Originally posted by Pullhardi think your analogy is a great example of the Anthropic Principle (AP).
The Anthropic principle is very powerful (and, IMO, valid) for explaining these seemingly unlikely occurences. Unfortunately, many people pass it off as rubbish, citing that it is too easy to dispel evidence using this principle. Also, it is a difficult principle to genuinely understand, leading to misunderstanding.
This is the analogy I use to explain i ...[text shortened]... at the prevailing conditions would have lead to some other form of life e.g. jam-based life.....
Originally posted by LemonJelloI suspect that a Universe with different physical constants or even different physical laws could be very nurturing of life--just not life as we know it. Rather, life of some sort that would seem utterly strange to us.
... the operational window for life as we know it ...
Originally posted by LemonJelloIMHO
scientists and theoreticians who are a lot smarter than i am say that the operational window for life as we know it is extremely small -- that is, if any of the main cosmological or physical constants (such as charge of an electron, gravitational constant, etc) were even slightly different, then carbon-based life would not be possible.
[b]in this sen ...[text shortened]... the same time, i cannot ignore the self evidence of the Anthropic Principle.
Originally posted by no1marauderdoesn't the condition B) rule out the need for a creator
We discussed this in another thread, but personally I believe that if:
A) A small difference in the forces of the universe would have made life impossible (the gravitional force in particular); and
B) There are no other universes.
If the premises are true, then the possibility that the universe was intentionally ...[text shortened]... mpossible) but I think a fair minded person must admit it makes some kind of design more likely.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI refer you (again - I've posted this in numerous similair threads!) to the words of the late, great Douglas Adams, who compared the wonder people feel at how perfectly adapted this universe is for us to the puddle who wonders at how perfectly the hole it is in fits it's shape.
in this sense, the universe we live in seems remarkably fine-tuned for the existence of man.
Originally posted by eagles54The argument isn't that the solar system or Earth is particulary suitable for life; the argument is that even small deviations from the strengths of the basic forces of the universe (i.e. gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces) would have made the entire universe inhospitable to life. The argument is discussed in detail in the thread Telerion cited. Pithy quotes from Douglas Adams (who's stuff I love) aside, it seems to be an interesting argument for some kind of "design" even if it is essentially unprovable.
As nicely as it seems that the universe (at least our little corner of it) is set up to sustain and nuture humankind, let us not forget that this arrangement is of (relatively) brief duration. Once our Sun begins its inevitable death process, we do as well. Then again, maybe we will at that time already have "flown the coop" as it were, residing in another hospitable clime in our galaxy or another.