Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this universe fine tuned for life?

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I think that the emergence of life was not only inevitable, (as was the emergence of Intelligent life) but also a natural part of the Galactic Evolution that started with the big bang, the birth of stars, the creation of heavier elements, etc.
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 10:17:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Life is a self-organizing system that doesn't require fine tuning because everything obeys a Conservation of Creative-Efficiency. Both a black hole and your neurons can convey mass, energy, and information with the highest efficiency possible for anything their size because everything obeys the same rules of organizing around what's missing from this picture. Even on a cellular level bacteria and viruses as well as our brains utilize pattern matching and quorum sensing in order to not only organize around searching for what's missing from this picture, but in order to increase their efficiency and produce greater creativity.

You could say everything that exists resembles both the irresistible creative impetus of the Big Bang and the inescapable anonymity of a Big Crunch with everything simultaneously becoming both more humble and complex. Roughly one quarter of such a self-organizing system is dedicated to maintenance alone which is a high rate, but ensures life is more social than it might otherwise be and has more diversity without requiring any fine tuning. Instead, it has what's known as "resilience" with chaos theory recently providing a means of calculating the tipping points where systems go from stable to falling apart.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:18:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

I understand that we can never be truly unbiased, but I'd like to know what the probability is that all factors aligned necessary for life to evolve, did so by accident. Take the gravitational constant for example. Slightly stronger and the universe would have collapsed in on itself. Slightly stronger and matter would have expanded too fast for galaxies to form. As far as forces go, the gravitational constant is amongst the weakest forces known to man, yet crucial for the evolution of life. This is just one of thousands of elements necessary for life to evolve.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:35:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

In my opinion next to impossible. The requirements for life as we know it require millions if not billions of specific conditions to support it. Take just one thing away and all life will die. The possibility of all of those requirements happening again somewhere else is the worst bet you will ever make. The odds against it happening are measured in powers of ten.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 1:32:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:35:30 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

In my opinion next to impossible. The requirements for life as we know it require millions if not billions of specific conditions to support it. Take just one thing away and all life will die. The possibility of all of those requirements happening again somewhere else is the worst bet you will ever make. The odds against it happening are measured in powers of ten.

So humanity is a freak of nature and our future existence, anything but assured. lol not very reassuring.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 2:25:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:35:30 PM, sadolite wrote:
In my opinion next to impossible. The requirements for life as we know it require millions if not billions of specific conditions to support it. Take just one thing away and all life will die. The possibility of all of those requirements happening again somewhere else is the worst bet you will ever make. The odds against it happening are measured in powers of ten.

I think there is only three true condition for the formation of life as we know it, the availability of carbon (or even silicon) ,a liquid solvent (such as water), and organic molecules which can be found all over the place. Can you give me any other conditions?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 3:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 2:25:00 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:35:30 PM, sadolite wrote:
In my opinion next to impossible. The requirements for life as we know it require millions if not billions of specific conditions to support it. Take just one thing away and all life will die. The possibility of all of those requirements happening again somewhere else is the worst bet you will ever make. The odds against it happening are measured in powers of ten.

I think there is only three true condition for the formation of life as we know it, the availability of carbon (or even silicon) ,a liquid solvent (such as water), and organic molecules which can be found all over the place. Can you give me any other conditions?

Carbon just on its own requires the precise value of 3 different types of forces being precisely what they are to allow it to be created in the suns furnace. Should any of these forces, for example gravity, differ by 1%, the universe would not support life.

The cosmological constant has no reason to be what it is.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 3:33:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 3:08:31 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Carbon just on its own requires the precise value of 3 different types of forces being precisely what they are to allow it to be created in the suns furnace. Should any of these forces, for example gravity, differ by 1%, the universe would not support life.


Not life as we know it for certain but if those three forces were slightly different, how do we know that not some other element would have been created that could also have acted to establish life? I do take your point however that my interpretation of what is needed for life was rather oversimplified but then again, the idea that you need millions or even billions of requirements is a bit exaggerated as well.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 4:38:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 3:33:26 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/17/2016 3:08:31 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Carbon just on its own requires the precise value of 3 different types of forces being precisely what they are to allow it to be created in the suns furnace. Should any of these forces, for example gravity, differ by 1%, the universe would not support life.


Not life as we know it for certain but if those three forces were slightly different, how do we know that not some other element would have been created that could also have acted to establish life? I do take your point however that my interpretation of what is needed for life was rather oversimplified but then again, the idea that you need millions or even billions of requirements is a bit exaggerated as well.

I never said millions. I said specific. As in the volume of dark matter present in the universe. The existence of the multi verse , although just a theory, reduces the probability of chance from near impossible odds to just miraculous odds. But there is as much evidence to support it as there is evidence to support a creator. None whatsoever. It doesn't even come close to answering the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?
The more I know, the more I realize how much I do not know.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

But is the universe fine tuned for life or is our situation merely the consequence of the where size of the universe is so huge that every possible situation must exist somewhere. How many planets, stars, galaxies or universes need to exist to give us realistic odds?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I don't quite understand your objection. The argument does not attempt specify the conditions that permit specifically human existence. It just says that whatever conditions we do track down, they will be compatible with rather than at odds with our existence, in light of our demonstrated ability to exist and perceive (there can be more than one set of laws satisfying that requirement). In appealing to the limits perception imposes on the universe we can perceive, the argument attempts to use the existence of humans to explain the human-friendly conditions we observe, but the only reason humans exist is because human-friendly conditions are in place. I mean, of course if X can only exist in Y, the existence of X implies its containment in Y. But that doesn't explain why Y exists to contain X.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:39:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I beg to differ. The very existence of the universe is dependant on the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant. If either of these forces was different by just 1%, the universe wouldn't exist. Galaxies wouldn't exist, much less carbon and water molecules. We know how much force a mass applies on another mass over a specific distance, but not why? How did matter know exactly how much force it needs to apply on other matter so the universe can be created?
And that's just the universe. The requirements for life to evolve are a lot more intricate. If anything, I'm playing down exactly how specific the circumstances are.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I don't quite understand your objection. The argument does not attempt specify the conditions that permit specifically human existence. It just says that whatever conditions we do track down, they will be compatible with rather than at odds with our existence, in light of our demonstrated ability to exist and perceive (there can be more than one set of laws satisfying that requirement). In appealing to the limits perception imposes on the universe we can perceive, the argument attempts to use the existence of humans to explain the human-friendly conditions we observe, but the only reason humans exist is because human-friendly conditions are in place. I mean, of course if X can only exist in Y, the existence of X implies its containment in Y. But that doesn't explain why Y exists to contain X.

Lol good luck if you think people will understand that. At best you will get, why not?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:44:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:02:10 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

But is the universe fine tuned for life or is our situation merely the consequence of the where size of the universe is so huge that every possible situation must exist somewhere. How many planets, stars, galaxies or universes need to exist to give us realistic odds?

The "physical constants" of the observable universe appear to be such that if they were changed even a little bit in either direction, life would not be able to form, in many cases not even stars could form. On the basis of such evidence, some speculate that for every unique set of physical constants there is a universe which embodies it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:55:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:43:22 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I don't quite understand your objection. The argument does not attempt specify the conditions that permit specifically human existence. It just says that whatever conditions we do track down, they will be compatible with rather than at odds with our existence, in light of our demonstrated ability to exist and perceive (there can be more than one set of laws satisfying that requirement). In appealing to the limits perception imposes on the universe we can perceive, the argument attempts to use the existence of humans to explain the human-friendly conditions we observe, but the only reason humans exist is because human-friendly conditions are in place. I mean, of course if X can only exist in Y, the existence of X implies its containment in Y. But that doesn't explain why Y exists to contain X.

Lol good luck if you think people will understand that. At best you will get, why not?

I don't think it's any more abstract or complicated than the Anthripic Principle itself.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:11:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I don't quite understand your objection. The argument does not attempt specify the conditions that permit specifically human existence. It just says that whatever conditions we do track down, they will be compatible with rather than at odds with our existence, in light of our demonstrated ability to exist and perceive (there can be more than one set of laws satisfying that requirement). In appealing to the limits perception imposes on the universe we can perceive, the argument attempts to use the existence of humans to explain the human-friendly conditions we observe, but the only reason humans exist is because human-friendly conditions are in place. I mean, of course if X can only exist in Y, the existence of X implies its containment in Y. But that doesn't explain why Y exists to contain X.

Basically what it does is just account for the disequilibrium in probabilities by arbitrarily positing however many unobserved instances are needed to do so. Of course, at a certain point that becomes an unfalsifiable non-answer, yeah. But I do think it contains more of a claim than what you're laying out here.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:27:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:39:38 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I beg to differ. The very existence of the universe is dependant on the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant. If either of these forces was different by just 1%, the universe wouldn't exist. Galaxies wouldn't exist, much less carbon and water molecules. We know how much force a mass applies on another mass over a specific distance, but not why? How did matter know exactly how much force it needs to apply on other matter so the universe can be created?
And that's just the universe. The requirements for life to evolve are a lot more intricate. If anything, I'm playing down exactly how specific the circumstances are.

I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with here, since my post was just questioning Dylan's criticism of a different theory.

However, I'm actually not sure what kind of answer people would want to these kinds of question. It all seems to me to be so many variations on "why is there something rather than nothing?" - Would the existence of a chaotic and boundless universe, where all is immortal, be much less inexplicable to you?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:42:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:27:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:39:38 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I beg to differ. The very existence of the universe is dependant on the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant. If either of these forces was different by just 1%, the universe wouldn't exist. Galaxies wouldn't exist, much less carbon and water molecules. We know how much force a mass applies on another mass over a specific distance, but not why? How did matter know exactly how much force it needs to apply on other matter so the universe can be created?
And that's just the universe. The requirements for life to evolve are a lot more intricate. If anything, I'm playing down exactly how specific the circumstances are.

I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with here, since my post was just questioning Dylan's criticism of a different theory.

However, I'm actually not sure what kind of answer people would want to these kinds of question. It all seems to me to be so many variations on "why is there something rather than nothing?" - Would the existence of a chaotic and boundless universe, where all is immortal, be much less inexplicable to you?

In such a universe, I wouldn't exist to ask the question.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:57:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:10 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

But is the universe fine tuned for life or is our situation merely the consequence of the where size of the universe is so huge that every possible situation must exist somewhere. How many planets, stars, galaxies or universes need to exist to give us realistic odds?

The "physical constants" of the observable universe appear to be such that if they were changed even a little bit in either direction, life would not be able to form, in many cases not even stars could form. On the basis of such evidence, some speculate that for every unique set of physical constants there is a universe which embodies it.

Yes, I'm familiar with the multiple universe theory. To me it's like walking around a mountain to avoid admitting that the mountain might exist. There is no proof or way of proving these other universes exist. A near infinite number of universes coming into existence for unknown reasons or one universe, created specifically for life to evolve? If scientists didn't oppose the idea of a creator so vehemently, the conclusion would be obvious.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 8:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:39:38 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:02:50 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

I don't see that this theory needs to presume the whole set of conditions for specifically human existence, but rather some basic atomic elements, procedurally generating random mutations. Certainly there's a metaphysics there which remains to be accounted for, but I don't see it as begging the question to the degree you've painted - it would be something like a version of atomism. We'd need to take the basic elements being combined as given, but the specific conditions of human life (the "works of Shakespeare") would be just one among the many variations.

I beg to differ. The very existence of the universe is dependant on the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant. If either of these forces was different by just 1%, the universe wouldn't exist. Galaxies wouldn't exist, much less carbon and water molecules. We know how much force a mass applies on another mass over a specific distance, but not why? How did matter know exactly how much force it needs to apply on other matter so the universe can be created?
And that's just the universe. The requirements for life to evolve are a lot more intricate. If anything, I'm playing down exactly how specific the circumstances are.

"The requirements for life to evolve are a lot more intricate. If anything, I'm playing down exactly how specific the circumstances are."

BUMP!!!
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 12:55:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

You refuted a point never made, congrats.

I clearly made the point about how data by observers via observer is biased to their necessary preconditions of said observer.

This is to refute the whole, oh what are the odds, so astronomical, must of been the plan all along, cause if such and such had not happened we would not be here, we have overcome astronomical odds if one little thing had being different, we would not be here................must be the result of intelligent design.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 1:27:41 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 12:55:25 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

You refuted a point never made, congrats.

I clearly made the point about how data by observers via observer is biased to their necessary preconditions of said observer.

This is to refute the whole, oh what are the odds, so astronomical, must of been the plan all along, cause if such and such had not happened we would not be here, we have overcome astronomical odds if one little thing had being different, we would not be here................must be the result of intelligent design.

You don't seem to have gotten my point, as "what are the odds" is indeed a valid question to ponder. Since we are alive we shouldn't be surprised to find that the universe is friendly to life. But what is amazing is that we are even around to ask these questions. The fact that a lifeless universe wouldn't contain observers doesn't necessitate the existence of a life-bearing universe containing observers. It's not amazing that we ponder AS life forms in a life-bearing universe, it's amazing that we ponder at all. The Anthropic Principle is useless for answering the question "why does a universe fine-tuned for life exist for us to perceive".
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:34:42 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 1:27:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/18/2016 12:55:25 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/17/2016 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:15:09 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:31:53 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'll admit I'm out of my depth here. The universe is billions of billion of miles in every direction and life, as far as we know, only exist on the surface of an average planet in an average solar system in an average galaxy and nowhere else. Yet the requirements for life to evolve and exist are very specific. Is the universe just so big that it's inevitable all these requirements aligned by chance or are the requirements so specific that it would be impossible? Your thoughts please.

Any intelligent life will find it's self in an environment that is at least compatible for it's existence, cause if it wasn't the case they wouldn't exist in that environment in the first place.

This creates a bias effect for "observers" eg, humans, since they will only find them selves in such an environment.

There are no intelligent life forms existing in universes/planets/dimensions/realities etc etc which is incompatible with their existence.

The Anthropic Principle does not explain why the universe is fine-tuned to support life. It only answers the question: why do we perceive a universe hospitable to life rather than a universe inhospitable to life? It fails to account for the act of perception itself and the conditions which make it possible, merely operating off of the assumption that perception exists and that the universe is around to perceive itself. Trying to explain the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life in terms of "our being able to observe it" begs the question, since the only reason we're around to observe the universe is because it's fine-tuned for life. If we follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we end up with the following "explanation": the universe is fine-tuned to support life because the universe is fine-tuned to support life. That adds very little in the way of explanation.

You refuted a point never made, congrats.

I clearly made the point about how data by observers via observer is biased to their necessary preconditions of said observer.

This is to refute the whole, oh what are the odds, so astronomical, must of been the plan all along, cause if such and such had not happened we would not be here, we have overcome astronomical odds if one little thing had being different, we would not be here................must be the result of intelligent design.

You don't seem to have gotten my point, as "what are the odds" is indeed a valid question to ponder. Since we are alive we shouldn't be surprised to find that the universe is friendly to life. But what is amazing is that we are even around to ask these questions. The fact that a lifeless universe wouldn't contain observers doesn't necessitate the existence of a life-bearing universe containing observers. It's not amazing that we ponder AS life forms in a life-bearing universe, it's amazing that we ponder at all. The Anthropic Principle is useless for answering the question "why does a universe fine-tuned for life exist for us to perceive".

Your biases are showing, universe "friendly" to life, come on.

One small planet, in one particular solar system, in one particular galaxy, etc etc where outside of that area it is either hostile or impossible for life to exist in all or most of the universe.

Why did you try to make that jump ? ill wager, cause you have an intelligent designer assumption your trying to make fit.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 8:10:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 3:34:42 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
One small planet, in one particular solar system, in one particular galaxy, etc etc where outside of that area it is either hostile or impossible for life to exist in all or most of the universe.


The fact is that life exists in our solar system, and as our solar system seems to be like most of the other solar systems around us, I would say that is seems like a given that life therefore exists all over the universe. Do you have any scientific arguments that our solar system is indeed the exception as you claim it to be?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 9:51:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 1:27:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
You don't seem to have gotten my point, as "what are the odds" is indeed a valid question to ponder. Since we are alive we shouldn't be surprised to find that the universe is friendly to life. But what is amazing is that we are even around to ask these questions. The fact that a lifeless universe wouldn't contain observers doesn't necessitate the existence of a life-bearing universe containing observers. It's not amazing that we ponder AS life forms in a life-bearing universe, it's amazing that we ponder at all. The Anthropic Principle is useless for answering the question "why does a universe fine-tuned for life exist for us to perceive".

Surely you can see that there are two separate questions of different levels here? There is the very general one about the existence of any universe whatsoever ("something rather than nothing") - and then the more particular question of why there would be a universe amenable to generating human life. The principle which evens out the probabilities by positing each incompatible combination of elements as running parallel with the compatible one we observe, broadens the question of the latter into a much more primordial and general one, in which we must account for a universe (or multiverse) consisting of an indefinitely varying array of combinations of basic elements, rather than having to account for a universe specifically tilted toward the conditions of human life.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:32:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I think the simple answer is 'yes, the universe is fine tuned for life'. We know that if the physical constants were even ever so slightly different there would be, say, no stable atoms.

Some would argue that even in a universe with only radiation and no matter there could be life. I'd doubt that is true, but I don't want to argue it. Suffice to say that for 'life as we know it' the constants of physics have to be 'set' at their measured values within very narrow limits.

Nobody knows why the gravitation constant (for example only) is what it is. The AP only tells us that if it was even slightly different we couldn't ask the question. Various estimates exist, but they all point to that if this universe is the only universe the chances of it being 'just right' for life are effectively zero.

Since Copernicus scientists have gone off the idea that nature centres on humanity and our interests, so this universe being 'just right' by a lucky fluke gets rejected.

If you also reject the quaint idea of a god setting the knobs on his universe creating machine to the precise values required, a popular idea is to have lots of unverses, each with its own randomly set physical constants. Those universes might follow each other(big bounce theories), or they might all happen at once(multiverse theories).

We don't (yet) understand the origin of our universe, so while people have their preferred pet theories, we don't know if this universe is fine tuned as the result of a massive fluke or if it is the inevitable consequence of being one universe of billions of different universes, mist of which have no life at all.