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.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: theghostfaceentity
Thanks for the links and I will check out these links.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: theghostfaceentity
a reply to: Krazysh0t
your error is lack of knowledge and comprehension on the subject my friend, in a universe with 200 billion galaxies, 200 billion stars generally per a galaxy, 13.5 billion years with a single planet like ours existing after 4.5 billion years after 9 billion years passing make it impossible for various lifeforms not too exist. Even on earth weve had the troodosaur which was almost a human like specie, it was from a type of velociraptor that would have evolved into a humanoid. Right?
I never said it is impossible for various lifeforms to exist. In fact I think that life exists in many different forms on many different worlds. It's practically an inevitability at this point for the same reasons that you mentioned. Though I don't think that humans or rational thought are inevitabilities. There may be other humans on other planets out there and there may be other lifeforms out there that can think rationally, and there MAY even be humans that can think rationally out there, but I don't think for a second those things are inevitabilities.
What is a troodosaur?
originally posted by: neoholographic
So you don't need to know how the universe originated and what forces contribute to our universe even existing and you can say it's inefficient?
That's just ASININE. Tell me about quantum gravity and it's affects on evolution? What force contributed to the vacuum energy being fined tuned to one part to 10/120 and what effects this force had on our evolution?
What's there to understand beyond an opinion that has nothing to do with the facts and is full of contradictions?
What god of the gaps argument?
How can there be a god of the gaps when it's based on science? I'm not saying, well we don't know so it must be God or a Designer. I'm saying we do know and what we know says it has to be God or a Designer.
You can speculate about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES all you want but it's just nonsense. What physical theory can naturally give rise to these numbers based on what we know about the standard model and quantum theory? It's just not possible and all of the wishful thinking about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES will not change this.
originally posted by: neoholographic
Logically, it makes perfect sense when you add in other things we know about life. There's 100% guarantee that life evolved on other planets. This is due to the constants of nature.
originally posted by: neoholographic
What incomplete science are you talking about and exactly what makes it incomplete? On top of that you're not talking about science with your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!!
Don't you realize how crazy that sounds?
You talk about god of the gaps in one breathe and then you try to explain things with your IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES that are just hogwash.
It's only "incomplete" because people don't want to accept what the science says which is the universe was designed. They want to speculate about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES LOL!
However, the fine-tuning argument can also be countered due to the sheer size of the universe; with one hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and as many galaxies in the universe, even a minuscule chance of life arising makes it extremely likely that it will occur somewhere. Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.
Fine-tuning arguments based on the physical constants are even easier to refute. The delicate balance of, for example, the tri-alpha fusion which created all the carbon in our bodies relies on the temperature and pressure of stars being exactly right for this form of fusion. However, the pressure and temperature of the interior of a star changes depending on whether or not fusion is occurring. Similar links between other physical constants are likely and can explain their apparently delicate balance.
The argument from fine tuning also fails for the following reasons:
It bifurcates the laws of physics into constants and the equations into which those constants are placed. It asks us to consider what would happen were the constants changed but the equations stayed the same. But what if we permitted the equations to change also? Then we must admit we have no idea. Even if it is clear that the current equations with different constants cannot produce life, completely different equations (and constants) might still be life-producing. We do not know enough about mathematical physics to say, and may well never. This bifurcation of the laws of physics into constants and equations is more likely an artifact of the human mind's attempt to understand the cosmos than a fundamental property of reality itself
The argument wants us to conclude that it is highely unlikely that a life-producing set of physical constants could be arrived at by chance. But, how do we ascribe probabilities to sets of possible physical constants? Are they all supposed to be equally likely? Or are some more likely than others? And it gets even worse if we reject the bifurcation of the laws of physics into constants and equations -- what is the probability of a particular equation being part of the laws of physics? To speak of probabilities here seems to be just abusing the concept of probability in a situation in which it is meaningless.
Now, if we assume some kind of multiverse theory, then speaking of probabilities of physical constants having certain values, or of certain equations being part of the laws of physics, might have some meaning -- we could look to the distribution of those constant values or laws in different universes across the multiverse to define their probability. But, supporters of the argument from fine-tuning cannot turn to these considerations to make their argument coherent, since if there is such a multiverse then there is no need for the God they are seeking to prove either. It's a Catch-22 for creationists. On the other hand, a multiverse theory could make it significantly 'more' likely this universe was made by pure chance, since there would be infinite other universes, the vast majority of which would not be fit for life due to different constants.
originally posted by: neoholographic
ENTROPY!
You act like life is like flipping a coin but that makes no sense. Life exists and there isn't any other choice.
Pointing to a Wiki link as evidence that the fine-tuning discussion has been settled is a sign of weakness, Wiki does not settle anything. Fact of the matter is that the fine-tuning argument is taken very very serious and that the only resolution to this conundrum (at least to some people) is the multiverse, which is more philosophy than science. You may doubt the implications, but denying that the fine-tuning is there, is like denying that the sky is blue.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Argument from fine tuning
Here's what it says:
It asks us to consider what would happen were the constants changed but the equations stayed the same. But what if we permitted the equations to change also? Then we must admit we have no idea.
Now, if we assume some kind of multiverse theory, then speaking of probabilities of physical constants having certain values, or of certain equations being part of the laws of physics, might have some meaning -- we could look to the distribution of those constant values or laws in different universes across the multiverse to define their probability.
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Well, the time involved and narrow parameters involved is just pure perspective, isn't it?
Maybe our planet doesn't have the ideal conditions for intelligent life to form. There for had to struggle for it.
...
Again, I think that's just perspective. If we study the process of evolution, there is no reason not to assume intelligent life wasn't inevitable.
originally posted by: jclmavg
Pointing to a Wiki link as evidence that the fine-tuning discussion has been settled is a sign of weakness, Wiki does not settle anything. Fact of the matter is that the fine-tuning argument is taken very very serious and that the only resolution to this conundrum (at least to some people) is the multiverse, which is more philosophy than science. You may doubt the implications, but denying that the fine-tuning is there, is like denying that the sky is blue.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Argument from fine tuning
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Sorry, I'm not going to forget the trees because it clearly shows your hypocrisy. Those silly IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES just shows how the god of the gaps argument is so invalid when you don't even have gaps, you have IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES!!!!
NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT????
That's just pure nonsense. Why do I need to consider what would happen when there's no evidence that it can happen?? Whose given him this permission? What are you changing the constants to and where's the evidence it can be changed and THESE SAME VALUES WILL ARISE NATURALLY??
THIS IS ALMOST WORSE THAN YOUR IMAGINARY TREES!!
ASSUME????
I can assume I had an affair with Tyra Banks that doesn't make it real!!
This assumption is just a silly because even if there was a multiverse there's no evidence that these values arise naturally or that universes expand that have any value.
IT'S JUST PURE NONSENSE!
It's like the dice I mentioned earlier. The outcomes of the roll of the dice are random but not what outcomes CAN OCCUR because the designer of the dice limited your outcomes to a combination of 2-12.
This is just like the fine-tuned universe. All of the assumptions about IMAGINARY TREES and a multiverse still mean nothing because we already know these values don't arise naturally.
We do? How do we know that? Please out line the scientific experiment that was created, performed, is duplicable, and proves that the universe was fine tuned. Go ahead and link me to the scientific paper that presents the experiment while you are at it. You know, since you are making claims about what we know and don't know?
It is commonplace in discussions of modern cosmology to assert that the early universe began in a special state. Conventionally, cosmologists characterize this fine-tuning in terms of the horizon and flatness problems. I argue that the fine-tuning is real, but these problems aren't the best way to think about it: causal disconnection of separated regions isn't the real problem, and flatness isn't a problem at all. Fine-tuning is better understood in terms of a measure on the space of trajectories: given reasonable conditions in the late universe, the fraction of cosmological histories that were smooth at early times is incredibly tiny. This discussion helps clarify what is required by a complete theory of cosmological initial conditions.
The issue of the initial conditions of the universe – in particular, the degree to which they are “unnatural” or “fine-tuned,” and possible explanations thereof – is obviously of central importance to cosmology, as well as to the foundations of statistical mechanics. The early universe was a hot, dense, rapidly-expanding plasma, spatially flat and nearly homogeneous along appropriately chosen spacelike surfaces.1 The question is, why was it like that? In particular, the thinking goes, these conditions don’t seem to be what we would expect a “randomly chosen” universe to look like, to the extent that such a concept makes any sense. In addition to the obvious challenge to physics and cosmology of developing a theory of initial conditions under which these properties might seem natural, it is a useful exercise to specify as carefully as possible the sense in which they don’t seem natural from our current point of view.
Of course, all of this discussion about fine-tuning and the cosmological measure would be completely pointless if we did have a well-formulated theory of initial conditions (or, better, of our cosmological history considered as a whole). Ultimately the goal is not to explain why our universe appears unnatural; it’s to explain why we live in this specific universe. Making its apparent unnaturalness precise is hopefully a step toward achieving this lofty ambition.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
Ah, the old "size equals life" argument. We like it because it seems to make sense on the surface. But logically no matter how big the universe is, there's no guarantee that other life will exist in it.
Say you have a huge stadium and a football is sitting on one of the seats for some unknown reason. Are we supposed to take it for granted that if you increase the size of the stadium by 1,000 times (or 1,000,000) that there just has to be another football on one of the seats? It just magically appears at a certain point?
So I'm going to hold off believing in other life until we discover it. Bill Nye has his opinion and I have mine.
originally posted by: Jonjonj
The unknown reason for the football existing is not really analogous to the existence of life in the universe.