On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> "3) Since it is possible that these parameters can take on other values,
> they will."
>
>
>
> Maybe a different way to state it is like this:
>
> 3. Since these values fall within a small range, the actual numbers aren't
> special but appear to be randomly selected.
>
>
>
> For example, let's say a certain constant is 1.5667 and it must be between
> 1.5000 and 1.6000 for existence to be viable. Amazing, it is 1.5667! Yes,
> but it could have been 1.5571 or 1.5001, etc. The actual number is in the
> life-giving range, but other than that, it is special in no way. I think
> that makes a compelling argument.
>
How can you look at a single measurement and determine that the value you
get must have been randomly selected? It might be that it was selected for
some additional reason besides causing existence to be viable.
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 1 19:30:28 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 01 2009 - 19:30:28 EDT