Randy: 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.
I have seen other works which argue that the range is hardly that narrow. But nevertheless, all this shows is that life as we know it now could only have started in a universe with constants in a narrow band, but what other life forms are possible ? We are assuming that our carbon based life form is the only form of life possible but perhaps it is the only form of life adapted to the range of constants rather than the other way around.
Was the universe designed for our life form or was our life form a consequence of our universe ?
> 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.
Randy: 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).
That is based upon the assumption that our life form is the only form of 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 ?
Randy: 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.
I would love to hear what life forms science believe is possible and even then could we not be limited in our imagination ?
> 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.
>
Randy: 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.
That assumes that our life form is the only one. Perhaps in a different universe we would have silicon based life forms ? The assumption that we know what life forms are possible needs some work. After all can we even imagine all the other possible universes ?
> 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 ?
>
Randy: 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.
And once again that relies solely on the presumption that we know what life forms are possible under what conditions. COuld you explain how this was determined ?
Or is the argument limited to our form of life ?