Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The fine tuning of the universe.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gene2memE" data-source="post: 69668307" data-attributes="member: 341130"><p>I wonder, did you read all the way through Davies' article about fine tuning that you took this from, rather than just the first paragraph? You know, the one entitled: "<em>Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it</em>"</p><p></p><p>Where he concludes that (<strong>bolding</strong> mine): </p><p></p><p>"Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the<strong> flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness</strong>.</p><p></p><p>Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: <strong>the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws.</strong> <strong>If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it</strong>. <strong>The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself</strong>."</p><p></p><p>When the source you are using to support your argument doesn't agree with your conclusions, and indeed actively argues the counter factual, your original hypothesis might be in a spot of trouble.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gene2memE, post: 69668307, member: 341130"] I wonder, did you read all the way through Davies' article about fine tuning that you took this from, rather than just the first paragraph? You know, the one entitled: "[I]Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it[/I]" Where he concludes that ([B]bolding[/B] mine): "Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the[B] flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness[/B]. Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: [B]the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws.[/B] [B]If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it[/B]. [B]The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself[/B]." When the source you are using to support your argument doesn't agree with your conclusions, and indeed actively argues the counter factual, your original hypothesis might be in a spot of trouble. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The fine tuning of the universe.
Top
Bottom