in this conversation where I deliberately misrepresented what I thought you were saying, please point it out clearly.
Seriously? Oh how tedious.
How about when you said:
...Life permitting conditions did not have to be the case. Why do you insist that they had to be?
How about when you said:
...Life permitting conditions did not have to be the case. Why do you insist that they had to be?
Okay, in the sequence of exchanges it is entirely possible that some position you held did not become as clear to me as latter in our exchanges.
I take no pleasure in misrepresenting anyone purposely who is here to seriously examine these things.
Would you comment on what atheist J. L. Mackie said here in response to the probability discussion of a finely tuned for life universe?
"There is only one universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants, and it is therefore surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. This is not made less surprising by the fact that if it had not been so, no one would have been here to be surprised. We can properly envisage and consider alternative possibilities which do not include our being there to experience them." [The Miracle of Theism, J. L. Mackie, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. p. 141]
This atheist says we can speculate about places in which we would not be alive to witness. Would you want to correct his view here?
Is Atheism Dead ?
15 Oct '21 08:15
Back to Top