Universe: fine-tuned or not?

2PhiloVoid said:

Do you know the difference between various forms/levels of the Anthropic Principle and their respective histories of development in theoretical thought and how they contribute to and feed into the Fine Tuning Argument(s)?

Click to expand...

Why do I need an education on the Anthropic Principle?

It's a misnomer as far as I'm concerned.

Fine tuning the universe assumes it was out of tune at one time.

It came into existence fine tuned.

AV1611VET said:

Why do I need an education on the Anthropic Principle?

It's a misnomer as far as I'm concerned.

Fine tuning the universe assumes it was out of tune at one time.

It came into existence fine tuned.

Click to expand...

Ok. It's time for you to quote some more Scripture out of context or without context.

READY! SET! ....... GO!!!!!!

essentialsaltes said:

And a flat earther to boot!

Click to expand...

This is one I had not put thought into before. Firing a gun parallel to a line tangent to the surface of the curved Earth....

For simplicity, we will assume a perfectly spherical Earth (or Moon), with the equipotential surfaces as concentric spheres. (This ignores low-level asphericity and rotation). We are also going to ignore the Coriolis force, or assume that the initial velocity of the bullet is north or south from the equator (where the Coriolis effect is zero).

The gravitational force on the bullet (or the coin) is "down", that is the negative normal to the equipotential spheres pointing toward the center of the sphere (or Earth or Moon).

If we think of the trajectory w/o gravity (a straight line) the line gets further from the Earth the further it goes from the gun, since the Earth is curved. That unaltered trajectory takes the bullet on a path where the force of gravity from the Earth is smaller (because it is moving away from the center of the Earth (or Moon) and so alters the force. It will not fall the same as on a flat Earth with fixed gravitational acceleration normal to the surface. The coin does not have this motion, so its falls the sames as on the flat Earth, directly toward the Earth.

The easiest way to solve this problem is probably to do an orbit calculation for a point mass Earth/Moon and the initial position and velocity of the bullet and determine when and where it makes contact with surface of the Earth/Moon. I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

2PhiloVoid said:

So when you run experiments or do general data gathering, do you literally put a blind-fold on in order take measurements and collate results?

Perception of the world precedes measurement.

Click to expand...

I think I found the post where you "Hulked out". You can be so obious sometimes.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's all I meant. It's a basic truism and no one should have to even say it let alone explain and qualify it to those who, like yourself, live in and among the superior intelligentsia.

Click to expand...

I'm not here to help you work through your inferiority complex.

2PhiloVoid said:

No, you have exegetes too.

Click to expand...

LOL.

2PhiloVoid said:

You just don't realize it. You and AV have that in common.

Click to expand...

Do you want me to burn your village?

2PhiloVoid said:

And I will continue to jargon it up the more you push me. I'm not stepping out of the way just because you showed up.

Click to expand...

I will continue to not care about your jargon. Just remember that you don't care about the article I plan to comment on. You'll notice when I reply to the OP again.

2PhiloVoid said:

That make no sense. If you don't like the fact that I value the procedures that go into the most basic university level 'Lit Review,' that's too bad!

Those are my "habits." And they will stay as my habits, whether other people around me value them or not. I refuse to become a myopic anti-intellectual for the sake of either science or religion..............or politics.


And I don't care that you don't care.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it is religion or philosophy that did this to you, but I continue to roll my eyes at all of those that have to take basic observational facts and invent "meanings" about them like the guests on that pod.

Hans Blaster said:

That's not what that video is about. It is about leptogenesis. Or why there is more matter than anti-matter. That has nothing to do with how logic works.

Apologetics from a creationist engineer? How cliche. Pass.

Just because the reality you perceive is not the actual one does not mean that it is entanglement that is the problem.

We are so far from the topic it is silly.

Click to expand...

Smile - to each their own - did I not read reference to the speed of Light - WOW speed isn't that a reference to TIME - OH BUT THAT'S SILLY.
What Speed Actually Means in Physics https://share.google/XFWIdNsEdNT7LziTd

Hans Blaster said:

I think I found the post where you "Hulked out". You can be so obious sometimes.

I'm not here to help you work through your inferiority complex.

LOL.

Do you want me to burn your village?

Click to expand...

You'd could try.................. punk!

Hans Blaster said:

I will continue to not care about your jargon. Just remember that you don't care about the article I plan to comment on. You'll notice when I reply to the OP again.

I don't know if it is religion or philosophy that did this to you, but I continue to roll my eyes at all of those that have to take basic observational facts and invent "meanings" about them like the guests on that pod.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. It's time for you to quote some more Scripture out of context or without context.

READY! SET! ....... GO!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Sure.

1Ch 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

That was the out of context one.

Here's the in-context one ...

Ge 1:31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2PhiloVoid said:

You'd could try..................

Click to expand...

Hey, c'mon!

For crying out out.

Life is too short for this.

AV1611VET said:

Hey, c'mon!

For crying out out.

Life is too short for this.

Click to expand...

Nah! ...... It's so much more fun that way!!!!!

Larniavc said:

I can’t believe that someone with the ability to use the internet would say this unironically.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't understand your ridicule in this statement if that is what it was meant to be.

Are you implying the internet arose by chance? It just happened like biological life just "happened"?

Or are you implying I'm stupid in your arrogance?

truthuprootsevil said:

Smile - to each their own - did I not read reference to the speed of Light - WOW speed isn't that a reference to TIME - OH BUT THAT'S SILLY.

Click to expand...

What? What does that have to do with the topic or even my post?

truthuprootsevil said:

What Speed Actually Means in Physics https://share.google/XFWIdNsEdNT7LziTd

Click to expand...

No sensible person is clicking a random, unverified data link. That includes me.

Bob Crowley said:

Sorry but I don't understand your ridicule in this statement if that is what it was meant to be.

Are you implying the internet arose by chance? It just happened like biological life just "happened"?

Or are you implying I'm stupid in your arrogance?

Click to expand...

I can’t believe that you think that most people think that existence came about by chance.

Where is your evidence beyond your personal incredulity?

The original topic was "Universe - fine tuned or not?" As far as I'm concerned "Fine tuning" indicates it did not come about by chance. It was planned, or if you like "intelligently designed".

To quote Fred Hoyle, atheist turned theist but not Christian, he advanced the "super intellect argument", that precise, "fine-tuned" properties of atoms, such as carbon, indicate a "superintellect" manipulated physics and chemistry rather than relying on blind forces.

And that includes the incredibile complexity of enzymes which are necessary for nearly 100% of biochemical reactions in living things, not just humans.

Before the biochemical reactions can take place, the complex biochemistry of enzymes is required. And producing enzymes themselves requires more complex processes in the first place, including "Transcription" which is triggered by an enzyme called RNA polymerase, a specific sequence of DNA is copied into mRNA. This means that before we can even have other enzymes, an RNA polymerase enzyme is required.

In other words I'm a definite believer in intelligent design, aka God.

The only other "explanation" is that it just happened by sheer chance.

These incredibly complex processes are going on in every cell in our body. Yet we don't even have to think about it. God's made it easy for us. Our brain controls all the background processes, and even to create another incredibly complex human being all we have to do is fool around in bed, with a certain amount of pleasure thrown in as the reward to encourage the process.

Bob Crowley said:

These incredibly complex processes are going on in every cell in our body.

Click to expand...

So...what was your opinion on why such a bad design is so enormously complex? As opposed to animate mud?

Specify what is so badly designed bearing in mind that everything has to be maintained, and the more complex something is the more maintenance it requires?

Our bodies are designed so that most of the time they regenerate and heal themselves. Sure medical experts are sometimes involved, but most of the time they do things to help the body help itself.

Contrast this with the B1 bomber. For every hour of flight time, about 74 hours of maintenance are required. The B2 Spirit requires 50 to 120 hours of maintenance per hour of flight.

Tell me what is so badly designed point by point, bearing in mind all the different things the body is supposed to do.

Bob Crowley said:

The original topic was "Universe - fine tuned or not?" As far as I'm concerned "Fine tuning" indicates it did not come about by chance. It was planned, or if you like "intelligently designed".

Click to expand...

So called "fine tuning" is just a recognition that the physical parameters of our Universe fall within fairly tight ranges required for the type of life we are familiar with. (oops, apparently I just posted, so I'll "edit" this quickly")

The extent to which the potential variation could be considered "tight ranges" is debatable. Plus we have to consider that we don't have a good handle about some other forms of life that could expand the viable ranges for intelligent life.

Bob Crowley said:

To quote Fred Hoyle, atheist turned theist but not Christian, he advanced the "super intellect argument", that precise, "fine-tuned" properties of atoms, such as carbon, indicate a "superintellect" manipulated physics and chemistry rather than relying on blind forces.

Click to expand...

Ahh, old Fred. He has a lot to answer for all of this. He's responsible for some of the worst "design apologetics" (literally created the "tornado in a junkyard" analogy) and hated the expanding universe so much he derisively called it the "Big Bang".

I'd like to come back to C-12 and the famous Hoyle state later. (I wasn't planning to put it in this reply even before accidentally posting early.)

Bob Crowley said:

And that includes the incredibile complexity of enzymes which are necessary for nearly 100% of biochemical reactions in living things, not just humans.

Before the biochemical reactions can take place, the complex biochemistry of enzymes is required. And producing enzymes themselves requires more complex processes in the first place, including "Transcription" which is triggered by an enzyme called RNA polymerase, a specific sequence of DNA is copied into mRNA. This means that before we can even have other enzymes, an RNA polymerase enzyme is required.

Click to expand...

None of this is the "fine tuning" of the universe. It is an argument from complexity about biochemistry/life. (And an argument that Hoyle himself made fallaciously.)

Bob Crowley said:

In other words I'm a definite believer in intelligent design, aka God.

Click to expand...

As are many others here, but for most of you the motivation does not come from "fine tuning" or "complex biology", but from a pre-existing dedication to the truth of a particular bit of religious text. Right?

Bob Crowley said:

The only other "explanation" is that it just happened by sheer chance.

Click to expand...

That is not how I would describe physical systems following their basic properties. (The values of the "fine tuned" parameters, might be sheer chance in contrast.)

Bob Crowley said:

These incredibly complex processes are going on in every cell in our body. Yet we don't even have to think about it. God's made it easy for us. Our brain controls all the background processes, and even to create another incredibly complex human being all we have to do is fool around in bed, with a certain amount of pleasure thrown in as the reward to encourage the process.

Click to expand...

Like all of the complex biology arguments they are not part of "fine tuning" and not part of this thread. Cheers.

Bob Crowley said:

Specify what is so badly designed bearing in mind that everything has to be maintained, and the more complex something is the more maintenance it requires?

Our bodies are designed so that most of the time they regenerate and heal themselves. Sure medical experts are sometimes involved, but most of the time they do things to help the body help itself.

Click to expand...

The body helps itself? The whole medical industry is there simply because the body almost all of the time cannot help itself. Ever have something as simple as toothache? Popped a couple of pain killers, booked an appointment with the dentist and have the dodgy tooth removed painlessly? Maybe you've seen the film Castaway. Hanks' character has pain so bad he literally knocks the tooth out of his head with a rock. That's what would happen for almost all of human history. Someone held you down and they dug it out with a knife or they smashed it out. Or else you let it get worse and it would eventually kill you.

And that's just your teeth.

I was going to write this myself, but others have done a better job than I could.

From here: Why the human body has so many design flaws

The spine​

The human spine tells this story best.

Our vertebral column has evolved little from our four-legged, quadrupedal tree-dwelling ancestors, where it functioned primarily as a flexible beam for smooth movement from branch to branch, while also protecting the spinal cord.

When humans adopted an upright bipedal gait, the spine retained these functions. But it was also repurposed for the additional need of supporting our body weight vertically and maintaining our center of gravity, while still allowing the flexibility for us to move. These opposing demands creates strain.

The characteristic curves of the human spine helps distribute weight, but it also predisposes us to lower back pain, herniated discs and degenerative changes affecting its most important function – protection the spinal cord and surrounding nerves. These conditions are extraordinarily common, not because the spine is inherently poorly made, but because it’s doing a job it was never originally designed to do.

The neck​

Another clear argument against divine design is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which takes a course that simply makes no sense to invent.

This nerve, which is a branch of the vagus nerve, predominantly controls our organs’ “rest and digest” functions (such as slowing heart rate and breath). The laryngeal nerve also connects the brain and larynx, helping control speech and swallowing.

Logically, one might expect it to use the most direct route to connect brain and larynx. Instead, it descends from the brain into the chest, loops around a major artery, then travels back up to the voice box.

This detour is not a clever design, but a historical leftover from our fish-like ancestors when the nerve took a straightforward path around the gill arches. As necks lengthened over evolutionary time, the nerve was stretched rather than rerouted.

This inefficiency can increase our vulnerability to injury during surgery.

The eyes​

Even the eyes reflect evolutionary compromise.

In humans and other vertebrates, the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eyeball) is wired “backwards.” This means light must pass through layers of nerve fibres before reaching the photoreceptors – specialised cells responsible for detecting light and converting that into a nerve impulse to send to the brain.

The optic nerve then exits through the back of the retina, creating a blind spot just below the horizontal level of the eye where no vision is possible. The brain fills in this gap seamlessly, so we rarely notice it.

So while we’ve developed incredible vision and light receptor cells, this has happened at the expense of having a gap in our visual field.

The teeth​

Our teeth offer another reminder that evolution prioritises adequacy over durability.

Humans develop two sets of teeth: baby teeth and adult teeth – and that’s all. Once adult teeth are lost, they’re not replaced – unlike sharks, which continually regenerate teeth throughout life.

In mammals, tooth development is tightly regulated and linked to complex jaw growth and feeding strategies. This system worked well for our ancestors, but for modern humans it leaves us vulnerable to decay and tooth loss.

Wisdom teeth provide another example of evolutionary lag. Our ancestors had larger jaws, suited to tougher diets that required heavy chewing. Over time, human diets softened and jaw size decreased. However, the number of teeth did not change as quickly. Many people no longer have space for their third molars – leading to impaction, crowding and often requiring surgical removal.

Wisdom teeth aren’t useless in principle, but they no longer fit comfortably within modern skulls.

The pelvis​

Childbirth presents one of the most profound evolutionary compromises. Like the spine, the human pelvis must balance two competing demands: efficient bipedal walking and birthing large-brained infants.

A narrow pelvis improves locomotion, but restricts the birth canal’s size. Meanwhile, human babies have unusually large heads relative to body size, resulting in a difficult and sometimes dangerous birth process – often requiring outside assistance.

This tension between mobility and brain size has shaped not only anatomy but also social behaviour, encouraging cooperative care and cultural adaptations around childbirth.

Evolutionary persistence​

Evolution doesn’t necessarily eliminate structures unless they impose a strong disadvantage. So some anatomical features persist despite offering limited benefit.

The appendix, once considered a completely useless evolutionary left-over, is now thought to have minor immune functions. Yet it can become inflamed, causing appendicitis – a potentially life-threatening condition.

Similarly, the sinuses, have unclear functions. They may lighten the skull or influence voice resonance, and we can even use their size and variability for forensic identification. But the sinus’s drainage pathways go direct into the nose, making it prone to regular blockage and infection, a developmental byproduct rather than a purposeful adaptation.

Even tiny muscles around the ears hint at our evolutionary past. In many mammals, tiny ear muscles allow the outer ear (pinna) to swivel, improving directional hearing. Humans have these muscles, but most people cannot use them effectively.

Our bodies are not perfectly designed, but are a living archive of evolution. Anatomy reveals a historical record of adaptation, compromise and contingency. Evolution does not aim for perfection; it works with what is available, modifying structures step by step.

Bob Crowley said:

...and even to create another incredibly complex human being all we have to do is fool around in bed, with a certain amount of pleasure thrown in as the reward to encourage the process.

Click to expand...

Yeah, why not install in men an almost undeniable urge to inseminate women? Or, as you so quaintly put it, 'fool around in bed'. For almost the whole of history, men have used women to satisfy this urge. There were no flowers, a nice meal, some romantic music, a bottle of red and a few tentative gropes on the lounge before hopefully 'a certain amount of pleasure' in a comfy bed to follow. Men would generally take what they wanted when they wanted it.

This sexual urge has caused more misery in the world than anything else I can think of. And it didn't have to be like that whatsoever. You don't need pleasure to procreate any more than you need it to commit to another person or to agree to have children. It's needed in the wild because animals need that urge to maintain the species. Would you decide not to have children if there was no 'certain amount of pleasure' involved? Of course you would. It's not required. But...as we are ourselves animals, it's inbuilt by the evolutionary process. It's madness to design it that way.

False dichotomy.

Click to expand...

Rubbish

Snowflakes are complex, and they form themselves.

Click to expand...

They form crystals which do nothing more than exist, yet even then they are often beautiful to look at as though there is an artist at work, like the glories of mud, air, water and sunlight in flowers.



The results above and below are due to blind chance with not an ounce of intelligent design I take it, other than human intelligence taking a hand in organising the flower arrangement?