Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-25-2018 2:56 PM
202 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (7 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Upcoming Birthdays: Porosity
Post Volume:
Total: 838,954 Year: 13,777/29,783 Month: 1,223/1,576 Week: 164/271 Day: 16/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Fine tuning: a discussion for the rest of us mortals
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2798 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 83 (261175)
11-19-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
11-18-2005 9:58 PM


other keyboards
I'd be interested in them, but I suppose off-topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 11-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 8:01 AM randman has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 83 (261178)
11-19-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
11-19-2005 12:09 AM


Re: other keyboards
i don't see how. one of the op's assertions was that the fingers are perfectly designed for keyboard usage -- if there are BETTER keyboards, it kind of hampers that point.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 12:09 AM randman has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 18 of 83 (261192)
11-19-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Maxwell's Demon
11-18-2005 11:34 PM


prove it isnt full of life, but as yet undetcted.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 11-18-2005 11:34 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 11-19-2005 11:25 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 19 of 83 (261228)
11-19-2005 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
11-19-2005 12:09 AM


dvorak
http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/Dvorak.php

this was available on an IBM ball for their selectrics
you can also get software to confvert your keyboard

as far as the topic goes, this supports the position that there are a number of alternative solutions for any design problem

thus having a different planet to start with would mean that the parameters of life would have to adjust to the different conditions

what we see with the early development of life on earth is that early life adapted and changed the environment and that later life took the different parameters of the new environment into account

this was the oxygen boom.

enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 12:09 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 359 days)
Posts: 603
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 20 of 83 (261235)
11-19-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
11-18-2005 9:06 PM


Re: Lam-logic
I'm really having trouble with understanding your argument, Mike. As far as I can see, however staggeringly unlikely the chances that a universe that is just like ours might exist, I can't see that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether there is an intelligent creator behind it. Universes like this might actually be ten a penny, springing into existence by themselves all the time, but our particular one was created by intelligence - or conversely, it might be so statistically improbable that you'd get a hernia just thinking about it, but ours arose naturalistically anyway.

This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-19-2005 08:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 9:06 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 11-19-2005 11:19 AM Tusko has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 21 of 83 (261243)
11-19-2005 10:29 AM


The universe is not fine tuned
The fine tuning argument is not only flawed, it's just plain wrong.

Just a few billion years ago the universe wasn't fine tuned to support life at all. It was to damn hot, the sun was huge, and the earth was a pile of gas and dust.

In a few billion years in the future the earth will be demolished by a nova sun and by all accounts andromeda will be crashing into our galaxy.

Anyone who can look at the universe and deduce that it gives a shit about life on earth, is exhibiting the epitomy of wishfull thinking.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-19-2005 10:30 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 11-20-2005 12:35 PM Yaro has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 83 (261249)
11-19-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tusko
11-19-2005 8:56 AM


Re: Lam-logic
I suggest all referrals to me read the Great Debate between me and NWR. this thread is for everyone else, so I won't get involved.

Universes like this might actually be ten a penny, springing into existence by themselves all the time, but our particular one was created by intelligence

This assumes it's hypothetic; that there are many universes. We must buy into the fact that there are multiple universes, in order for you to be correct.

As far as I know, there is only one. If they are popping up everywhere, my thoughts were that "everywhere" and everything is equated with "the universe". Nothing else has been found, and is therefore speculation.

If we are sticking to facts, then conjecture won't allow us to conclude anything but rather we shall go around in circles claiming vacuous truths.

Suggesting hypothetical possibilities is useless, Imho. My dad does it all of the time. He said "I must close the window incase a firework comes through it". Entirely possible, entirely vacuous. :)

I could have dinner with aliens, and attend mass on future mars, pending invention of a time machine next week.

I can't see that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether there is an intelligent creator behind it

That's because maybe, you're not looking at examples/instances in the universe, which would require thought IMHO. Like my example of a moon-satellite being a heater, would cook us, and a big distance between the sun and earth, would require a vacuum to radiate heat. These instances, require thought IMHO, or are best described as having "thought" cause these instances to be possible.

Chance seems to be a none-answer to me. God doesn't play dice. And if he does, then mike is only saying that he knows the variables involved.

Even a chaotic -none-system is allowable because of the arrangement of fine-tuning.

Think about it like this; A calendar has gaps, and it seems a waste of space, but it is useful in another indirect way. So chance itself requires a designer, as chance is of this universe, evidentially. :)

So....I won't get involved in this thread. I just hope you read this so you can understand that even if I am wrong, I have my reasons for thinking this way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tusko, posted 11-19-2005 8:56 AM Tusko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tusko, posted 11-21-2005 5:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 23 of 83 (261250)
11-19-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ohnhai
11-19-2005 1:17 AM


I'll concede that there might be life that we haven't yet observed, but it isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Without the observation of a Universe teeming (sp?) with life, the conclusion of fine-tuning for life is not warrented, and sort of ridiculous.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ohnhai, posted 11-19-2005 1:17 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 866 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 24 of 83 (261397)
11-19-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lammy
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


Hi, Lam.

I've never quite felt the force of the anthropic principle: if fundamental characteristics of the universe were different, any life that evolved within it would be different also. One assumes that different life, by necessity, would evolve senses that permit the apprehension of its different universe in order to survive. Should conditions favor the evolution of intelligence, those senses honed by survival requirements would likely enable the apprehension of a universe beyond the bounds of brute survival. The universe seems peculiarly suited to our evolution because it is the universe in which we evolved.

Hello?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lammy, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-20-2005 12:40 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11160
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 25 of 83 (261551)
11-20-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
11-18-2005 9:29 PM


Lam-logic and Ringoisms
Ringo,responding to Wiz writes:

Those properties of matter would still be there even if we weren't here.

But who would be around to prove it? And if nobody were around, how can there be facts without observers? The old "If a tree falls in the forest...." philosophy.

Yaro writes:

Just a few billion years ago the universe wasn't fine tuned to support life at all. It was too damn hot, the sun was huge, and the earth was a pile of gas and dust.

Again, empirical speculation at best....nobody observed it except telescopes peering backwards through time

In a few billion years in the future the earth will be demolished by a nova sun and by all accounts andromeda will be crashing into our galaxy.

Based on current probabilities deduced through science. In all probability, however, we will have revised our current probabilities quite a bit in a few hundred years, much less billion !!

Anyone who can look at the universe and deduce that it gives a shit about life on earth, is exhibiting the epitomy of wishfull thinking.

Ive never deduced that the universe is a personality!

This message has been edited by Phat, 11-20-2005 10:00 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 11-18-2005 9:29 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 11-20-2005 1:08 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-20-2005 9:57 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 39 by MangyTiger, posted 11-21-2005 6:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1542 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 26 of 83 (261562)
11-20-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lammy
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


Fine tuning exists but does not necessarily imply a tuner
When we talk of the universe being fine-tuned, we are usually referring to the values of the fundemental constants. The fine-tuning is that which allows things like:

- the universe to expand at a rate slow enough such that matter can gravitationally clump but not so slow that the universe recollapses before life has chance to appear.

- heavy elements (as in > Lithium) to exist by virtue of Be/He/C resonance

Another conundrum was "why is the universe so very very flat?"

It doesn't have such an immediate application to the possibility/inevitability of life, but was still very mysterious until inflation provided a mechanism to naturally produce this fine tuning.

However, I don't have any confidence that a similar mechanism will be found for the points above... the flatness problem is relatively very very simple.

All fine-tuning problems can be circumvented by postulating that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes. This is entirely plausible in a string/M-theory enhanced cosmologial scenario. However, many do not buy into this, mainly because it is not that aesthetic, and seems a bit of a cheat ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lammy, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1542 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 27 of 83 (261565)
11-20-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Yaro
11-19-2005 10:29 AM


Re: The universe is not fine tuned
Just a few billion years ago the universe wasn't fine tuned to support life at all.

It was finely tuned for the propensity/possibility of life. We are the proof of that.

In a few billion years in the future the earth will be demolished by a nova sun and by all accounts andromeda will be crashing into our galaxy.

That is the universe's way of saying "get off of your collective arses and go explore!" Or as God put it, "go forth and multiply"

Anyone who can look at the universe and deduce that it gives a shit about life on earth

Hmm, I used to think that way about my parents too... but I know better now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Yaro, posted 11-19-2005 10:29 AM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Yaro, posted 11-23-2005 10:02 AM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1542 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 28 of 83 (261569)
11-20-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Omnivorous
11-19-2005 10:13 PM


Hi Omniv. If the constants were not much different from what they are, there wouldn't be time for life to evolve, or there wouldn't be any heavy elements out of which to create life. It is to this that the AP refers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Omnivorous, posted 11-19-2005 10:13 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Omnivorous, posted 11-20-2005 1:52 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15166
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 29 of 83 (261573)
11-20-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
11-20-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Lam-logic and Ringoisms
Phat writes:

Ringo,responding to Wiz writes:
Those properties of matter would still be there even if we weren't here.

But who would be around to prove it? And if nobody were around, how can there be facts without observers? The old "If a tree falls in the forest...." philosophy.

"If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it make a sound?"

The real question there is, "What is the nature of 'sound'?" Is it the vibrations in the air caused by the falling tree? Or is it the vibrations striking the observer's eardrum and causing a perception in his/her brain?

My point was that the vibrations will still be there whether there is an observer or not. Properties exist, with or without observers, with or without anybody to "prove" them, with or without anybody to call them "facts".

(The other question which has intrigued the philosophers of the ages is: "How many 'Ringoisms' does it take to make me a character worthy of inclusion in robinrohan's play?) :D


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:57 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 866 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 30 of 83 (261579)
11-20-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
11-20-2005 12:40 PM


Thanks, cavediver. I do appreciate that fundamental part of the AP, but I still don't see the problem or feel the force :)

If the constants were sufficiently different that life lacked necessary ingredients or adequate time to arise, there would be no life to remark upon its absence.

If the constants were changed just enough to produce markedly different sorts of life, those life forms would probably also find it remarkable that the universe is so precisely what was required for their emergence.

Having only one universe to observe, it is difficult to see much significance in life noticing it to be so just-so. Since we can't replay the Big Bang with tweaks, I'm also a bit leery of the assertion that no life could develop under slightly different constants, wary of limits on what forms or states life can take, and wary of accepting that the impact on life's possibility is thoroughly understood: while our own existence may be ruled out, might not the emergence of life be affected in unpredicted ways, some possibly benign?

If dramatic differences in original conditions are required to create significantly different constants, one might speculate that our constants are generic universe constants. If the required differences are minute, it makes our just-so universe more striking. How little the constants need vary to preclude us seems less interesting than how much original conditions need vary to yield those changes.

And I simply have no notion of how great the changes in original conditions would have to be (though I strongly intuit that I am about to learn :)).

Still, I've had extraordinarily good luck and extraordinarily bad luck. How probable was it that our universe be just-so? Just probable enough, apparently. I can feel extraordinarily lucky to have my companion constants without seeking any larger metaphysical or spiritual significance in my good fortune. Merely to gaze into the night-time sky fills me with as much wonder as I can contain--sometimes a little more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-20-2005 12:40 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018