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.
My favorite argument asks for evidence to back up your initial premise.Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.
My favorite argument asks for evidence to back up your initial premise.
Its that simple.
2. The Weak Anthropic Principle - life will inevitably only exist in a universe that can support life; so any observers, whatever the parameters of the universe they observe, will note that they are 'tuned' to support life. Quelle surprise.
Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.
It seems to be preprogrammed to exist at all.
.
If theres a boson, it has to have some physical properties, right?As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.
Can you show me?
Can you show me?
2. The Weak Anthropic Principle - life will inevitably only exist in a universe that can support life; so any observers, whatever the parameters of the universe they observe, will note that they are 'tuned' to support life. Quelle surprise.
It says no more about multiple universes than the claim to fine-tuning does.That is still different from claiming you need to have multiple universes or is it connected? Sorry I just want to be sure I get things straight.
It says no more about multiple universes than the claim to fine-tuning does.
That's the thing with arguments - some people propose them and some people reject them. I just suggested it as a simple argument for discussion.This does not make you wrong, but I just saw Dawkins rejecting the weak anthropic principle.
As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.
It's the 'Higgs boson'. Higgs is the name of the man it's named after, so it should be capitalised; boson is the kind of particle it is. A bosom is a woman's chest or breasts, so Higgs didn't have a bosom.As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.
You cant use chance and probability in this way.
It's the 'Higgs boson'. Higgs is the name of the man it's named after, so it should be capitalised; boson is the kind of particle it is. A bosom is a woman's chest or breasts, so Higgs didn't have a bosom.
The properties of the Higgs boson were predicted from theory over 50 years ago. Wouldn't that suggest that the opposite is true?As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.
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?