|
|
#71
03-11-2007, 07:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike
[ QUOTE ]
"I can't see how less complex universes have anything to do with refuting the anthropic argument. Please explain." If in fact there could be more elegant, less complicated, more commonsensical universes that could result in intelligent life that wonders about its existence, then you can't say "don't think that this complicated universe is amazingly unlikely, because without the complications, there could be no intelligence to contemplate it". In other words if the universe is much more complicated than it needs to be to support such life, (though arahant says it will soon be shown not to be), the anthropic principle can't explain that away. Example: A guy wins the Hilton Football Handicapping Contest and ascribes it to God. Nonsense you say since someone had to win. But if he won on 30 out of 30 picks and the next guy hit 21 you can't use your argument anymore. [/ QUOTE ] but what if that winner actually hit 30 out of 10^1679 picks? See here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v.../ant_encyc.pdf and here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/anthro.html and here (you, too, can be a Monkey God): http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...mo/monkey.html 
|
|
#72
03-11-2007, 07:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
[ QUOTE ]
Well you are refuting my physics rather than my philosophy. [/ QUOTE ] Well, maybe a bit of both, since a lot of your philosophy hinges on the fact that: [ QUOTE ] So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life ... [/ QUOTE ] I'm not an expert on this subject, but there are many indications that our universe IS actually quite "fine-tuned" to support carbon-based life. If a few parameters would be slightly different, our universe would not support carbon-based life. For instance, if the strong force was increased slightly all the hydrogen in the early universe would be converted to helium. So although I haven't really thought this subject through, I think there are already a few problems in some of your premises (like the one above).
|
|
#73
03-11-2007, 07:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
Yeah, that's the whole problem with the OP.
I don't think anyone is disputing this IF the universe was proven to be more complex than the minimum needed, and IF that complexity was very high on the scale of possible complexities, then it may increase the odds that the universe was designed (but by what? Not necessarily anything fitting a description of any God) The trouble is, you still can't quantify it. It's like my royal flush example. Simple as that is, you can't say how that would influence the probability of a non-random RNG without other information to plug into the formulas. How often would an RNG be rigged to increase the chances of royal flushes (vs other non random RNG scenarios)? Would other types of rigging reduce the occurrence of flushes? How likely are those? Similarly with God - assuming all the above was true - wouldn't God create a universe that was elegant? Elegance seems to be one of the hallmarks of perfection, and it would argue against universe building laws that are more complex than necessary. It's all a big pile of poo. Drawing any speculations from it at this stage is greatly overstepping the boundaries our knowledge. You don't need a physics PhD to see that.
|
|
#74
03-11-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chance and Necessity
[ QUOTE ]
There are many indications that our universe IS actually quite "fine-tuned" to support carbon-based life. If a few parameters would be slightly different, our universe would not support carbon-based life. [/ QUOTE ]The example of the Rolling Stones was brought up once. Richards and Jagger had a entirely chance meeting on the train, as young kids, whereby one of them was carrying old blues records, which piqued the interest of the other enough to start a conversation. They were strangers till then. If they'd never met, this hugely influential group would most probably not have been formed --- at least, not as we know it and not with the musical path it took. Think Manfred Mann. I could argue that "the whole universe conspired for the Stones to exist!" because the variables that needed to come together for that meeting to occur were so many. In fact, practically every chance meeting in our lives is utterly random, to the point that, in retrospect, it seems the world fine-tunes itself to that. (I once bumped into a personal friend in a European metropolis when none of us was supposed to be there at the time!) The secret is to realize that randomness rules our lives; therefore, random events are bound to occur to us. So, yes, our world had every of the many variables set at their necessary values respectively for life to appear. But why would this have been done on purpose? Every other throw of the dice would've resulted in a non-event as far as we can tell -- because we would not be around to tell! And this fact, shadows our viewpoint and we see traces of "Intent" and "Purpose" where randomness is. Like seeing human figures in clouds. Mickey Brausch Essential, essential reading : biologist Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessiry.
|
|
#75
03-11-2007, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chance and Necessity
Nowhere in my post I intended to imply that the "fine-tuning" of some constants implies some sort of design/intent/purpose.
What I meant is that for carbon-based life to exist, certain conditions must be met. The proposition: [ QUOTE ] So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life [/ QUOTE ] is not evident for me (in fact, there might be more evidence to the contrary, but I'm no expert on this). So I don't know if you were reacting to my post, but your example of the Rolling Stones is totally different than what I'm arguing.
|
|
#76
03-11-2007, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
[ QUOTE ]
But I can't believe those who are claiming that lack of simplicity is evidence AGAINST a designer. [/ QUOTE ] It seems quite straightforward to me. If I understand correctly you are observing that there is lots of stuff in Physics that does not seem logical to you, but we know its true because of practical experiments. And the contention is, does that make it more of less likely that the universe was designed. You claiming that it makes it more likely the universe was designed. Consider two things, one created by chance and the other designed by one entity. Which one would you expect to be more complicated? How about two large mansions; One designed by one architect to the specifications of someone with too much money. The other slowly evolved over a thousand years, starting as a small cottage and gradually being build up over the centauries. It seems to me that while the designed mansion might be very complicated, it will be internally constant and make sense. While the evolved mansion might well have corroders leading off into nowhere, or rather to a part of the house that burnt down hundreds of years ago. How about two journeys to the same point, one designed and one random? Which journey would you expect to have lots of pointless dead ends and crossing back on oneself? It seems to me that the “two many fundamental particles does not make sense” effect you refer to is precisely the sort of thing you would expect in a universe created by chance. In fact I would go further and say that your observation suggests that not only has the universe evolved by chance, but the laws of Physics have as well; that the laws of Physics evolve and change dynamically over time. So some feature of modern Physics might not make sense now, but did a long time ago. The way the universe works changing so that it no longer makes sense but we are still stuck with it. Life not being possible initially, but after billions of years of shift in the basic parameters of the universe it has now become possible! Too many subatomic particles not making sense = dead end corridors leading to rooms destroyed a hundred years ago = appendix. PS Thanks for the post, I had never really thought of the laws of Physics evolving dynamically in the similar way to which life has before. A dangerously tempting idea.
|
|
#77
03-11-2007, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
Piers,
the creationists have beaten you to it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...cdk_davies.asp *Before you take the claims too seriously, be sure to read the actual study they reference
|
|
#78
03-11-2007, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
[ QUOTE ]
I had never really thought of the laws of Physics evolving dynamically in the similar way to which life has before. A dangerously tempting idea. [/ QUOTE ] A COSMIC CONUNDRUM: A new incarnation of Einstein’s cosmological constant may point the way beyond general relativity. Link to Scientific American article Overview: Quantum mechanics and relativity, combined with recent evidence of an accelerating universe, have led physicists to resurrect the cosmological term that Einstein introduced and later repudiated. But this term now represents a mysterious form of energy that permeates empty space and drives an accelerated cosmic expansion. The efforts to explain the origin of this energy may help scientists move beyond Einstein’s theory in ways that are likely to change our fundamental understanding of the universe. Quotes: "When Einstein added the cosmological term, he placed it on the left-hand side of the equation, suggesting it was a property of space itself. But if one moves the cosmological term to the right-hand side, it takes on a radically new meaning, the one it has today. It now represents a bizarre new form of energy density that remains constant even as the universe expands and whose gravity is repulsive rather than attractive." "Now theorists must explain why vacuum energy might not be zero but so small that its effects on the cosmos became relevant only a few billion years ago."
|
|
#80
03-13-2007, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"This animal cannot exist\"
"Similarly with God - assuming all the above was true - wouldn't God create a universe that was elegant?"
Not the designer I have in mind. I think part of the miscommunication here is related to the fact that most people are not aware of the powers of a semi inept fifth dimensional being playing around in the third dimension.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
