Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So hith what evidence do I falsify it if fine tuning is real?

What is 'it?' Can you rephrase that more coherently?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Until now we know that all MATERIAL life forms should have a metabolism and that requires liquids but not carbon.

All life as we know it.

Further to that, which lifeforms use liquids other than water? Which lifeforms don't require carbon?

Other life forms could be possible but I find them a bit to speculative to discuss in a just way.

But you don't find it equally speculative to discuss other values for the parameters of the universe?

 

[HitchSlap]

unfortunately there has been great religious fanaticism, and true Saints have also been victims of it, but this doesn't mean there is no true God...

Blessings

Doesn't mean there is, either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It was not explained to me what parameters are but I will try to do my best.

If you don't understand the question, just ask.

...So according to Occams bosom ... razor...

That's not how Occam's Razor works.

...entropy is one of the strongest principles in the universe...

Entropy is a measure, not a principle.

 

[LaraLara]

Lol - you might as well say you find 1 + 1 = 2 to be stupid.

I find it stupid because it is not falsfiable so your example does not match the situation - I gave you a reason.

 

[LaraLara]

If you don't understand the question, just ask.

That's not how Occam's Razor works.

Entropy is a measure, not a principle.

The law of entropy as part of thermodynamics is an arrow that can go only in one direction. Life reverses this law in within its own limits and for a limit of time. Content?

 

[LaraLara]

That's not how Occam's Razor works.
.

How would it work in the situation I gave you?

 

[LaraLara]

What is 'it?' Can you rephrase that more coherently?

With what evidence to I disprove that the antropic principle explains what we see?

 

[LaraLara]

posting error again

 

[Subduction Zone]

The law of entropy as part of thermodynamics is an arrow that can go only in one direction. Life violates this law in within its own limits and for a limit of time. Content?

Nope, life does not violate the 2nd Law, nor does evolution. A local reduction in entropy is not a violation since one must look at the bigger picture.

 

[LaraLara]

A local reduction in entropy.

That is ment when I said "within it's own limits". Life uses higher forms of energy (food) and degrades them to lower forms of energy (waste) perfectly in line with thermodynamics. However INSIDE the body there is no chemical equilbrium.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With what evidence to I disprove that the antropic principle explains what we see?

There is no disproof, the WAP is tautologically true, but unsatisfying; I thought I already mentioned that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I find it stupid because it is not falsfiable so your example does not match the situation - I gave you a reason.

The WAP is tautologically true, just as 1 + 1 = 2 is.

 

[LaraLara]

The WAP is tautologically true, just as 1 + 1 = 2 is.

Ok, than we have too different opinions of what makes up a good argument

 

[LaraLara]

There is no disproof, the WAP is tautologically true, but unsatisfying; I thought I already mentioned that.

You mentioned that but I need to learn better what a tautology is. Once it got through to me it provoked a kind of allergic reaction

Because of my illness it was seen as an achievment that I could read a children novel from start to finish so please do not be angry if I get not all the arguments initially.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The law of entropy as part of thermodynamics is an arrow that can go only in one direction. Life violates this law in within its own limits and for a limit of time. Content?

Wrong. The total entropy in a closed system can only increase. Life is entirely consistent with, and dependent on, the 2nd LOT. Life increases the total entropy of the universe, and it increases it more than the absence of life would.

 

[LaraLara]

Wrong. The total entropy in a closed system can only increase. Life is entirely consistent with, and dependent on, the 2nd LOT. Life increases the total entropy of the universe, and it increases it more than the absence of life would.

Go for post above where I explained the relation of life and entropy better.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok, than we have too different opinions of what makes up a good argument

I don't see how that's relevant, but a good argument is both valid (its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises) and sound (its premises are true). It's not generally thought to be a matter of opinion.

 

[LaraLara]

I don't see how that's relevant, but a good argument is both valid (its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises) and sound (its premises are true). It's not generally thought to be a matter of opinion.

An argument that can not be falsified even in theory is unscientific and that is not a matter of opinion.

 

[LaraLara]

All life as we know it.

Further to that, which lifeforms use liquids other than water? Which lifeforms don't require carbon?

But you don't find it equally speculative to discuss other values for the parameters of the universe?

Astrobiology is speculating about life forms that don t require water or carbon but the requirements I stated are the known minimum.

I don't find it as speculative to consider universes that simply have different values to known natural laws (I am at least defining what I am talking about) than stating for example that life could just be anything.