> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> > > There seem to be three possible answers to this question:
> > >
> > > (a) It is a complete chance.
> >
> > Randy: This answer doesn't seem very scientific to me since the probability of
> > this being coincidental is so vanishingly small.
> >
> > How do you know ?
>
> Randy: I thought this was a straightforward probability calculation unless I'm
> missing something. According to what I've read, one of these
> fine-tuned physical constants is the mass-ratio of certain sub-atomic
> particles. Let's say, as an example, that there are 10,000 possible values
> of this ratio. Only one of these values will allow life to develop in the
> universe. Therefore the chances of this ratio just randomly being correct
> is one in ten thousand. This is why random chance doesn't seem to me to be
> a very scientific explanation of these phenomena.
>
>
> Pim:But are you correct that there is only one value which would allow
life to develop ?
>
I guess at this point I need feedback(from anyone) on the exact nature
of the "ID argument". My understanding from reading the work of Hugh Ross
is that there are dozens of physical constants in the universe which much
exist in very narrow ranges for life to be possible. If this is correct
then there would be only one value, or a very narrow range of values,
which would allow life to develop. If I've misunderstood the ID argument
I'm open to correction.
> Pim: How many universes are there which could sustain life as we know it ? How many universes are there which could sustain
> life ?
>
> Randy: I only know of one universe. And as far as I know scientific research
> hasn't indicated the existence of any other universes. This is why I asked
> Kevin in another post if it's truly scientific to theorize the existence
> of another universe for which we have no measurements to explain data
> which we have measured.
>
>
> Pim:Of course we only know of one universe but that does not mean that
we know how many of the possible universes could sustain life, even if
ours is the only one.
My understanding is that only those universes with just the right values
for these physical constants could sustain life. Numerically, this would
be a vanishingly small percentage of all possible universes(assuming that
my understanding of the ID argument is correct).
> >
> > > (b) God regards me as such a desirable product of the universe
> > > that he has fine-tuned it so as to guarantee my development.
> >
> > Randy: This seems like the best answer to me, although I don't know if it's the
> > best scientific answer.
> >
> > And what if any universe could potentially hold life ?
> >
>
> Randy: Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement it is not the case that any
> universe could potentially hold life. Only a universe in which certain
> physical constants have very specific values can hold life. Therefore, the
> fact that our universe has this specific set of these physical constants
> seems to indicate that our universe is special, non-random, and perhaps
> designed for the very purpose of supporting life.
>
> Pim:Perhaps but we do not know if your assumption is correct that "only
a universe in which the constants have a specific value can hold life".
Perhaps life as we know it right now can only exist in a subset of possible universes but why are we assuming that we are unique forms of
life ?
My understanding of the ID argument is that it holds that fine-tuning is
necessary for any kind of life that science believes is possible. Again,
I'm open to correction.
>
>
> >
> > > (c) There exist other, disjoint, universes with other laws
> > > and constants of nature.
> >
> > Randy: This answer also seems unscientific since there is no evidence(as far as
> > I know) for the existence of these other universes.
> >
> > Nor is there evidence of a small chance or a God.
>
> Randy: But it seems to me that the fine-tuning of these physical constants IS
> evidence for the existence of God(I certainly believe that there are other
> evidences as well).
>
> Pim:Not necessarily, it could also be that our life form is adapted to
the universe and we merely marvel at the 'coincidence' which in fact
isn't ? Like some animals appear marvelously adapted at some tasks.
>
But unless the initial conditions in the universe were correct life
could never begin. If life never begins it never gets the chance to adapt.
>
> Randy: I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean when you say "nor is there
> evidence of a small chance".
>
>
> Pim:Because we do not know how many variations of the constants could
lead to a universe with 'life'.
Again, my understanding of the ID argument is that extremely little
variation of the constants is possible.
> >
> > So perhaps chance is still the best one ? We are here because the universe allowed us to be here.
> >
>
> Randy: Certainly this is true but I wouldn't expect scientific curiosity to end
> there but to ask "Why are these physical constants so well fine-tuned?"
>
> Perhaps they aren't ? They are perhaps one of billions of possibilities and allowed the form of life we presently know to evolve ? What we
perceive as fine-tuned is perhaps not the constants but life ?
>
But as previously stated, if the physical constants aren't precisely
correct then life never begins. If life never begins it never gets the
chance to fine-tune it's adaptation to the constants in the universe.
_____________________________________________________________________
| |
| ______ ______ _____ 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 |
| |
|_____________________________________________________________________|