The Scientific Miracle

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]What reason is there to suspect we are not? YOU are making the positive claim (the universe was specifically designed for life), it's up to you to back that statement up.

I've merely alluded to the possibility that the universe was designed for life. Here are some evidences:

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larg ogical constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars[/b]

These are simply a list of properties of the universe - they say nothing about whether the universe wa deliberately created, or whether it is a random fluke. Anyhow, many of those listed are in fact rather flexible, if my understanding of the physics is correct.

I think you are tripping up on the difference between "allow" and "necessitate".

The fact that huge amounts of biomass were laid down during the Carboniferous epoch, 330 million years ago, allows the existence of coal fired power plants now, however, it does not necessitate their existence.

Likewise, the properties of the universe allow for the existence of life, although that doesn't mean life "had to" happen. We just don't know the probability of life evolving.

Furthermore, whilst I am open to the (remote) possibility that the universe was in some way designed, or created for a purpose of life (seems remote though, given the size and age of the universe, and the small duration of the existence of life, and the similarly small amount of space that we acually occupy), I just don't see any evidence positive that it wasn't a result of random forces.

If you want to try and prove that, then you are going to have to come up with something better than the Anthropic argument.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
These are simply a list of properties of the universe - they say nothing about whether the universe wa deliberately created, or whether it is a random fluke. Anyhow, many of those listed are in fact rather flexible, if my understanding of the physics is correct.

I think you are tripping up on the difference between "allow" and "necessitate".

Th ...[text shortened]... en you are going to have to come up with something better than the Anthropic argument.

I'm not trying to prove design at the moment, just gathering opinions and insights. Personally, I think it is improbable that the universe arose as it is by a random fluke. Eventually science will have to address this issue, only at the present it remains a matter of metaphysics.

"If we discover a complex theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussions of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would truly know the mind of God."

~ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Paul Davies makes an interesting contribution to this area with his work The Goldilocks Enigma.
Here's a readable summary - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

He argues that calling on some unproveable outside explanation - whether it be a creator god, or just some set of immutable laws of physics - is unsatisfactory.
He suggests that the laws that govern the nature of the universe may in fact emerge as the universe expands and grows and the implications of this may help to solve a number of puzzles and problems.
It makes an interesting read.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm not trying to prove design at the moment, just gathering opinions and insights. Personally, I think it is improbable that the universe arose as it is by a random fluke. Eventually science will have to address this issue, only at the present it remains a matter of metaphysics.

"If we discover a complex theory, it should in time be understandable ...[text shortened]... en we would truly know the mind of God."

~ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Of course, one should realise that Hawking is no more a Christian than I am.

It may well be that the ultimate origins of the universe are simply such that they will never be intellectually fulfilling to us apes, who evolved in a middle world, of middle-sized things which move at middle-sized speeds.

Anyone who posits design in the way the universe works commits the same fallacy as do the ID movement, that of implied design. Design is fine, when you have natural things which can be investigated and tested to be posited as the designer. However, when the implied designer is posited to be supernatural we can make no tests, and there is nothing which cannot be reconciled with "Goddunit".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Of course, one should realise that Hawking is no more a Christian than I am.

It may well be that the ultimate origins of the universe are simply such that they will never be intellectually fulfilling to us apes, who evolved in a middle world, of middle-sized things which move at middle-sized speeds.

Anyone who posits design in the way the universe ...[text shortened]... natural we can make no tests, and there is nothing which cannot be reconciled with "Goddunit".

Hey Scott, you should check out Davies ideas in The Goldilocks Enigma. He posits an interesting way to get a universe, with laws that favour the formation of life, without the need for a creator, or for any pre-existing 'platonic' laws.
It might be a load of crap, but it's an interesting way around the conundrums being discussed here.

Originally posted by amannion
Hey Scott, you should check out Davies ideas in The Goldilocks Enigma. He posits an interesting way to get a universe, with laws that favour the formation of life, without the need for a creator, or for any pre-existing 'platonic' laws.
It might be a load of crap, but it's an interesting way around the conundrums being discussed here.

Rees may well be into something, but I think Davies slips when he says, "The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order." Most scientists DON'T appeal to anything outside - they laws of physics had to come into play after the birth of the universe, and they had to be something. These laws are just as likely as any other set, more likely than some, in fact.

Davies has further fallen off the wagon when he says "Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe." Ask any physicist whether the current laws of physics occurred within the first hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, and most will say "no".

I feel he's trying to manufacture a false controversy. That said, I agree with his message.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I've merely alluded to the possibility that the universe was designed for life. Here are some evidences:

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, logical constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

And I ask again - What whould you say if the universe had the natural constants in that way that life would be in fact impossible?

Is this really so deep question so noone (but a few) can see the implications of it?

We *are* here because we *can* be here. If we couldn't be here then we wouldn't even discuss it. Because there would be noone to discuss it with.

Like "What would we be discussing about in RHP if internet wasn't invented?" A silly question, why is it not silly when we talk about life in universe depending on the natural constants?

Actually - can a universe be lifeless? Yes, it really was the first billions of years... - What did people talk about in those days? 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]What reason is there to suspect we are not? YOU are making the positive claim (the universe was specifically designed for life), it's up to you to back that statement up.

I've merely alluded to the possibility that the universe was designed for life. Here are some evidences:

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larg ...[text shortened]... ogical constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars[/b]

At first all these things seem like a big coincidence, many people would ask the question "What are the chances of all these things happening in just the right way to support life like us?".

However, as has been mentioned eariler I think, we should not be at all surprised, as if they universe did not have theses properties we would not be here to observe it.

My point is that we could only exist in a universe which could support us, so the fact that things in nature seem to be designed for us is missleading - if the Laws of the Universe were not suitable for us we would not be around to observe them.

Also, the fact that we live in a universe with conditions suitable for life tells us nothing about the probability of such a universe existing.

Some people use a probability based argument to argue that the universe must have been designed for us, along the lines of:

"The probability of so many things in the universe being exactly right for our existance is so small, and the consequences of just a single force constant changing so dramatic, that the univserse must have been designed for us to live in"

However, this is not a logical argument as we could only ever observe the universe in such a state (see my post above).

We do not know if there have been many universes before ours which have not been suitable for life, there may even be many coexisting univseres, many of which cannot support life. We have a sample size of one, and a prerequisite for us having that one sample is that it must have conditions which allow us to exist.

In short, the fact that conditions in our universe support life should not seem surprising, and does not in any way suggest that it was designed.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Personally, I think it is improbable that the universe arose as it is by a random fluke.

The problem with probability is that it is really nothing more than a calculation based on other known or assumed probabilities.

Your statement thus implies you know of (or believe in) the existence of a set of possible ways in which the universe could have arose and know (or believe) the chances of each possible way. I suspect however that you are infact making some ridiculous assumptions about what possible universe there are.

You have also overlooked two important issues:
1. The anthropic principle. ie you might as well argue that the universe is fine tuned to an enormous degree so that this post is the ultimate purpose of its existence. After all, it is highly improbably that this post could arise by some random fluke.
Why pick on life? Why not argue that the universe is designed to suport a specific crystal structure found on a planet orbiting alpha centauri. After all, any minor change to any of the items in your list and the said crystal could not exist.
2. You really have no idea what other life forms are possible. The possible universes in which some form of intelligent life could exist could be enormous. In fact the apparent scarcity of life in the current universe should lead you to believe that it is not particularly the focus of the universe. Surely a universe could be designed in which nearly all the matter was utilised by life forms?

Have you ever seen a computer progam called "Conways game of life".
In it, there are 'life forms'. If you change the rules even slightly those life forms can no-longer exist. However, changing the rules results in an amazing array of other possible life forms. I experimented with the rules once and found far better rules to give a greater variety of forms.

I recognize the integrity of the arguments here against the anthropic principle. But what I find interesting is the general willingness to disregard the fact that even slight changes in the way things are might render the universe unobservable.

After all, we're not talking about the evolution of our species, nor the confluence of events which led to the ideal position of our planet, etc., but the very laws which underly and make these evolutionary events possible in the first place, i.e., the initial cosmological conditions unique to our universe.

It could be hypothesized that multiple universes exist, and that therefore it is no surprise that we find ourselves in the one suitable for life, but such a hypothesis hardly stands up to Occam's razor, since it introduces infinite complexity to explain the regularities of just one universe.

The bottom line is, if the initial cosmological conditions are truly "fine-tuned" for the existence of life, the hypothesis for design, then, is indeed a compelling one, rather than simply fodder for ridicule.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I recognize the integrity of the arguments here against the anthropic principle. But what I find interesting is the general willingness to disregard the fact that even slight changes in the way things are might render the universe unobservable.

After all, we're not talking about the evolution of our species, nor the confluence of events which ...[text shortened]... thesis for design, then, is indeed a compelling one, rather than simply fodder for ridicule.

This is exatly the kind of thing I was talking about.

We would not be in the universe conditions were not such that we could live in it! So it is not surprise that we observe the conditions to be such that the universe appears "fine tuned" for us.

However, this does not in any way suggest that it was designed. You need to re-read my previous posts.

Originally posted by MattP
This is exatly the kind of thing I was talking about.

We would not be in the universe conditions were not such that we could live in it! So it is not surprise that we observe the conditions to be such that the universe appears "fine tuned" for us.

However, this does not in any way suggest that it was designed. You need to re-read my previous posts.

I understand your point, but it really doesn't strike me as much of a counterargument. It certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of design. After all, were the initial cosmological conditions of the universe in fact designed, your argument would still sound plausible and eminently rational.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem with probability is that it is really nothing more than a calculation based on other known or assumed probabilities.

Your statement thus implies you know of (or believe in) the existence of a set of possible ways in which the universe could have arose and know (or believe) the chances of each possible way. I suspect however that you are in erimented with the rules once and found far better rules to give a greater variety of forms.

Why pick on life?

Why? Because crystals are incapable of science. It is not simply that we exist, but that we are capable of understanding the universe deductively. And further, that the universe itself, at least to the extent that we understand it, is a rational world.

You really have no idea what other life forms are possible.

I'm really not interested in the idea of specialness. That's not something I'm hung up on. There may well be other lifeforms in different galaxies throughout the cosmos capable of understanding the universe better than we, i.e., the apparent "fine-tuning" is applicable to life anywhere in the universe, not just here on earth.

The possible universes in which some form of intelligent life could exist could be enormous.

The multiple universes hypothesis doesn't stand up to Occam's razor, as I pointed out above, because it introduces infinite complexity to explain the regularities of just one universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem with probability is that it is really nothing more than a calculation based on other known or assumed probabilities.

Your statement thus implies you know of (or believe in) the existence of a set of possible ways in which the universe could have arose and know (or believe) the chances of each possible way. I suspect however that you are in ...[text shortened]... erimented with the rules once and found far better rules to give a greater variety of forms.

Have you ever seen a computer progam called "Conways game of life".
In it, there are 'life forms'. If you change the rules even slightly those life forms can no-longer exist. However, changing the rules results in an amazing array of other possible life forms. I experimented with the rules once and found far better rules to give a greater variety of forms.

I wrote Conway's Life not long ago as an example in an Excel Programming course I was giving. Never occurred to me to change the parameters though. I'll have to have a play with it.

--- Penguin.