Science and Religion

[3.14159265358979323]

The proponent of the theory still does not answer the three questions I have provided. Maybe he's avoiding them instead of conceding that he's wrong?

 

[3.14159265358979323]

It's like creationists when backed into a corner. They either make things up or simply run away from the discussion.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

And I see that the forum has died.. Maybe some sort of mod will arrive and delete the thread.

 

[Doreen]

Here is a site with some articles on the Anthropic Principle: some supporting, some not.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Life was a mere by-product of the universe. The notion that it has to be "designed" or somehow "intended" is a mere argument from ignorance.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

"I cannot understand how it came to be, therefore it has to be intended"

 

[Doreen]

Based on speculation? Do you even know what you're talking about? A theory is the highest status any hypothesis in science could ever obtain. A scientific theory has overwhelming evidence to support it. Perhaps no one bothered to tell you what a "scientific theory" is

Who was this directed at?

 

[Doreen]

Argument from Authority carries weight. Albeit- little weight.

It carries weight when I am saying it is not a no brainer. If I can produce physicists - including ones who publish regularly in their field - for whom the issue seems to warrent an explanation, then this is evidence of my assertion. I do no think either you or I are actually well enough trained to decide whether those pro or con are correct. That is a separate issue. I am not making the case that the Strong Anthropic principle is correct.

If there are scientists that are practicing theists, one cannot say that Scientists believe that God is real. (Anthropic Principle aside).

Never asserted anything remotely like this.

However, what you are citing is different from what haereticum135 is proposing.
Secondly, your assumption is that Earth holds a special place. It really doesn't.

Earth, as a planet in the universe, is not a part of the Anthropic principle per se. That there can be an earth or any planet that supports life is the issue. But, again, please note. I was asserting that the issue is not resolved and people with good brains feel that the apparant fine-tuning warrents explanation.

Perhaps the conditions here are more favorable to life than on other planets. Well, then it's a good thing we up and decided to exist here, huh?
It seems reasonable to say that Earth is favorable. After-all, we're here.
What you did NOT show is that the Earth has many specific traits that make life ONLY possible here, that life could NOT develop in similar conditions and adapt to its environment, nor does that demonstrate any validity to haereticum135's claims anyway.

Deep oceanic Worms living at vents probably find their environment perfectly designed for them.

I don't think you understand the Anthropic Principle because these examples are off target.

I included another link in a later post that has some more articles on the subject.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

"Who was this directed at?"

This was directed at the proponent of the biocentric fairytale.

 

[Doreen]

"Who was this directed at?"

This was directed at the proponent of the biocentric fairytale.

Then you might want to consider using the quote function, otherwise people will think you are responding to the posts just above yours. You might also consider consolidating your posts.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Doreen: "Then you might want to consider using the quote function, otherwise people will think you are responding to the posts just above yours. You might also consider consolidating your posts."

A bit too lazy to do so.

 

[Neverfly]

It carries weight when I am saying it is not a no brainer. If I can produce physicists - including ones who publish regularly in their field - for whom the issue seems to warrent an explanation, then this is evidence of my assertion.

what issue warrants an explanation?

Never asserted anything remotely like this.

It was not a response to something you asserted. It was an example I provided to demonstrate the weakness of Argument from Authority.

I was asserting that the issue is not resolved and people with good brains feel that the apparant fine-tuning warrents explanation.

How is it not resolved?


Doreen-- My examples are based solely on yours.

YOU said that you could produce cites for scientists claiming that Multiverse helps explain Why the Earth is "Perfect" for Life.

You said:

The odds of finding Earthlike conditions are not really low so much as that life adapted to Earth like conditions. Kinda a no-brainer, that one.

It's not a no brainer. there are a good number of physicists who find the conditions odd. And the issue is not simply whether DNA based life could form, but any life at all would have been inconceivable if just a few fine differences were there in certain constants. You and I can go back and forth on this, but I assure that there are a good number of scientists who are bothered by this. A number of them consider the conditions such that it points to a multiverse.

This was about the Earth and Life on it.

Whether or not Life has adapted well to the conditions or your claim that the conditions are fine tuned to life.

Your links only support a multi-verse explanation toward the Hubble Volume. Or the Universe itself, observed and unobservable.

 

[Doreen]

what issue warrants an explanation?

that the universe even allows the possibility of life, given how even minute shifts in constants make not simply DNA based life impossible, but any kind of life we consider possible.

It was not a response to something you asserted. It was an example I provided to demonstrate the weakness of Argument from Authority.

OK, it came after what I wrote, so I thought it related to me.

How is it not resolved?

There is not consensus around the various anthropic principles in the physics community.

Doreen-- My examples are based solely on yours.

YOU said that you could produce cites for scientists claiming that Multiverse helps explain Why the Earth is "Perfect" for Life.

OK. I can see how you took what I meant. But the anthropic principles deals with the possibility that life friendly conditions of any kind could form anywhere in a given universe or in this universe. The scientists who feel that a multiverse is indicated are not focusing only on earth, but on the universe as a whole and why the constants have ended up falling in a very tight range where any life at all is possible.

Whether or not Life has adapted well to the conditions or your claim that the conditions are fine tuned to life.

I am not claiming that they are fine-tuned. I am claiming that scientists 1) think they fall within a remarkably small range that could support any life at all and 2) that a subset of these scientists think it is odd enough to demand some sort of explanation. Some of these latter think a multiverse explanation helps to explain why the conditions are just so.

Your links only support a multi-verse explanation toward the Hubble Volume. Or the Universe itself, observed and unobservable.

My links in the two posts I had links show that the issue of the strong anthropic principle is and has been under discussion in the physics community and that some link a solution to the multiverse explanation.

My assertion is that it is not a no brainer because people with hefty brains are working to deal with the issue and were not satisfied with an explanation such as yours. There are physicists who make a similar argument to your short dismissal much earlier in this thread. You are these physicists may be correct. However given that enough very intelligent brains out there take the other side or at least put in a great deal of effort explaining there differences with the various anthropic principles, the issue is not a no brainer.

here is another link that gives a nice neutral overview....

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_anthropic_principle.asp

 

[Neverfly]

that the universe even allows the possibility of life, given how even minute shifts in constants make not simply DNA based life impossible, but any kind of life we consider possible.

Where do you get this idea at all?
Amino Acids have been found in interstellar dust for decades.

Expermiments have shown that life can form from base chemical structures even in a matter of decades, and chemically, the structure of life makes it almost seem inevitable.

OK. I can see how you took what I meant. But the anthropic principles deals with the possibility that life friendly conditions of any kind could form anywhere in a given universe or in this universe. The scientists who feel that a multiverse is indicated are not focusing only on earth, but on the universe as a whole and why the constants have ended up falling in a very tight range where any life at all is possible.

Just because they do not focus on Earth does not support the idea that Earth has a very tight band in which life can develop. I can rattle of dozens of possible life forms in very extreme environments- Ala Carl Sagan style.
Your argument doesn't support your claim.

I am not claiming that they are fine-tuned. I am claiming that scientists 1) think they fall within a remarkably small range that could support any life at all

Again- Who thinks that?
I, for one, have only heard that claim made by creationists. All the scientists involved, however, say that life adapted here and that's why creationists think that band of possibility is so narrow.
No scientist that is aware of extremophiles right here on Earth, including bacteria living in extreme environments deep below the surface of the Earth, would bother with the notion that the band is that narrow.

and 2) that a subset of these scientists think it is odd enough to demand some sort of explanation. Some of these latter think a multiverse explanation helps to explain why the conditions are just so.

From your links, I saw no scientists claiming ANY of what you just said.
The most I saw was one article raising the possibility of multi-verse influence.

My assertion is that it is not a no brainer because people with hefty brains are working to deal with the issue and were not satisfied with an explanation such as yours. There are physicists who make a similar argument to your short dismissal much earlier in this thread. You are these physicists may be correct. However given that enough very intelligent brains out there take the other side or at least put in a great deal of effort explaining there differences with the various anthropic principles, the issue is not a no brainer.

Very intelligent brains also take the idea of a divine creator seriously. That doesn't mean that their claim has sudden merit simply because they are intelligent.

I'd like to see who, exactly, thinks that the conditions on Earth are SO odd for life, that they require further explanation. Because that is certainly not the mainstream view. It is not the chemists view. It is not the physicists view. Nor the biologists, astronomers or archeologists.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Earth chauvinism much?

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Ex: Earth's orbit can change 37% before it would be dangerous to life anyway. O_O

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Hmm. To think that this started from a thread initially attempting to defend biocentricity.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

It seems odd that the topic diverged to arguing whether or not the universe was "fine-tuned"

 

[3.14159265358979323]

And, I must get going. Later, whoever remains.

 

[Neverfly]

It seems odd that the topic diverged to arguing whether or not the universe was "fine-tuned"

Hijackers, AWAY!


Here, we come, to save the day....