10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThose are imagined universes obtained by taking the known fundamental constants of our universe and modestly adjusting their values. I'm talking about the possibility of wholly different constructs, using different physics not obtainable by any arbitrary adjustment of the physical constants we know about. Such a possibility I think is relevant to the fine-tuning debate which seems to make our universe "exceptional" (though our sample size is 1). After all, if we fancy that the only possible set of physical constants any universe can have is the set that our universe has, and allow ourselves only the ability to twiddle with those particular constants, then we are imposing significant restrictions upon ourselves and our imaginings.
See my post on page 2 and the wiki link given there.
In some cases you'd have to imagine a universe without atoms or with only hydrogen atoms or with no stars or only existing for an extremely short period, etc. etc. etc. It's hard to see how any of those universes would be "habitable".
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderIf that universe was a consciousness (or if there were a separate consciousness) that set up the physics including the symmetry rules and the energy transfer rules and so forth, so that it could witness and contemplate the resulting physical patterns, would that consciousness not be a (somewhat🙂) intelligent designer?
Probably.
But I don't know. It's still pretty impersonal.
What I am getting at is whether any universe at all could be pointed at as the result of ID, and evidence of ID, excepting, perhaps, chaotic universes lacking any regularities, having unstable and randomly changing physical constants, etc. What are the minimal characteristics of a universe that an ID adherent would be justified in calling designed?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by SoothfastSorry, but I can't see any reason to imagine universes without gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear force or electromagnetism or the other basic forces mentioned. Nor have I heard any scientific reason to do so. These are not "physical constants"; they have "physical constants" but they themselves are forces and present models suggest that they are essential to the existence of a universe.
Those are imagined universes obtained by taking the known fundamental constants of our universe and modestly adjusting their values. I'm talking about the possibility of wholly different constructs, using different physics not obtainable by any arbitrary adjustment of the physical constants we know about. Such a possibility I think is relevant to the fin ...[text shortened]... ular constants, then we are imposing significant restrictions upon ourselves and our imaginings.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by JS357An interesting question. A designer could, in theory, design anything it wanted.
If that universe was a consciousness (or if there were a separate consciousness) that set up the physics including the symmetry rules and the energy transfer rules and so forth, so that it could witness and contemplate the resulting physical patterns, would that consciousness not be a (somewhat🙂) intelligent designer?
What I am getting at is whether any un ...[text shortened]... inimal characteristics of a universe that an ID adherent would be justified in calling designed?
10 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is the color scheme, and the color scheme alone that gives the illusion that our universe lottery is rigged. Your total failure to explain the color scheme is what I have been pushing you on all along, and now you admit that you have no explanation for it other than you blindly picked it up from someone else. Yet until now you have been insisting that you did answer my questions regarding why you chose certain colors.
Why you are obsessed with the particular color scheme is a bit of a puzzle; I took it from an example already presented. I have no idea why you insist I must give you a further explanation for it.
That you insist that it is an illusion that the lottery was fixed, doesn't make it so; it's just an assertion without any basis in fact.
Its an assertion based on the facts I have presented.
You might be sitting next to me at Rick's and insist that it was an "illusion" that the Bulgarian husband's winning at roulette was fixed but since the evidence doesn't support your assertion I would rightly reject it.
Did they color the winning ticket black in your roulette example? Or did you deliberately subtly change the equation? Why did you introduce that new analogy in the first place? Did the first one fail?
These points have been covered ad nauseam.
Yes they have, and you were proven wrong, you just wont admit it.
The "Lottery Fallacy" you are clinging to adds zero to the discussion; as pointed out several times it is a mere deflection.
A deflection from what exactly?
Either start explaining why the universe has the properties it does or just admit that your entire argument consists of the assertion that an incredibly improbable thing just happened.
My argument consists of the assertion that anything that happens is necessarily incredible improbable. That is a basic fact of things happening. You cannot deny this basic fact without looking like an utter fool.
You are entitled to make such an assertion, but I am not logically required to accept it.
Yes, actually, you are logically required to accept it. Given the possibility of more than three things happening, if one of them happens, it was necessarily improbable. The more possible things there are the more improbable the one that happens. Deny this at your peril.
The evidence makes me believe that Rick arranged for the husband to win and following the same line of logic it makes me believe that the universe's physical properties were not just "s**t happens".
Yet you have failed to explain why the Rick analogy applies to the universe. Where has the universe won two lotteries in a row?
And I specifically responded to the assertion about my own existence and gave the reasons why it differed from the issue at hand so please stop blatantly lying about my posts.
You responded to the assertion, but you did not answer the question nor explain why it differed from the issue at hand. I have gone back an read through your posts again, and I am not blatantly lying. Feel free to quote yourself giving the reasons and I will apologize for my apparent inability to read.
EDIT: Here's a question for you; why does the universe have the properties it does?
I have no idea. Do you? Didn't think so.
Even if the universe was designed, it is necessarily the case that whatever properties were chosen were chosen from a vast range of other possible properties and the probability of the particular properties chosen is necessarily small. So you will probably end up coming to the conclusion that the designer was designed. After all, he is a black marble designer as opposed to all those possible white marble designers that never happened.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadTW: I have no idea.
It is the color scheme, and the color scheme alone that gives the illusion that our universe lottery is rigged. Your total failure to explain the color scheme is what I have been pushing you on all along, and now you admit that you have no explanation for it other than you blindly picked it up from someone else. Yet until now you have been insisting that ...[text shortened]... ack marble designer as opposed to all those possible white marble designers that never happened.
Obviously.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadTW: My argument consists of the assertion that anything that happens is necessarily incredible improbable.
It is the color scheme, and the color scheme alone that gives the illusion that our universe lottery is rigged. Your total failure to explain the color scheme is what I have been pushing you on all along, and now you admit that you have no explanation for it other than you blindly picked it up from someone else. Yet until now you have been insisting that ...[text shortened]... ack marble designer as opposed to all those possible white marble designers that never happened.
Quantum mechanics proves this assertion false. A lot of physicists are apparently "utter fools" in your estimation.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI find your lack of imagination…troubling. 😉
Sorry, but I can't see any reason to imagine universes without gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear force or electromagnetism or the other basic forces mentioned. Nor have I heard any scientific reason to do so. These are not "physical constants"; they have "physical constants" but they themselves are forces and present models suggest that they are essential to the existence of a universe.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm just glad that most of us are a little more intellectually curious. "S**t happens" really isn't a very scientific approach.
Well, I did say it loud and clear. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think my lack of knowledge in that area some how makes you look better? If so, you are mistaken.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI never said I wasn't curious. Nor did I say "S**t happens". I believe you came up with that phrase. I said I didn't know.
I'm just glad that most of us are a little more intellectually curious. "S**t happens" really isn't a very scientific approach.
And the current scientific standpoint from quantum mechanics is that either s**t happens rather a lot, or there is no easy way to know that it doesn't. Quantum mechanics strongly suggests true randomness. Besides, even a completely causal system must necessarily have some brute facts that we can put down as s**t happens.