Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by wegs, Jul 12, 2019.
How convenient lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's remarkable, I suppose, if you buy the Fine Tuning Argument, but I don't.
I see it more in line with "logic" and how the evolution of life, Abiogenesis, nucleosyntheisis of the heavier elements, recombination era and formation of Hydrogen and Helium, atomic nuceli, our first fundamentals and the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them...each step ties in with the previous step, all under the auspices of the laws of physics and physical constants that evolved with space and time..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I can understand your line of reasoning.
There is a school of thought that thinks this. If you look up Jeremy England, he has some interesting thermodynamic ideas.
But that's not what I'm saying. The universe is just the way it is and so we are here.
The reason I don't buy the Fine Tuning Argument is this. Every imaginable situation is the result of billions of outcomes than could have gone another way but didn't. That does not mean that every situation is remarkable: that would be ridiculous.
If a different sperm cell had fertilised my mother's egg, I would not be here but somebody different. If I had not rowed at Shell I would not have met my wife. If I had not been ill at school when the chemistry topics were being chosen, I would not have picked the subject that led me to want to study it at university. So what?
Because before they meet, the chances that my grandparents will meet and fall in love was 1 in a billion. Does this mean that the purpose they met was....my birth?
We don't like fine tuning because this is usually the way nature works. Its been centuries since we thought that we are on the center of the Universe and all the stars were created for us and all stars are revolving around earth. I think we made some progress from then, but i don't think we have completely abandoned our sense of importance. There are still some painfull things left to realise (as far as science is concerned- we are not talking about metaphysics here, this is a different and very big question that we can discuss for hours, but this is only a science forum).
The Anthropic principal and fine tuning are sometimes excuses by some, to install an IDer. I strongly disagree, simply because if the universe were any way other than what we observe, we simply wouldn’t be here to worry about it. Of course the universe seems fine-tuned from our perspective....it’s the only one we know.
Or we can logically turn that argument around by just saying that although the universe does seem fine-tuned for our existence, we in actual fact are fine-tuned to the universe of which through Abiogenesis and evolution, we now occupy.
My lawn waste was picked up today and my yard is now clean but had I moved into the house next door instead of this house, my yard would still be messy. I would be a different person and my next door neighbor would be me.
It's so incredible that I'm not my neighbor but I'm me. What's the chances of that happening? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually thinking that through, it’s true.
If this is something like avoiding a big rip as astronomers using HST data and saying galaxies are spinning too fast for the regular matter to hold it together via gravity alone - that the need more gravity - than maybe yes.
And, I could also start saying wonderful, life giving things about H2O.
If it wasn't for the "2" we wouldn't be here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The possibilities are endless. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
At least, if we were OH based, we'd have more caustic personalities.
To clarify: DM does not interact with normal matter (or wih itself) electromagnetically.
This means it doesn't clump like normal matter. You don't get bodies like planets or asteroids because it doesn't "bump into" matter - or bump into itself.
The only way it interacts (with itself or with normal matter) is via gravity.
DM will happily fall toward a nearby mass, such as a galaxy - or even a planet - but it doesn't collide with anything on its passage, so it just passes right through and out the other side.
chat bot reply ?
[weird ! bordrline troll like reply. i thought dave was not soo trollish as more soo temperamental]
almost like a thread killer attempted post...
...makes mental note
i kinda do
as its like asking "if there was no laws of physics, would life still exist?"
the answer cant be yes as a principal of known physics, so the term by its self is a debatable concept.
Dark matter appears to be a fundamental principle of cosmic design
how it relates and is connected is unknown.
but its like saying "if there was no gravity, would earth and all its life still exist" ?
The ancient religious driven "we are the center of the universe" concept, cannot be likened to a universe said to be fine tuned and the Anthropic principal. As above, more to the point is that we, humanity, life in general are fine tuned to the universe of which through Abiogenesis and evolution, we now occupy.
To attempt to interpret that to any IDer myth, is stretching the friendship and grasping at straws. Not that I'm accusing you of that...just saying.
I think Dave,s comments are mainly made with the usual IDers in mind, and how some automatically latch onto any scientific aspect like fine tuning,
that they dream may support their IDer concept.
DM is the glue of galactic structure and as such, is needed for life as we know it, and I would imagine Dave agrees with that.
By the same token if the universe from the BB, could start all over again, there is no certainty that life as we know it would have evolved.
The universe was an accident...we were an accident, but an accident fine tuned to the nature of the universe. You seem to be saying that yourself. So why the conflict with Dave?
Any opposition to the "fine tuning" phrase by some, maybe specifically driven by some imagined myth of ID. This imo was why the otherwise great Astronomer Fred Hoyle, opposed the BB theory, as it insinuated a beginning of our observable universe...a beginning that those inclined [the Catholic church] can put down to ID and their choice of the god of the gaps.
Still, to the credibility of science, it chooses to ignore such agenda driven nonsense and research the field further, looking for scientific evidence.
what does that mean?
Accident? What was suppose to happen then? I think I'm echoing globali here.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.