04 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsExactly, we have a sample of one. Drawing conclusions from such a sample is idiotic. But don't let that stop you demonstrating your idiocy.
We only have scientific evidence of one universe. There is no reason to imagine more than one universe, unless we wish to bolster up the idea that life could have happened by chance and there was infinite time and infinite universes that by some accident everything just fell into place to allow for it.
The more believable story would be that a powerful e ...[text shortened]... right for life and was also the source of the life because he was alive and had life within him.
04 May 13
Originally posted by menace71Many of those 93 factors are co-dependant ... I think it boils down to 5 fundamental
yeah that is 93 factors that have to be just right for this universe to be the way it is and to be conducive to life. I think mathematically not an accident the odds are too much to be just an accident
Manny
constants and we don't know if those constants are random or must be
set at those values.
Also there is absolutely no way you can calculate the probability of those constamts being just right.
For instance - you could say that G could be any number (ie 0 - inf) and
that any particular value has a zero probability. Therefore the likelihood of us being here is zero.
05 May 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Or it could be the only possible value making this universe and us inevitable. I like that notion. We are because we are. No need for gods, grumpy sky fairies or other mythical non-beings.
Many of those 93 factors are co-dependant ... I think it boils down to 5 fundamental
constants and we don't know if those constants are random or must be
set at those values.
Also there is absolutely no way you can calculate the probability of those constamts being just right.
For instance - you could say that G could be any number (ie 0 - inf) an ...[text shortened]... any particular value has a zero probability. Therefore the likelihood of us being here is zero.
05 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerI am still looking for real thinkers in the science forum. They are harder to find than a needle in a haystack. But no shortage of would be comedians.
Or it could be the only possible value making this universe and us inevitable. I like that notion. We are because we are. No need for gods, grumpy sky fairies or other mythical non-beings.
06 May 13
Originally posted by menace71You and e4chris seem to be the only other ones on this Science Forum that wants to do some real thinking about this. The others are too indoctrinated to care.
Way overused but it's equivalent to an explosion in a print forming a Websters dictionary in order and pages bound. I just don't see life or the universe happening by chance or accident or randomness.
Manny
06 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI like to keep an open mind to truth I think many creationist as well as opposing views have agendas is all. When people need to critically look at issues and do not accept something just because it is the fad of the age.
You and e4chris seem to be the only other ones on this Science Forum that wants to do some real thinking about this. The others are too indoctrinated to care.
Manny
06 May 13
Originally posted by menace71Hence the story of the puddle quoted earlier in the thread. The odds of anything in existence is necessarily very low. Thats how odds work. It doesn't mean that the outcome is special. If you throw a die 20 times and record the results, the odds of that particular set of numbers is extremely low, yet it happened. Does this instantly imply that some intelligent entity was guiding each throw of the dies? No, of course not. It just means you don't understand probability.
I would think the odds of all 4(5) fundamental forces being just right for life such as ourselves would be astronomical (LOL) so to speak.
You are assuming that life as we know it is special, but have no justification for this assumption.
One of my early attempts at programming was the 'game of life' by John Conway. Now when you first see it, you ask 'how did he come up with rules that create such complex patterns and 'life forms'? He must have been remarkably lucky.
But if you tweak the rules, you soon discover that with different rule the patterns an life forms are actually more interesting.
My point is that life as we know it may not be the only possibility for life. There may be possible universes with far more interesting life forms. But we don't know. You haven't tried tweaking the laws of physics and checking the results. Your claim that our particular set is special is made without any actual knowledge of the other possible configurations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
06 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerI'm surprised at you supporting the anthropic principle. Do you not think that
Or it could be the only possible value making this universe and us inevitable. I like that notion. We are because we are. No need for gods, grumpy sky fairies or other mythical non-beings.
there is a possibility that science will find reasons why constants are the
values they are?
06 May 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59The anthropic principle comes in a range of strengths. Mine is the weakest possible i.e. we observe the universe the way it is because we happen to be here to observe it. That says nothing about how likely that is, whether or not divine intervention or design is involved, it just says the universe is, we are, end of.
I'm surprised at you supporting the anthropic principle. Do you not think that
there is a possibility that science will find reasons [b]why constants are the
values they are?[/b]
The other end of the spectrum is the universe is so unlikely to be perfectly fitted to us it must have been designed that way. This just ignores the fact such a designer could have fitted us to any universe he/she/it desired. I view this as a very flawed version of the anthropic principle. It suggests that we can draw inference from a sample of one, our universe, and the inference is our universe is hugely unlikely because there is an infinite number of possible universes. We don't know anything about how likely or unlikely this universe is, how many possible configurations of the universe there are, what values the constants could take.
It is entirely possible that science will be able to discover why the constants have the values they have but the weak version of the anthropic principle says nothing about that. The post you quoted doesn't actually say anything about me not believing that we can discover the why. I responded to the notion that a constant could take an infinite range of values by saying that it might also be only be able to take one value, the value we observe. Why that should be is another question that would be very interesting to investigate!
07 May 13
Did the universe evolve to make black holes?
The Oxford team of evolutionary theorist Andy Gardner and theoretical physicist Joseph Conlon found that a basic equation from evolutionary genetics – called Price's theorem – can capture the process of cosmological natural selection and explain how the universe seems designed for the purpose of making black holes rather like a fish can seem 'designed' to swim underwater or a bird can appear 'designed' to fly.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-universe-evolve-black-holes.html
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-universe-evolve-black-holes.html#jCp
These evolutionary theorists are quick to dismiss what they see with their own eyes as illusions that just appear like something designed. However, they are quick to come up with a theory for something they can't see as if it was a fact that needs an explanation. What deluded minds they have.
The Instructor
07 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerI once heard (read?) the following analogy:
The anthropic principle comes in a range of strengths. Mine is the weakest possible i.e. we observe the universe the way it is because we happen to be here to observe it. That says nothing about how likely that is, whether or not divine intervention or design is involved, it just says the universe is, we are, end of.
The other end of the spectrum is the un ...[text shortened]... observe. Why that should be is another question that would be very interesting to investigate!
Imagine you are up before a firing squad consisting of 20 rifles. You hear the order to fire and hear all 20 rifles. You wet your pants then realise
that you are still alive!
How would you react?
1. Be overcome with curiosity and wonder why they all missed.
OR
2. Tell yourself that they had to miss otherwise you could
not be here pondering your survival.
07 May 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Its a bad analogy because it assumes a special case. It assumes that the firing squad was aiming for you. Therefore the case where they all miss is far less likely than the case where at least one hits you. When they all miss it is a very special case. If however you were hit by 17 bullets, would you still be overcome by curiosity as to why 17 rather than 18 or 16? Would you even think of invoking the anthropic principal and saying that the only reason you are standing there with 17 bullet holes is because if you were shot 18 times then you would have 18 bullet holes?
I once heard (read?) the following analogy:
This is the same error most people make with our universe. They find all the things that would have stopped life and then say we dodged all those bullets. They forget to tally all the things that did stop other life forms or all the other possible universes with intelligence's etc. They assume we are special without justification.