It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Evidence That The Universe Was Fine Tuned !

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot






Um, because it is literally defined as such.


So if monkeys create something it is natural.

But if humans create something it is unnatural?

Are humans natural or unnatural?




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing




"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" - Douglas Adams



OMG !

I laughed until I cried with that quote !

That statement just summed up the entire argument beautifully.




Don't thank me - thank (the sadly now deceased) genius Douglas Adams who was an amazing communicator. Neil Gaman once said that once you had viewed things through Douglas' eyes you could never ever see them the same way since. Truly a great loss to humanity that he died at the tragically young age of 49. I never knew him personally, yet I miss him greatly..


Not to turn this into a tribute thread, but wholeheartedly agreed without a salmon of doubt.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs







Fire isn't intelligent, we are


Hi Barcs.

I think you misunderstood the context of the discussion.





Your pool design argument is flawed as well.


Is the puddle fine tuned to the hole or the hole to the puddle?

My pool illustration refuted the earlier puddle analogy.


In reality they do not look to be designed without huge leaps in logic.


That is an opinion



We DO NOT have humans creating planets or stars,


Humans are attempting to create stars




It's an emotional response to the complexity of life and our star system.


Star system.

That reminds me of phrases like telephone system or computer system



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

A pool is designed. A puddle is not. Your analogy is terrible in every respect.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Double post. What am I like.
edit on 24-3-2015 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Saying humans aren't special is quite harsh. I think you're looking at lie far too literally and... physically.

Perhaps if you chose to believe we are a bag of bones and organs, fair enough. But throughout history we've proven ourselves to be quite unique.

Remember, unique is as far as this planet goes. Anything outside of this planet is mere speculation.

In what context were you implying we weren't special? Globally or Universally?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Star for you blue jay

Very interesting video



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Entreri06



Evolution is proven.


I understand that some in religion don't take kindly to darmins evolution but he himself was a church goer, not an atheist. If one believes in God then one must also believe that the maths behind his creation was designed to allow life to flourish throughout the universe.


At first he was, but he started to question his beliefs more and more after the HMS Beagle voyage, and after the death of his daughter he became an agnostic atheist.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Barcs

Star system.

That reminds me of phrases like telephone system or computer system


That doesn't imply symmetry. In order to be a system, it simply has to encompass smaller pieces to make some sort of unit.



system
[sis-tuh m]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole:
a mountain system; a railroad system.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: DeadFoot

So if monkeys create something it is natural.

But if humans create something it is unnatural?

Are humans natural or unnatural?


If you're going to attempt to bait someone into a standard hair-split argument, you might want to get the language in order.

We are apes, not monkeys.

And the term "natural" refers to anything not interfered with by humans alone, excluding other apes, and yes, monkeys.

I feel like it's going to be another waste time resulting in not much more than fiddling with semantic hair-splits, so let's just nip your set-up in the bud right there.
edit on 24-3-2015 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
When it comes to fine tuning, the product already exists, but requires intelligent life to do it, think cars, music instruments and complex power tools. They don't self tune randomly.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped






A pool is designed. A puddle is not.


Exactly.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33







When it comes to fine tuning, the product already exists, but requires intelligent life to do it, think cars, music instruments and complex power tools. They don't self tune randomly.




But all it take is billions of years and not only would the guitar tune itself, it would continuously play complex arrangements.

You know, billions of years.

Then the guitar would gently weep.

On its own, all by itself....




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: DeadFoot

So if monkeys create something it is natural.

But if humans create something it is unnatural?

Are humans natural or unnatural?


If you're going to attempt to bait someone into a standard hair-split argument, you might want to get the language in order.

We are apes, not monkeys.

And the term "natural" refers to anything not interfered with by humans alone, excluding other apes, and yes, monkeys.

I feel like it's going to be another waste time resulting in not much more than fiddling with semantic hair-splits, so let's just nip your set-up in the bud right there.



I don't mean to split hairs.

You are really making it hard to form any kind of relationchimp here....



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
There is way too much we don't know about the universe to call it fine tuned. Sorry that's just your opinion, it's not a fact. Do you know the causes of the laws of the universe? Unless you have complete knowledge of the universe, it is impossible to determine. The universe isn't fined tuned in the least. Life survives almost nowhere.

Yes it's just my opinion, but it's an informed opinion developed after years of studying the nature of the universe. I really would love reality to be so simple that our universe is the only universe and the naturally emergent rules of reality just happen to be capable of producing entities such as ourselves, but if I want to be honest with myself I know that our universe is far too complicated and sensitive to change for that to be true. I agree "fine-tuned" isn't the best terminology but it is possible for something to be fine-tuned without it requiring an intelligence.

For example human beings are fine-tuned to live on Earth, but we weren't tuned by any intelligence, we were tuned by evolution over millions of years into the creatures we are now. Take the human eye for example. It's clearly not just a random clump of matter, it has a very specific design and if it were to be changed even slightly the eye would no longer function. The universe its self appears to also have the same property. And if you're asking for calculations to prove the universe is fine-tuned you haven't studied physics enough to be arguing this issue. Here are some examples:


The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life.[14] A slight increase in the strong interaction would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water, as well as sufficiently long-lived stable stars, both essential for the emergence of life as we know it, would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life.



In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe, as seen by living observers, cannot be random.[10] Instead, biological factors constrain the universe to be more or less in a "golden age," neither too young nor too old.[11] If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end.



The Higgs boson has a mass of 126 giga-electron-volts, but interactions with the other known particles should add about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 giga-electron-volts to its mass. This implies that the Higgs’ “bare mass,” or starting value before other particles affect it, just so happens to be the negative of that astronomical number, resulting in a near-perfect cancellation that leaves just a hint of Higgs behind: 126 giga-electron-volts.



The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.



In 1961, the physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously".[7]



Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."


Sources:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.scientificamerican.com...

edit on 24/3/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder







For example human beings are fined tuned to live on Earth, but we weren't tuned by any intelligence, we were tuned by evolution over millions of years into the creatures we are now


The thing that gets me, is that it's not just humans fine tuned with the planet, it is all the other animal and plant life that is symbiotically fine tuned to each other.

This is more like an orchestra.


This appearance of fine tuning in the universe has led people to come up with the multiverse idea, which I think is a cop out.

People are so convinced that we cannot be in a special place in the universe, that we see these exotic ideas like dark matter and energy arise.

Standing on earth it appears we are at or near the center of the universe.

Physicists see an "Axis of Evil" and attempts to explain it.


I wonder if the universe isn't actually a perpetual motion machine designed for a reason.

And the reason is you and me.


edit on 24-3-2015 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
First , I have a deep love of probability and statistics . The odds of life reaching the stage we are at now and everything (and I do not have time to list as it would itself make this post a lot more pages) that fell into place for this is just about stretching those laws of probability .

Next I also have a hobby of Quantum Mechanics , String or M Theory , and Physics in general . It seems like the deeper we go and the more we learn, there had to some form of intelligent design involved just to make it work .(Or are we just a hologram on someone's 3D projector ?)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The fine-tuned universe (or theistic mis-interpretration of the anthropic principle) might be an impressive argument if there was only one planet, on only one star in a universe which wasn't 13.75 billion years old.

Instead there are billions upon billions of stars, each with their own star system in a universe which has been around for a staggeringly long time.

This suggests that life being on any given planet is itself a random occurrence rather than an intelligently designed one.


For example, if I claim to be psychic, and as proof I show you that I have won the lottery 3 times, most people would consider that decent evidence that my claim is true.

However, if it turns out that I have actually taken out enough lottery tickets to cover every possible combination of numbers that there could be - say I purchased a billion billion lottery tickets each with different number combinations - then suddenly that feat is not so impressive. The law of large numbers ensures that my chances go from remote to absolute certainty.

In this sense, the fine-tuning argument is actually more of an argument for atheism - since the universe we observe is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no god at all and things occurred randomly. In a universe as vast and as ageless as the one we inhabit, the law of large numbers comes into play and ensures that incredibly remote circumstances become absolute certainties - somewhere, at some time.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing





there are billions upon billions of stars, each with their own star system in a universe which has been around for a staggeringly long time.

This suggests that life being on any given planet is itself a random occurrence rather than an intelligently designed one.


I disagree.

Zero is still zero no matter how many times you multiply it.

Impossible times a billion is still impossible.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Now we get to the crux of your objections.

How is life occurring impossible? The fact that it has already happened would seem to refute that idea completely.




top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join