chemxxx

Sorry if something like has been posted before.

"in the very picoseconds the universe was created, there must be such a balance of gravity, where if it were too weak, the universe would expand so quickly that nothing would form. if gravity were stronger, than the universe would collapse in on itself before anything could get started. the chances of this happening is like us taking aim at a one inch square target 250 billiong light years away, and hitting it spot on."

Anyone know what's wrong with it?

enigma555

I could quote the strong anthropic principle, but I'd get blasted for using a logical fallacy...

Ah, what the hell...

If either case happened (too low or too high) would we be around to notice it?

Rusting Car Bumper

The person making the claim does not know if its true.

Claims are made like this:
"If the physical constants a, b, c, d, etc were changed ever so slightly then life could not have evolved or we would not be here."

The problem is that they don't know if this is true.

First, in many cases we dont know if the constants are related. It could be that once you know constants a and b that constant c can then be derived.

Second, we don't know what happens if you change the rules of the game. That is, if I tweak constant d, I have no way to run a "Super Universe Simulator"(tm) and see if life doesn't appear. It could be that if you change something that a different type of life, that we can't currently imagine, will appear.

DC

Asha'man

Current theories are suggesting that the curvature of the universe must be flat. This isn’t a factor of random chance, but a direct consequence of the fundamental laws that allowed the universe to form in the first place. A better analogy is taking aim at the ground, and then dropping a ball from our hand. Hitting the target is actually inevitable, given the laws of physics.

beausoleil

But the laws of physics are what's at issue.

Nat

"But the laws of physics are what's at issue. "

These arguments all fail because they seem to assume that the fundamental "constants" are actually absolute constants and not contigent upon deeper structure (e.g. String Theory) and they assume that these constants could actually be different than what they are.

Yes, if the speed of light was 1 meter per second, the Universe would likely be a very different place and would likely not be able to support life as we know it, but why assume that the speed of light could be 1 m/s?

Silent Acorns

My thoughts are a combination of Enigma's and Chicken's:

The problem with the argument chemxxx quoted is that it implicitly assumes that the observable universe (and it's physical laws) is all that is, and all that ever was, while at the same time it suggests that there are so many other possibilities. To me, this is directly analogous to rolling 1000 dice (all of different colours) and the marveling at the improbability of the result: 1 in 10^778!!!

Another problem with this argument is that you can't infer design (I assume that's the point of the argument) from coincidence.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Acorns ]</p>

lpetrich

This is known as the "flatness problem" of cosmology.

And the favorite solution of it is the "inflationary universe" theory, which states that the Universe had gone through a period of exponential expansion early in its history, which flattened it out as it expanded.

The favorite theory behind it is that there was some elementary-particle field that got stuck for a while in some state where it produced a huge negative pressure (pressure = - (mass density)*c^2) -- which produced the exponential expansion. Possible candidates for such an "inflaton" field are known from various Grand Unified Theories, but beyond that is a murky question.

GPLindsey

Many Creationist arguments follow the line that such and such aspect of Nature is so incredibly unlikely to have happened by chance that God must have been involved. A flaw all such arguments share is that God is the author of the initial conditions, as well as the outcome. He set the odds. So, if one argues that it was 250 billion to one for the Big Bang to turn out the way it did, then you would have to believe that (a) God set the odds so high in a vain attempt to impress us with his ability to overcome them, or (b) God was actually doing his best NOT to let the universe develop the way it did by setting the odds real high, but despite his efforts it developed anyway.