Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Universe may not be 'fine-tuned' for life

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I agree, no-one on this earth of ours has ever created a universe. Yet some seem to feel they are in a position to judge. Go figure.

    From what we know about the universe are we not in a position to judge it as a place we live in? Besides who said anything about the universe being designed it quite clearly wasn't.


  • Options
    #33
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You have made the same point before, I believe. The fine tuning argument was never about the proportion of the universe that may or may not be habitable to life as we know it. Rather, it is about the very fundamental physical constants that make life, the universe and everything possible in the first place.

    Yes but pointing out the huge proportion of the universe that is utterly devoid of environments necessary for our form of life (or simply normal matter) shows how silly the "fine tuned for life" argument is.

    Areas that can sustain life are quite rare in the universe, so what suggests that the universe is designed for these rare bits to exist is some what counter intuitive.

    If an intelligence was setting out to design a universe for carbon based life forms to inhabit the idea that this would be the result is just crazy. It is like suggesting designing a dog house for your dog and deciding to arbitraryly make it the size of the Milkyway. What purpose would that serve?

    There are far more common things in the universe (stars for example) so why do we not say that the purpose of the universe is to allow these to form. Because obviously the idea that the universe is fine tuned not for life but for nuclear fission doesn't feed into our need to find purpose in our existence.

    It is really only the egotistical nature of humans that makes us think that the universe must be fine tuned for us simply because we exist in it. It is our need to feel we exist for a reason that produces these arguments, not any serious argument that the universe actually was designed to produce us.

    While the remake of the Day The Earth Stood Still was pretty bad there is one good bit where the Defence Sectary says to the alien "Why have you come to our planet?" and the alien (brilliantly casted as Keanu Reeves) says "Your planet?"

    We have a natural tendency to think that where ever we are that this place is there for us.


  • Options
    #34
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    OK, the word 'designed' inherently carries the presupposition that there is an intelligence behind it. I don't see why we need to stick 'intelligently' in front of it. I think that it can be easily confused with ID.
    robindch wrote: »
    That's not the point.

    If, as a parent I was designing a garden for my kids, I wouldn't (a) make it inconceivably large, (b) make it impossible to visit most of it (c) make all but the tiniest section of it dangerously uninhabitable (d) give my kids the ability to render what little bit is habitable, entirely uninhabitable.

    That's simply not very intelligent.

    a) Who said the universe was for man and man alone?
    b) What about it? The earth has proved to be large enough to hold 6 billion of us, and even now there are places and habitats that remain unfettered from our influence.
    c) Pretty much they same point as b. If vast swathes of the universe are uninhabitable, then why complain about not being able to visit them? I'm quite happy not to hop in a spaceship destined for the sun.
    d) It sounds like you would prefer to hermetically seal the the garden in plastic, form a defensive perimeter and tether the children at a safe distance from your creation? I had a neighbour like you once. Never saw my footballs or Frisbees again :(


  • Options
    #35
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Um, no. It's based upon my experience of what religious people tell me about their deity (or deities) and how little relation there is between what they say, and what the universe is.

    The disconnect is with the religious peoples' words, not the universe.

    Your line about the universe has absolutely nothing to do with any religious notion. It was an assertion by you as to knowledge you hold in relation to our universe. I.E. If its designed, its poorly designed. Mere rhetoric and presumtuousness.


  • Options
    #36
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, this is based on your experience of creating universes? Anyway, I wont derail yee anymore oh great critics of universe design.

    I've designed a universe (I'm not joking)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Caoimhín
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    I would content that it is perfectly tuned for life, otherwise the observation could not be made in the first place.

    What do alchemists know anyway,.


  • Options
    #38
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,077 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I agree, no-one on this earth of ours has ever created a universe. Yet some seem to feel they are in a position to judge. Go figure.

    It seems a more reasonable position than those who believe that only one universe could ever be right for Goldilocks.


  • Options
    #39
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    OK, the word 'designed' inherently carries the presupposition that there is an intelligence behind it. I don't see why we need to stick 'intelligently' in front of it. I think that it can be easily confused with ID.
    Traditionally that is done because Darwinian evolution can be thought of as a process of design, albeit unguided and non-directional.


  • Options
    #40
    Caoimhín
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I had a neighbour like you once. Never saw my footballs or Frisbees again :(

    Neighbouring gardens?

    What are you proposing my good fellow?


  • Options
    #41
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The reason I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'significantly different' is because that term doesn't really tell me anything about measurements. Stronger or weaker by what factor?

    hum... I'm going to be cheap here and say... what ever factor it takes to make a significant difference in the behaviour of matter... :-D

    The idea is that apparently you could make noticeable changes to several constants before life as we know becomes impossible, and even after life as we know it become impossible other forms of life can be possible and they too would still ask the same questions.

    My understanding of the fine tuning argument is that it isn't based solely on the strong nuclear force, but on a number of physical constants. I have a feeling that the proposal of this parer hasn't killed the fine tuning argument yet. Still, it will be interesting to see what the fallout from this paper is.

    Yes... the fine tuning arguement is based on a several things, and not just the Strong interaction... but it's been shown elsewhere that a universe with out the Weak force could still be functional although I imagine that it takes some balancing act with the other forces...

    Look.
    I'm not saying that all combinations of constants produce universes in which life can exist... I'm just saying that the range that these constants need to be with in is not all that narrow, and even significant changes that produce noticeably different universes in which our sort of life is impossible (or at least very unlikely) does not mean that life suitable for that universe will not arise and ask the same questions that we do... and wonder at how amazing it is that if photons didn't have mass(*) then 'life' would be impossible because the Coulumb force would then have an infinite range and their God would never allow that! (please substitute slightly more sensible changes than giving light mass, such as no weak force, stronger or weaker Strong force, fine structure constant)


    (*) photons don't have mass and the Coulumb force does have infinite range in our universes set of rules.



    We live in this universe so we think it's normal...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,077 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    jhegarty wrote: »
    I was always under the impression that even a tiny (0.01%) change in the strong force would not only stop life as we know it , but also prevent stars and planets forming.

    It is believed that Stars can form in a quite wide number of possible universe configurations.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900-is-our-universe-finetuned-for-life.html

    http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35363/title/Stars_ablaze_in_other_skies


  • Options
    #43
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but pointing out the huge proportion of the universe that is utterly devoid of environments necessary for our form of life (or simply normal matter) shows how silly the "fine tuned for life" argument is.

    Not necessarily. The hope of the Christian (I won't say all Christians) with regards to the afterlife is that there will be a life after life after death (think about it) here on a new type earth. For the Christian who subscribes to this (which is the culmination of God's creation project), the notion that the universe is now complete doesn't fit.


  • Options
    #44
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Caoimhín wrote: »
    Neighbouring gardens?

    What are you proposing my good fellow?

    Nothing, old bean. But if you are alluding the multiverse hypothesis then allude away.


  • Options
    #45
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Not necessarily. The hope of the Christian (I won't say all Christians) with regards to the afterlife is that there will be a life after life after death (think about it) here on a new type earth. For the Christian who subscribes to this (which is the culmination of God's creation project), the notion that the universe is now complete doesn't fit.

    What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

    The argument of the fine tuned universe is that the universe is supposed to look like its is fine tuned for life. If you have to introduce religious faith in order to actually believe this when that is a whole different issue.


  • Options
    #46
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Because Christians (some of us) don't believe that the universe is complete. That regions of it are currently uninhabitable is therefore beside the point. Understand?


  • Options
    #47
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    OK, the word 'designed' inherently carries the presupposition that there is an intelligence behind it.
    Not really. Most biologists refer to design in nature very explicitly without the imputation that there's one or more intelligences driving the process.

    In general terms, the inference of intelligence is a cognitive error that a lot of religious people seem to make -- that nothing can happen without a conscious entity making it happen intentionally. However, that's beside the point.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    a) Who said the universe was for man and man alone?
    A lot of religious people seem to think it was made for humanity alone (that "dominion" bit in Genesis, for example is usually used to justify this position).
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    b) What about it? The earth has proved to be large enough to hold 6 billion of us, and even now there are places and habitats that remain unfettered from our influence.
    Well, other than beneath the earth's surface, I can't think of anywhere that's unaffected by human activity.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    c) Pretty much they same point as b. If vast swathes of the universe are uninhabitable, then why complain about not being able to visit them? I'm quite happy not to hop in a spaceship destined for the sun.
    Yes, but I'm thinking of the 9.99999 (etc)% of the universe that is simply too far away that it could ever be visited, not to mention the 99.99999 (etc)% that can never be visited since it's receding too fast.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    d) It sounds like you would prefer to hermetically seal the the garden in plastic, form a defensive perimeter and tether the children at a safe distance from your creation?
    Er, no. All I'm saying is that if I was a deity designing a place for my irresponsible little playthings, then I'd make it safe and enjoyable. Anything else is just silly.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I had a neighbour like you once.
    I don't think you've ever had a neighbour like me :P


  • Options
    #48
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    I've just realised that I'm mixing up the Strong Nuclear Force with Strong interaction...
    oops...


  • Options
    #49
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Because Christians (some of us) don't believe that the universe is complete. That regions of it are currently uninhabitable is therefore beside the point. Understand?

    No?

    What does that have to do with the argument that the universe looks fine tuned for life?

    Are you saying that it does if you are a Christian who believes the universe is incomplete?

    Are surely that simply means that the universe doesn't look fine tuned without adding this assumption into the mix?


  • Options
    #50
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If its designed, its poorly designed. Mere rhetoric and presumtuousness.
    Er, it's you guys that are saying that the universe was designed for humanity.

    Can't think of anything more amazingly presumptuous than that!


  • Options
    #51
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robindch wrote: »
    A lot of religious people seem to think it was made for humanity alone (that "dominion" bit in Genesis, for example is usually used to justify this position).

    Well, we can better discuss biblical quotes on the other side. However, the verse in question, I gather, is Gen 1:28. Not a whole lot about the universe there.
    Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
    robindch wrote: »
    Well, other than beneath the earth's surface, I can't think of anywhere that's unaffected by human activity.

    I didn't say 'unaffected' though. Perhaps I should have included 'relatively' somewhere in my initial post, but I believe that my point stands. The Earth has proved to be more than sufficient for our needs as a species. Whether it will remain as such in perpetuity is probably a tangent too far for this debate.
    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, but I'm thinking of the 9.99999 (etc)% of the universe that is simply too far away that it could ever be visited, not to mention the 99.99999 (etc)% that can never be visited since it's receding too fast.

    And what about the rest of the universe? Assuming for a moment there is a God, do you suppose he should have made all the universe accessible to us? I don't assume the universe was made solely for our roadside picnic.
    robindch wrote: »
    Er, no. All I'm saying is that if I was a deity designing a place for my irresponsible little playthings, then I'd make it safe and enjoyable. Anything else is just silly.

    Well that is good for you. And I would respectfully suggest that you and God share the same goal.
    robindch wrote: »
    I don't think you've ever had a neighbour like me :P

    Oh dear!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No?

    What does that have to do with the argument that the universe looks fine tuned for life?

    Are you saying that it does if you are a Christian who believes the universe is incomplete?

    Are surely that simply means that the universe doesn't look fine tuned without adding this assumption into the mix?

    OK, to try and uncross those wires. I'm actually talking about the size of the habitable universe as having any bearing on what Christians believe. I've moved on slightly form the fine tuned issue and focused on the following:
    ... the huge proportion of the universe that is utterly devoid of environments necessary for our form of life...

    Does that context make the thrust of my posts to you any clearer?


  • Options
    #53
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Er, it's you guys that are saying that the universe was designed for humanity.

    Can't think of anything more amazingly presumptuous than that!

    You can move the goalposts all you want. It certainly doesn't remove the fact of how presumtuous your comment was.
    I haven't claimed that the universe was designed 'for humanity', again thats you being presumtuous. The only presumptions here are your own, and surprise, surprise, the cronies thank you for it. Throw a fish, and watch 'em clap their fins.

    BTW: I think one of your biggest issues Robin is the term 'you guys'.


  • Options
    #54
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »

    a) Who said the universe was for man and man alone?
    (

    Genesis 1
    ...He also made the stars.
    17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
    18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness

    Say's here that he made the stars to make light on earth when it was night-time. Moving along...

    More Genesis still chapter one,
    God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

    So, God creates universe to hold stars to light the earth, then fills earth with animals and creates man. Tells man to fill the earth and subdue it and rule over all the other animals on board.

    Universe is made to for stars, stars for light on earth, earth for man to subdue.
    Ergo God makes Universe for man...

    Now, ask me about designing universes.


  • Options
    #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You can move the goalposts all you want. It certainly doesn't remove the fact of how presumtuous your comment was.
    His comment was merely pointing out the flaw in the fine tuned argument. The universe does not look designed using their own criteria.

    You are saying that he cannot say the universe does not look designed because he has never designed a universe nor would he recognise a designed universe if he saw one. While there are flaws in that logic as well there is an over arching point in there that I agree with. For all we know this is what a designed universe looks like

    The point though is that Robin is merely using the criteria that the fine tuned supporters are using themselves to justify the argument that the universe if fine tuned.

    They argue that the universe looks fine tuned because the variables of physics are in such a way that allows carbon based life to evolve in this universe, and that if they were off that wouldn't happen. That is their criteria for what a designed universe looks like.

    Leaving aside that they no more know what a designed universe looks like than me or Robin do, the flaw is present even accepting their criteria as a basis.

    Using their own criteria the universe does not look fine tuned for life.

    There are billions upon billions of other things in the universe that are more common than life that are produced by the same "tuning" of these variables. There are more stars in this galaxy alone than humans that have ever existed. There are more stars in this galaxy cluster than life forms that have ever existed.

    So using the fine tuning argument itself the universe does not look like it was fine tuned to produce life

    All this reminds me of the quote from Haldane (some what disputed that he actually said this but interesting all the same) When asked what could he infer from his study of biology about the mind of the Creator Haldane replied "An inordinate fondness to beetles"

    He was refering to the fact that there are currently 350,000 know species of beetle, and probably thousands more. If an alien visited this world and was told that God created it for one of these groups of life forms it is rather unlikely that he would come to the conclusion that it was in fact created for homo-sapiens.

    The same could easily be said for the universe. I find it highly unlikely that a visitor from another dimension when asked to guess what God created the universe for would look down to our tiny corner of the the tiny corner of the tiny corner of universe at the odd chemical reactions taking place on a small blue planet covered mostly in water and say "There, that is what it was created for!"


  • Options
    #56
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Does that context make the thrust of my posts to you any clearer?
    No?

    Perhaps you should start again and just say what your point is?

    Are you try to say that just because the universe is vast and uninhabitable that doesn't stop you being a Christian or believing in Genesis that God made the universe for us? :confused:

    If that was your point good for you but that isn't what we are discussing, we are discussing the logic of the fine tuned argument. So I'm not sure why you are bringing that up or why you say that is "beside the point" ... what point are you making that the vast amount of the universe is incapable of sustain life is irrelevant?


  • Options
    #57
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    If, as a parent I was designing a garden for my kids, I wouldn't

    (a) make it inconceivably large,

    (b) make it impossible to visit most of it

    (c) make all but the tiniest section of it dangerously uninhabitable

    (d) give my kids the ability to render what little bit is habitable, entirely uninhabitable.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    a) Who said the universe was for man and man alone?

    b) What about it? The earth has proved to be large enough to hold 6 billion of us, and even now there are places and habitats that remain unfettered from our influence.

    c) Pretty much they same point as b. If vast swathes of the universe are uninhabitable, then why complain about not being able to visit them? I'm quite happy not to hop in a spaceship destined for the sun.

    d) It sounds like you would prefer to hermetically seal the the garden in plastic, form a defensive perimeter and tether the children at a safe distance from your creation?


    a) The Bible. I know it doesn't contain the sentence "The universe was made for humans!", but you have to admit that it's implied, as studiorat demonstrated in his post.


    b) I'm sure the first sea farers heard that exact same argument in the 15th century. Many people (possibly including your ancestral bloodline judging by your attitude) thought that they were bound to fall off the earth. "We're grand here in spain, lets sit here and fester."

    c) "Pretty much" the same point as b. Vast swathes of the Earth (eg. the sea) were uninhabitable to the early explorers. Do you lack the passion to visit the stars? Not literally walk on the stars as you think: ("I'm quite happy not to hop in a spaceship destined for the sun") , but visit the stars in a Carl Sagan sort of way.

    d) So you agree that we are capable of destroying the earth? Nuclear winter ftw?


  • Options
    #58
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Overblood wrote: »
    d) So you agree that we are capable of destroying the earth? Nuclear winter ftw?

    Careful now... you're thinking small and human scale now... we can't destroy the Earth, she's a big auld girl... the most we can do is make the surface unlivable for humans, most animals and plants.


  • Options
    #59
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Here's a thought for the "fine tuners", describe the characteristics of a universe that doesn't look "fine tuned".

    This fine tuning stuff has been described as a number of knobs, and if they weren't in exactly the same position then stars/planets/matter couldn't form. But if the opposite was true, if there was a huge range of acceptable values, if the position of the knobs didn't matter then wouldn't there be another argument that this was just as "miraculous" and highly improbable, that somehow the fundamental laws "always" produced a suitable universe.

    So I ask the people who seriously believe in this stuff, what would the characteristics of an 'undesigned' Universe look like? and how could you tell a designed (or planned for life) universe from one where it all happened "by accident"?


  • Options
    #60
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    kiffer wrote: »
    Careful now... you're thinking small and human scale now... we can't destroy the Earth, she's a big auld girl... the most we can do is make the surface unlivable for humans, most animals and plants.

    I know we can't make the earth actually disintegrate into space. I was referring to robindch's point (d)
    give my kids the ability to render what little bit is habitable, entirely uninhabitable.

    where he mentions the word "uninhabitable", obviously in relation to humans. When I said destroy I didn't mean total destruction, although I can't imagine much worse a fate for humans than worldwide nuclear war.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    surprise, surprise, the cronies thank you for it. Throw a fish, and watch 'em clap their fins.
    You should move into preaching :)
    JimiTime wrote: »
    You can move the goalposts all you want. [...] I haven't claimed that the universe was designed 'for humanity', again thats you being presumtuous. The only presumptions here are your own
    So, as a christian, you don't believe that there's anything special about humans?


Advertisement