Universal Perfection

As would be any other being in any other reality, Mike. You're not grasping this.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Oh, what have I not grasped?

quote:

---

quote:

---

As would be any other being in any other reality, Mike. You're not grasping this.

---

Oh, what have I not grasped?

---

The "As would be any other being in any other reality" part.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well, I only know one reality.

I'm sorry to say so, but you do haven't understod very much at all.
(yes i know i'm mr.besserwisser
Your last sentence says all,I quote you:"If the universe was any different it would not be 'just right' which, as I see it CAN mean Creation , rather than an explosion which comes a bout by chance and somehow accidentally creates a perfect system."Let me me explain why i believe so:
The first part is correct, i.e. sure the the universe could have been created by a god.The second part is not.
You say: somehow a perfect system is accidentally created...What ?
The WHOLE issue here is that THERE IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM.
Let me say it one more time: THERE IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM.
GET IT?
It does not matter how the system looks or works.
If life starts in any system, it is part of that particular system, and can only adapt to THAT SYSTEM. There is no other system.
So in other words: There is no perfect system, since life is a result of the system. The system is not a result of life.This what it all comes down to.[This message has been edited by TechnoCore, 10-31-2003]

You know, if you are completely unable to picture any other possible realities, debating with you about other the chance of life in other possible realities would be pretty silly of me, wouldn't it? ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

'The second part is not.
You say: somehow a perfect system is accidentally created...'You have misunderstood, or I wrote it wrong,What I am saying is that it is not accidentally created e.g. big bang - big mess. But rather made by God.

Lol, my heads starting to wiz, maybe we should stick to the universe we are in for now, I like the idea that in another universe A Rei like creature could be creationist.

Heh... sort of the inverse of this post? ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

frightening.Call me a plonker, but how do you link like that?
Is it those code thingies?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-31-2003]

It's basic html. That's a HREF command.You can do really fun things with html... for example, take a look at this, in the impersonations thread. This took a while to get right.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Wow, good stuff, it's a shame I'm the worst pc user on earth when it comes to grasping this stuff.

quote:

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

​

The author played around with physical constants of different universes as far as 10 orders of magnitude out, to see what he got for the size of atoms, the lifetime of stars, etc. In almost all universes, it would be around long enough for some sort of life, however strange, to evolve.

---

/*DNAunion*/ But the author's (Vic Stenger's) findings should not be taken at face value. On another board I easily refuted his similar "toy universe" model - which also attempted to show that huge changes could be made to the constants of nature without have a large impact of stellar lifespans, etc. - even though he is an astrophysicist (or something like that) and I am not.

/*DNAunion*/ As far as whether or not the constants of nature are tuned for the existence of life (or any life based on carbon and/or oxygen)...

quote:

---

We conclude that a change of more than 0.5% in the strength of the strong interaction or more than 4% change in the strength of the Coulomb force would destroy either nearly all C[arbon] or all O[xygen] in every star. This implies that irrespective of stellar evolution the contributions of each star to the abundance of C or O in the ISM [interstellar medium] would be negligible. Therefore, for the above cases the creation of carbon-based life in our universe would be strongly disfavored. The anthropically allowed strengths of the strong and electromagnetic forces also constrain the Higgs vacuum expectation value and yield tighter constraint on the quark masses than do the constraints on light nuclei. Therefore, the results of this work are relevant not only for the anthropic cosmological principle, but also for the mathematical design of fundamental elementary particle theories. (Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and its Abundance in the Universe, H. Oberhummer, A. Scoto, & H. Schlattl, Science, vol 289 no 5476, July 7 2000, p 90)

---

/*DNAunion*/ That touched on the electromagnetic and strong forces...here's some on the weak nuclear force (and yes, I realize the a single point may be restated multiple times in the quotes).

quote:

---

Had the nuclear weak force been appreciably stronger then the Big Bang would have burned all hydrogen to helium. There could then be neither water nor long-lived stable stars. (John Leslie,
Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p4)

---

quote:

---

... the extreme weakness of the nuclear weak force. The weak force [is what] controls proton-proton fusion, a reaction 10^18 times slower than one based on the other nuclear force, the strong nuclear force. Were it not for this, ‘essentially all the matter in the universe would have been burned to helium before the first galaxies started to condense’, so there would be neither water nor long-lived stable stars, which are hydrogen-burning. (Helium-burning stars remain stable for times much too short for the evolution of living beings as we know them). (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p34)

---

quote:

---

Making [the weak nuclear force] appreciably weaker would again have destroyed the hydrogen: the neutrons formed at early times would not have decayed into protons. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p4)

---

quote:

---

Again, [the weak nuclear] force had to be chosen appropriately if neutrinos were to interact with stellar matter both weakly enough to escape from a supernova’s collapsing core and strongly enough to blast its outer layers into space so as to provide material for making planets. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p4)

---

quote:

---

Again, the weak force’s weakness makes our sun ‘burn its hydrogen gently for billions of years instead of blowing up like a bomb’. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p34)

---

quote:

---

Had the weak force been appreciably stronger then the Big Bang’s nuclear burning would have proceeded past helium and all the way to iron. Fusion-powered stars would then be impossible. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p34)

---

quote:

---

Notice, though, that the weak force could not have been much weaker without again giving us an all-helium universe. (There are thus two threats to hydrogen, one setting the upper and the other the lower limit to the values of the weak force compatible with life as we know it). For at early moments neutrons were about as common as protons, things being so hot that the greater masses of the neutrons, which made them harder to generate, had little importance. The weak force, however, can make neutrons decay into protons. And it was just sufficiently strong to ensure that when the first atoms formed there were enough excess protons to yield roughly 70 per cent hydrogen. Without a proton excess there would have been helium only. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p34)

---

quote:

---

Again, weakening the weak force would ruin the proton-proton and carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycles which make stars into sources of the heat, the light, and the heavy elements (all those heavier than helium) which Life appears to need. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989, p34)

---

quote:

---

How do these heavy elements get to be outside of stars, to form planets and living things? The weak force helps explain this. When stars explode as Type II supernovae they lose their heavy-element-rich outer layers. (Also, elements heavier than iron-[56], which play an important role in Earth’s organisms, can be synthesized in supernova explosions only). Now, these layers are blasted off by neutrinos which interact with them via the weak force alone. Its extreme weakness, which allows neutrinos to pass through our planet more easily than bullets through air, permits also their escape from a supernova’s collapsing core. Still the force is just strong enough to hurl into space the outer-layer atoms needed for constructing astronomers! Strong enough, also, to fuse electrons with protons during the core’s collapse, thus enabling the collapse to continue. The result is an implosion whose violence — the core shrinks thousands of times in under a second — gives rise to a gigantic explosion.

​

While the calculations are hard, it seems a safe bet that weakening the weak force by a factor of ten would have led to a universe consisting mainly of helium and in which the life-producing explosions could not occur. (John Leslie, Universes, Routledge Publishing, 1989,p34-35)

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]

quote:

---

Rrhain: Who said life requires oxygen?

---

/*DNAunion*/ Uhm, authors of all biology texts.Oxygen is a required component of sugars (such as ribose and deoxyribose found in RNA and DNA respectively), proteins (all amino acids have at least one carboxyl group), and nucleic acids (in addition to the oxygens in the pentoses, oxygen is also a component of the nitrogenous bases and the phosphate groups).

quote:

---

Rrhain: If the universe were different, then we wouldn't be here. Instead, something else would be.

---

/*DNAunion*/ Really? I'd like to see the empirical evidence that supports your claim. (Are you sure that what you asserted as fact is nothing more than just an unsupported assumption?)[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-01-2003]