thexrated

I just came accross this argument from IDers.

The above argument doesn´t make much sense to me, but I am not that knowledgable about physics regarding this, but doesn`t the current theory about Big Bang propose more than just Helium being produced during Nucleosynthesis? (please let me know further aspects)

Since this design appears even in the smallest things (such as Subatomic Processes), I am most curious to know what exactly was designed and when, what arose naturally based on the early design and what not, or did all of it come about naturally from that point. And also what exactly has been "tinkered" with and what not?

I think these are fair questions since ID seems to already account for things like Subatomic Particles (and the possibility that they were tinkered with) during the early formation of Universe. I would actually go as far as to propose that this is the most logical area to find evidence to support their hypothesis. After all it should be the first entry point (I think they use the term "Design Interface") available for a designer(s) to make any amendments or changes. In other words, the most logical place to start looking for information about a designer(s).

Naturally this argument would be negated with a "theory" of different designers at many points of time. However, then it would be logical to assume that we should be witnessing more varied design, which as far as I understand is not so. The other negating factor could be IDers finding evidence that a designer[s] only made "tinkerings" during abiogenesis period or during even later period such as Cambrian Explosion, 543 and 530 million years ago. And so on, as I am no doubt missing points here.

My apologies if this has been already discussed, but could not find a relevant topic (nor did I look that hard).

Dhaeron

We don't know enough about the formation of universes to make meaningful statements about the possibility or likelyhood of different outcomes. (And neither do the IDist)
Let me spin the argument another way:
To get the chance of a universe turning out supporting life, we simply divide the number of known life-supporting universes by the number of known universes. Like you could, for example, estimate the chance of winning the lotto by dividing the number of winners by the number of participants.
Known universes=1
Known life supporting universes=1
Therefore we can assume that all universes support life.

RBH

This is the so-called "fine tuning" argument. Victor Stenger has a review and takedown of it.

RBH

Justin Z

It also seems somewhat rooted in the Anthropic Principle -- that the laws of the universe can't be completely arbitrary, because if they were then most likely (or most assuredly) we intelligent observers wouldn't be around to measure and postulate and figure them out. And in other words, that the universe COULDN'T be any other way.

IDers undoubtedly then take this a step further and state that since the universe couldn't be any other way, someone must've ensured it turned out as it did. But the anthropic principle, to me, is bunk to begin with. It almost assuredly results in us believing we operate from a privileged position, that there is something special about our place in the universe, but our attitudes have been becoming less and less human-focused for several centuries. For all we know, an altogether different set of physical laws in another universe could result in an alien but equally viable form of life and/or intelligence.

One could avoid the circular reasoning altogether philosophically by postulating an infinite, undulating universe, in which the laws change each time it expands and contracts, and by stating that "the only reason" we're here is because on this particular throw of the dice, all the conditions lined up perfectly for us to arrive at our present state. Given infinity, just about anything is possible. However, as a non-scientist, I am unsure as to what evidence (if any) would support this assertion. It is merely a demonstration of how bald the anthropic principle and this entire concept of fine-tuning is.

~Justin

RBH

This seems a better fit for the physics types in S&S. Off it goes ...

RBH
E/C Mod

Stella

Stenger, in the article RBH posted, has this to say about one variant of the antrhopic principle:

:rolling:

To be fair, this is not the variation subscribed to by IDers- at least in Stenger's view (I tend to agree). But it's still hilarious.

Anyway, I'm going back to finish reading the essay. It's pretty good.

King of Men

The physical constants aren't so fixed as all that. The electron mass, for example, could certainly be changed quite a bit before you would begin to notice the effects. You need a proton mass quite close to the neutron mass so the decay of the one into the other is slow, but the actual value can change quite a bit. The gravitional constant, well, I would not try changing by an order of magnitude by any means, but a factor two should be safe enough. (You do change the size of the Sun and the Earth, certainly, but that hardly makes life impossible.) Similarly for the strong and weak nuclear forces. The only constant I would be reluctant to change by more than a few percent is the electromagnetic coupling constant alpha, on which all of chemistry depends. (Though, come to think of it, you could try changing it a bit and then compensating by changing the proton charge to match. No rule says the proton has to have equal and opposite charge to the electron.)

In short, there is a reasonable range of constants that would still result in recognisable humans. Going to more esoteric stuff, you could change the CKM matrix almost at will, as long as you still had mixing between the generations. And the masses of the higher-generation quarks are really pretty irrelevant to low-energy physics - that is, anything but what happens in particle accelerators.

mirage

This is slightly inaccurate. It merely states (in the only sane form, the weak anthropic principle) that intelligent observers will always find themselves in a universe that can produce them. Seems like a statement of the obvious, but has very important consequences for probability.

We do operate from a special position, one in which intelligent life is possible. That's all.
Interestingly there can be no valid probabilistic argument that makes this more likely than a "single throw" universe where we just got very lucky. The problem is no way of treating universes as outcomes probabilistically. Either way, the WAP applies.