On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
> Greetings Randy:
>
> "True, but how does this insight explain why the physical constants in the universe favor life's existence instead of it's non-existence?"
>
> It wasn't meant to, as Brian Harper explained. It simply observed that the only reason why this universe is special in having those
fine-tuned physical constants is because there are intelligent beings around to notice the relationship.
Okay. I infer that when you use the word "reason" above that you're not
offering the fact that these constants are observed to be certain fine-
tuned values as the cause of their having such fine-tuned values.
The implication is that if there
were no intelligent beings then the "specialness" of this universe would go unnoticed and thus would be unremarkable.
This point I see. And of course, it's the fact that there ARE
intelligent beings here and that the universe IS special that's
so interesting, and in fact seems unexplainable by science.
I realize that this
can be a counter-intuitive concept, and as Brian pointed out it doesn't invalidate the idea of that the universe was the result of
intelligent design. I was simply pointing out that evolutionists had noticed this concept before Ross had, but had found nothing
particularly disturbing about it.
>
> As for explanations, there are three. The first is the Strong Anthropic Principle, which in essence states that the need to create
intelligent beings that will recognize the existence of the universe places severe constraints on the values of the physical constants.
This statement seems to describe the universe itself as a thinking entity
that "needs" to create intelligent beings and places constraints on it's
own physical constants to do so. Would this be a properly scientific ex-
planation?
The second are the oscillating and baby universe theories, which in essence state that so many universes have existed or do exist that by
sheer dumb luck one would have the right values for the physical constants
to create life.
I'm familiar with the oscillating universe theory but according to the
last reading I had done there was no scientific evidence for it. The last
measurements I read about indicated there was insufficient mass in the
universe to overcome the effects of expansion. There was also no evidence
that the universe would "rebound" from a contraction and start another
"Big Bang". Is this still the current state of the research in these
areas? What is the baby universe theory?
The third is that for any viable universe to exist at
all the values of the physical constants would have to be similar to those that produce life; in other words, that any departure in any of
the values from that necessary for life would make the chance of a universe existing at all slim to impossible.
Is there any research to support this theory?
>
> "The universe is not a replicating system so unless the only universe that exists supports life there will never be a subsequent universe
that supports life."
>
> That assumes that this is the only universe that has ever existed or that could ever exist, and thus must have a purpose to it. In point
of fact, we simply cannot say that because we have no way of knowing
>
_____________________________________________________________________
| |
| ______ ______ _____ Randy Bronson, Manufacturing Tech |
| /\_____\/\_____\/\____\ TECH-SOURCE INC. |
| \/_ _/ / ____/\/_ _/ 442 S. North Lake Blvd. |
| / / // / /___ / / / Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 |
| / / /_\/___ /_/ / / TEL : 407-262-7100 |
| / / //\____/ /\_\/ /_\ FAX : 407-339-2554 |
| \/_/ \/_____/\/______/ EMAIL: randy@techsource.com |
| |
|_____________________________________________________________________|