On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Pim van Meurs wrote:
> > Pim:But are you correct that there is only one value which would allow
> life to develop ?
> >
>
> 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.
>
> Pim: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.
I guess the questions that need to be answered are these:
1. Can science determine what forms of life are possible?
2. Can science determine the conditions under which these forms of life
could develop?
> > 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).
>
> Pim: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.
>
> Pim:I would love to hear what life forms science believe is possible
So would I. I agree that this information should be part of the ID
argument.
>and even then could we not be limited in our imagination ?
Perhaps but if the scientific community came to a consensus about which
forms of life are possible wouldn't that then become the basis for any
theorizing in this area?
> > 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.
No, I think these are two separate questions. I agree that we
should consider what other forms of life might possibly exist. But
in order for life to adapt it must first develop. In order for life to
develop the physical constants in the universe must allow it to exist.
It therefore seems impossible to me for life to adapt to universal
physical constants which prevent it's formation. I don't think we can
explain the existence of life in this universe by saying that it adapted
to this universe's physical constants AFTER it's formation.
>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 ?
I agree that this factor hasn't been determined and should be in order
to evaluate the strength of the ID argument.
>
> Or is the argument limited to our form of life ?
>
No, it shouldn't be.