Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fine tuning: a discussion for the rest of us mortals
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 83 (319254)
06-08-2006 7:34 PM


double post
Edited by Shh, : double post

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 83 (319255)
06-08-2006 7:35 PM


Lo again
Rgb,
File Not Found (404) | American Association for the Advancement of Science
For current searches for life bearing worlds, a shortlist of 10 solar systems, from a list of
17, 129 "habitable stellar systems"
And further, microbial life, at the very least is believed to be likely to be common.
Evolution doesn't procede at a set pace and so highly developed life is likely to be scarcer, but this doesn't mean it's unlikely to exist.
Earth – Facts and Information about the Planet Earth
You can say that all planets are unique and you're correct, that doesn't mean only one can possibly have the neccesary conditions. And no I probably can't name the neccesary conditions in great detail, but once planets with water and an energy source (say a sun) exist, what other conditions would you suggest need to be filled?
Cavedigger, Hi
you said
almost a sixth the age of the universe!!!
Does this sound like fine tuning to you? it seems highly inefficient to me for something which is designed to produce intelligent life.
Do you think it will take us this long to create true A.I.?
I don't.
Perhaps you could outline the arguements pro and con in the cosmological community? I would find this fascinating.
Me too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 06-09-2006 5:11 AM Shh has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 78 of 83 (319420)
06-09-2006 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by cavediver
06-08-2006 12:41 PM


cavediver says
quote "I would like to get to a point of seeing the universe "as is" as wholly necessary"
AND
"But yes, I don't think we got these laws and this type of universe by chance. I think it was necessary."
twice you use the word .. necessary .. but necessary for what ??
and why stay clear of religious overtones , if that is where you seem to be going ? will you discard a route because it is not the one you want ?
with no wish to put words in your mouth .. but you seem to be looking for a meaning as to why we , conciousness , exsists .. and clearly are not satisfied by the answer it just happens ... even if we are unique does it follow that we are important in any way at all ??
and echoing Sidelined and Shh please expand the pros / cons/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 06-08-2006 12:41 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 06-09-2006 4:29 AM ikabod has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 79 of 83 (319430)
06-09-2006 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ikabod
06-09-2006 3:26 AM


twice you use the word .. necessary .. but necessary for what ??
I'm using it in a backwards mathematical sense: not necessary "for" anything in particular, but a necessary conclusion. Perhaps "inevitable" would be better, though that has time-related connections of which I try to stay clear.
Perhaps you are familiar with fractals, and the Mandelbrot Set (MS)in particular? I see the universe as a kind of MS - a fixed ultra-complex entity. Our time-restricted view of reailty is simply moving slice by slice through a higher-dimensional MS. From this POV, the features that are observed look random and driven by chance, but when viewed from outside time, they are seen as fixed and "necessary" elements of the mathematical solution.
and why stay clear of religious overtones , if that is where you seem to be going ? will you discard a route because it is not the one you want ?
I'm trying to push as far as possible. I understand mathematics and physics. I have no way of including theistic concepts other than "perhaps god did this here". It just isn't very satisfactory. I'm trying to understand god's creation, not just accept that he created it.
you seem to be looking for a meaning as to why we , conciousness , exsists .. and clearly are not satisfied by the answer it just happens
Perhaps, but the meaning is purely in terms of the part life and conciousness plays in the mathematical solution of the universe.
Perhaps something from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy will help - paraphrasing DeepThought concerning the Earth - "a computer so complex that living creatures actually form part of its computational matrix"
Substitute universe for Earth and you have an idea of the areas in which I muse.
even if we are unique does it follow that we are important in any way at all
As important as every other element of the universe - and given the grandeur of the universe, I would say very important

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ikabod, posted 06-09-2006 3:26 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ikabod, posted 06-09-2006 5:29 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 80 of 83 (319439)
06-09-2006 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by sidelined
06-08-2006 1:22 PM


Re: off topic?
If all the conditions up to life but short of intelligence were in place then would the fine tuning arguement still hold?
Obviously not, as there would be no one to make the argument... and that is sort of the point. However, you really have to step outside of time to look at this properly. In a conventional Big Bang scenario there was a time when there were the conditions for life but not for intelligence (say prokaryote era on Earth if it was the first occurance of this). That is trivial. But the universe would still appear fine-tuned to the external observer... why are parameters such that life could evolve?
As Victor Stegner put it "The universe is not fine tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine tuned for the universe."
A bit naive. Of course there will a parameter-subspace which will include the possibility of all manner of varities of life, terrestrial and non-terrestrial. And we are clearly fine-tuned via evolution to the particluar point our universe takes in that parameter sub-space. But outisde that sub-space, there is no potential for life whatsoever (a universe that exists for 10 minutes, and universe which can contain no structure, etc, etc.) The fine-tuning in question is that that puts the universe in that life-possible sub-space.
BTW, I should just make it very very clear that when a cosmologist refers to "fine-tuning", he is not implying a "fine-tuner" other than some naturalistic mechanism.
Perhaps you could outline the arguements pro and con in the cosmological community? I would find this fascinating.
Despite this request being echoed by both Shh and Ikabod, I'm not actually clear what you are asking obviously being a bit dense. Pro and con with reference to what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by sidelined, posted 06-08-2006 1:22 PM sidelined has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 83 (319442)
06-09-2006 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Shh
06-08-2006 7:35 PM


Does this sound like fine tuning to you? it seems highly inefficient to me for something which is designed to produce intelligent life.
It takes as long as it takes. Once you have I, AI is hardly impressive. Constructing Intelligence out of qunatum fields is impressive no matter how you look at it.
But I repeat what I have just asid to sidelined...
I should just make it very very clear that when a cosmologist refers to "fine-tuning", he is not implying a "fine-tuner" other than some naturalistic mechanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Shh, posted 06-08-2006 7:35 PM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Shh, posted 06-09-2006 7:29 AM cavediver has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 82 of 83 (319447)
06-09-2006 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by cavediver
06-09-2006 4:29 AM


cavediver .. thank you for taking the time to , and i must say given the nature of the beast , very clearly explain your ..might i say .. quest for the ultimate question ( sorry big HHGttG fan ).
you have set yourself a very high target , way way beyond my mathematical lingustic skills , good luck
when you get there drop us mortals a line , and a few hints please ..
one last question .. taking your mandelbort example .. do you see infinites involed with in the system ( the universe ), or infinites of systems not as possiblities , but as soltuons to the equation .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 06-09-2006 4:29 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 83 (319454)
06-09-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by cavediver
06-09-2006 5:11 AM


I should just make it very very clear that when a cosmologist refers to "fine-tuning", he is not implying a "fine-tuner" other than some naturalistic mechanism.
Sorry I kinda thought that, after the last post, it's the idea of intent that bugs me, not the idea that there's reasons things are as they are

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 06-09-2006 5:11 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024