|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fine tuning: a discussion for the rest of us mortals | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Phat writes: if nobody were around, how can there be facts without observers? The old "If a tree falls in the forest...." philosophy. If a deer's there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a microphone's there to hear it, does it make a sound? I'd say that it does in both cases, though the deer and microphone may interpret the sound differently than a human would. To change the scenario slightly: If a (really freakin' big) tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to feel the vibration when it hits the floor, does it make a vibration? If your neighbor feels a tree hit the forest floor and stores that information in his/her memory, then how is that record of the event any more special than the record that's made by the dirt and decomposing leaves that have been scattered around the felled tree in a rather predictable pattern? In other words, what exactly is it that defines an observer? So far, I don't see any reason to believe that unintelligent life and non-living matter can't make observations. It seems to me that in order for a universe to exist, it must at some stage consist of at least two objects which are capable of affecting each other, not necessarily anything more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Funkaloyd writes: It seems to me that in order for a universe to exist, it must at some stage consist of at least two objects which are capable of affecting each other, not necessarily anything more. That's a very interesting notion, Funkaloyd. It reminds me of a thought I had a long time ago and that's been bothering me ever since: suppose there is only one indivisible thing in the universe. There's nothing else it can bump into, receive reflected light from (in fact, there is no light), or have any other interaction with. I was wondering, in that situation, could the thing be said to exist? In other words, what is the nature of existence? What does 'to exist' mean? Does a thing that has no interaction whatsoever 'exist'? I think it is in this vein that the notion of an 'observer' should be seen. Many people take the observer often mentioned in quantum-theoritical explanations as a conscious entity. The word 'observer' itself is part of the problem, I think. In everyday human language, an 'observer' always means a conscious person. But in quantum theory, an observer doesn't need to be a person; it can be anything with which an interaction is possible. The interaction is the 'observation'. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. But if there is air around, then it does produce vibrations and turbulence. And if there are leaves and dust on the ground, the leaves and dust will fly around. There may not be sound when the tree falls - on account of the absence of a sound-observer - but there is interaction with things that are around. The falling tree is 'observed'. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 21-Nov-2005 07:44 AM "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Be careful what you wish for. Apparently, one can be forever defined in that play by the subject of a brief coffeehouse conversation that comprises less than 1% of one's entire, years-long contribution to the EvC debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The way to control how people parody you is to occasionally do obviously risible things.
You're such a well-mannered, intelligent, mature debate opponent that the vast majority of your stellar contribution doesn't provide any grist for the comedy mill. If you were occasionally a bit more ridiculous, you might find the parodies more fair. Or perhaps you might find that's not worth the price. I didn't think that RR's parody of you was very fair - it was very far from the mark. But you're such a worthwhile debate partner, so uniformly admirable in your posting style, that there simply isn't much to make fun of. For my part, because I'm fairly ridiculous most of the time, I thought RR was spot-on in making fun of me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You're such a well-mannered, intelligent, mature debate opponent that the vast majority of your stellar contribution doesn't provide any grist for the comedy mill. In order to write a parody, you need something distinctive that a reader can immediately recognize. But this distinctive quality can be either in the content or the style of the writer to be parodied. Crashfrog was easy to parody; for one thing, he's consistent in his tone. Schraf's another matter. One had to pick out some point she made that could be exaggerated and made to seem ridiculous.
I didn't think that RR's parody of you was very fair - it was very far from the mark Yeah, it was way too exaggerated, but I wanted to include her and that's all I could think of. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2005 11:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
wow, crash. Thank you.
quote: Well, that's what I thought, but I wondered if I was just being overly sensitive. It's just that I feel like I work hard here to be a good debater, to have my information right, to research and present arguments carefully, that it really annoyed me that the only thing I an "noted" for by some is a debate that stemmed in part from a personal issue. It's kind of like the big thing anyone ever remembers about Janet Reno or Margaret Thatcher is that they aren't considered very attractive women. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 02:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's just that I feel like I work hard here to be a good debater, to have my information right, to research and present arguments carefully, that it really annoyed me that the only thing I an "noted" for by some is a debate that stemmed in part from a personal issue. Well, trying to parody you for being an exemplary poster is a little bit like trying to make fun of Mother Theresa for being nice. It's just not very funny. I mean, where's the humor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 131 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Cheers Mike. If you don't want to get involved in this thread, that's fine. I'm interested in your point of view though, because its very different to mine, and I can't quite understand how you hold your point of view. That isn't to say that its right or wrong, its just really incompatible with mine.
This assumes it's hypothetic; that there are many universes. We must buy into the fact that there are multiple universes, in order for you to be correct. Other universes don't really have anything directly to do with what I was saying. I was wondering about deducing the likelyhood of our current universe, fine tuned for use to live, coming into being by naturalistic means. My point is that we just don't know if this universe is crazily unlikely to have arisen by naturalistic means(to the extent that there is only one universe) or alternatively, whether universes are pipping and popping into being every damn microsecond. We don't know if universes are common. We don't know if universes just like ours are the only ones where life can develop. There's a whole lot of things we don't know. To me, all these ifs and buts make it really hard to say that things look particularly engineered. Thats putting to one side the fact that if 8 dimentional Garffx-beings stood (hovered?) where we are now, they might think that things had been manipulated specially to have not 7, not 9 dimentions so they could exist. (Because what other life is there apart from 8 dimentional Garffx life?) Okay - lets stop talking about the possibility of multiple universes and just look at the only one that we know exists. The vast majority of the universe is utterly inhospitable for anything like life we would recognise. It is so mindbendingly huge that you would expect parts of it to be inhabitable for life like our own, wouldn't you?
God doesn't play dice. That is of course assuming that there is a God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
"If a tree falls in the forest...." ....onto a box containing a cat, is the cat dead before somebody opens the box? (C) Drunken students ~1977..1980 I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
reminds me of the old sexist joke, "If a man speaks out loud in a forest and his wife is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Once Big Lumber cuts down all the trees, will we ask better questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Nice post, Tusko. Of course, for all we know our universe is riddled with life, just lousy with it. It does seem odd to debate fine-tuning when we don't even know the frequency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
It was finely tuned for the propensity/possibility of life. We are the proof of that. My objection to the term "finely tuned" is that it implies intent. Not only does it imply intent, but it also implyes that life was it's ultimate purpose (specificaly human life). The universe is just as finely tuned for the existance of gas giants and black holes. The fact that life is a possibility in this universe, does not imply intent or purpose.
That is the universe's way of saying "get off of your collective arses and go explore!" Or as God put it, "go forth and multiply" I agree about this
Hmm, I used to think that way about my parents too... but I know better now. Are you implying that the universe is our "parent"? In a sentient personable way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
My objection to the term "finely tuned" is that it implies intent. I appreciate this but in cosmological terms it just refers to the fact that a free parameter (in the current cosmological model) has a value essential to the existence of structure/complexity/life. It demonstrates a lack in the current model. Despite being theistic (and Christian) I would be most annoyed if the final TOE does not provide a naturalistic explanation to the values of all of the constants.
but it also implyes that life was it's ultimate purpose Hmmm, I don't know... I've always liked the Strong Anthropic Principle. Not becasue of any religious leanings - indeed, inspite of them - but simply because of desire/perception of some connectedness. I think I should really be a Bhuddist
The universe is just as finely tuned for the existance of gas giants and black holes. Oh absolutely, but they go hand in hand with life... especially black holes. They are at the heart of much of the essence of reality/existence (black holes are more than just the end-points of stellar evolution, they play a MUCH larger role in everything).
Are you implying that the universe is our "parent"? I think it's a nice concept. One place I do agree with the YECs is in describing everything - big bang to us - as an evolutiuon.
In a sentient personable way? Sentient - well, I think we provide that aspect. Personable - not sure, I don't (usually) equate this concept with my idea of God, but it really depends on the day of the week...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 131 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I like the idea of a universe riddled with life like a mangy dog. It would be fun if it was.
On a completely tangential point, it strikes me that DNA can't be the only possible imperfect self-replicating molecule. I wonder how long it will be until we descover another on that can do a similar job.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024