anthropic principle and life
bpuharic
alejandro jenkins of florida state and gilad perez of the weizmann
institute point out that, if nstead of changing just one fundamental
physical parameter, several of these are changed, many life supporting
universes are possible. for example, it's possible to completely
eliminate the weak nuclear force, and, with a small adjustment to the
parameter controlling the symmetry between matter and antimatter, a
universe remarkably similar to our own is possible. so a creationist
argument in favor of 'fine tuning' seems to have a problem.
the only parameter which is strictly constrained is the cosmological
constant.
J. J. Lodder
It is not obvious that there are any free parameters
to be tuned at all.
So asssuming there are is just premature speculation.
We just don't know,
Jan
Christopher Denney
Yes, I have yet to get an answer when I ask "What makes you think
these 'parameters' can have any other value" type questions.
Kermit
They also run into trouble if they are YEC. Those folks usually claim
that various parameters have changed in the last 6000 or so years (you
know, since the universe began) which makes it *look older than it is.
The speed of light, the rate of radioisotope decay, whatever is
required to allow faster plate tectonics, etc. But fine tuning? If
it's an argument against godless science, then it must be true also.
Consistency and consequences are not among their strenths.
Kermit
TomS
<f449de6f-1395-47c0...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Christopher
Denney stated..."
And there is the question as to whether God - or any being with
the ability to set these parameters - couldn't have made humans
even with different values of these parameters.
Couldn't God have created us even if all He had to work with
were neutrinos and a few nanoseconds?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
J. J. Lodder
And even more rediculous:
some people pretend to know the phase space
for possible values of these 'parameters' well enough
to calculate a probability for ending up in just this universe.
Surprise, surprise: No matter how they do it,
it always comes out as vanishingly small,
Jan
Nick Keighley
wrote:
I thought there were versions of string theory that yielded different
values for these "parameters".
bpuharic
is there any reason why the weak force couldnt be eliminated? there
seems to be nothing in physics that requires it. and, as gell-mann
said, what is not forbidden in physics is mandatory.
Walter Bushell
Perhaps universes exist will all possible values of the parameters. This
was a premise of the book _The Gods Themselves_ by Isaac Asimov.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<13d0bb49-b1b6-4d5f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. If they had
consistency and consequences they could not long remain creationists.
Hint when you notice you have lost those two virtues, it's time to
reconsider your position.
Kermit
> In article
> <13d0bb49-b1b6-4d5f-a976-956cdbb67...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Creationists are taught from toddlerhood to not examine their own or
any other set of beliefs for consistency or consequences. Considering
either can lead to self-doubt. If one is wrong about any religious
matter, then one might be wrong about everything, and one will not
then live forever, or even live now as the most important thing in the
universe. Besides, their beliefs are so contrary to observable fact
that they need constant internal and social reinforcement. We have
always been at war with Eurasia.
This is why they cannot understand science, which is all about
consequences, and of course reality is internally consistent (so
far!); they read little science fiction, for the same reasons (it is
not about spaceships and aliens, but rather "What happens if...?");
they lack introspective ability (how can one study oneself without
becoming skilled at, and habitually aware of, consistency and
consequences?); nor do they understand another's point of view (how
can you think about what it's like to be gay, or female, or Haitian,
etc., without practicing the dark arts of consistency and
consequences?).
>
> --
> �A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Kermit