Summations Only

Tanypteryx writes:I disagree. I think the proper word is function, not purpose.

jchardy writes:How finely-tuned is it that we exist in the era when vacuum and matter are comparable?
Between the Planck time and now, the universe has expanded by a factor of approximately 1032.
To be fair, we should consider an interval of logarithmic expansion which is centered around the present time; this would describe a total expansion by a factor of 1064.
If we take the transitional period between matter and vacuum to include the time from / M = 0.1 to / M = 10, the universe expands by a factor of 1001/3 100.67.
Thus, there is an approximately 1% chance that an observer living in a randomly selected logarithmic expansion interval in the history of our universe would be lucky enough to have M and be the same order of magnitude!
Everyone will have their own favorite way of quantifying such unnaturalness, but the calculation here gives some idea of the fine-tuning involved; it is substantial, but not completely ridiculous.Relative to the cosmologic constant:
There is room to imagine that we are actually not observing the effects of an ordinary cosmological constant, but perhaps a dark energy source that varies gradually as the universe expands, or even a breakdown of general relativity on large scales.
By itself, however, making dark energy dynamical does not offer a solution to the coincidence scandal; purely on the basis of observations, it seems clear that the universe has begun to accelerate recently, which implies a scale at which something new is kicking in.
In particular, it is fruitless to try to explain the matter/dark energy coincidence by invoking mechanisms which make the dark energy density time-dependent in such a way as to always be proportional to that in matter.
Such a scenario would either imply that the dark energy would redshift away as dark a-3, which from would lead to a non-accelerating universe, or require departures from conventional general relativity of the type which are excluded by other measurements. JCH

admin writes:If you want them back you'll have to convince me through PM (Private Messaging) that you'll work at figuring out how to quote and how to indicate where your cut-n-pastes came from.

jchardy writes:I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution.

jchardy writes:Questions become evidence when they are not answerable.

jchardy writes:The law of parsimony, Occam's razor. "-- principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect".

jchardy writes: Apparently not.