Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fine tuning: a discussion for the rest of us mortals
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 83 (261680)
11-20-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
11-20-2005 11:54 AM


What's so special about life, anyway?
Phat writes:
if nobody were around, how can there be facts without observers? The old "If a tree falls in the forest...." philosophy.
If a deer's there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a microphone's there to hear it, does it make a sound? I'd say that it does in both cases, though the deer and microphone may interpret the sound differently than a human would.
To change the scenario slightly: If a (really freakin' big) tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to feel the vibration when it hits the floor, does it make a vibration? If your neighbor feels a tree hit the forest floor and stores that information in his/her memory, then how is that record of the event any more special than the record that's made by the dirt and decomposing leaves that have been scattered around the felled tree in a rather predictable pattern?
In other words, what exactly is it that defines an observer? So far, I don't see any reason to believe that unintelligent life and non-living matter can't make observations. It seems to me that in order for a universe to exist, it must at some stage consist of at least two objects which are capable of affecting each other, not necessarily anything more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Parasomnium, posted 11-21-2005 2:29 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 32 of 83 (261773)
11-21-2005 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Funkaloyd
11-20-2005 9:57 PM


What constitutes an 'observation'?
Funkaloyd writes:
It seems to me that in order for a universe to exist, it must at some stage consist of at least two objects which are capable of affecting each other, not necessarily anything more.
That's a very interesting notion, Funkaloyd. It reminds me of a thought I had a long time ago and that's been bothering me ever since: suppose there is only one indivisible thing in the universe. There's nothing else it can bump into, receive reflected light from (in fact, there is no light), or have any other interaction with. I was wondering, in that situation, could the thing be said to exist? In other words, what is the nature of existence? What does 'to exist' mean? Does a thing that has no interaction whatsoever 'exist'?
I think it is in this vein that the notion of an 'observer' should be seen. Many people take the observer often mentioned in quantum-theoritical explanations as a conscious entity. The word 'observer' itself is part of the problem, I think. In everyday human language, an 'observer' always means a conscious person. But in quantum theory, an observer doesn't need to be a person; it can be anything with which an interaction is possible. The interaction is the 'observation'.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. But if there is air around, then it does produce vibrations and turbulence. And if there are leaves and dust on the ground, the leaves and dust will fly around. There may not be sound when the tree falls - on account of the absence of a sound-observer - but there is interaction with things that are around. The falling tree is 'observed'.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 21-Nov-2005 07:44 AM

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-20-2005 9:57 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 83 (261895)
11-21-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
11-20-2005 1:08 PM


Re: Lam-logic and Ringoisms
quote:
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?)
Be careful what you wish for.
Apparently, one can be forever defined in that play by the subject of a brief coffeehouse conversation that comprises less than 1% of one's entire, years-long contribution to the EvC debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 11-20-2005 1:08 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 12:18 PM nator has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 83 (261956)
11-21-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
11-21-2005 10:57 AM


Re: Lam-logic and Ringoisms
The way to control how people parody you is to occasionally do obviously risible things.
You're such a well-mannered, intelligent, mature debate opponent that the vast majority of your stellar contribution doesn't provide any grist for the comedy mill. If you were occasionally a bit more ridiculous, you might find the parodies more fair.
Or perhaps you might find that's not worth the price. I didn't think that RR's parody of you was very fair - it was very far from the mark. But you're such a worthwhile debate partner, so uniformly admirable in your posting style, that there simply isn't much to make fun of.
For my part, because I'm fairly ridiculous most of the time, I thought RR was spot-on in making fun of me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 12:40 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 2:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 83 (261962)
11-21-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 12:18 PM


Re: Lam-logic and Ringoisms
You're such a well-mannered, intelligent, mature debate opponent that the vast majority of your stellar contribution doesn't provide any grist for the comedy mill.
In order to write a parody, you need something distinctive that a reader can immediately recognize. But this distinctive quality can be either in the content or the style of the writer to be parodied. Crashfrog was easy to parody; for one thing, he's consistent in his tone. Schraf's another matter. One had to pick out some point she made that could be exaggerated and made to seem ridiculous.
I didn't think that RR's parody of you was very fair - it was very far from the mark
Yeah, it was way too exaggerated, but I wanted to include her and that's all I could think of.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2005 11:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 12:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 83 (262010)
11-21-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 12:18 PM


Re: Lam-logic and Ringoisms
wow, crash. Thank you.
quote:
I didn't think that RR's parody of you was very fair - it was very far from the mark.
Well, that's what I thought, but I wondered if I was just being overly sensitive.
It's just that I feel like I work hard here to be a good debater, to have my information right, to research and present arguments carefully, that it really annoyed me that the only thing I an "noted" for by some is a debate that stemmed in part from a personal issue.
It's kind of like the big thing anyone ever remembers about Janet Reno or Margaret Thatcher is that they aren't considered very attractive women.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 02:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 12:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 2:31 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 83 (262020)
11-21-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
11-21-2005 2:10 PM


Re: Lam-logic and Ringoisms
It's just that I feel like I work hard here to be a good debater, to have my information right, to research and present arguments carefully, that it really annoyed me that the only thing I an "noted" for by some is a debate that stemmed in part from a personal issue.
Well, trying to parody you for being an exemplary poster is a little bit like trying to make fun of Mother Theresa for being nice.
It's just not very funny. I mean, where's the humor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 2:10 PM nator has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 38 of 83 (262085)
11-21-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
11-19-2005 11:19 AM


Re: Lam-logic
Cheers Mike. If you don't want to get involved in this thread, that's fine. I'm interested in your point of view though, because its very different to mine, and I can't quite understand how you hold your point of view. That isn't to say that its right or wrong, its just really incompatible with mine.
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.
Other universes don't really have anything directly to do with what I was saying. I was wondering about deducing the likelyhood of our current universe, fine tuned for use to live, coming into being by naturalistic means.
My point is that we just don't know if this universe is crazily unlikely to have arisen by naturalistic means(to the extent that there is only one universe) or alternatively, whether universes are pipping and popping into being every damn microsecond.
We don't know if universes are common. We don't know if universes just like ours are the only ones where life can develop. There's a whole lot of things we don't know. To me, all these ifs and buts make it really hard to say that things look particularly engineered. Thats putting to one side the fact that if 8 dimentional Garffx-beings stood (hovered?) where we are now, they might think that things had been manipulated specially to have not 7, not 9 dimentions so they could exist. (Because what other life is there apart from 8 dimentional Garffx life?)
Okay - lets stop talking about the possibility of multiple universes and just look at the only one that we know exists. The vast majority of the universe is utterly inhospitable for anything like life we would recognise. It is so mindbendingly huge that you would expect parts of it to be inhabitable for life like our own, wouldn't you?
God doesn't play dice.
That is of course assuming that there is a God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 11-19-2005 11:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2005 3:25 PM Tusko has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 39 of 83 (262127)
11-21-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
11-20-2005 11:54 AM


Falling trees and undergraduates
"If a tree falls in the forest...."
....onto a box containing a cat, is the cat dead before somebody opens the box?
(C) Drunken students ~1977..1980

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mick, posted 11-22-2005 3:06 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 40 of 83 (262470)
11-22-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by MangyTiger
11-21-2005 6:32 PM


Re: Falling trees and undergraduates
reminds me of the old sexist joke, "If a man speaks out loud in a forest and his wife is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by MangyTiger, posted 11-21-2005 6:32 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2005 3:18 PM mick has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 41 of 83 (262477)
11-22-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mick
11-22-2005 3:06 PM


Re: Falling trees and undergraduates
Once Big Lumber cuts down all the trees, will we ask better questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mick, posted 11-22-2005 3:06 PM mick has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 42 of 83 (262478)
11-22-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tusko
11-21-2005 5:20 PM


Re: Lam-logic
Nice post, Tusko. Of course, for all we know our universe is riddled with life, just lousy with it. It does seem odd to debate fine-tuning when we don't even know the frequency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tusko, posted 11-21-2005 5:20 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tusko, posted 11-24-2005 4:10 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 43 of 83 (262663)
11-23-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by cavediver
11-20-2005 12:35 PM


Re: The universe is not fine tuned
It was finely tuned for the propensity/possibility of life. We are the proof of that.
My objection to the term "finely tuned" is that it implies intent. Not only does it imply intent, but it also implyes that life was it's ultimate purpose (specificaly human life).
The universe is just as finely tuned for the existance of gas giants and black holes. The fact that life is a possibility in this universe, does not imply intent or purpose.
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"
I agree about this
Hmm, I used to think that way about my parents too... but I know better now.
Are you implying that the universe is our "parent"? In a sentient personable way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 11-20-2005 12:35 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 11-23-2005 2:42 PM Yaro has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 83 (262712)
11-23-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Yaro
11-23-2005 10:02 AM


Re: The universe is not fine tuned
My objection to the term "finely tuned" is that it implies intent.
I appreciate this but in cosmological terms it just refers to the fact that a free parameter (in the current cosmological model) has a value essential to the existence of structure/complexity/life. It demonstrates a lack in the current model. Despite being theistic (and Christian) I would be most annoyed if the final TOE does not provide a naturalistic explanation to the values of all of the constants.
but it also implyes that life was it's ultimate purpose
Hmmm, I don't know... I've always liked the Strong Anthropic Principle. Not becasue of any religious leanings - indeed, inspite of them - but simply because of desire/perception of some connectedness. I think I should really be a Bhuddist
The universe is just as finely tuned for the existance of gas giants and black holes.
Oh absolutely, but they go hand in hand with life... especially black holes. They are at the heart of much of the essence of reality/existence (black holes are more than just the end-points of stellar evolution, they play a MUCH larger role in everything).
Are you implying that the universe is our "parent"?
I think it's a nice concept. One place I do agree with the YECs is in describing everything - big bang to us - as an evolutiuon.
In a sentient personable way?
Sentient - well, I think we provide that aspect. Personable - not sure, I don't (usually) equate this concept with my idea of God, but it really depends on the day of the week...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Yaro, posted 11-23-2005 10:02 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mick, posted 11-26-2005 5:04 PM cavediver has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 45 of 83 (262807)
11-24-2005 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Omnivorous
11-22-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Lam-logic
I like the idea of a universe riddled with life like a mangy dog. It would be fun if it was.
On a completely tangential point, it strikes me that DNA can't be the only possible imperfect self-replicating molecule. I wonder how long it will be until we descover another on that can do a similar job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2005 3:25 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024