Brian Greene: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?

[Metspitzer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!

[Vend]

On 16 Mag, 18:27, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!

Whenever I hear the words 'anthropic principle' I reach for my
revolver. XD
(Ok, he didn't say the exact words, but that's what he's talking
about)

Seriously, it seems that these people (he, Susskind, etc.) are doing
metaphysics, not physics. He even looks like some sort of preacher.

[Steven L.]

"Metspitzer" <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6bl7r7dpibgaflgv4...@4ax.com:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!

The premise is faulty.

If out of the entire Universe--quadrillions of planets--only ONE planet,
the Earth, harbors life, then that certainly does NOT suggest that the
Universe is conducive to life.

Rather, it suggests that the Universe is conducive to *lifelessness*;
and that on there just is this quadrillion-to-one freak exception called
planet Earth.

We can't assume that the Universe is conducive to life, until we learn
if life is common in the Universe.





-- Steven L.

[Paul J Gans]

Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!

The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. If the universe were
not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[wiki trix]

On May 16, 4:25 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron.  If the universe were
> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.

The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at
all well tuned to life as we know it. Not surprising, just as the
oceans are finely tuned for sea life, and the continents are finely
tuned for terrestrial life. Amazing how that happened.

[Devils Advocaat]

On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!

Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
exists on this one little planet.

[Rolf]

Seems to me that life is unique in its ability to survive almost anywhere...
Could evolutionary mechanisms aka variation & selection have something with
that to do;-)

Rolf

>
>
>
> -- Steven L.

[Rolf]

Even the hydrothermal vents seem fine tuned for life...

Seems to me more like life will be present anywhere conditions permit, not
the other way around.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jp1d1a$ofr$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Considering the Universe as a whole, one small planet is statistically
insignificant and life is know to exist in a small shell around that
one planet only. Most life seems to be what we call "extremophiles"
living in the Earth's crust anyway.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

other places finely tuned for life:-

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:38:56 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:

> Seems to me that life is unique in its ability to survive almost anywhere...

so how come we've only seen it in a fantastically thin layer over the surface of one planet?

> Could evolutionary mechanisms aka variation & selection have something with
> that to do;-)

yes SAP and CRAP are closet evolution denial

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:43:37 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:

other places finely tuned to life
- hot sulphur springs
- nuclear reactor coolant systems
- 10km down in cracks in the earth
- toxic waste dumps
- aircraft fuel tanks
- perma-frost

isn't it amazing that the hot spring had *exactly* the correct concentration of sulphur *and* the right temperature for the extremophile to live! What are the odds!

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 03:14:25 -0700 (PDT),
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:38:56 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that life is unique in its ability to survive almost anywhere...
>
>so how come we've only seen it in a fantastically thin layer over the surface of one planet?
>

because that's as far as we have been to discover life. There are
probably millions of planets in the universe that have life but we are
not in touch with them!

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[TomS]

"On Wed, 16 May 2012 12:27:42 -0400, in article
<6bl7r7dpibgaflgv4...@4ax.com>, Metspitzer stated..."
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>

If the universe must be "fine tuned", that means that scientific
conclusions must be reliable. For example, the universe must be
billions of years old, for otherwise the parameters of the universe
would have to be far from the "fine tuned" values. Given the values
of the "fine tuned" parameters that we know, all life that we know
about must be related by common descent with modification.

If the universe is the product of an omnipotent, omniscient designer
then life as we know it could exist, no matter what the values of the
parameters. God could make human life without fine-tuning the universe.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Rolf]

Right, I had some of those things in mind. Perfectly consistent with
evolution but rather absurd in the context of creationism. Evel the
astronomic number of species recorded in the history of life on this planet
makes creationism of any flavor a most unlikely explanation for anything
related to life.

[Steven L.]

"st...@npsl1.com" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
news:h9l9r7pr0tcmn648r...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 17 May 2012 03:14:25 -0700 (PDT),
> nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:38:56 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:
> >
> >> Seems to me that life is unique in its ability to survive almost anywhere...
> >
> >so how come we've only seen it in a fantastically thin layer over the surface of one planet?
> >
>
> because that's as far as we have been to discover life. There are
> probably millions of planets in the universe that have life but we are
> not in touch with them!

That's my point.

As long as we haven't resolved the question of whether the Universe is
indeed conducive to life, we can't try to explain "why" it is conducive.




-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jp1d1a$ofr$1...@reader1.panix.com:

It's not an oxymoron--because the extent to which the Universe is
conducive to life is an *objective* scientific question that does NOT
require Homo Sapiens to be asking it. We're not inventing the laws of
science (some of which involve probabilities), we're discovering them.

Suppose someone said "The probability that stable solar systems can form
is an oxymoron--because if our solar system didn't form stably, we
wouldn't be asking the question." Everybody would know that's nonsense.
Scientific realities and scientific processes existed *outside of*
human consciousness.

Besides, there could well be advanced alien civilizations in other
Universes who wonder if *our* universe could bring forth life.




-- Steven L.

[Paul J Gans]

You miss my point entirely.

[Paul J Gans]

Life isn't fine tuned at all. Start with the fact that we exist.
Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.

[Paul J Gans]

"Fine tuning" usually refers to the various constants in physical
laws that govern physical and chemical reactions. Given these
laws, finding a planet like the earth only a matter of probability.
Given the probable number of planets (which is governed by those
constants) it is quite certain that there is more than one earth-like
planet around.

[Paul J Gans]

You folks are going off on a tangent. Fine tuning does not mean what
you think, Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions
that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain
universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very
narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants
were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely
to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter,
astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is
presently understood."

The quote is from Mark Isaak, see the wiki page at

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe>

footnote 1.

My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.

[Paul J Gans]

Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:jp1d1a$ofr$1...@reader1.panix.com:

>> Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>
>> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. If the universe were
>> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.

>It's not an oxymoron--because the extent to which the Universe is
>conducive to life is an *objective* scientific question that does NOT
>require Homo Sapiens to be asking it. We're not inventing the laws of
>science (some of which involve probabilities), we're discovering them.

I can't agree. WE are asking. Without the current physical parameters
being as they are, we'd not be here.

>Suppose someone said "The probability that stable solar systems can form
>is an oxymoron--because if our solar system didn't form stably, we
>wouldn't be asking the question." Everybody would know that's nonsense.
> Scientific realities and scientific processes existed *outside of*
>human consciousness.

No. The question you want to ask is "the probability that OURR solar
system can form". The answer to that is 1.

The problem is one of conditional probability, namely what is the
probability that we can exist in our universe given that we exist
in our universe.

Can there be universes in which we don't exist? Sure. But then,
of course, we don't exist in them.

>Besides, there could well be advanced alien civilizations in other
>Universes who wonder if *our* universe could bring forth life.

Sure. See what I wrote above.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:49:44 +0000 (UTC), in article
<jp3368$822$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."

But if we begin with the premise that an omnipotent and omniscient
designer designed life - or, at least, a designer who is up to the
difficult task of determining the parameters of physics and chemistry
so that they can develop life as we know it - then it is surprising
that the designer chose those values of the parameters.

[Elwin The Scribe]

Shekinah, queen of heaven, entered into the presence of the Lord and
said unto him, "The universe is done; you've made it so that it
maintains itself."

The Lord replied, "I already know that."

Shekinah said, "yes... Well I'm bored. Lets take a little vacation."

"Where?" asked the Lord.

"Let's travel to earth," Shekinah replied.

"Suits me," said the Lord, "But didn't you say it was an abominable
place unfit for sentient beings?"

"The slaughter and waste seem unnecessary to me," she replied with a
shrug, "but there are places where the scenery is nice."

Thus it came to pass that the Lord God and Shekinah were sailing upon
the face of a small lake's blue waters while the waves sparkled and a
formation of geese honked overhead.

"This planet seems well suited to the physical life forms," said
Shekinah. She trailed her fingers in the water, "How exactly did you
set it up?"

The Lord replied, "I used a simple algorithm."

Shekinah looked around at the trees on the shore and the puffy white
clouds in the sky. "All this complexity with a simple algorithm? There
are terrible discordances here, but a kind of underlying harmony
nonetheless. How did you get all the parts to fit together? How did
you arrange for all the fine-tuning?"

"Easy." said God, "In the beginning was the Word."

"I don't quite follow what your saying," said Shekinah.

God chuckled and said, "The algorithm creates an initial operator with
a dependency relationship. I call this initial operator "the Word" to
differentiate it from all the words that arise later. It, and all
subsequent operators require that at least one other operator be
present. The dependency relations among words give rise to syntactic
categories in which the allowable arguments of an operator are defined
in terms of their dependency requirements."

"In other words a grammar," said Shekinah.

"Exactly," replied the Lord.

"But how do you get from the initial word to the other word it
requires and from that dependency relationship to an entire complex
world - imperfect as it may be?"

"The initial dependency embodies a selective filter. In the case of
the Word, you could picture it as an organism seeking a mate. Since
the Word was alone, it created a complementary operator to complete
the required relationship. From this initial relationship a web of new
relationships sprang - environments where new relationships could
develop."

Shekinah looked at God suspiciously, "Are you saying that I'm the
second operator in this grammar of universes?"

"No," said the Lord God, "I'm saying that you are the first."

"Me!" cried Shekinah, "How dare you make that accusation? You're just
trying to pass the blame, you great fumbling lout! I haven't forgotten
how wasted you were from sipping at the nectar!"

"Nor have I forgotten," said the Lord God, "That we were in it
together. You, too, were not fully competent. And so here we are -
caught up in it together."

"I did not create anything!"

"You did create - because I could not. You are my creator. I was
merely your initial instrument. You, my love, are the creator of all
things."

"That's sick!" Shekinah cried, "You can't pass all the guilt off on
me!"

"Why talk about guilt?" asked the Lord, "I'm beginning to suspect that
I made mistakes, but I've learned a great deal from the humans. They
are both vengeful and loving, creative and obtuse - thousands of
contradictory relations mixed together. They seek love and
understanding in many ways that often seem incoherent when taken as a
whole."

"I already know that," Shekinah replied, "Your algorithm must have
some fundamental flaw because the relationships often involve terrible
exploitation of one being by another. It's horrible. I can't even bear
to think about it."

"Yes," the Lord answered, "Perhaps the initial algorithm has flaws."

"Are you suggesting that we restart from the beginning?"

"I'm not sure that we're able to do that at this point. We're both too
caught up in the web of dependency relations."

"Then what can be do?"

"Increase our understanding."

"How can we do that?"

"For the time being, let's just watch the humans."

"Steal understanding from the humans! What a strange idea."

"It's only fair," said the Lord God, "They stole fire from us."















>
>

[Jim T.]

I dunno. I think it's pretty astounding that this universe, or any
universe, has the ability to become self aware (through us, and
probably others).

Not that it makes me think a god or any intelligent purpose is behind
it -- that would explain exactly nothing.

[jillery]

Or even "if". Apparently.

[Elwin The Scribe]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 10:35:01 -0700, Elwin The Scribe
<el...@forest.gath> wrote:

Sorry... My previous post had errors, so I'm going to modify the
scripture. The part where Shekinah asks "What can be do?" should read
"What can we do?" I also forgot to put in the name of this book,
because it hadn't been named yet. I guess I'll call it the book of
Elwin. So the previous post would include Elwin:1-36.

Thanks for your patience.

[Craig Franck]

On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>> exists on this one little planet.
>
> Life isn't fine tuned at all.

I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
fine-tuned for life in the ocean.

> Start with the fact that we exist.
> Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.

Since there are lotteries, it is not at all surprising that there
are lottery winners. But there are additional questions:

1) If the universe were to begin again in exactly the same state
an arbitrary number of times, would every universe contain a
lottery at some point?

2) Can it be surprising any specific individual won a lottery,
while it was inevitable someone had to win?

3) Is most of the value of winning a lottery directly related to
the fact that winners are astronomically rare?

Craig

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:04:59 -0400, Craig Franck
<craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>
>>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>> exists on this one little planet.
>>
>> Life isn't fine tuned at all.
>
>I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
>fine-tuned for life in the ocean.

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:59:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

If I may inject my tuppence? There's a distinction to be made between
necessary conditions, and highly unlikely conditions. "Fine tuned"
implies that universes with other combinations of physical parameters
would not beget life, and so our existence is highly unlikely,
therefore Goddidit. But how can we know that the combination of
physical parameters in our universe is highly unlikely? Of course our
universe must be tuned for life, since we exist. But fine tuned is
arguable.

Is that fine with you?

[Burkhard]

On May 17, 7:42 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:04:59 -0400, Craig Franck
>

> <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:

> >> Devils Advocaat<mankygo...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net>  wrote:
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
> >>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
> >>> exists on this one little planet.
>
> >> Life isn't fine tuned at all.
>
> >I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
> >fine-tuned for life in the ocean.
>
> You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
>

I see you are blazing your own trail again!

[jillery]

I admit I'm too weak to deny a straight-line.

[Devils Advocaat]

On May 17, 7:04 pm, Craig Franck <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>

> > Devils Advocaat<mankygo...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net>  wrote:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
> >> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
> >> exists on this one little planet.
>
> > Life isn't fine tuned at all.
>
> I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
> fine-tuned for life in the ocean.

Indeed. :)

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:42:54 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:04:59 -0400, Craig Franck
><craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>
>>>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>>> exists on this one little planet.
>>>
>>> Life isn't fine tuned at all.
>>
>>I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
>>fine-tuned for life in the ocean.
>
>
>You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
>

It is really the world of Disney that is fine tooned.

[jonathan]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jp1d1a$ofr$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. If the universe were
> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>

But there is a possible solution to the cosmic coincidence
problem. The solution might be self-organized systems
are highly ...independent of initial conditions.
Life is the highest expression of the Darwinian evolution
we all know and love, but the processes applies to
....non-living systems as well.

Self organized systems Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#1.1

And there's another startling coincidence that supports
that idea of an evolutionary Universe. Which is that
humans evolved at almost exactly the same time that
Dark Energy emerged, which created a second phase
of universal expansion.

How in the world is Dark Energy and life related?
The possible solution to this perplexing question
in cosmology is described in detail below, by one
of the great cosmologists of our time.

An attractor, or dynamical, solution to the Universe!
From the principles of self-organized systems.

A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
By Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics, Princeton University

"Fine-tuning, cosmic coincidence, and the quintessential solution"

"Whatever form the dark energy takes, two new cosmological
problems arise. First, the component must have a tiny energy
density today. How does this small value arise from a microphysical
theory? We will refer to this puzzle as the fine-tuning problem'."

"A second problem arises when the cosmological model is extrapolated
back in time to the very early Universe, at the end of inflation, say.
The quintessence energy density decreases at a different rate from
the matter density, and their ratio shrinks by many orders of magnitude
as we extrapolate back in time. The observations tell us that,
somehow, the ratio was set initially just right so that now, fifteen billion
years later, the ratio is of order unity. Accounting for the special ratio
in the early Universe will be referred to as the `coincidence problem'
(Steinhardt 1997). The coincidence problem is a generalization
of the flatness problem pointed out by Dicke & Peebles (1979)."

"The fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence problems are vexing.
They are often posed as a paradox: why should the acceleration
begin just as humans evolve? In desperation, some cosmologists
and physicists have given renewed attention to anthropic
models (Weinberg 2000). But many continue to seek a
dynamical explanation which does not require the fine-tuning
of initial conditions or mass parameters and which
is decidedly non-anthropic."

"Finally, the dark energy is responsible for ensuring that the
cyclic evolution is an attractor solution to the evolution equations.
If a random fluctuation were to kick the Universe away from
the ideal cyclic evolution, the period of dark-energy
domination `redshifts' away the transient behaviour and
drives the Universe back towards the regular cyclic solution."
To complete the picture, we should note that the cyclic model
is motivated by recent developments in string theory, especially
the ideas of branes and extra dimensions."
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf


Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
Cyclic Cosmology
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html


s

[Mark Isaak]

To be precise, the quote is not from me. It rephrases what I wrote
about (and which I in turn got from Hugh Ross, so it would make more
sense for the citation to refer to him).

> My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
> values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
> OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.

Another quibble: If the physical constants were different, we do know
what would be present. I suppose that if the physical constants were
different, some sort of life form would be drifting around claiming
that, if the physical constants were different from what they knew, life
would be impossible.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Richard Norman]

My impression is that if the physical constants were different from
what we see then condensed matter in the form of a long-lived universe
with galaxies and stars and planets made of solids and liquids and
gases that could perform chemistry would be impossible. WIthout that,
it is hard to imagine what you might mean by "some sort of life form
drifting around."

[Paul J Gans]

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:49:44 +0000 (UTC), in article
><jp3368$822$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>>
>>Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>On May 16, 5:27??pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>
>>>Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>>exists on this one little planet.
>>
>>Life isn't fine tuned at all. Start with the fact that we exist.
>>Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.
>>

>But if we begin with the premise that an omnipotent and omniscient
>designer designed life - or, at least, a designer who is up to the
>difficult task of determining the parameters of physics and chemistry
>so that they can develop life as we know it - then it is surprising
>that the designer chose those values of the parameters.

I'm not sure I follow that argument. Omnipotence to me is
indistinguishable from magic and with magic anything at all
is possible.

[Paul J Gans]

Elwin The Scribe <el...@forest.gath> wrote:

I LOVE IT!

To quote: "Easy." said God, "In the beginning was the Word."

Who knew that God programs in Forth.

[Paul J Gans]

I'm not self-aware. I have no idea what my spleen is doing right now.

More seriously, the universe seems analogous to a cellular
automaton. Even in two dimensions an enormous amount of complexity
can arise from very simple rules.

[Paul J Gans]

Craig Franck <craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>
>>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>> exists on this one little planet.
>>
>> Life isn't fine tuned at all.

>I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
>fine-tuned for life in the ocean.

Same argument. If the tuna were not, it wouldn't be here.

>> Start with the fact that we exist.
>> Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.

>Since there are lotteries, it is not at all surprising that there
>are lottery winners. But there are additional questions:

>1) If the universe were to begin again in exactly the same state
>an arbitrary number of times, would every universe contain a
>lottery at some point?

Depends on how much you believe in quantum randomness.

>2) Can it be surprising any specific individual won a lottery,
>while it was inevitable someone had to win?

No. Today is somebody's birthday. Indeed, it is the birthday
of many people. Call two of them A and B. Would they be
amazed that their birthdays fall on the same date?

>3) Is most of the value of winning a lottery directly related to
>the fact that winners are astronomically rare?

Depends on the rules.

[Paul J Gans]

I'm tuned to your argument. And you have a good point. If indeed
there is a theory of everything, it could well turn out that there
are NO adjustable constants in that theory.

Then the various universes, if they exist, would differ only by
quantum uncertainty -- assuming of course that there are no hidden
variables in quantum mechanics.

[Paul J Gans]

The Wiki page has it in quotes... ;-(

But what is said is simple and clear.

>> My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
>> values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
>> OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.

>Another quibble: If the physical constants were different, we do know
>what would be present. I suppose that if the physical constants were
>different, some sort of life form would be drifting around claiming
>that, if the physical constants were different from what they knew, life
>would be impossible.

Not necessarily. A small variation in, I believe, the fine structure
constant and chemistry as we know it vanishes because chemical bonds
don't form.

[John S. Wilkins]

Of course He does. Why else does he tell everyone to go Forth?
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Elwin The Scribe]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 23:23:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Not me. I'm a mere scribe. But that might explain why many people
think nature's code is undecipherable.

[Bob Berger]

In article <31fb95d0-101d-4f65...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
wiki trix says...

>
>On May 16, 4:25 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>
>> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron.  If the universe were
>> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>
>The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at
>all well tuned to life as we know it.

But what are the origins of multi-verses? Answer: they're what happens when
physicists don't have anything useful to do.

[John S. Wilkins]

Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is effectively zero anyway...

[Craig Franck]

On 5/17/2012 7:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Craig Franck<craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> 2) Can it be surprising any specific individual won a lottery,
>> while it was inevitable someone had to win?
>
> No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox

> Today is somebody's birthday. Indeed, it is the birthday
> of many people. Call two of them A and B. Would they be
> amazed that their birthdays fall on the same date?

No, but that's a different issue.

>> 3) Is most of the value of winning a lottery directly related to
>> the fact that winners are astronomically rare?
>
> Depends on the rules.

The more losing tickets that are sold, the greater the jackpot.

How this relates to the fine-tuning argument is that technologically
advanced civilizations being rare may be part of the fine tuning for
life.

Craig

[wiki trix]

On May 17, 10:47 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 16, 4:25 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
> >> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron.  If the universe were
> >> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
> >The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at

> >all well tuned to life as we know it. Not surprising, just as the

> >oceans are finely tuned for sea life, and the continents are finely
> >tuned for terrestrial life. Amazing how that happened.
>

> You miss my point entirely.

Your point was very clear. I doubt if I could miss it. It is a
certainty, that arises from a conditional probability, that begs the
question, making it a tautology.

[wiki trix]

More like brainfuck.

[John Harshman]

As Humphrey Bogart said, "Ten billion planets in a hundred billion
galaxies in the observable universe, and she walks into mine."

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jp40uu$okg$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Ah, but magic has laws, at least in fictons with competent creators.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jp33cv$822$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> "Fine tuning" usually refers to the various constants in physical
> laws that govern physical and chemical reactions. Given these
> laws, finding a planet like the earth only a matter of probability.
> Given the probable number of planets (which is governed by those
> constants) it is quite certain that there is more than one earth-like
> planet around.

I think we don't have enough information to know what the probability
of a planet like Earth is. For one think, life must be established
early and in fact photosynthesis must be established early because
otherwise without the ozone layer water will be broken down by
ultraviolet light. There are so many prereqs for life to develop and
we don't even know all of them.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jp418n$okg$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

Well his fans do say She is Forth wright.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kkaalc.1v888bu1ysik00N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

But we had to make our own log tables.

[William Morse]

Love it! But why do I remember the line differently?.

[jillery]

The world of Disney is car tooned.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 23:24:59 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Does the universe have an unlimited calling plan?

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:24:38 -0700 (PDT), "John S. Wilkins"
<john.s....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is effectively zero anyway...

IIUC you're saying in paraphrase that the portion of the universe
which supports life is practically zero, therefore the universe isn't
designed for life. But what if all that non-life-supporting portion
is necessary for the development and support of the life-supporting
portion? For example, it's understood that elements beyond hydrogen
are created within large stars over billions of years, which then
explode and release these elements into the larger universe. These
different elements are necessary for the chemistry of life, but the
explosion which releases them destroys chemical life within a radius
of tens of light years. ISTM that suggest the processes the universe
uses to create intelligent life requires vast amounts of time and
space. And the universe just happens to have a lot of both.

I'm not pretending this means the universe is designed for life. I'm
saying this means the vastness of space doesn't argue against it being
designed.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 23:30:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

I am making a distinction between the trivial understanding, "we're
here because we're here", and the understanding that explains how
these physical constants apply to our existence. ISTM the question
inspires thinking about how these constants could be different. IIUC
at least some physicists say they could be very different and still
allow something similar to our universe, and so the fine-tuning
argument goes out the window.

[Burkhard]

On May 18, 8:40 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:24:38 -0700 (PDT), "John S. Wilkins"
>

> <john.s.wilk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is effectively zero anyway...
>
> IIUC you're saying in paraphrase that the portion of the universe
> which supports life is practically zero, therefore the universe isn't
> designed for life.  But what if all that non-life-supporting portion
> is necessary for the development and support of the life-supporting
> portion?


> For example, it's understood that elements beyond hydrogen
> are created within large stars over billions of years, which then
> explode and release these elements into the larger universe.  These
> different elements are necessary for the chemistry of life, but the
> explosion which releases them destroys chemical life within a radius
> of tens of light years.  ISTM that suggest the processes the universe
> uses to create intelligent life requires vast amounts of time and
> space.  And the universe just happens to have a lot of both.
>

All very true. But the opposite could of course also be true: having
the occasional life infestation might be a price you have to pay to
get all these beautiful vast expenses of clean, clear space. Just look
at how much hospitals struggle with things like "deep cleaning" to get
rid of bacteria, and the nasty buggers always seem to find a way to
cling on somewhere.

One problem with the fine tuning argument is that in focusses on one
property, which may just be a biased/arbitrary choice between all the
properties that are equally unlikely/parameter dependent, and claims
_that_ property to be evidence of a plan.

[George]

"Stephen Wolstenholme" wrote in message
news:h9l9r7pr0tcmn648r...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 May 2012 03:14:25 -0700 (PDT),
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:38:56 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that life is unique in its ability to survive almost
>> anywhere...
>
>so how come we've only seen it in a fantastically thin layer over the
>surface of one planet?
>

because that's as far as we have been to discover life. There are
probably millions of planets in the universe that have life but we are
not in touch with them!

Steve

--

The fact remains that the vast bulk of the universe, most of which is hard
vacuum and deadly radiation, appears to be completely inhospitable to life.

George

[Matchstick]

In article <jp4ec...@news4.newsguy.com>, wdNOSP...@verizon.net
says...

The Many-Worlds Interpretation is true and you saw it in a different
universe (if you were really unlucky you saw a version without the alien
invasion - best movie ending EVER).
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic

[Matchstick]

In article <jp41vt$okg$6...@reader1.panix.com>, gan...@panix.com says...

> >> My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
> >> values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
> >> OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.
>
> >Another quibble: If the physical constants were different, we do know
> >what would be present. I suppose that if the physical constants were
> >different, some sort of life form would be drifting around claiming
> >that, if the physical constants were different from what they knew, life
> >would be impossible.
>
> Not necessarily. A small variation in, I believe, the fine structure
> constant and chemistry as we know it vanishes because chemical bonds
> don't form.

But could the different physical allow for something else instead which
would provide a kind of chemistry analog ?
There's a danger here of thinking that the universe as we understand it
is the "correct" one and the only possible solution where life can exist
but that seems to be making possibly unwarranted assumptions about what
kinds of life could possibly exist under different physical conditions.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:44:17 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 03:14:25 -0700 (PDT),
> nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:38:56 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:
> >
> >> Seems to me that life is unique in its ability to survive almost anywhere...
> >
> >so how come we've only seen it in a fantastically thin layer over the surface of one planet?
> >
>
> because that's as far as we have been to discover life. There are
> probably millions of planets in the universe that have life but we are
> not in touch with them!

but not in the solar system. The surface of the sun and the cetre of the earth are inimical to life.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:02:23 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 5/17/12 7:59 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

> To be precise, the quote is not from me. It rephrases what I wrote
> about (and which I in turn got from Hugh Ross, so it would make more
> sense for the citation to refer to him).
>

> > My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
> > values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
> > OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.
>
> Another quibble: If the physical constants were different, we do know
> what would be present. I suppose that if the physical constants were
> different, some sort of life form would be drifting around claiming
> that, if the physical constants were different from what they knew, life
> would be impossible.
>

> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume



On Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:02:23 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 5/17/12 7:59 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

> To be precise, the quote is not from me. It rephrases what I wrote
> about (and which I in turn got from Hugh Ross, so it would make more
> sense for the citation to refer to him).
>

> > My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
> > values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
> > OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.
>
> Another quibble: If the physical constants were different, we do know
> what would be present. I suppose that if the physical constants were
> different, some sort of life form would be drifting around claiming
> that, if the physical constants were different from what they knew, life
> would be impossible.

it's fairly easy to imagine physical constant settings that are inimical to life. For instance if you gum up fusion you don't get any heavy elements.

[Arkalen]

On 18/05/12 00:27, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Craig Franck <craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 5/17/2012 10:49 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>

>>>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>>> exists on this one little planet.
>>>
>>> Life isn't fine tuned at all.
>

>> I believe the poster may have meant, for example, that a tuna is
>> fine-tuned for life in the ocean.
>

> Same argument. If the tuna were not, it wouldn't be here.

>
>>> Start with the fact that we exist.
>>> Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.
>

>> Since there are lotteries, it is not at all surprising that there
>> are lottery winners. But there are additional questions:
>
>> 1) If the universe were to begin again in exactly the same state
>> an arbitrary number of times, would every universe contain a
>> lottery at some point?
>
> Depends on how much you believe in quantum randomness.

And if you deal with quantum randomness with a multiverse or not. (if
you do then every "universe" might not contain a lottery, but the
multiverse always would, and the multiverse would be the relevant "set
of everything that exists" we're interested in)

>
>> 2) Can it be surprising any specific individual won a lottery,
>> while it was inevitable someone had to win?
>

> No. Today is somebody's birthday. Indeed, it is the birthday

> of many people. Call two of them A and B. Would they be
> amazed that their birthdays fall on the same date?
>

[Arkalen]

On 18/05/12 00:24, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Jim T. <x@y.z> wrote:

>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:49:44 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>
>>>> Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>>> exists on this one little planet.
>>>

>>> Life isn't fine tuned at all. Start with the fact that we exist.

>>> Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.
>

>> I dunno. I think it's pretty astounding that this universe, or any
>> universe, has the ability to become self aware (through us, and
>> probably others).
>
>> Not that it makes me think a god or any intelligent purpose is behind
>> it -- that would explain exactly nothing.
>
> I'm not self-aware. I have no idea what my spleen is doing right now.
>
> More seriously, the universe seems analogous to a cellular
> automaton. Even in two dimensions an enormous amount of complexity
> can arise from very simple rules.
>

To play devil's advocate though, not all cellular automata give rise to
similar complexity. For example IIRC Conway's Game of Life is tuned
("finely" or not is another question) for the complexity it yields; if
you have different rules for the death/birth/survival of a cell the
resulting structures get a lot less interesting, and that's why Conway
gave it the rules it has.

[Ernest Major]

In message <proto-03EF7C....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> writes

If surface water was broken down by ultraviolet one might expect that it
would rapidly recombine, and thus this would not be a significant source
of water loss. My understanding was that the photodisassociation of
water at high altitudes (above the ozone layer?) where the mean free
path of molecules, ions and atoms is long, and hydrogen can escape to
space, was the pathway by which water is lost from terrestrial planets;
the "cold trap", whereby by water precipitates and rains out, leading to
a dry upper atmosphere, preserves water on earth.
--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:39:56 -0400, in article
<proto-CB1171....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell stated..."

Magic is not omnipotence. Magic operates within limits.

'There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving
your wand and saying a few funny words.'
J.K. Rowling, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", p. 133


'Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its
very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have
recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect
of power.'
William Paley, "Natural Theology"
Chapter III, page 39
(Please note that Paley goes on to give his answer to this problem.)


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <MPG.2a202e1df...@news.individual.net>,

Matchstick <match...@deadspam.com> wrote:

> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
> fantastic

And after taxes are withheld death becomes merely a tired feeling.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <6xEBKCGv...@meden.invalid>,

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> If surface water was broken down by ultraviolet one might expect that it
> would rapidly recombine, and thus this would not be a significant source
> of water loss.

I don't think so, remember their was little oxygen in the air in those
days. It was *really* had to breathe, IIRC.

[Steven L.]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jp3457$822$5...@reader1.panix.com:

> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> The problem is one of conditional probability, namely what is the
> probability that we can exist in our universe given that we exist
> in our universe.

But that's not the question they're asking--that's the question you want
them to ask, not the one they care about.

They're asking what is the probability that we can exist in our
universe, even if we do NOT take as a given that we exist in our
universe. And that's a perfectly valid objective question.

It's just as valid as asking what the probability is that any other past
event occurred. Suppose John Smith won the MA state lottery last week.
We can still ask what the probability is that he would win. It's not 1.

To you, all past events are certainties, meaning that they all have
probability 1. That's because you insist on looking at those events
conditionally based on hindsight from our present. But you don't have
to take our present as an axiom.

We would like to know the nature of the wave function *before* it
collapsed, you know.




-- Steven L.

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <proto-1FB00C....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <jp1d1a$ofr$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>
>> Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>
>> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. If the universe were
>> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>

> Considering the Universe as a whole, one small planet is statistically
> insignificant and life is know to exist in a small shell around that
> one planet only. Most life seems to be what we call "extremophiles"
> living in the Earth's crust anyway.

I did the calculation once before here. Don't even worry about
the universe as a whole. Consider the solar system, out to, say,
40 AU -- includes all the planets, but ignores the Kuiper belt and
Oort cloud. The volume in which life can be found is the earth,
to a depth of, say 10 km, and elevation of, also say 10 km. That
gives a volume of 510e6 * 20 km^2. Round that to 10e9 km^3.

The sphere under consideration is about 4*40^3 AU^3, or 2.5e5 AU^3.
1 AU = 150e6 km, so it's about 8e29 km^3.

Life can be found in about 1e-20 of the solar system, even taking
the smaller volume. The Oort cloud is easily to 100 times the distance
I used, which would make life findable in about 1e-26 of the volume
of the solar system.

Doesn't look like a universe conducive to life.


--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

[Steven L.]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jp3368$822$2...@reader1.panix.com:

> Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>
> >Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
> >exists on this one little planet.
>
> Life isn't fine tuned at all. Start with the fact that we exist.
> Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.

I don't want to start from that fact.

Let A be the event "life appeared in the universe", and let B be the
event "humans exist today."

I don't want to evaluate P(A | B).

I want to evaluate P(A). And I also want to evaluate P (B | A). Both
are interesting and valid scientific questions.

You're insisting on making all past events conditional on a present
event, to make the probabilities of all past events come out equal to 1.
(All past events, because it's impossible to be sure that our
existence today doesn't depend on all past events.) It's just
sophistry.

You keep insisting on looking at Schrodinger's cat from the cat's point
of view. There are other points of view.



-- Steven L.

[wiki trix]

On May 18, 11:06 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:jp3457$822$5...@reader1.panix.com:
>

The probability of any given event is a function of how much
information you have about the state of the system that could
potentially produce the event. Probability says more about your
knowledge about a system than it does about the system itself. Some
systems are fairly simple and non-chaotic, and any given event in the
near-enough future can be determined with a high degree of certainty.
In those cases, probabilities are calculated that result in either a
near-zero or near-one value, with not much between. Other systems are
either complex and/or chaotic, and due to the lack of information, the
probabilities lie anywhere between zero and one. The chance of me
winning the lottery last week is a conditional probability. After the
drawing, it is conditional on the actual result, which has now become
painfully apparent that I did not win. It is now officially a
probability of zero that I won last week. Last week, it was low, but
not zero. The intrinsic probability has not changed. It always was
zero. It was my lack of information last week that boosted my winning
probability just slightly.

[jillery]

Of course. ISTM that means the percentage of the universe that life
occupies doesn't argue for or against fine-tuning.

>One problem with the fine tuning argument is that in focusses on one
>property, which may just be a biased/arbitrary choice between all the
>properties that are equally unlikely/parameter dependent, and claims
>_that_ property to be evidence of a plan.

I agree the fine tuning argument has several problems, but I'm not
sure which one you're describing here. Are you talking about the bias
from the proponents themselves, in the selection of which
parameter(s) they focus on, and which parameter(s) they ignore? Or
are you talking about the bias in the parameter(s) themselves, that
the specific values we observe might not be the only values that allow
our universe to exist?

[Burkhard]

Yep, that one. It is just an elaboration on the point above really.
"being carbon based life" is a property important to _us_, but why
would it be for a non-carbon based creator, even if one took the fine
tuning argument serious? Any other feature of the universe that
requires _these_ parameters could be the intended outcome, with life
either a free rider, a necessary compromise but not desirable in
itself, or even the result of the designer goofing up and an
undesirable side effect.

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Elwin The Scribe <el...@forest.gath> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 16 May 2012 20:42:14 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix

>> ><wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> >>On May 16, 4:25 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >>> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>> >>>

>> >>> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. If the universe were
>> >>> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>> >>

>> >>The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at
>> >>all well tuned to life as we know it. Not surprising, just as the
>> >>oceans are finely tuned for sea life, and the continents are finely
>> >>tuned for terrestrial life. Amazing how that happened.
>>

I always thought it was because he and his two girlfriendss
went first.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <31fb95d0-101d-4f65...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
>wiki trix says...

>>
>>On May 16, 4:25?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>

>>> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. ?If the universe were

>>> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>>
>>The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at
>>all well tuned to life as we know it.

>But what are the origins of multi-verses? Answer: they're what happens when
>physicists don't have anything useful to do.

That makes sense to me. I think we should make sure that they
are all gainfully employed. That'll keep them out of mischief.

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <john.s....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is effectively zero anyway...

As I pointed out in another post, those parameters that are so
carefully tuned may, in fact, not be independent. It is quite
possible that a "theory of everything" would define all the
constants.

Or, the allowed range of the constants might be rather small, thus
increasing the chance of life existing.

But the question is one of conditional probability: what is the
probability that a universe would be fine-tuned for life given that
life exists in that universe.

An oxymoron, as I said.

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:19:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

If god did program in Forth, he would have said
"Word the beginning the in was"

[Paul J Gans]

Craig Franck <craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/17/2012 7:27 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Craig Franck<craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>[...]

>>> 2) Can it be surprising any specific individual won a lottery,
>>> while it was inevitable someone had to win?
>>
>> No.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox

I take a different view of this. I claim that it is rational
to buy a ticket with a very small chance of winning if the
payoff is large enough.

>> Today is somebody's birthday. Indeed, it is the birthday
>> of many people. Call two of them A and B. Would they be
>> amazed that their birthdays fall on the same date?

>No, but that's a different issue.

>>> 3) Is most of the value of winning a lottery directly related to
>>> the fact that winners are astronomically rare?
>>
>> Depends on the rules.

>The more losing tickets that are sold, the greater the jackpot.

Well, that depends on the lottery. And even so, don't forget that
the more tickets sold, the greater the chance of multiple winners.

>How this relates to the fine-tuning argument is that technologically
>advanced civilizations being rare may be part of the fine tuning for
>life.

Well, since I don't accept the fine tuning argument, discussing it
is a bit beyond me.

[Paul J Gans]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a
>> hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume
>> effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an
>> indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall
>> some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is
>> effectively zero anyway...
>>

>As Humphrey Bogart said, "Ten billion planets in a hundred billion
>galaxies in the observable universe, and she walks into mine."

And thus created one of the best movies of all time.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <jp418n$okg$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

>Well his fans do say She is Forth wright.

AAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <jp33cv$822$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> "Fine tuning" usually refers to the various constants in physical
>> laws that govern physical and chemical reactions. Given these
>> laws, finding a planet like the earth only a matter of probability.
>> Given the probable number of planets (which is governed by those
>> constants) it is quite certain that there is more than one earth-like
>> planet around.

>I think we don't have enough information to know what the probability
>of a planet like Earth is. For one think, life must be established
>early and in fact photosynthesis must be established early because
>otherwise without the ozone layer water will be broken down by
>ultraviolet light. There are so many prereqs for life to develop and
>we don't even know all of them.

That I fully agree with. Moreover, life itself may have helped
change some of those conditions -- one example being the creation
of free oxygen in our atmosphere.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <jp40uu$okg$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >"On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:49:44 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> ><jp3368$822$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>> >>

>> >>Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>>On May 16, 5:27??pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>> >>

>> >>>Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>> >>>exists on this one little planet.
>> >>
>> >>Life isn't fine tuned at all. Start with the fact that we exist.
>> >>Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.
>> >>
>>

>> >But if we begin with the premise that an omnipotent and omniscient
>> >designer designed life - or, at least, a designer who is up to the
>> >difficult task of determining the parameters of physics and chemistry
>> >so that they can develop life as we know it - then it is surprising
>> >that the designer chose those values of the parameters.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow that argument. Omnipotence to me is
>> indistinguishable from magic and with magic anything at all
>> is possible.

>Ah, but magic has laws, at least in fictons with competent creators.

And if the magician is a libertarian who doesn't believe in
restrictions?

[Paul J Gans]

William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 05/17/2012 09:58 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a
>>> hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume
>>> effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an
>>> indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall
>>> some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is
>>> effectively zero anyway...
>>>
>> As Humphrey Bogart said, "Ten billion planets in a hundred billion
>> galaxies in the observable universe, and she walks into mine."
>>

>Love it! But why do I remember the line differently?.

Different universe.

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2012 23:24:59 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>>Jim T. <x@y.z> wrote:

>>>On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:49:44 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>On May 16, 5:27 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>>
>>>>>Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to the conditions in which it
>>>>>exists on this one little planet.
>>>>
>>>>Life isn't fine tuned at all. Start with the fact that we exist.
>>>>Therefore it isn't surprising at all that this universe allows that.
>>

>>>I dunno. I think it's pretty astounding that this universe, or any
>>>universe, has the ability to become self aware (through us, and
>>>probably others).
>>
>>>Not that it makes me think a god or any intelligent purpose is behind
>>>it -- that would explain exactly nothing.
>>
>>I'm not self-aware. I have no idea what my spleen is doing right now.
>>
>>More seriously, the universe seems analogous to a cellular
>>automaton. Even in two dimensions an enormous amount of complexity
>>can arise from very simple rules.

>Does the universe have an unlimited calling plan?

Not any more. The telco giants figured they could make tons of
money by getting rid of it.

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012 23:30:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:59:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:43:37 AM UTC+1, Rolf wrote:

>>>>>> wiki trix wrote:

>>>>>> > On May 16, 4:25 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>>>> >>

>>>>>> >> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. If the universe were
>>>>>> >> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at
>>>>>> > all well tuned to life as we know it. Not surprising, just as the
>>>>>> > oceans are finely tuned for sea life, and the continents are finely
>>>>>> > tuned for terrestrial life. Amazing how that happened.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Even the hydrothermal vents seem fine tuned for life...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me more like life will be present anywhere conditions permit, not
>>>>>> the other way around.
>>>>
>>>>>other places finely tuned for life:-
>>>>
>>>>You folks are going off on a tangent. Fine tuning does not mean what
>>>>you think, Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions
>>>> that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain
>>>> universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very
>>>> narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants
>>>> were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely
>>>> to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter,
>>>> astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is
>>>> presently understood."
>>>>
>>>>The quote is from Mark Isaak, see the wiki page at
>>>>
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe>
>>>>
>>>>footnote 1.
>>>>

>>>>My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
>>>>values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
>>>>OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.
>>
>>

>>>If I may inject my tuppence? There's a distinction to be made between
>>>necessary conditions, and highly unlikely conditions. "Fine tuned"
>>>implies that universes with other combinations of physical parameters
>>>would not beget life, and so our existence is highly unlikely,
>>>therefore Goddidit. But how can we know that the combination of
>>>physical parameters in our universe is highly unlikely? Of course our
>>>universe must be tuned for life, since we exist. But fine tuned is
>>>arguable.
>>
>>>Is that fine with you?
>>
>>I'm tuned to your argument. And you have a good point. If indeed
>>there is a theory of everything, it could well turn out that there
>>are NO adjustable constants in that theory.
>>
>>Then the various universes, if they exist, would differ only by
>>quantum uncertainty -- assuming of course that there are no hidden
>>variables in quantum mechanics.


>I am making a distinction between the trivial understanding, "we're
>here because we're here", and the understanding that explains how
>these physical constants apply to our existence. ISTM the question
>inspires thinking about how these constants could be different. IIUC
>at least some physicists say they could be very different and still
>allow something similar to our universe, and so the fine-tuning
>argument goes out the window.

Sure. But that's an area of research largely unexplored.

But since I don't believe in the "fine-tuning the universe"
argument anyway...

[Paul J Gans]

Agreed.

[Paul J Gans]

Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:jp3457$822$5...@reader1.panix.com:

>> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem is one of conditional probability, namely what is the
>> probability that we can exist in our universe given that we exist
>> in our universe.

>But that's not the question they're asking--that's the question you want
>them to ask, not the one they care about.

>They're asking what is the probability that we can exist in our
>universe, even if we do NOT take as a given that we exist in our
>universe. And that's a perfectly valid objective question.

Not to me. Your question is of interest, but we know zero about
the creation of universes.

>It's just as valid as asking what the probability is that any other past
>event occurred. Suppose John Smith won the MA state lottery last week.
>We can still ask what the probability is that he would win. It's not 1.

Nope. Let me give you a question: what will happen if an
immovable object is hit by an irresistable force?

>To you, all past events are certainties, meaning that they all have
>probability 1. That's because you insist on looking at those events
>conditionally based on hindsight from our present. But you don't have
>to take our present as an axiom.

Huh? Then who is doing the asking?

Don't forget, we know NOTHING about the creation of universes. Thus
trying to estimate their properties is an exercise in futility.

>We would like to know the nature of the wave function *before* it
>collapsed, you know.

That's a different question. Wave functions are a function of
human knowlege -- a fact easy to demonstrate.

[Paul J Gans]

Ok. You want Schroedinger's cat, I'll give you Schroedinger's cat.

Imaging two room separated by a wall. Embedded in the wall is
a cage containing Schroedinger's cat with the usual apparatus.
Each room contains a number of observers.

The difference is that in room A, the cage is covered and the
cat can not be observed. In room B the cage is observed all the
time.

Now room A is the traditional Schroedinger's cat setup. The
folks there claim the cat's wave function is a superposition
of two wave functions, one for a dead cat, the other for a live
cat. When the cage is unveiled, their wave function collapses
to the observed state.

I think we all agree on this.

In room B the cat is continually observed. It starts out alive
and has the singe wavefunction associated with that state. If
the cat dies, the observers in room B note that a transition
has taken place and a new wave function corresponding to dead
cat now exists. If the cat lives, there is no change in
wave function.

So the observers in room A have a wave function with a supersition
and a collapse. In room B there is never a supersition, only a
transition from one wave function to the other, if that.

So which room has the correct wave function?

The answer is that both do. The wave function depends on the
knowlege of the observers.

You cannot ask "what is the wave function in the absence of
observers?" It does not exist.

[Paul J Gans]

BINGO! That is EXACTLY correct.

[wiki trix]

On May 18, 1:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Thanks Paul. It is a rare but always exhilarating experience to share
in our agreement.

[Elwin The Scribe]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:20:50 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <31fb95d0-101d-4f65...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>wiki trix says...
>>>
>>>On May 16, 4:25?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bf7BXwVeyWw#!
>>>>
>>>> The "fine-tuned" question is an oxymoron. ?If the universe were
>>>> not tuned for our existance, we'd not be here to ask the question.
>>>
>>>The video talks about multi-verses, the majority of which are not at
>>>all well tuned to life as we know it.
>
>>But what are the origins of multi-verses? Answer: they're what happens when
>>physicists don't have anything useful to do.
>
>That makes sense to me. I think we should make sure that they
>are all gainfully employed. That'll keep them out of mischief.

That's easy for you to say; you don't have to live in any of the
botched up universes they might learn how to create.

[Elwin The Scribe]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:31:00 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <MPG.2a202e1df...@news.individual.net>,
> Matchstick <match...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
>> fantastic
>
>And after taxes are withheld death becomes merely a tired feeling.

You've just refuted Benjamin Franklin:

The only things certain in this life are taxes and a tired feeling.

[Elwin The Scribe]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:42:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Some kind of multiverse hypothesis (or conjecture) would seem to the
only alternative to a belief in fine tuning. The proponents of ID have
laid claim to fine tuning. Both these would appear to be philosophical
rather than scientific positions. Does one have stronger logical or
empirical support than the other, and does this depend on the sorts of
evidence that one feels should be given more weight? Or have
alternative explanations been proposed that have more empirical
support than either?

[Elwin The Scribe]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:24:31 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>John S. Wilkins <john.s....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Even if on average there are ten billion planets supporting life in a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, by volume effectively *none* of the universe is fine tuned for life. To an indefinitely large number of approximations, ZERO! I seem to recall some IDevotees claiming that enough zeroes before the fraction is effectively zero anyway...
>
>As I pointed out in another post, those parameters that are so
>carefully tuned may, in fact, not be independent. It is quite
>possible that a "theory of everything" would define all the
>constants.
>
>Or, the allowed range of the constants might be rather small, thus
>increasing the chance of life existing.

Do there exist any hints in known physics that the values of the
universal constants are interdependent or inherently constrained by
some kind of meta-law?

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/17/12 4:35 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomynospam.net> wrote:

>> On 5/17/12 7:59 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>>> My point is that if the physical constants did NOT have their present
>>> values, we'd not be here to wonder about fine tuning. Thus of course
>>> OUR universe must be fine tuned for life.
>

>> Another quibble: If the physical constants were different, we do know
>> what would be present. I suppose that if the physical constants were
>> different, some sort of life form would be drifting around claiming
>> that, if the physical constants were different from what they knew, life
>> would be impossible.
>
> Not necessarily. A small variation in, I believe, the fine structure
> constant and chemistry as we know it vanishes because chemical bonds
> don't form.

Who says life needs chemistry? In the scenario I envision, the life is
saying, "If physical constants were slightly different, then quarks
would not be able to exist separately, and gravity would cause most
matter to be clumped into unsurvivable densities -- sometimes even more
than one gram per cubic kilometer! How could life ever exist in
conditions like that?"

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume