The fact that there are such an "unusual number of unexplained coincidences" and that "such values had been necessary for the CREATION (your word not mine) of life" does indeed shout Deity.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Anthropic Principle
- Thread starter Extirpated Wildlife
- Start date
DNAunion: The question is not whether or not our Universe is fine-tuned for life...no doubt, it is. The question is, how did that come about?
There could be an ensemble of universes, with the values for the various constants of nature having been randomly established in each one, with only one or a few of the "trillions" of universes having all the correct values needed to permit life to exist. If that is the case, then it must also be the case that we find ourselves in one of the very few lucky ones: it could not be otherwise.
Upvote
0
That's all very speculative. Lets deal with what we know we have. If's could's and maybe's are not very scientific. The universe we have cries out deliberate intelegent design for life by an inteligent God.
Upvote
0
DNAunion: If the scientists who think that our Universe began as a quantum fluctuation in some larger superspace are right, then it is most unlikely that ours is the only Universe that exists or ever existed. That would give us the World Ensemble. And the only really major speculation here is the existence of a preexisting superspace. Given it, the rest pretty much follows.
DNAunion: Okay, we all agree that the Universe is finely tuned for life. But to go further requires that we speculate.
DNAunion: Neither are supernatural beings.
DNAunion: Yeah, or for an ensemble of universes.
Upvote
0
LOL. Ah well, I tried. Im off before I get dizzy from going round in circles.
See you (DNAUnion) on another topic no doubt .
Chow for now.
See you (DNAUnion) on another topic no doubt .
Chow for now.
Upvote
0
Another thing overlooked by the strong anthropic is that there may be no (or few) sets of physical constants that would prevent intelligent life. We say the universe is fine-tuned for life, but what we are really saying is that it is fine-tuned for life as we know it. Fiddle the numbers and we migt find that life is inhospitable to us, but fine-tuned for some other form of life. To conclude that the anthropic coincidence shouts "deity" without knowing how many universes exist and what kinds would support life is wishful speculation.
Upvote
0
Could it not be the other way around?
That life has evolved to 'fit' the way the universe is?
That seems far more logical to me.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by SLP:
Could it not be the other way around?
That life has evolved to 'fit' the way the universe is?
That seems far more logical to me.
Sounds a bit like the old chicken or egg debate:
Which came first---a universe designed for life, or life designed for this universe?
Or was there a design in all of this--or just an amazing number of coincidences.......
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Uh, not quite. For instance, if the strong nuclear force were just a little stronger or weaker, then either matter remains a quark plasma or elements can't form. Niether of them is going to support any kind of life because the universe is going to be in maximal entropy. And, of course, there are an infinite number of values the strong nuclear force can have above or below the one it does have.
Now, most of the speculations about multiple universes (each with their own laws) is there so that there are an infinite number of universes so that it becomes problable that one of them would have the constants we observe.
Instead of looking around for physical reasons why the Strong Anthropic Principle doesn't work, the most accurate is simply that it is a flaw in elementary logic.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
I've read the physicists, altho I would suggest you look at Schroeder with a lot of skepticism. His science gets very fast, loose, and erroneous. I'm not arguing against the values, Sinai. They are what they are. And indeed, if many of them were changed just a little bit, you would end up with a universe of maximum entropy and no chance of life.
And Dennett noted that, in its weak form, the Anthropic Principle is valid and occasionally useful. It is that loose-cannon "must" in everyday speaking that transforms the Weak Anthropic Principle into the Strong Anthropic Principle. It's just that the Strong Anthropic Principle remains flawed logic. Nothing you have posted changes that.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
In this case, they are very scientific. What we have are supposed coincidences. What you have is one hypothesis to explain those supposed coincidences -- creation by deity.
However, the essence of science is exploring and testing other explanations. Are there other explanations to explain the supposed coincidences? If there are, then your conclusion that there is no other way to get the values ("cries out deliberate intelegent design for life by an inteligen God") isn't valid.
IOW, you have to show that the alternative hypotheses are false. You can't do that. (BTW, another possibility is that the constants aren't arbitrary, but come out of more fundamental principles, which is what M theory suggests.)
So, you can say that it is possible that the constants are there because a deity created a single universe. But you can't say that this is the only possibility.
Upvote
0
Life as we know it requires elemental matter. We cannot guess whether other forms of life could exist without elemental matter, even if we cannot imagine how they could. As far as "maximum entropy" is concerned, that seems to be hyperbole: I don't think you are really postulating a transfinite value of S in a universe with a stronger or weaker strong force.
Also, we cannot assume that a change in strong force necessarily implies that elemental matter of some kind could not exist. We cannot assume that changes in other constants would not allow for an analog of elemental matter.
That is one refutation of the anthropic principle. Another is that even if there were only one universe, we have no way of calculating the probability that its constants will allow for some form of life. We know that for life as we know it, only the physical constants of this universe will do. We don't know what other possibilities exist. It could be that for one or few sets of constant values, life of some kind could exist. If that were true, and if ours was the only universe, then some form of the strong anthropic would have to be accepted. It could, however, be that for most or all sets of constant values, some kind of life could exist. If that is the case, the strong anthropic is useless.
Of course. I'm just pointing out that it is a flaw in elementary logic for more than one reason, or rather, because of more than one unknown/unknowable.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by Jerry Smith Life as we know it requires elemental matter. We cannot guess whether other forms of life could exist without elemental matter, even if we cannot imagine how they could. As far as "maximum entropy" is concerned, that seems to be hyperbole: I don't think you are really postulating a transfinite value of S in a universe with a stronger or weaker strong force.
Maximum entropy simply means that there is no possibility of getting work out of the system. And any life, to be life, has to be able to do work. Life can't exist in a system of maximum entropy.
Also, we cannot assume that a change in strong force necessarily implies that elemental matter of some kind could not exist.
The people who have worked with the equations say that this is just what happens. It's not an assumption; it's a conclusion from the equations.
That is one refutation of the anthropic principle. Another is that even if there were only one universe, we have no way of calculating the probability that its constants will allow for some form of life. We know that for life as we know it, only the physical constants of this universe will do. We don't know what other possibilities exist. It could be that for one or few sets of constant values, life of some kind could exist. If that were true, and if ours was the only universe, then some form of the strong anthropic would have to be accepted.
NO form of the strong anthropic principle can ever be accepted. All that can be validly said from the constants is: if for life to exist the constants must have certain values then, since life does exist, the constants have those values. The constants don't have to have those values and the universe doesn't have to contain life. That is the logical flaw of the Strong Anthropic Principle. There is no requirement, via logic, that the universe must contain life.
It could, however, be that for most or all sets of constant values, some kind of life could exist.
This is where the equations falsify your position. For nearly all values of the constants, you end up with some form of homogenous universe with maximum entropy: no energy available to do work. Any and all life is impossible under that situation.
Remember what life has to do to be life: it must metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. The catabolism part of metabolism extracts energy. All the rest -- anabolism, growth, response, and reproduction -- require that life do work. None of those are possible in maximum entropy.
And if you want to duck and claim that life doesn't have to do these things, then all you have is another piece of matter, not life.
Maximum entropy simply means that there is no possibility of getting work out of the system. And any life, to be life, has to be able to do work. Life can't exist in a system of maximum entropy.
Also, we cannot assume that a change in strong force necessarily implies that elemental matter of some kind could not exist.
The people who have worked with the equations say that this is just what happens. It's not an assumption; it's a conclusion from the equations.
That is one refutation of the anthropic principle. Another is that even if there were only one universe, we have no way of calculating the probability that its constants will allow for some form of life. We know that for life as we know it, only the physical constants of this universe will do. We don't know what other possibilities exist. It could be that for one or few sets of constant values, life of some kind could exist. If that were true, and if ours was the only universe, then some form of the strong anthropic would have to be accepted.
NO form of the strong anthropic principle can ever be accepted. All that can be validly said from the constants is: if for life to exist the constants must have certain values then, since life does exist, the constants have those values. The constants don't have to have those values and the universe doesn't have to contain life. That is the logical flaw of the Strong Anthropic Principle. There is no requirement, via logic, that the universe must contain life.
It could, however, be that for most or all sets of constant values, some kind of life could exist.
This is where the equations falsify your position. For nearly all values of the constants, you end up with some form of homogenous universe with maximum entropy: no energy available to do work. Any and all life is impossible under that situation.
Remember what life has to do to be life: it must metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. The catabolism part of metabolism extracts energy. All the rest -- anabolism, growth, response, and reproduction -- require that life do work. None of those are possible in maximum entropy.
And if you want to duck and claim that life doesn't have to do these things, then all you have is another piece of matter, not life.
Upvote
0
Yes, you are right here - maximum entropy meaning zero Gibbs free energy would prevent life. I don't think its proven that zero free energy would have to exist if nuclear matter did not exist as such. How could we guess what kind of thermodynamics would exist when the fundamental properties of the universe were radically different? More on this...
I'll tentatively agree. However I will note a quasi-exception, for the sake of entertainment only:
If God exists and is non-material, then we must accept the possibility of non-material life. For those suggesting the strong anthropic as proof of God, the possibility of non-material life (spiritual life for instance) must be considered an alternative that could exist in a universe with practically any physical properties.
Its a conclusion from varying only certain values in those equations, and holding the equations as valid for all universes. A universe with a different Strong force, however, is not bound to have the same weak, electromagnetic, or gravitational forces (or even close). It is not even bound to have a strong force as such: if supersymmetry were broken differently, there may be a whole different set of forces to consider. In that case, the equations that yield "no elemental matter" (per se), would not hold in such a universe.
If it is proven that this is the only universe, and that it can only harbor life as it exists (and could not if it had different fundamental properties - and these properties could potentially vary by large magnitudes) --- then the weak anthropic does not explain the coincidence that the one universe that exists is the only one that could support life. Some form of strong anthropic must be employed. None of this has been proven, so as you state, there is an error in calling upon the strong anthropic. If it had been proven then we would be certain that some formulation of the strong anthropic must be valid - though we may still not be able to prove which formulation.
I would have to take your word for it that the equations have been solved for all values of all the constants, or something equivalent. I'm not so sure that's the case. But I'm open to the possibility.
I won't duck and make that claim - with my one exception for the case of non-material life, which must be considered if we are to give weight to the philosophical position that life can exist non-materially...
I just don't think that the properties of a radically different universe will necessarily be calculable - to calculate the properties of a different universe, one must at least choose those that can be modeled by the properties of this universe. It isn't a foregone conclusion that a radically different universe can accurately be modeled using our own as a guide. And it isn't a foregone conclusion that universes that can be modeled by the same equations our can are the only possibilities, or even the more common ones.
Upvote
0
Who said anything about design?
If I poor milk into an odd-shaped glass, the milk conforms to the shape of the container.
Is that an amazing coincidence?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by Jerry Smith Yes, you are right here - maximum entropy meaning zero Gibbs free energy would prevent life.
Gibb's free energy is not the same as entropy. Remember the equation: deltaG = deltaH -T x deltaS DeltaH is a change in enthalpy. However, in an isotropic universe, that deltaH would not be possible.
I don't think its proven that zero free energy would have to exist if nuclear matter did not exist as such. How could we guess what kind of thermodynamics would exist when the fundamental properties of the universe were radically different?
I seem to have confused you. It's not that entropy is maximum because there is no elemental matter. There is no cause and effect there. I should have phrased it as: there is no elemental matter and the universe also has maximum entropy. Changing the constants of the charge on the electron doesn't change the thermodynamic equations. So there is no "guess" about thermodynamics. The thermodynamic equations are not in any way dependent on any of the constants under consideration.
If God exists and is non-material, then we must accept the possibility of non-material life. For those suggesting the strong anthropic as proof of God, the possibility of non-material life (spiritual life for instance) must be considered an alternative that could exist in a universe with practically any physical properties.
It could, except that you are changing the argument made by those discussing the Anthropic Principle. Remember, it is the presence of us, material life, that is being discussed. We could not exist. The universe seems fine-tuned to produce us, material life. Of course, as you hint, material life does not have to exist. That's another means of looking at that loose-cannon "must" in the verbal formulation.
Its a conclusion from varying only certain values in those equations, and holding the equations as valid for all universes. A universe with a different Strong force, however, is not bound to have the same weak, electromagnetic, or gravitational forces (or even close). It is not even bound to have a strong force as such: if supersymmetry were broken differently, there may be a whole different set of forces to consider. In that case, the equations that yield "no elemental matter" (per se), would not hold in such a universe.
This one I'll refer you to the physicists. They are the ones manipulating the equations and they state (non-theists too) that your formulation is not valid. What you are trying to do here is say that the scientists are wrong. It is the same thing creationists do when some part of science goes against their argument. Don't adjust the argument, say the science is wrong. Why are you doing the same thing?
If it is proven that this is the only universe, and that it can only harbor life as it exists (and could not if it had different fundamental properties - and these properties could potentially vary by large magnitudes) --- then the weak anthropic does not explain the coincidence that the one universe that exists is the only one that could support life.
Let's put it this way, the Anthropic Principle doesn't address the issue at all. You are still assuming that the universe must contain life. It doesn't have to. So this could be the "lucky" universe. After all, some person does win the lottery.
Some form of strong anthropic must be employed.
Nope. Because the Strong Anthropic Principle is flawed from its inception with faulty logic. Yes, we may be looking for some way that the constants are not arbitrary in order to explain an apparent improbability. However, that loose-cannon "must" in the SAP can never be allowed. And you are allowing it.
None of this has been proven, so as you state, there is an error in calling upon the strong anthropic.
NO, NO, NO Please pay attention. The SAP is the error in logic! There is no valid SAP because, as Dennett puts it, commits "the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way." That "technically incorrect way" means that the SAP is never valid under any circumstances. The error is not in invoking it. The error is in thinking there is a valid entity called the SAP.
It isn't a foregone conclusion that a radically different universe can accurately be modeled using our own as a guide.
They are not using our own as a guide. They are simply plugging the new values into the equations that use those values. What you are saying is that those equations are invalid if the constants change. But that is not so. Do some elementary algebra here. The equation a=2b does not change simply because you change the constant from 2 to 3. The value of a is different than it was before for each value of b, but the equation is the same. This is what is happening with the calculations based on the physical constants.
Gibb's free energy is not the same as entropy. Remember the equation: deltaG = deltaH -T x deltaS DeltaH is a change in enthalpy. However, in an isotropic universe, that deltaH would not be possible.
I don't think its proven that zero free energy would have to exist if nuclear matter did not exist as such. How could we guess what kind of thermodynamics would exist when the fundamental properties of the universe were radically different?
I seem to have confused you. It's not that entropy is maximum because there is no elemental matter. There is no cause and effect there. I should have phrased it as: there is no elemental matter and the universe also has maximum entropy. Changing the constants of the charge on the electron doesn't change the thermodynamic equations. So there is no "guess" about thermodynamics. The thermodynamic equations are not in any way dependent on any of the constants under consideration.
If God exists and is non-material, then we must accept the possibility of non-material life. For those suggesting the strong anthropic as proof of God, the possibility of non-material life (spiritual life for instance) must be considered an alternative that could exist in a universe with practically any physical properties.
It could, except that you are changing the argument made by those discussing the Anthropic Principle. Remember, it is the presence of us, material life, that is being discussed. We could not exist. The universe seems fine-tuned to produce us, material life. Of course, as you hint, material life does not have to exist. That's another means of looking at that loose-cannon "must" in the verbal formulation.
Its a conclusion from varying only certain values in those equations, and holding the equations as valid for all universes. A universe with a different Strong force, however, is not bound to have the same weak, electromagnetic, or gravitational forces (or even close). It is not even bound to have a strong force as such: if supersymmetry were broken differently, there may be a whole different set of forces to consider. In that case, the equations that yield "no elemental matter" (per se), would not hold in such a universe.
This one I'll refer you to the physicists. They are the ones manipulating the equations and they state (non-theists too) that your formulation is not valid. What you are trying to do here is say that the scientists are wrong. It is the same thing creationists do when some part of science goes against their argument. Don't adjust the argument, say the science is wrong. Why are you doing the same thing?
If it is proven that this is the only universe, and that it can only harbor life as it exists (and could not if it had different fundamental properties - and these properties could potentially vary by large magnitudes) --- then the weak anthropic does not explain the coincidence that the one universe that exists is the only one that could support life.
Let's put it this way, the Anthropic Principle doesn't address the issue at all. You are still assuming that the universe must contain life. It doesn't have to. So this could be the "lucky" universe. After all, some person does win the lottery.
Some form of strong anthropic must be employed.
Nope. Because the Strong Anthropic Principle is flawed from its inception with faulty logic. Yes, we may be looking for some way that the constants are not arbitrary in order to explain an apparent improbability. However, that loose-cannon "must" in the SAP can never be allowed. And you are allowing it.
None of this has been proven, so as you state, there is an error in calling upon the strong anthropic.
NO, NO, NO Please pay attention. The SAP is the error in logic! There is no valid SAP because, as Dennett puts it, commits "the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way." That "technically incorrect way" means that the SAP is never valid under any circumstances. The error is not in invoking it. The error is in thinking there is a valid entity called the SAP.
It isn't a foregone conclusion that a radically different universe can accurately be modeled using our own as a guide.
They are not using our own as a guide. They are simply plugging the new values into the equations that use those values. What you are saying is that those equations are invalid if the constants change. But that is not so. Do some elementary algebra here. The equation a=2b does not change simply because you change the constant from 2 to 3. The value of a is different than it was before for each value of b, but the equation is the same. This is what is happening with the calculations based on the physical constants.
Upvote
0
lucaspa --
I only have a few minutes, so I will come back to the physics oriented questions. I just want to quickly draw an analogy so you will see what I mean when I say that the SAP is only invalid if certain postulates are unproven. Therefore, here is the SLWP (Strong Lucky Winner Principle).
Bob has a winning lottery ticket. Bob figures the odds that his number will be the winning number, and realizing the large coincidence, invokes the SLWP to explain it: the Lottery officials must have wanted Bob to win.
This explanation succeeds or fails depending on whether 2 postulates are proven or not:
1) Bob was not one of an extremely large number of potential winners, and
2) Bob's lottery numbers were the only winning combination.
If the lottery was the type we are all aware of, then we can easily see why Bob's proposition fails. He really was just the lucky one. He didn't have to be, but since he is he has the illusion that he has a coincidence to explain.
If the lottery was different in certain ways from the types we are familiar with, though - and if Bob were aware of these differences, his explanation (or one that explains the condition just as well) might be necessary.
For instance: The lottery only included 1 ticket: the one sold to Bob. No one else got to play. In this case, the odds that the one ticket sold would be the winning ticket seem preposterous. If this is the case, the SLWP stands (postulate 1 is proven), but it could still fail based on whether postulate #2 is proven.
If Bob was able to sneak a peak at the lottery system, and found that any combination of numbers was a "win" then this would destroy the illusion of coincidence that came from Bob being issued the only ticket and it also being the winning one. If any ticket would do, the fact that Bob did have a ticket guarantees his win, and it doesn't make sense to conclude that the lottery officials fixed the game.
So, if there is only one universe, and only the properties of that universe support life, then we are left with a coincidence heavily against the odds that needs an explanation!
If there is more are many universes, there is no longer a coincidence. If there is only one universe, but it could have many sets of properties and still include some kind of life - then we no longer have a coincidence.
If there is only one universe and only one set of constants that yield life - then can you explain the coincidence that the only universe exists has exactly those constants that are necessary for life without invoking the SAP, and without insulting our intelligence by saying that it was just "the breaks"? The fact is that the SAP fails not because it has an inherent flaw, but because we do not have enough information to prove or disprove the postulates that there is a single universe or that only the properties of this universe can support life...
I only have a few minutes, so I will come back to the physics oriented questions. I just want to quickly draw an analogy so you will see what I mean when I say that the SAP is only invalid if certain postulates are unproven. Therefore, here is the SLWP (Strong Lucky Winner Principle).
Bob has a winning lottery ticket. Bob figures the odds that his number will be the winning number, and realizing the large coincidence, invokes the SLWP to explain it: the Lottery officials must have wanted Bob to win.
This explanation succeeds or fails depending on whether 2 postulates are proven or not:
1) Bob was not one of an extremely large number of potential winners, and
2) Bob's lottery numbers were the only winning combination.
If the lottery was the type we are all aware of, then we can easily see why Bob's proposition fails. He really was just the lucky one. He didn't have to be, but since he is he has the illusion that he has a coincidence to explain.
If the lottery was different in certain ways from the types we are familiar with, though - and if Bob were aware of these differences, his explanation (or one that explains the condition just as well) might be necessary.
For instance: The lottery only included 1 ticket: the one sold to Bob. No one else got to play. In this case, the odds that the one ticket sold would be the winning ticket seem preposterous. If this is the case, the SLWP stands (postulate 1 is proven), but it could still fail based on whether postulate #2 is proven.
If Bob was able to sneak a peak at the lottery system, and found that any combination of numbers was a "win" then this would destroy the illusion of coincidence that came from Bob being issued the only ticket and it also being the winning one. If any ticket would do, the fact that Bob did have a ticket guarantees his win, and it doesn't make sense to conclude that the lottery officials fixed the game.
So, if there is only one universe, and only the properties of that universe support life, then we are left with a coincidence heavily against the odds that needs an explanation!
If there is more are many universes, there is no longer a coincidence. If there is only one universe, but it could have many sets of properties and still include some kind of life - then we no longer have a coincidence.
If there is only one universe and only one set of constants that yield life - then can you explain the coincidence that the only universe exists has exactly those constants that are necessary for life without invoking the SAP, and without insulting our intelligence by saying that it was just "the breaks"? The fact is that the SAP fails not because it has an inherent flaw, but because we do not have enough information to prove or disprove the postulates that there is a single universe or that only the properties of this universe can support life...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
