Our Finely Tuned Universe Implies _______

Originally posted by nicknomo
The inherant difficulty of this question comes from the fact that we are here and do indeed exist.

If life didn't yet exist in our galaxy, and outside spectator could say "intelligent life has horrible odds of forming in this galaxy". Yet given enough galaxies, life will form, despite the poor odds.

When intelligent life does form, the intelligent ...[text shortened]... as been repeated. The universe could have collapsed and expanded 1 billion times already.

I.E. it's a the problem we have with extreme odds are psychological - NOT logical.

(And probabilities are only mathematical formulations of what we can not measure (uncertainties)- and don't necessarily reflect reality.)

Originally posted by Coletti
Have you seen the movie!! I really want to see it. Love his books!

I have a great fondness for the BBC series which I have on tape and dread what Hollywood will do to it. A friend of mine who also likes the original show is going to see the movie on Friday and is to report back whether they butchered it or not (teddy bear like creatures or a cheerful Marvin will be the Kiss of Death). I'll post something in General when the intelligence has been gathered.

Originally posted by nicknomo
The inherant difficulty of this question comes from the fact that we are here and do indeed exist.

If life didn't yet exist in our galaxy, and outside spectator could say "intelligent life has horrible odds of forming in this galaxy". Yet given enough galaxies, life will form, despite the poor odds.

When intelligent life does form, the intelligent ...[text shortened]... as been repeated. The universe could have collapsed and expanded 1 billion times already.

It could have which is why the speculation is unprovable. However, there's no particular reason to believe that it did either. If this is the only universe (scientists are examing Multiverse theories which postulate a large number of universes) and there are no "meta laws" determining what the strength of the forces become (again, scientists are examing various theories postulating meta laws), a life-friendly universe was extremely unlikely. This is a metaphysical discussion, not a strictly scientific one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The 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 ...[text shortened]... to be an interesting argument for some kind of "design" even if it is essentially unprovable.

Ah yes, I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hmm, so far no1 is the only one who has been making sense in this thread...the Lord must be nearly here.

Anthropic Principle has no place in science. "Well, even though it's ridiculously improbable, we're here, so don't question how." Umm...
That's quite clearly allowing religious bias to affect one's science, something Kent Hovind does quite adeptly for Creationists.

By the way, the puddle analogy is quite poor, since that puddle took much less energy and matter to form, and because the hole was formed from other forces, whereas science points towards the universe coming from nothing. Not to mention the puddle isn't sentient, and I've yet to see a materialistic excuse for sentience.

Originally posted by Darfius
Hmm, so far no1 is the only one who has been making sense in this thread...the Lord must be nearly here.

Anthropic Principle has no place in science. "Well, even though it's ridiculously improbable, we're here, so don't question how." Umm...
That's quite clearly allowing religious bias to affect one's science, something Kent Hovind does quite ad ...[text shortened]... o mention the puddle isn't sentient, and I've yet to see a materialistic excuse for sentience.

Inflation can account for the universe being the way it is with no need for a creator, at least until 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before then is as yet unknown. See the section "Anthropic Principle and Inflation" here http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec28.html
On second thought, nevermind. Go read a Good Book, all you need to know is there.

Originally posted by Darfius

Anthropic Principle has no place in science. "Well, even though it's ridiculously improbable, we're here, so don't question how." Umm...
That's quite clearly allowing religious bias to affect one's science, something Kent Hovind does quite adeptly for Creationists.

i would disagree that the AP has 'no place'.

but i would also argue that the AP doesn't prove anything either way. i just see it as a way to keep my thinking on the subject in perspective.

i find it very hard to flat out dismiss the AP (and i certainly don't think your claim about religious bias necessarily follows) because the AP just makes too much sense to ignore.

from that perspective i think it is rational to allow the AP to affect my thinking on this subject -- i am just not sure to what extent it should affect my thinking.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i would disagree that the AP has 'no place'.

but i would also argue that the AP doesn't prove anything either way. i just see it as a way to keep my thinking on the subject in perspective.

i find it very hard to flat out dismiss the AP (and i certainly don't think your claim about religious bias necessarily follows) because the AP just make ...[text shortened]... t my thinking on this subject -- i am just not sure to what extent it should affect my thinking.

The AP strikes me as a clever and pithy statement, but it really doesn't say anything (like the Douglas Adams' quote). I know scientists are working on the issues I pointed out in this thread regarding Multiverses and Meta laws; that would seem to be a useful way to spend their time then thinking up one-liners. Why the universe is the way it is seems to be an interesting thing to study, don't you agree?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The AP strikes me as a clever and pithy statement, but it really doesn't say anything (like the Douglas Adams' quote). I know scientists are working on the issues I pointed out in this thread regarding Multiverses and Meta laws; that would seem to be a useful way to spend their time then thinking up one-liners. Why the universe is the way it is seems to be an interesting thing to study, don't you agree?

On the contrary, the AP states one of the most important points on the existence debate. It is not "designed" to scientifically prove anything, (how could it?). It deals with the pyscological aspect of the issue. The main contention here is that we should consider our place special because of the apparent odds of our existence. AP states that by pure logical thought, we can show that, regardless of the "calculated" odds, our place is no more amazing or special than if the odds were 10:1.

Originally posted by Darfius

Anthropic Principle has no place in science. "Well, even though it's ridiculously improbable, we're here, so don't question how." Umm...

This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the Anthropic Principle.

BTW, Stephen Hawking believes it has a place in science. A bit more humility wouldn't go astray, Darfius.

Originally posted by Pullhard
On the contrary, the AP states one of the most important points on the existence debate. It is not "designed" to scientifically prove anything, (how could it?). It deals with the pyscological aspect of the issue. The main contention here is that we should consider our place special because of the apparent odds of our existence. AP states that by pure log ...[text shortened]... of the "calculated" odds, our place is no more amazing or special than if the odds were 10:1.

I've discussed this in the other thread. With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, I think it's flawed reasoning. The argument is because we are here it doesn't matter what the initial odds were. I presented an analogy in the other thread: suppose that the odds of a certain coin coming up heads were a billion to one and you flipped it and it came up heads. One would find this remarkable and want to flip the coin again; if it again came up heads you would most likely conclude that there was something wrong with your assessment of the probability of the coin coming up heads or that some outside force was interfering with the randomness of the experiment. I believe that the analogy is apt except we can't "flip" the universe again. Therefore, an explanation is still necessary.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've discussed this in the other thread. With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, I think it's flawed reasoning. The argument is because we are here it doesn't matter what the initial odds were. I presented an analogy in the ...[text shortened]... the universe again. Therefore, an explanation is still necessary.

No, I don't think the coin analogy is very good. I'll alter it, if I may.

Say we had a special coin, with a billion faces. You flip it, and you get face 1000069. The possibility of getting that face was 1/1000000000 . You are unimpressed though. Why? Because this face was as likely to have come up as any other. The odds are tiny, but the coin flip was nothing special. You accept the outcome.

Now, what would have happened if another value had come up? Nothing much different, accept you are now considering a different result.

How does this relate to our existence? We are one of those faces. We were flipped. If we hadn't been flipped, some other life system may have been created, under tiny odds, and the fire eating sun-pigs that result would be wondering why they are special...

AP isn't about stats, or mathematics. Rather, it tries to put into context the human interpretation of something that is beyond us. The universe isn't answerable to human Stats 101.

BTW, as you allude to, reflipping the coin is the weaknest in you analogy. We don't need to reflip it.....

Originally posted by Pullhard
No, I don't think the coin analogy is very good. I'll alter it, if I may.

Say we had a special coin, with a billion faces. You flip it, and you get face 1000069. The possibility of getting that face was 1/1000000000 . You are unimpressed though. Why? Because this face was as likely to have come up as any other. The odds are tiny, but the coin flip was ...[text shortened]... allude to, reflipping the coin is the weaknest in you analogy. We don't need to reflip it.....

I don't agree; a remarkable result requires an explanation. Logical masturbation aside, small deviations in any of the forces would have made ANY life impossible. Read the link about AP that was provided above. To me either there are other universes (thus making this result inevitable), there are physical laws requiring the strength of the forces to be in the narrow band they are or the universe was "designed" in some sense.

Your conclusion defies common sense; if a billion to one chance occurs twice in a row we would conclude what I said above. It appears you would simply refuse to flip the coin again and say "There's no need to; any result is possible." I submit that would make you a very poor detective.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It could have which is why the speculation is unprovable. However, there's no particular reason to believe that it did either. If this is the only universe (scientists are examing Multiverse theories which postulate a large number of universes) and there are no "meta laws" determining what the strength of the forces become (again, scientists a ...[text shortened]... iverse was extremely unlikely. This is a metaphysical discussion, not a strictly scientific one.

Gomer wants to know if you wanna go tomorrow to see it?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Gomer wants to know if you wanna go tomorrow to see it?

No, I'll await the report from my spy.