How many fundamental constants?

[jillery]

From my second-favorite astrophysicist:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-many-fundamental-constants-does-it-take-to-define-our-universe-938b28277d30#.6er6usym3>

<http://tinyurl.com/zh6rj4c>

Short version: Without once even alluding to purpose or intent or
meaning or other theological arguments, Siegel offers an intelligent
review of the fundamental constants which help to define our universe,
and why those values are relevant and not others.

****************************************************
As it turns out, it takes 26 dimensionless constants to describe the
Universe as simply and completely as possible, which is quite a small
number. Even at that, they don't give us everything, because there are
some important things that are FUNDAMENTALLY STILL UNKNOWN
[emphasis authors] about our Universe.
****************************************************

The above article is a model basis for discussing fine-tuning. As
recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 13:32:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Sounds incredibly complex and emergent to me...

Levity aside, thanks for the link.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mike Dworetsky]

Twenty-six? So why did astrophysicist and cosmologist Martin Rees feel
compelled to write a book with the title "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces
that Shape the Universe"?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> From my second-favorite astrophysicist:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-many-fundamental-constants-does-it-
take-to-define-our-universe-938b28277d30#.6er6usym3>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/zh6rj4c>
>
> Short version: Without once even alluding to purpose or intent or
> meaning or other theological arguments, Siegel offers an intelligent
> review of the fundamental constants which help to define our universe,
> and why those values are relevant and not others.
>
> ****************************************************
> As it turns out, it takes 26 dimensionless constants to describe the
> Universe as simply and completely as possible, which is quite a small
> number. Even at that, they don't give us everything, because there are
> some important things that are FUNDAMENTALLY STILL UNKNOWN
> [emphasis authors] about our Universe.
> ****************************************************

Right. We don't even have any idea how many constants there are.
Those 26 constants are what is needed
to describe THE THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT NOW. [my emphasis]

A lot, but a huge step forwards from the zillions of constants
that were needed in say 1900. (effectively infinitely many)

Future developments may change the number of constants.
New discoveries may increase the number,
like for example non-zero neutrino masses did.

OTOH new theoretical developments may derease the number of constants,
by showing that some of them are related,
or derivable from more fundamental ones.
As happened with all those material properties
that 19th century science would need to measure more decimals of.
It is possible that none will remain, in a theory of everything.

> The above article is a model basis for discussing fine-tuning.

There is no SCIENTIFIC POINT [my emp. again] in discussing fine-tuning.
It is not a scientific hypothesis that can be used to make scientific
predictions, beyond what follows when doing science without it.

The only scientific thing that can be said
is that we don't know anything about the constants.
(beyond their approximate values,
which are constrained by theories having to fit experience)

We don't know how many there are, how many are really needed,
let alone knowing something like probability distributions for them.
One should not be too negative about this.
Despite this lack of knowledge at a fundamental level
science has immense predictive power
for an enormous range of circumstances.

> As recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
> results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.

Reli-prop is not an irrelevant belief.
It a social reality, and it does have a social impact,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Because (being an astronomer) he doesn't care about the standard model,

Jan

[jillery]

I read that book but do not recall an answer to your question. Perhaps
Rees simplified his argument for his intended audience, those members
of the choir who _believe_ in an unknown, unseen, undefined Tuner.

[jillery]

I understand what you say. The point depends on one's definition of
"fine-tuning". As with "design" (both the verb and the noun), I
discuss the concept removed from the usually unspoken theological
assumptions of intent and purpose and intelligence. So I freely
acknowledge that some ratios appear to have narrow ranges which are
consistent with our universe, and I consider the plausible results of
changing them without assuming they could be changed. IMO such
consideration is reasonable speculation without an unknown, unseen,
undefined Tuner.

>> As recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
>> results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.
>
>Reli-prop is not an irrelevant belief.
>It a social reality, and it does have a social impact,

Of course, I don't mean irrelevant to all things, but instead to the
context of fine-tuning. One's _beliefs_ are both relevant and
necessary to one's life.

[Bill]

So the Earth's distance from the sun, the shape and duration
of its orbit, the presence of the existence of the minerals
necessary for life, including liquid water or the existence
of the moon moderating the wobble of the Earth's axis making
the seasons possible, are not significant? Do we ignore this
evidence of tuning when looking for habitable planets?

>>
>>The only scientific thing that can be said
>>is that we don't know anything about the constants.
>>(beyond their approximate values,
>> which are constrained by theories having to fit
>> experience)
>>
>>We don't know how many there are, how many are really
>>needed, let alone knowing something like probability
>>distributions for them. One should not be too negative
>>about this. Despite this lack of knowledge at a
>>fundamental level science has immense predictive power
>>for an enormous range of circumstances.
>
>
> I understand what you say. The point depends on one's
> definition of
> "fine-tuning". As with "design" (both the verb and the
> noun), I discuss the concept removed from the usually
> unspoken theological
> assumptions of intent and purpose and intelligence. So I
> freely acknowledge that some ratios appear to have narrow
> ranges which are consistent with our universe, and I
> consider the plausible results of
> changing them without assuming they could be changed. IMO
> such consideration is reasonable speculation without an
> unknown, unseen, undefined Tuner.

Do you reject the notion of tuning because it implies a
Tuner or are there persuasive counter-arguments? You seem to
base your conclusions on your beliefs rather than any
evidence.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Do you reject the counter arguments that Steve Carlip and I and others have given you because they suggest the absence of a tuner or because you've understood them but can articulate a clear counter-counter argument. You seem to base your conclusions on your wishes rather than on any evidence.

>
> Bill

[jillery]

What do you think looking for habitable planets has to do with the
concept of fine-tuning?

It may seem that way to you because you don't understand what you
read. To say that an intelligence is not required to explain the
evidence for fine-tuning, and that an intelligence doesn't explain
fine-tuning, do not imply that I reject the possibility of such an
intelligence. This is one of many illogical conclusions posted by
IDiots. Which doesn't imply that you're an IDiot, but does suggest
that you share an invalid line of reasoning. See how that works?

[J. J. Lodder]

But no more than idle speculation.
Have you also specuated what our universe would be like
if pi were 3 exactly, instead of that pesky 3.14...?
And why not? Pi occurs in many of the equations of physics.

It is not surprising at all that some predictions of physics
depend on several of the constants.
So yes, if one were different, another would have to be different too,
if appearances are to remain comparable.

BTW, this is NOT what physicists call 'the fine-tuning problem'
In physics this happens when a theory has to contain
excessively large or small constants.
Such theories are undesirable.
(typical example: the Einstein equations
with a very small cosmological constant thrown in)
Such theories just can't be right. The small number
has to come from somewhere else.
There is some irony here: While (crypto)creationists
claim the cosmological constant as evidence
for extremely accurate fine-tuning
physicists feel that any theory containing such an excessively small
number must be wrong. (if that is all there is to it)

> >> As recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
> >> results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.
> >
> >Reli-prop is not an irrelevant belief.
> >It a social reality, and it does have a social impact,
>
>
> Of course, I don't mean irrelevant to all things, but instead to the
> context of fine-tuning. One's _beliefs_ are both relevant and
> necessary to one's life.

Don't think so. Those fine-tuners will believe in their god anyway.
Being convinced of it by evidence is just a pretense.

Such people are basically dishonest.
They won't stop believing in their god
even when all the constants are explained
(by a theory of everything)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

All taken care of by the anthropic principle.

> Do we ignore this evidence of tuning when looking for habitable planets?

Evidence for tuning only if you assume our planet to be somehow unique.
Just curious: do you think that the fact
that the sun and moon have the same apparent diameter
(so that we can have total eclipses)
is evidence for fine tuning too?

There are no arguments -for- it.
All we know positively is that the constants have the values they have.
The rest is in the imagination, or if you prefer, just a 'theory',

Jan

[Robert Camp]

On 1/10/17 12:51 PM, Bill wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:10:41 +0100,
>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> The above article is a model basis for discussing
>>>> fine-tuning.
>>>
>>> There is no SCIENTIFIC POINT [my emp. again] in discussing
>>> fine-tuning. It is not a scientific hypothesis that can be
>>> used to make scientific predictions, beyond what follows
>>> when doing science without it.
>
> So the Earth's distance from the sun, the shape and duration
> of its orbit, the presence of the existence of the minerals
> necessary for life, including liquid water or the existence
> of the moon moderating the wobble of the Earth's axis making
> the seasons possible, are not significant? Do we ignore this
> evidence of tuning when looking for habitable planets?

Short answer: That's not evidence, it's confirmation bias.

To expand; what you - and anyone making similar arguments - are doing
with these assertions is fitting observations to a hypothesis. It's a
process that can be used to justify nearly any conclusion. And you could
continue this logical blunder ad infinitum, citing the mild temperature
range, the amount of water, the mountains which force rain to fall in
just the right areas - virtually any natural observation becomes
"evidence" of how it was all designed for our existence.

I presume (at least I hope) that you would consider it nonsense for me
to say something like, "Isn't it amazing and lucky that the Mississippi
River flows right where the city of St. Louis needed it to be?!" If so
you would be right, that is obviously poor reasoning. Why? Because it's
clear that the city wouldn't be there if not for the river. There is
nothing predestined about the existence of St. Louis. It was contingent
upon local conditions.

This is exactly what you are doing in your comments up above. You are
running data through a filter that forces confirmation of an a priori
assumption that humans were meant to be here. But this is an unjustified
assumption, especially when used for the purposes of defining
"evidence." Absent data to the contrary, we have to proceed as if, just
like the river, we are contingent upon local conditions.

I was going to delete this as not being relevant to my points above. But
it's such a brazen display of oblivious projection I left it here in the
hope (minuscule as it may be) you might experience a small epiphany.

[Bill]

You have evidence that Earth is not unique? Don't you have
to turn the anthropic principle inside out using non-
existent evidence to argue that the Earth is not unique?

Bill

[Bill]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

...

>> Of course, I don't mean irrelevant to all things, but
>> instead to the
>> context of fine-tuning. One's _beliefs_ are both
>> relevant and necessary to one's life.
>
> Don't think so. Those fine-tuners will believe in their
> god anyway. Being convinced of it by evidence is just a
> pretense.
>
> Such people are basically dishonest.
> They won't stop believing in their god
> even when all the constants are explained
> (by a theory of everything)
>

This is simply bald hypocrisy. You (and your dimwitted
cohorts) argue that fine-tuning can't be true because it
implies a Tuner which you reject because it implies a
God(s); your "science" is based entirely on religion. You
interpret every phenomenon as confirming your religious
belief that there no fine-tuning because there is no Tuner.
Science is simply irrelevant to your beliefs.

One of the best examples is obviating any possible tuning by
inventing a multiverse wherein every possible cosmic
parameter of every possible value is realized in other
universes. Everything that can happen will happen, if not in
this universe then some other. How handy.

The actual, observable evidence is that there is one
universe with one specific set of specific parameters having
only specific values. This makes fine-tuning as real as any
alternative. To the extent that science matters, it cannot
be discarded simply because you don't like it. Yet you
condemn anyone who considers it as motivated by religion
while it's your own religion that motivates you to make such
specious objections. It's hypocrisy in the first degree.

Bill

[jillery]

Not this stupid argument again. Can't you at least come up with some
other stupid argument?

[Bill]

What is stupid is calling a post stupid without saying why.
Stupider still is being so arrogant that you think no one
will notice. In fact, arrogance is about the total length
and breadth of your contributions.

Reply to what I've actually said or say nothing at all.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Of course, I don't mean irrelevant to all things, but
> >> instead to the
> >> context of fine-tuning. One's _beliefs_ are both
> >> relevant and necessary to one's life.
> >
> > Don't think so. Those fine-tuners will believe in their
> > god anyway. Being convinced of it by evidence is just a
> > pretense.
> >
> > Such people are basically dishonest.
> > They won't stop believing in their god
> > even when all the constants are explained
> > (by a theory of everything)
> >
>
> This is simply bald hypocrisy. You (and your dimwitted
> cohorts) argue that fine-tuning can't be true because it
> implies a Tuner which you reject because it implies a
> God(s);

This is simply untrue. As far as I can see, nobody in any of these threads has argued that the physical constants are not fine tuned on the grounds that if they were fine tuned that would imply a Tuner.

You consistently ignore the actual arguments against fine tuning. Maybe you don't understand them. Maybe you want to avoid what you think are their implications. Beats me.

[J. J. Lodder]

And is is it not evidence of great design
that we have ears and a nose
in just the right place to wear glasses?
And so we have glasses.

We truly live in the best of all possible worlds,

Jan

[Robert Camp]

But...my glasses keep sliding off my nose.

[J. J. Lodder]

Hmm, bells ringing. Who was it that pushed this stupid argument
the previous time around? Is 'Bill' a reincarnation?

Jan

[Bill]

There has not been any argument except religious for or
against fine-tuning. The science cited has been ambiguous,
hypothetical, incomplete or controversial. The available
evidence can go either way so on what basis is there for any
preference?

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

It was Bill back then, too. Same argument, same name.

[Bill Rogers]

Sure there has, you just keep ignoring it.

Here, one last time.....

When you say that the constants are "fine tuned" you are implicitly contrasting the constants as they are with they constants as they might have been had there been no fine tuning and the constants had assumed their values by chance.

Simple enough, or so it seems. It seems intuitive to you that the constants could have had any of a huge range of values and that if they had been randomly chosen, the odds against their having just the values they actually have (+/- some tiny amount that is still compatible with the development of a universe like the one we find). Right?

But there's a big problem with that idea. You have absolutely no idea what range of values the constants could have taken had they assumed their values by chance. And you have no idea what the probability distribution of the constants within those ranges would be, uniform, exponential, logarithmic. Since you have no idea what the range of possible values would be in the absence of fine tuning, or what the probability distribution would be, you have no way to determine that, in fact, the current values of the constants are "highly unlikely." Let me repeat, you have no scientific basis for your intuition that the current values of the constants are "highly unlikely."

You keep dodging this argument. It's not an argument that the constants are not fine tuned. It's simply an argument that there's no mathematical basis for your gut feeling that they must be fine tuned. We don't know anywhere near enough about what the possible values for the constants are to conclude anything at all about fine tuning.

Also, note that there's nothing religious about the argument I'm making, nothing at all. The finding of a physical theory that constrained the constants to have exactly the values they have would say nothing one way or the other about theism (and remember, you're the one who brought up religion here). The finding that the constants might have had other, very different values would also not say anything one way or the other about theism.

>The science cited has been ambiguous,
> hypothetical, incomplete or controversial. The available
> evidence can go either way so on what basis is there for any
> preference?

Are you talking about the theories that predict a multiverse? You really have no idea about them or the evidence that might support them, except what you've imagined from watching cable TV. Still, it's true enough, I think, that there's no strong basis to claim either that the physical constants are fine tuned or not. When you don't know yet, it's fine to say that you don't know yet.

[jillery]

Your claim of ignorance about how your argument is stupid rings as
hollow as your claim of ignorance about why the Earth is not unique,
both of which you claimed in topics and threads from your previous
visits:

<mcfpom$7jj$1...@dont-email.me>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:59:22 -0600, Bill <edna...@cox.net> wrote:
*********************************************
There are scales within this zone and each contributes to an
environment suitable for life. The galaxy wherein our sun
orbitshas to be of a particular kind. The orbit of our sun
has to be in a particular place following a particular path
arounf the galaxy. The sun has to be of a particular kind
and size and composition. These are the various large scale
prerequisites for the Goldilocks Zone. There are others
obviously.
*********************************************

Do I really need to post more?

More to the point, none of your posts from your current incarnation
are substantially different in substance or style from your previous
visits. And you said you would try.

>Stupider still is being so arrogant that you think no one
>will notice. In fact, arrogance is about the total length
>and breadth of your contributions.
>
>Reply to what I've actually said or say nothing at all.

Follow your own advice, troll. All of your criticisms have little or
nothing to do with anything anybody posted to T.O.

[jillery]

That you ignore everything that's been written is the most
parsimonious explanation for your false claims above and below.

>>>your "science" is based entirely on religion. You
>>> interpret every phenomenon as confirming your religious
>>> belief that there no fine-tuning because there is no
>>> Tuner. Science is simply irrelevant to your beliefs.
>>>
>>> One of the best examples is obviating any possible tuning
>>> by inventing a multiverse wherein every possible cosmic
>>> parameter of every possible value is realized in other
>>> universes. Everything that can happen will happen, if not
>>> in this universe then some other. How handy.
>>>
>>> The actual, observable evidence is that there is one
>>> universe with one specific set of specific parameters
>>> having only specific values. This makes fine-tuning as
>>> real as any alternative. To the extent that science
>>> matters, it cannot be discarded simply because you don't
>>> like it. Yet you condemn anyone who considers it as
>>> motivated by religion while it's your own religion that
>>> motivates you to make such specious objections. It's
>>> hypocrisy in the first degree.
>>>
>>> Bill

[J. J. Lodder]

As they should, in the best of all possible worlds.
Glass grinders need to make a living too.
And without glass grinders you couldn't have glasses.

See?

Jan

--
"Tout est pour le mieux dans nôtre monde, le meilleur des mondes
possibles" (Pangloss)

[J. J. Lodder]

OK, thanks. Time to give up on him again,

Jan

[Robert Camp]

Ah, that makes sense. Also, it reveals the true purpose of my middle
fingers, without which, of course, the glasses would end up in my lap.

And...now I know what laps are for.

[*Hemidactylus*]

In the best of all worlds would eyeglass seekers be given a mere facade of
choice, window dressing masking the reality that the glass grinders enjoy a
monopoly?

[J. J. Lodder]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Of course, I don't mean irrelevant to all things, but
> >> instead to the
> >> context of fine-tuning. One's _beliefs_ are both
> >> relevant and necessary to one's life.
> >
> > Don't think so. Those fine-tuners will believe in their
> > god anyway. Being convinced of it by evidence is just a
> > pretense.
> >
> > Such people are basically dishonest.
> > They won't stop believing in their god
> > even when all the constants are explained
> > (by a theory of everything)
> >
>
> This is simply bald hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is all yours.
You pretend that your perception of fine-tuning
is evidence for your creator.

Will you promise us that you will throw your bible into the fire
at the moment in the future when science demonstrates
that fine-tuning doesn't exist?

Jan

[Bill]

I mentioned a Tuner or God(s) solely to make the point that
people here see it as the only alternative to their
naturalism. I have expressed no religious views because they
are a conclusion based on the biases the most posters here
and not actual data. You want to dismiss everything you
don't like as religious simply because you don't like
religion; it has nothing to do with science and certainly
not evidence.

Bill

[J. J. Lodder]

QED,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Ah, but we don't live in the best of all worlds,
only in the best of all possible worlds,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:36:42 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

And day by day, in every way, we're getting better and
better...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[J. J. Lodder]

Impossible, you incorrigable American.
We already live in the best of all possible worlds.

It can't get better than it is,
That's optimism, by Pangloss,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:24:59 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>
> >jillery wrote:
> >> From my second-favorite astrophysicist:
> >>
> >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-many-fundamental-constants-does-
it-take-to-define-our-universe-938b28277d30#.6er6usym3>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/zh6rj4c>
> >>
> >> Short version: Without once even alluding to purpose or intent or
> >> meaning or other theological arguments, Siegel offers an intelligent
> >> review of the fundamental constants which help to define our universe,
> >> and why those values are relevant and not others.
> >>
> >> ****************************************************
> >> As it turns out, it takes 26 dimensionless constants to describe the
> >> Universe as simply and completely as possible, which is quite a small
> >> number. Even at that, they don't give us everything, because there are
> >> some important things that are FUNDAMENTALLY STILL UNKNOWN
> >> [emphasis authors] about our Universe.
> >> ****************************************************
> >>

> >> The above article is a model basis for discussing fine-tuning. As
> >> recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
> >> results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.
> >
> >Twenty-six? So why did astrophysicist and cosmologist Martin Rees feel
> >compelled to write a book with the title "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces
> >that Shape the Universe"?
>
>
> I read that book but do not recall an answer to your question. Perhaps
> Rees simplified his argument for his intended audience, those members
> of the choir who _believe_ in an unknown, unseen, undefined Tuner.

No, Rees is talking about different constants.
Some of those are not fundamental at all,
by physicists standards, because they can be expressed
in terms of more fundamental constants.

You can argue that Rees' are the ones that really matter,
but there is little more than gut feeling to support that,

Jan

[jillery]

According to Wiki, Rees' book refers to the fine structure constant,
strong coupling constant, omega (matter density), lambda (energy
density), Q which has something to do with "the fabric of space", and
3 which is the number of spatial dimensions.

Of those, Siegel refers to the first four. His other mentioned
constants have to do with subatomic particles, and he doesn't even
mention Q and spatial dimensions. So they're not totally different.
My impression is Rees left out the ones most likely to confuse his
intended audience.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Jonathan]

On 1/9/2017 1:32 PM, jillery wrote:
> From my second-favorite astrophysicist:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-many-fundamental-constants-does-it-take-to-define-our-universe-938b28277d30#.6er6usym3>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/zh6rj4c>
>
> Short version: Without once even alluding to purpose or intent or
> meaning or other theological arguments, Siegel offers an intelligent
> review of the fundamental constants which help to define our universe,

Humanity is not part of our universe?


How may times have I told you that everything
evolves, even the fundamental constants?



Fundamental Constants of Physics" The Genes of the Universe
Andy Friedman
MIT Center for Theoretical Physics.

(excerpts)

With his theory of Cosmological Natural Selection, Lee
Smolin makes, what this author views as, a spectacular
attempt to answer this question. He goes a step further
than the mere postulation of a multiverse, and ties
together natural selection, the most powerful principle
of biology, with cosmology, the most all-encompassing
branch of theoretical physics. Smolin's theory provides
a mechanism that explains why individual universes
attain their particular parameter values...

2. The standard model parameters of the baby universe
are slightly mutated from the present universe, in that
they differ only by small and random amounts.

Both of the above postulates are admittedly quite
speculative, but the arguments in favor of them
have considerable force.

Accepting for now the two postulates, namely that
black holes contain baby universes and that parameter
values are randomly mutated from parent to child
universe, what do we get? As Johan Baez emphasizes,

"Now given these hypothesis a marvelous consequence
ensures" Darwinian evolution! Those universes whose
parametrs are such that many black holes are formed
will have many progeny, so the constants of physics
can be expected to be "tuned" for the formation
of many black holes."

Via the network of embedded parent child black
hole universes, this mechanism "sweeps out"
the whole parameter space of all possible
universes, but distinctly favors by natural
selection those that produce more black holes.

Have made the intuitive leap of applying
natural selection to entire universes, the
power of the idea becomes clear. Natural
selection is such a broadly applicable
principle that it applies to ANY evolving
complex system, whether it happens to be
ecosystems, galaxies or baby universes.

In this way, the fundamental concepts
of physics can no longer be viewed
as unexplained numbers that merely
happen to exist. In fact the take on
a newer, grander importance, as the
creations of the cosmological natural
selections, and none other than the
genetic code of the universe


http://web.mit.edu/asf/www/PopularScience/Friedman_FundamentalConstants_2001.pdf

> and why those values are relevant and not others.
>
> ****************************************************
> As it turns out, it takes 26 dimensionless constants to describe the
> Universe as simply and completely as possible, which is quite a small
> number. Even at that, they don't give us everything, because there are
> some important things that are FUNDAMENTALLY STILL UNKNOWN
> [emphasis authors] about our Universe.
> ****************************************************
>
> The above article is a model basis for discussing fine-tuning. As
> recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
> results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:29:13 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/9/2017 1:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>> From my second-favorite astrophysicist:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-many-fundamental-constants-does-it-take-to-define-our-universe-938b28277d30#.6er6usym3>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/zh6rj4c>
>>
>> Short version: Without once even alluding to purpose or intent or
>> meaning or other theological arguments, Siegel offers an intelligent
>> review of the fundamental constants which help to define our universe,

>> and why those values are relevant and not others.
>>
>> ****************************************************
>> As it turns out, it takes 26 dimensionless constants to describe the
>> Universe as simply and completely as possible, which is quite a small
>> number. Even at that, they don't give us everything, because there are
>> some important things that are FUNDAMENTALLY STILL UNKNOWN
>> [emphasis authors] about our Universe.
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> The above article is a model basis for discussing fine-tuning. As
>> recent topics in T.O. have shown, lacking it or similar necessarily
>> results in a descent into irrelevant _beliefs_.
>
>

>Humanity is not part of our universe?

Who said anything about humanity?

>How may times have I told you that everything
>evolves, even the fundamental constants?

Don't be insulted that I don't accept you as an authority about such
things.

And how 'bout them Mets.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Jan (and others):

Did you happen to read (probably about a year ago) the Scientific
American article that described what they called "Superhabitable
Planets"? These are planets that are more habitable than our Earth.

How can that be? First of all, there are a lot of uninhabitable areas
on our planet.

The article proposed that there are some distant planets that would be
better than our earth for the beginning and continuation of life.

In spite of Pangloss and Don Quixote, this is not the best of all worlds.

earle
*

[jillery]

Astronomers use the term "superearth" to refer to rocky planets more
massive than Earth, without regard to their habitability.

The conjecture you describe above is base chauvinism. If different
species could have a POV, polar bears would have a very different
opinion than camels about which planets qualify as "better than our
earth", and extremophiles in the scalding thermal pools of Yellowstone
would think both of them batty.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.