The fine tuning of the universe.

[quatona]

If we stopped at "because that is the way it is" we would never understand anything in the universe.

That´s why science looks for explanations of mechanisms and such, not for bare assertions.

Is there a separation of the two in science?

Depends on what exactly you mean when asking "why?"?

We have to ask why to get to how.

No, we don´t.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by countless different options? Are you referring to our universe, other possible universes or what?

It´s referring to the countless alternatives that are implied by "fine-tuned". It´s not my hypothesis.

Explain why there is nothing remarkable about a result with narrow parameters?

I did: Because all alternative results would have equally narrow parameters for being exactly the way they are.

So I take it you're not really into science then?

No, what I am not into is: loaded questions and circular reasoning.
If you have a scientific hypothesis, you are welcome to present it.

 

[AirPo]

The universe is not fined tuned for life. Life is fine tuned to fit in the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure is: With just a little change in the parameters/conditions involved it would hold a different amount of water.
That´s the criterium for "fine-tuning" you are basing your argument on.

I guess you will be interested then in finding out what the argument really is then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That´s why science looks for explanations of mechanisms and such, not for bare assertions.

Assertions about what exactly?

Depends on what exactly you mean when asking "why?"?

Why would that matter?

No, we don´t.

That simply is untrue.

It´s referring to the countless alternatives that are implied by "fine-tuned". It´s not my hypothesis.

Sorry still not following?

I did: Because all alternative results would have equally narrow parameters for being exactly the way they are.

Still haven't answered what alternatives you are referring to?

No, what I am not into is: loaded questions and circular reasoning.
If you have a scientific hypothesis, you are welcome to present it.

I'm just shaking my head. I haven't even presented my argument and you are claiming I am using loaded questions and circular reasoning. This speaks more to your aversion to the topic than to my argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The universe is not fined tuned for life. Life is fine tuned to fit in the universe.

What support do you have for that statement?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You misunderstood the argument. The shape of the puddle is not fine tuned for dirt or water, it is fine tuned for the water that is in it. It is the same as saying that "life is fine tuned for the universe".

No, it is not saying the same thing as life is fine tuned for the universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

The universe is not fined tuned for life. Life is fine tuned to fit in the universe.

The universe is fine tuned for chemistry (and therefore life).

 

[Oncedeceived]

The universe is fine tuned for chemistry.

That is one component true.

 

[lesliedellow]

That is one component true.

No chemistry, no life. It is as simple as that.

 

[AirPo]

What support do you have for that statement?

Observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The universe is not fined tuned for life. Life is fine tuned to fit in the universe.

There's a priciple that Jesus stated that goes like this ...

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

I submit the same principle applies to the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is not saying the same thing as life is fine tuned for the universe.

Why not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No chemistry, no life. It is as simple as that.

I am not disagreeing. I am just saying it is a valid component to the fine tuning argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Observation.

How do you observe the difference between we being fine tuned to the universe or vice versa?

 

[AirPo]

No chemistry, no life. It is as simple as that.

Sure, but chemistry is not there for life, life came about because chemistry made it possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see why I did not read the article. It was not supplied in the OP as it should have been. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

It looks like using Davies to support the argument for fine tuning looks like a bit of a quote mine. Oncedeceived did you get the quote that you used from a creationist source? If that is the case you were just recently deceived again. They were not honest in their quoting of Davies it that is the case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?

Is there any necessary elements or parameters for the hole to have for water to fill it?

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure, but chemistry is not there for life, life came about because chemistry made it possible.

To have chemistry you need the heavier elements. To have the heavier elements you need stars. To have stars you need gravity to be fine tuned by one part in 15 million.

Any more, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang. Any less, and the universe would have expanded to quickly for stars to form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure, but chemistry is not there for life, life came about because chemistry made it possible.

What evidence do you have that would show that life came about because of chemistry and not the other way around?

 

[lesliedellow]

What evidence do you have that would show that life came about because of chemistry and not the other way around?

Because that is not even possible.