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.
The odds of that happening? Very high and rightly so. You can't expect to walk into someone's building, without so much as a "by your leave", and go around pushing people's private buttons. It's just not on. You should think yourself lucky that nothing worse happens.I walk into a building, in the middle of the building there's a button. I push the button and a man walks over and punches me in the face.
What are the odds of me getting punched in the face when I push that button?
I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't clear; I'm not assuming or concluding anything.This itself seems like a bold assumption. A parameter landscape of all combinations of physical constants? It isn't a conclusion based on anything observed in cosmology. It's just an assumption used to explain how we might be in what appears to be a well tuned space in the universe.
I gave that a winner award because I thought it was an excellent piece of writing that presented a complex issue in clear, simple, direct terms and did so concisely and comprehensively.I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't clear; I'm not assuming or concluding anything.
Going from the (as yet unconfirmed) hint that an important constant may actually vary through space, I was suggesting that IF this is the case, it could be seen as encouraging for the cosmological multiverse, which requires an exhaustive landscape of parameter variations across a very large or infinite space.
Personally, I'm sceptical of the initial report - such tentative observations tend to go away on more intensive and detailed observation; time will tell... but as far as I'm aware, there's no fundamental physical reason why the parameters we think are constant cannot vary over space and/or time. That's not to say that they do, simply that it's a possibility. Similarly, as far as I'm aware, our best observations to date are consistent with an infinite universe (among other possibilities).
Thank you! Clear, simple, direct, concise, and comprehensive is the jackpot - I'm usually lucky to achieve any of thoseI gave that a winner award because I thought it was an excellent piece of writing that presented a complex issue in clear, simple, direct terms and did so concisely and comprehensively.
I don't think that you quite understand the argument. The odds of someone eventually winning a lottery is so close to one as to make no difference. The odds of life evolving, once it exists, is also so close to one that it makes no difference. The odds of any one single person winning the lottery is very low. The odds of someone winning is practically one.You can't look at something merely in hindsight and call the odds of an event 1. It's like a rolling a die, it falls on a 2 then saying that the odds of getting 2 is 1/1. When in actuality it's 1/6 (on a standard 6 sided die).
In an existence where constants change, the number of possible outcomes of constant values for a universe are innumerable. Like a dye with a gazillion sides. Some have suggested scenarios in which there are a gazillion universes, all of different constants or perhaps a single universe which contains a gazillion constants within it, thereby guaranteeing an outcome with us in it. But both of these conclusions sound like extreme stretches of the imagination.
I walk into a building, in the middle of the building there's a button. I push the button and a man walks over and punches me in the face.
What are the odds of me getting punched in the face when I push that button?
-CryptoLutheran
I don't think that you quite understand the argument. The odds of someone eventually winning a lottery is so close to one as to make no difference. The odds of life evolving, once it exists, is also so close to one that it makes no difference. The odds of any one single person winning the lottery is very low. The odds of someone winning is practically one.
This response assumes some innumerable quantity of trials, perhaps universes as opposed to players of a lottery. And as noted above, I think it's a stretch to suggest that countless universes exist or that a single universe has countless different constant values within itself.
I thought that we were discussing evolution. The failure of the Fine Tuning Argument has already been well explained in this thread.
You can look at it with hindsight or foresight. The odds of an an event are 1. The odds of a specific event are not the same and may be infinite.
We are an event. I'm certain that you believe otherwise. Hence the confusion.
Your argument was one that creationists use to try to use against evolution.Like I said, I don't think looking at the universe in hindsight, and saying "well it exists so the odds of it's constants being as they are must be 1/1!" Makes sense.
We can look at a lottery winner in comparison and to suggest that the probability of someone winning is 1/1 is to either suggest that there was only one player, which doesn't really resolve the question of why the universe has constant values that allow for intelligent life (or by analogy doesn't explain how it is that the person won the lottery), or it suggests that perhaps an innumerable quantity of universes exist, or an innumerable quantity of constant values within our universe (or by analogy that an innumerable quantity of people play the lottery and therefore one must win). Both of these alternatives additionally sounding somewhat crazy.
To sum it up, it's either a case of people saying that the universe simply is as it is and that there is no reason nor rhyme as to why intelligent life exists, or it's to say that perhaps multiverse theory is correct.
I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is as it is in a way in which intelligent life can exist, because there is a meaning and purpose for said intelligent life, beyond mere random chance.
To your first question: stuff happens. If stuff happens then that stuff has to be something. Why not this?If we are an event and not a specific event, why is it the case that our event has allowed for our intelligent existence? Is mere chance and perhaps even luck the only explanation that non-believers have?
If we are an event and not a specific event, why is it the case that our event has allowed for our intelligent existence? Is mere chance and perhaps even luck the only explanation that non-believers have?
I don't think this really changes the circumstances. Unless it were the case that the universe in one extreme pole were to have one extreme value of a constant, whole the other pole were to have another extreme.
Demonstrating that these constants could exist in other proportions wouldn't necessarily change the odds of the anthropic principal in a meaningful way. But it would demonstrate that these constants could change or could exist in different proportions.
Like I said, I don't think looking at the universe in hindsight, and saying "well it exists so the odds of it's constants being as they are must be 1/1!" Makes sense.
We can look at a lottery winner in comparison and to suggest that the probability of someone winning is 1/1 is to either suggest that there was only one player, which doesn't really resolve the question of why the universe has constant values that allow for intelligent life (or by analogy doesn't explain how it is that the person won the lottery), or it suggests that perhaps an innumerable quantity of universes exist, or an innumerable quantity of constant values within our universe (or by analogy that an innumerable quantity of people play the lottery and therefore one must win). Both of these alternatives additionally sounding somewhat crazy.
To sum it up, it's either a case of people saying that the universe simply is as it is and that there is no reason nor rhyme as to why intelligent life exists, or it's to say that perhaps multiverse theory is correct.
I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is as it is in a way in which intelligent life can exist, because there is a meaning and purpose for said intelligent life, beyond mere random chance.
Nope. If this report holds true, then it only means that we live in the part of the universe where the constants are conducive to forming life, even if the other parts are not.
You cannot rationally talk about the odds of an event happening AFTER it has happened. Since the event has happened the odds are logically equivalent to 1.
. Even if we were to establish that the 'odds' of intelligent life existing were bajillions to one this would not prove that God exists. There is no logical connection between the mere existence of life and the existence of a God.
To say, "life exists therefore there must be a God," makes no sense.
OB
go back to probability and discrete math. These are two courses available at entry level junior college that are often overlooked that will seem easy at first but will surprise you by the end. Way more interesting than calculus.This response is like watching someone on tv who bought a lottery ticket, went and won millions and then saying "Since the event has happened the odds of this person winning is logically equivalent to 1 and we can no longer rationally talk about the odds of it's occurance because it already happened".
The odds of such an event occuring never were 1. If the odds of hitting the jackpot truly were 1, we would all be out buying lottery tickets.
This response is like watching someone on tv who bought a lottery ticket, went and won millions and then saying "Since the event has happened the odds of this person winning is logically equivalent to 1 and we can no longer rationally talk about the odds of it's occurrance because it already happened".
The odds of such an event occurring never were 1. If the odds of hitting the jackpot truly were 1, we would all be out buying lottery tickets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?