|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life and Fine-tuning of the universe. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I need to get something straight once and for all concerning this notion of fine tuning of the Universe. I am hoping someone such as Eta Carinae could bring forth some numbers concerning this topic.
My question centers around just how finely tuned are the parameters involved in this arguement? What degree of latitude do we have on these and still have the possibility of life? My second and more pertainent question is why do we make the statement that the universe is finely tuned for life when the only real evidence we have for it indicates that life is exceedingly remote in the universe as a function of the size of that universe? The staggeringly enormous vastness of the universe is occupied by life in a exceedingly minuscule point of an unremarkable speck of space-time and its conscious life forms have raised the idea that the universe somehow cares if life is existant at all? Is there not just a hint of massive arrogance involved here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
I am not a physicist nor do I play one on TV...
But I have read arguments to the effect that if some very low level values were not the values they are (planck length?) then the universe as a space that could support matter point blank would not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maxwell's Demon Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 59 From: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: |
Well... there are two variations of the fine tuning argument that I know of.
Fine tuning of measurable quantities Argument:The size of the earth, the distance from the earth to the sun, etc are all necessary for life to exist. Change the distance to the sun, and life could not be sustained. It would seem that everything in our solar system is fine tuned to allow life to exist on this planet. Buthow fine tuned are these quantities really? If the size of the earth was changed ever so slightly, would the earth not be able to sustain life of any kind? If the earth was just a little bit closer to the sun, would it be too hot for life of any kind to exist? We know that the evolutionary process fine tunes life to the quantities (and not vice versa), so it would seem that quantities do not need to be very fine tuned in an evolutionary framework. In this vast universe, is it really so unlikely that one planet with these particular quantities all satisfied (within certain limits) would exist? Fine tuning of the laws of physics Argument:The universe in itself is fine tuned to support life. If you change certain universal constants or laws of physics even a little life can not exist. Butit would seem to me that we can't really know what would happen if the constants of the universe where different. Maybe atomic structures we see today could not exist under certain configurations, but do we know that such structures are really necessary for life of any kind to exist (certainly it is for our type of life, but what about other types)? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2885 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The phrase "fine tuning" to me, implies that someone or something was fiddling with the dials. We speak of universal constants, that if changed just a tad, would have significant impact on the known universe.
So, isn't a "constant" a "constant"? It came into being just as it is without being "tuned"? * Don't touch that dial. We'll be right back after these variables. * (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I dont think its a matter of life being so special. But planet earth being so special. Life could not exist on earth if...
- There was a slower rotation of the earth - Faster rotation of the earth - The earth was 2-5% farther from the sun - Earth 2-5% closer to the sun - A smaller earth - A larger earth - A smaller moon - A larger moon - More than one moon - The earths crust thinner - The earths crust thicker - Oxygen/nitrogen ratio greater - Oxygen/nitrogen ratio less - More or less ozone You can call it a coincidence if you like, but if thats not at least some evidence of a designer, then i dont know what is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
The Earth's orbit changes by that much yearly. The orbit is elliptical.
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
almeyda writes:
The earth is slowing down as we speak. A billion years ago, the earth was spinning twice as fast as now. Because of our oceans and the moon, the speed of rotation is slowing down. There was a slower rotation of the earth By the way, how do you know that life couldn't exist if the rotation was slower?
Faster rotation of the earth
How do you know that life couldn't exist if the rotation was faster?
The earth was 2-5% farther from the sun
Not necessarily. If you go to the arctic regions, you will find life there. If you dig deep down into the ice of the arctic regions, you're going to find live bacteria. They belong to the Archaea domain.
Earth 2-5% closer to the sun
There are bacteria that live in extremely hot conditions (boiling hot). Again, they belong to the archaea domain.
A smaller earth
How will a smaller earth be a threat to life?
A larger earth
How will a larger earth be a threat to life?
A smaller moon
How will a smaller moon be a threat to life?
A larger earth
???
More than one moon
What the fugue are you talking about?
The earths crust thinner
I suppose we would be getting a lot more earthquakes... if that is what you mean.
The earths crust thicker
Well... I suppose some of the life in the deep blue sea would not be able to survive because of the lack of hyperthermal vents...
Oxygen/nitrogen ratio greater;Oxygen/nitrogen ratio less
I don't think so. If the ratio was greater or lesser, life would probably adapt or evolve to survive in such condition.
More or less ozone
Do you even know what the ozone is made of?
You can call it a coincidence if you like, but if thats not at least some evidence of a designer, then i dont know what is.
If earth is the only existing planet in the universe, then yes it would seem that there has to be something going on more than coincidence. You are forgetting that the universe is HUGE. There are probably 10 X 10^99999999999999 planets, considering the number of stars that we can see and the planets around other stars that we have discovered. So, why is it such a problem for earth to exist as it is by coincidence? The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again you are simply making assertions.
First, over the billions of years the Earth has existed, the speed of rotation has changed. It is changing even now.
In 1754 Kant predicted that friction with the tidal forces on earth would cause a deceleration of the earth's rotation, but it took more than a century before Ferrel and Delaunay could confirm this effect. The secular decrease of the rotation rate causes an increase of the length-of-day of about 2 milliseconds per century. This value can be determined by comparing the observations of eclipses of the sun and the moon by the Babylonians, Greeks, Arabs and Chinese with computed eclipses when using a constant rotation rate. At present also fossiles and paleomagnetic data are used to determine the increase in length-of-day. Not until 1875 the surmise was raised by Newcomb that also the rate of rotation would be subject to irregularities. Only in 1936 was this confirmed by the determination of a seasonal variation of a few milliseconds in the astronomical observations by the BIH. From this site The distance from the sun varies that much or more every year. Why would the Earth being larger or smaller make a difference? Same story re: the moon? Why would more than one moon exclude life? You do know that right now we do have another satellite and we will continue to have it for several thousand more years. don't you? The Earth crust varies greatly in thickness already, yet life exists.
See the crustal contour map at this link The ratio of oxygen and nitrogen HAVE varied over the billions of years that life has been around.
Check this link as a place to start Ozone does vary already.
Start here for more information Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I think one of the causes of my distress at the idea of the universe being fine-tuned for life is if this were the case would we not then expect to find life in the vast majority of the cosmos?
To state that we on Earth out of the entire cosmos constitutes a fine-tuning is wrong since we would expect that such a event to be unique in the universe would mean that things are not fine-tuned for life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Bump to recieve present arguements on finetuning of the universe in other topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
TalkOrigins did an interesting piece on the "fine tuning of the universe" notion, in which they varied several physical constants by factors of up to 100 in either direction, and plotted expected stellar lifespans. I can't find it anymore, however, but it was a really neat read - long-lived stars tended to form in almost half of the universes, and some universes had *very* long lived stars.
On life in general, moreso, I did - upon a quick search - stumble into this: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun98.html They discuss the concepts of cosmological natural selection, and a number of other issues, such as the likelyhood of even improbable events in an infinite-universe scenario, the necessary correlations between various constants, the possibility of all basic rulesets existing (we only perceive this one because it created us), the logical fallacy of arguing that a simple set of basic rules is unlikely but a far more complex sentient deity is likely, etc. "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
There are probably 10 X 10^99999999999999 planets, considering the number of stars that we can see and the planets around other stars that we have discovered. Good job, Lam, at completely making up this number. If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
Hey sidelined - here is a good website to check out: Page not found - Reasons to Believe
According to Hugh Ross, an astronomer, "less than 1 chance in 10^282 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles." He goes through a large number of aspects of our universe that are neccessary to support life - from the size of galaxies to the amounts of certain chemicals on earth. If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Heh, his claims are kinda silly. I'm not going to spam the thread with all of them, but lets just start with the first dozen or so.
quote: That number clearly was just pulled out of a hat, as we don't even know whether dark matter exists - let alone whether it has *any* effect on life. If it *does* exist, it could very well be *inhibiting* life in the galaxy.
quote: Yeah, all of that gold in the Earth's core is really doing you a heck of a lot good, isn't it? Need all of that radon that comes up from uranium miles down? What about other various radioisotopes - really helping life, eh? I mean, seriously, what is this guy talking about? Life depends on the simplest molecules; *obviously* they're going to be the most common. Furthermore, if other molecules were more common, life would probably depend on them instead. The ratio is pretty irrelevant. And where on earth did this number come from?
quote: Another number from a hat. Besides, if they decayed slower, the radiation they released wouldn't be much of a problem. If they decayed more quickly, the dangerous ones would be gone before life developed. This stat, consequently, is pretty irrelevant. I mean, heck, view it this way: some particles *already have* very fast decay rates, and some *already have* very slow decay rates. Is this causing a problem for us?
quote: That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps he's referring to how common they are? Quasars produce a negligable amount of GCR, and most GCR is blocked by the magnetic field anyways. Even if quasars *were* incredibly more common, in time, the universe would drift apart, and we'd have the same situation we have now, with respect to quasars.
quote: Irrelevant (and again, a number from a hat). The universe drifts apart.
quote: Another number from a hat, and again, irrelevant, for the same reason.
quote: Same.
quote: Same.
quote: Same.
quote: I assume he means galaxy type distribution, since we're discussing. What evidence do we have that other types of galaxies are inhospitable to life? I have no reason to believe that spirals are the best. I'd say the big limiting factor would be how often galaxies collide with each other... but that decreases over time no matter what (etc). If you have some of them that you think hold up better than most of these throwaway ones, please provide them. Most of this, however, is numbers from a hat that are completely irrelevant. I could do the same thing about you. Probability of a new poster joining when you did: 0.005Probability of a new poster choosing a name that includes "General": 0.02 Probability of a new poster chosing a cat avatar: 0.04 Probability of a new poster being a theist: 0.4 Probability of the poster debating about the probability of the universe: 0.2 Probability of the poster starting a thread with this title, given the above: 0.08 Probability of the poster using quote tags instead of qs tags: 0.5 Probability of the poster reading down to this line: 0.01 In short, clearly, your presence here is a miracle! "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024