eh

Luvluv,

I suggest you do some more reading on relativity, inflation and cosmology. Without a grasp on either concepts, our discussions will start to sound like a broken record.

It doesn't make much sense to come here and claim the BB proves God, when you haven't even read up on the the theory at all. Relating certain concepts to you will be pointless if you're not going to make the effort yourself to learn the basic material. There are some great science forums, if you don't have enough time to grab some books. I'll post some links if you're serious about any serious discussions, in the future.

Vorkosigan

Beau, the anthropic argument depends on observers who have evolved in the universe under discussion. My argument does not.

Vorkosigan

beausoleil

It seemed to me you were asserting that people developing the anthropic argument were misguided - bass-ackwards was the phrase - because any universe would appear fine tuned. I was just pointing out that it isn't the appearance of 'fine tuning' in general that is the basis of the anthropic principle, so your argument, while correct, misses its target.

"Like many who study this, Rees has got things bass-ackwards."

Rees is one smart cookie, incidentally.

LinuxPup

Vorkosigan:
The point is not which is one is right? That's the main focus of this whole debate. We know that Ross, you, and I are all slanted towards our own views in our writings, but being slanted isn't necessarily wrong. It matters who (if any) is right. Part of the scientific process is testing theories and throwing out the bad ones. Also, you made a claim that there are "a number of naturalistic scenarios in which the universe goes on forever, fluxing in and out of existence, or similar", and then back up your claim with "<shrug>".

eh:
There's a problem with your first sentence. Time is a property of the universe, so essentially you're saying "there was never a time when time didn't exist". Now this is a true statement, however it's important to remember that time has the potential to not exist. How do I know this? Because it has a beginning, and anything that has a beginning has the potential to not exist. Because the universe has a beginning, it cannot be eternal. Only substances which do not contain the potentiality to not exist are eternal, that is, only substances which have no beginning can be eternal. Thus the universe is not eternal.

Vorkosigan

I realize Rees is a smart cookie (Ross is not stupid, and neither are many others IDers), but even smart cookies occasionally get things backwards. Things in the universe are fine-tuned to fit it, not vice versa.

funnyguy

Constant bickering about the term "fine tuned" only avoids the scientific issue raised by Rees and others. The fact is that there are 6 fundamental constants that determine the properties of the universe. Those that exist in this universe are about the only ones for which life can evolve. You are faced with very few choices.

1.) It is a coincidence
2.) Something external made the universe this way.
3.) There are multiple universes and this is just one of them.

Why not drop the "finely tuned" phrase and just take your pick (or add a fourth alternative)?

eh

Quoting,

There's a problem with your first sentence. Time is a property of the universe, so essentially you're saying "there was never a time when time didn't exist". Now this is a true statement, however it's important to remember that time has the potential to not exist. How do I know this? Because it has a beginning, and anything that has a beginning has the potential to not exist. Because the universe has a beginning, it cannot be eternal. Only substances which do not contain the potentiality to not exist are eternal, that is, only substances which have no beginning can be eternal. Thus the universe is not eternal.


Well at least we're on the same page here. Time itself may be finite, but that does not mean it has the potential to not exist, at least prior to the big bang. If there is no prior state to speak of, then there is no potential for time to not exist. Easy enough?

beausoleil

Yes, but the fine tuning to the parameters of this universe resulted in observers, whereas that in other universes wouldn't have.

The question raised in anthropic arguments is - why are the parameters of this universe such that fine tuning to them allows observers? As someone else says, you can commit yourself to design, coincidence or statistics. Or you can say you don't know. But you can't make the question go away by saying, in effect, that any universe would produce something.

luvluv

eh:

Have you explained this to Steven Hawking?

Couldn't you just as easily say that if there is no prior state to speak of, then there is no potential for space and matter not to exist? This seems like more of a semantics or a philosophical argument than a cosmological one.

Why can't we just say that time did not exist until it existed? Therefore, before it existed, it did not exist.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by beausoleil:


Yes, but the fine tuning to the parameters of this universe resulted in observers, whereas that in other universes wouldn't have.

You know this how.....?

The question raised in anthropic arguments is - why are the parameters of this universe such that fine tuning to them allows observers?

Yes, and the question is backwards....it's like the fish looking at the ocean saying: how is it that this water is exactly the parameters we need to permit us to observe it?

As someone else says, you can commit yourself to design, coincidence or statistics. Or you can say you don't know. But you can't make the question go away by saying, in effect, that any universe would produce something.

You're just not getting it. I'm not saying that "any universe would produce something." That's nonsense. The appearance of FT is the fallout from natural law. This appearance would be the same whether the observer is part of the universe, or observers it from the outside. You don't have to commit yourself to design, coincidence or statistics. There's another option. It lies in the realization that the appearance of FT is in the inevitable result of selection processes operating under natural law. Regardless of the parameters of the universe, as long as selection processes operate, any universe would appear fine-tuned to an observer, regardless of the origin of that observer.

Vorkosigan