Fine Tuning Of The Universe

Originally posted by karoly aczel
the universe is teaming with "life", ( it's life,Jim, but not as we know it), it's just that SETI and others are looking in the wrong direction.

If you turn your attention inwards, (takes some practice, but once you learn how to ride a bike...), then you will find that life is not bound by physical properties,including time, space and some other pre ...[text shortened]... develop your peripheral vision. There is more to life than meets the rods (of the eye) ,😀

You are believing things and making claims of knowledge for which you have no proof.

'Looking inwards' is not a valid or viable way of finding out anything about the universe around us.

What you are claiming is just as much nonsense as RJHinds and for the same reason.

You are believing in things based on faith and not evidence.

It is horribly easy to deceive oneself or to be deceived.
Which is why we have developed the scientific method and rational skepticism to prevent ourselves
from being deceived.

Originally posted by Penguin
Well I didn't really know where to start, Thanks GoogleFudge for pretty much saying what I would have wasted hours on if I had started.

Anyone fancy addressing Googlefudge's points?

--- Penguin.

Um, thank you.

Originally posted by humy
RJH will not.

GoogleFudge gave an excellent post that shows all that is wrong with RJH's stupid claims and all RJH can do is respond with yet more crap with “There is not much sense in trying to explain the logic...” ( what logic! RJH is talking CRAP not 'logic' ! ) and “Just more science fiction. " 😛

I think science fiction is all you guys will believe when it envolves the possible
collapse of the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are believing things and making claims of knowledge for which you have no proof.

'Looking inwards' is not a valid or viable way of finding out anything about the universe around us.

What you are claiming is just as much nonsense as RJHinds and for the same reason.

You are believing in things based on faith and not evidence.

It is horribly ...[text shortened]... oped the scientific method and rational skepticism to prevent ourselves
from being deceived.

I wish you would take this advice yourself so that you would stop deceiving
yourself. 😏

-Removed-

If you know where to look

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just more science fiction.

Thanks for your well measured and insightful criticism. No really, it's truly a great help

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are believing things and making claims of knowledge for which you have no proof.

'Looking inwards' is not a valid or viable way of finding out anything about the universe around us.

What you are claiming is just as much nonsense as RJHinds and for the same reason.

You are believing in things based on faith and not evidence.

It is horribly ...[text shortened]... oped the scientific method and rational skepticism to prevent ourselves
from being deceived.

Oh why would I ever think that anyone would even want to learn anything in this forum?

Turning your attention inwards is a very well documented meditative practice which can bring results if practised.

Also developing peripheral vision is something that all people with eyes can practice.
It helps the brain multi-task so that it can develop and not just be omnidirectional. Apparently this is important to develop ones mind/brain.

So which of these points do you think is fantasy? You dont even need to go on about it, just tell me which one.

Lastly, I am believing things based on personal experience,not faith or outward scientific evidence.

Yes, it is horribly easy to deceive oneself, isn't it?

You know the herd is not always right 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are believing things and making claims of knowledge for which you have no proof.

'Looking inwards' is not a valid or viable way of finding out anything about the universe around us.

What you are claiming is just as much nonsense as RJHinds and for the same reason.

You are believing in things based on faith and not evidence.

It is horribly ...[text shortened]... oped the scientific method and rational skepticism to prevent ourselves
from being deceived.

the rational scientific method is changing.

Are we still in a Newtonian universe? No. Einsteinien? No.

We are at the precipiece of quantum, which we know exists but cant really say much more about- to the average lay person anyway.

Originally posted by Penguin
RJ's 'just more science fiction' comment was in response to Karoly Aczel's post. I find it interesting that RJ seems to think that Karoly's mystical woo woo fantasy is actually science fiction.

--- Penguin.

Thanks to whoever thumbed that up-it wasn't me.

-Removed-

If Earth was indeed formed around 4.54 billion years ago by accretion from the solar nebula, Life can neither be considered an iherently existent phenomenon that takes place solely here, nor an inherently existent phenomenon that has a priori the properties that we perceive herenow. However, Life can well be understood as a potentiality that is manifested into reality within the observer universe under specific circumstances.

It is not tenable to claim that the Earth-dependent Life is not manifested on Earth. It is not tenable to claim that the universe-dependent Earth is not a part of the universe. It is not tenable to claim that Earth-dependent Life is not universe-dependent Life. So, why do you think that universe and Life are not connected in full, or that... universe is not teaming with Life?
😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
the rational scientific method is changing.

Are we still in a Newtonian universe? No. Einsteinien? No.

We are at the precipiece of quantum, which we know exists but cant really say much more about- to the average lay person anyway.

“...the rational scientific method is changing. ...”

I have to disagree with you there. Scientific method isn't what is 'changing' ( at least it is not changing in a non-trivial way ) ; only the model of reality that scientific method creates has changed (from a purely Newtonian one to a quantum one for example).

Originally posted by RJHinds
What does fine tuning of the universe tell us about God's purpose?

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Did Humans create the universe for themselves?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661/the_anthropic_principle_fine_tuning_of_the_universe_michael_strauss_phd/

Kosmos must not necessarily be fine tuned in order to support the biological life; the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our galaxy, which it contains from 1 billion up to 30 billion planets, is hovering at the slot 1/1.000.000.000 up to 1/30.000.000.000. The galaxies of the universe are about 100 billion billions, so if we suppose that the statistic probability of the arising of biological life is 1/30.000.000.000, we notice that this ultra rare event could have take place at least at 300.000.000 planets of our universe –and, definitely, one of those 300.000.000 planets is Earth.

Therefore, why should we have to accept a theory that proposes the so called “fine tuning” process (by an intelligent G-d that cannot be established as epistemic object)?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Kosmos must not necessarily be fine tuned in order to support the biological life; the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our galaxy, which it contains from 1 billion up to 30 billion planets, is hovering at the slot 1/1.000.000.000 up to 1/30.000.000.000. The galaxies of the universe are about 100 billion ...[text shortened]... fine tuning” process (by an intelligent G-d that cannot be established as epistemic object)?
😵

Let me just make a slight change there:

the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our universe let's just restrict it to arising on planets, is something between 1/1 (every single planet in the universe has life) and 1/3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (only Earth has life).

What you have done is assume that at least one planet in every galaxy has life and we simply do not know that.

And this has nothing at all to do with the subject under discussion: the purported 'fine tuning' of the cosmological laws and constants.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Let me just make a slight change there:

the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our [b]universe let's just restrict it to arising on planets, is something between 1/1 (every single planet in the universe has life) and 1/3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (only Earth has life).

What you ha ...[text shortened]... scussion: the purported 'fine tuning' of the cosmological laws and constants.

--- Penguin.[/b]

No, I ‘ld rather stay with my argument; my point is that, even if we assume that the occurrence of Life within universe is restricted solely to this highly rare possibility (down to just one planet of each galaxy, that is) we are statistically in front of the possibility that Life could occur at (at least) 300.000.000 planets of the observer universe. I 'm aware of the fact that we simply don’t know that for the time being.

On the other hand, methinks my argument is related to the purported fine tuning: for, even if Life indeed occurs within the observer universe at the lowest 1/30.000.000.000, “fine tuning” is a delusion
😵