Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pjoo]

In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.

Yes, we can also go with string theory and assume everything is related to single constant. And? It still doesn't tell why those constants have to be like that. There just could be no strong nuclear force and thus only Hydrogen. It isn't so, so universe is suitable for life.

  Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.

Again, scientists theorize something that is required for quantum mechanics to make sense. Like they would do with it...

Other points make little sense, paradoxing God, paradoxing need for life....

If the infinite multiverse theory is correct, then not only is life probable, it's certain. When you're working with infinity any finite chance of occuring will occur an infinite amount of times.

Assuming universes aren't limited to same laws, yes. If multiverse theory is correct. Can you state with absolute truth it is so? And if not, there still are some other more complex ways universe could've come into existence without a creator, but still.... It's a valid premise to say creator is more likely than garden gnome... Unless the garden gnome is the creator...

People assume there must be a designer because they don't understand probability. Lets say i generate a random number between one and ten million (i will in fact do this now), and that number turns out to be 645,231. There was a one in ten million chance of 645,231 being the number that cropped up, yet there it is.

And lets assume Strong force gets value between 0.0001 and 10000 of what it currently has(really, really bad example)(say, for example number of those transmitters for Strong nuclear force likely to apprear on big bang, would make sense number or density or something of transmitters affects the force, makes some sense? no? ok). There is one in ~5 000 000 chance universe supports enough medium-massed elements for life. Now, there is no problem with unlimited universes, but there is with single universe.
Just to point out you cannot just pick some random number and trust it makes universe habitable.

If you mucked with the fundamental constants of the universe, then you'd STILL get things that are rare.

Without nuclear forces you don't have elements, only protons circled by electrons. They wont do anything intresting. Other elements wouldn't be rare, they would be non-existant.

So hey, maybe life is virtually impossibly rare. My playing card analogy still holds. Throw a quintillion playing cards on the ground, every possible result will seem impossibly rare. It's not a valid argument for anything. You don't even need to consider the possibility of multiple concurrent universes for your argument to fall apart, because it does so on its own merits.

Only this set of cards allows us to perceive the cards, thus it is special.

I'll say that even if the Universe had completely different matter/energy in it than it did now, that doesn't mean the Universe wouldn't exist.

I got no idea how this different matter works, but I know how hydrogen does, and I can say with as big certainity as I can say I don't own house elf, that this universe without force that keeps nuclei together, any kind of systems that try to reproduce themselves would be impossible.

3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 rolls of the dice to see if life would appear.

Life on double sixes?

I've not been saying, life in this universe as we know it is unlikely. Well, maybe it is, I don't know. But like said, we do have many planets. And there could be aliens too. And stuff. It's likely.
But laws of physics have to exactly like they are to support life. Doesn't work if you drop out any of the forces, and maybe not even if you just tinker with them a little bit...

[Ampersand]

Have you actually read anything anyone else has said? No, they do NOT have to be EXACTLY like that to support life. THIS life, maybe but not life in general.

•   Because we don't know of other universes with different constants, attempting to list which constants can somehow vary is little more than speculation. There is no reason to assume that any "constant" can be changed. Furthermore, assuming it is somehow a knob that can be turned by a god effectively makes the anthropic principle assume its conclusion.
• Many of the features of humanity have developed as a result of our environment, rather than our environment being tailored to suit us. Arguments from the anthropic principle tend to beg the question, assuming the existence of a creator to "explain" the already understood reasons why we match our environment so well. As Douglas Adams, the humorist and atheist, once said: "A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn’t it?... It must have been made to have me in it.'"
• While the odds of a universe's fundamental constants having a specific set of values may be very low, the odds of them having some value is 1.0 (100%). It may be that life exists in our universe because it happened to form, by chance, with a set of universal constants that support life. In other words, humanity exists because of a lucky roll of the dice, so to speak.
• It is possible that terrestrial life is not the only form of life possible in our universe. For example, creatures on another planet might pass on their genes via a mechanism other than the DNA double helix. In other words, it is possible that our universe's constants are friendly to a broad variety of life forms.
• Similarly, it is possible that the universe's constants could have varied quite a bit, and still allow earth-style life to form. In other words, a broad variety of universes might be friendly to life as we know it. Indeed, if one of the "constants" is the amount of matter in the universe, why would a god choose a value that was clearly much higher than it needed to be to create life?
• The strong, participatory, and final anthropic principles presuppose that life had to exist in our universe. This is an unwarranted assumption. If our universe could not support life, it would not contain life. There is no reason to suppose that our universe was "intended" or "supposed to" contain life.
• The underlying principles of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principles, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.
• It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.
• It is unknown whether this is the only iteration of "The Universe". If other universes exist or if this universe has oscillated through a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, the universal constants may have been reset many times. Given enough universes and/or Bangs, our "life friendly" settings would inevitably occur.
• The SAP and its variants assume that human observers are required for the existence of the universe. This is a common misrepresentation of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. It is taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat. A cat is placed in a sealed box into which poison will be pumped when the nucleus of a certain atom decays. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the atom exists as both decayed and undecayed (superpositioned) until a measurement is made. Since the atom must exist in this superpositioned state, the cat must exist in the same state until the box is opened. Note that the cat does not cease to exist, nor does the atom's nucleus. They simply exist in an unobserved state. The 'wave forms' that represent the experiment's possibilities have not collapsed into a single 'choice'. If we accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe would still exist without human intelligence. It would simply exist in an unobserved state.
• Most physicists do not accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead they view 'wave form collapse' and 'superpositioning' as an extremely useful and accurate description of poorly understood processes.

[Sergius]

People are allowed to believe in invisible pink unicorns, just like they are allowed to believe that God does or doesn't exist, but I do get a bit pissed when they start stating God or no God, or even worse, creationism, as absolute truth.

The thing is, you're giving equal weight to both possibilities, when the body of evidence heavily weighs on one side.

It doesn't. You have no solid evidence for or against God, again, depending on definition.
No solid evidence against colour-swapping gnomes either, there's just no reason to explain it that way when building being green is way simpler way to explain it.

Actually, it does. You're having trouble with the concept of burden of proof. Let me help you understand with an example:

I make a claim: I can run as fast as the fastest Olympic runner.
Now, if you ask me to prove it, I will say that I have no intention of showing to you how fast I can run. I simply don't want to. So, you can't gather any evidence of my actual running performance.
By your own standards, since I either 1) am as fast as the fastest Olympic runner 2) am not as fast as I claim to be, there must be a 50/50 probability for either.
So, anyone who claims that I'm either lying or telling the truth, is wrong, because the only correct answer is that "maybe" I'm as fast as the fastest Olympic runner at exactly 50% chance.

Pjoo, perhaps you've missed it, but Ampersand understood you correctly and made a valid counter argument.

It's not valid counter argument, with only hydrogen there simply cannot be life.

I think you made a typo there, you must have meant: with only hydrogen there simply can only be 50% chance of life.

[G-Flex]

If there's just as much credence given to God existing vs. not existing, then there's the same probability that ANY given deity exists. You can come up with a billion different mutually-exclusive and unprovable things and say "well, you might as well say they exist as say they don't exist".

[Neruz]

I feel i should also add that even if the probability of something occurring is infinitely small, this doesn't mean it won't come up on the first try. It just means it's highly unlikely, not impossible.

[RAM]

• The underlying principles of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principles, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.

This, I would expect that the universal constants have constraints upon them that prevent the possibility of an all hydrogen universe. Maybe they are in flux and a big bang happens whenever they meet specifications similar to those that currently exist. Maybe they are co-dependant and balance out in the current formation. Maybe the are extrapolated from one another and lowering the cohesion of molecules would result in larger molecules that would perform the same function. Maybe they don't exist at all and this whole universe is a hallucination. Any theory could be valid, but it is foolish to make blind assumptions in matters you are ignorant of, hence the flaw in assuming a religion that refuses to justify itself...

[Pjoo]

I make a claim: I can run as fast as the fastest Olympic runner.
Now, if you ask me to prove it, I will say that I have no intention of showing to you how fast I can run. I simply don't want to. So, you can't gather any evidence of my actual running performance.
By your own standards, since I either 1) am as fast as the fastest Olympic runner 2) am not as fast as I claim to be, there must be a 50/50 probability for either.

It's either true or not. If you claim it, it doesn't make it any more true. Depending on my view of the world, I assign some subjective Bayesian probability value for your statement being true or not, as I cannot have objective evidence against or for the statement(As it is clearly defined as such). And here it is pretty much zero, as I got no reason to think it is true. Someone might have a reason to think God is true, even without objective empirical evidence. Democritus believed atomism is true, based only on his rational mind. I however cannot claim it certainly isn't true.
Burden of proof only applies when you claim something. Statement, "I don't know whether my grandfather is alive or not, but I believe he is", requires none. Im not claiming he is alive, and burden of proof to claim "he is not alive" or "he is alive" is on you.If I've no way of knowing, bring me either him or his head, that should convince me. Same with God. Expect that you might have a bit trouble bringing me head of something that doesn't exist... ohwell.

I think you made a typo there, you must have meant: with only hydrogen there simply can only be 50% chance of life.

It's pretty much scientific fact that there cannot be life with only one element... It has considerable burden of proof behind the statement, you can test it yourself.

Maybe they don't exist at all and this whole universe is a hallucination. Any theory could be valid, but it is foolish to make blind assumptions in matters you are ignorant of, hence the flaw in assuming a religion that refuses to justify itself...

It's completely rational, in my opinion, to assume that this universe is just computer simulation by some intelligent lifeform. It's kinda like God, just doesn't require non-materialistic, non-deterministic, non-reductionist universe.
I mean, our brain is just basically complex computer, I don't see why many brains couldn't exist inside supertech computer. I don't believe it, I just think it's completely rational to.

Have you actually read anything anyone else has said? No, they do NOT have to be EXACTLY like that to support life. THIS life, maybe but not life in general.

•   Because we don't know of other universes with different constants, attempting to list which constants can somehow vary is little more than speculation. There is no reason to assume that any "constant" can be changed. Furthermore, assuming it is somehow a knob that can be turned by a god effectively makes the anthropic principle assume its conclusion.
• While the odds of a universe's fundamental constants having a specific set of values may be very low, the odds of them having some value is 1.0 (100%). It may be that life exists in our universe because it happened to form, by chance, with a set of universal constants that support life. In other words, humanity exists because of a lucky roll of the dice, so to speak.
• Similarly, it is possible that the universe's constants could have varied quite a bit, and still allow earth-style life to form. In other words, a broad variety of universes might be friendly to life as we know it. Indeed, if one of the "constants" is the amount of matter in the universe, why would a god choose a value that was clearly much higher than it needed to be to create life?
• The strong, participatory, and final anthropic principles presuppose that life had to exist in our universe. This is an unwarranted assumption. If our universe could not support life, it would not contain life. There is no reason to suppose that our universe was "intended" or "supposed to" contain life.
• The underlying principles of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principles, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.
• It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.
• The SAP and its variants assume that human observers are required for the existence of the universe. This is a common misrepresentation of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. It is taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat. A cat is placed in a sealed box into which poison will be pumped when the nucleus of a certain atom decays. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the atom exists as both decayed and undecayed (superpositioned) until a measurement is made. Since the atom must exist in this superpositioned state, the cat must exist in the same state until the box is opened. Note that the cat does not cease to exist, nor does the atom's nucleus. They simply exist in an unobserved state. The 'wave forms' that represent the experiment's possibilities have not collapsed into a single 'choice'. If we accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe would still exist without human intelligence. It would simply exist in an unobserved state.
• Most physicists do not accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead they view 'wave form collapse' and 'superpositioning' as an extremely useful and accurate description of poorly understood processes.

1) Again with the hydrogen, and again asking why those constants are like they are. Why do we have strong nuclei force? We could just not have it, and life would be impossible. So many laws of physic are essential for life. Question "why do those exist?" is kinda stupid, as "they just do", and there might not be any chance involved, they just might always be like that. But if some of them were any different, means we would not have life. What fine-tuned them to support life? Or did they just always exist as such? Again, why? They just do. Ok. Hypotetically, why couldn't we just not have some laws of physics?
2) I don't see how Schrödinger's cat is related. Human mind is not required for universe to exist, but proper universe is required for human mind to exist, which again is required to observe the universe. It only applies with multi-verse, I believe not every 'verse has life, as, like said, universe forming so it could support life(as universes don't have the purpose of supporting life) seems unlikely.

kill cats with quantum-randomized poison applications

It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.

I believe in causality. I have no clear way of explaining how it all started. I still don't find a creator any better explanation, as I believe there has to be cause for the creator too. Now, if your mind can tolerate the answer "He exists outside of time and space", go ahead, explain the big bang with a creator. I don't care. Explain the universe with story from Bible? I do care.

I feel i should also add that even if the probability of something occurring is infinitely small, this doesn't mean it won't come up on the first try. It just means it's highly unlikely, not impossible.

True. Something that is impossible to happen doesn't happen even if tried unlimited times, but we can say with certainity that universe with something else than just hydrogen is possible.

[Il Palazzo]

Oooh, I do not follow. I thought that Pjoo was defending anthropic principle, but now it seems like he doesn't. What's all the argument about then?

[Neruz]

Burden of proof only applies when you claim something. Statement, "I don't know whether my grandfather is alive or not, but I believe he is", requires none. Im not claiming he is alive, and burden of proof to claim "he is not alive" or "he is alive" is on you.If I've no way of knowing, bring me either him or his head, that should convince me. Same with God. Expect that you might have a bit trouble bringing me head of something that doesn't exist... ohwell.

Unfortunately your analogy doesn't hold up; we know that at one point your Grandfather was alive, as you are here, therefore it is reasonable to assume he remains alive unless there is evidence to the contrary (if he was known to be alive 100 years ago then he probably is not alive today for example).

We do not know if God ever existed, nor do we have any evidence to suggest that he did. Declaring therefore that it is a 50/50 chance is illogical. One of the simplest laws in our universe is that objects in a stable state will remain in that state unless influenced by something else. Objects in an unstable state will decay to a stable state. Unless there is reason to assume something has changed, the most probable answer is that it has not.

It's pretty much scientific fact that there cannot be life with only one element... It has considerable burden of proof behind the statement, you can test it yourself.

Can't be life as we know it, sure. But Hydrogen has this really neat property where it tends to gather together in big clumps and catch fire, forming stars, which have this really neat property of fusing the hydrogen into more complex elements and then diffusing those elements all over the place when they go supernova.

It's completely rational, in my opinion, to assume that this universe is just computer simulation by some intelligent lifeform. It's kinda like God, just doesn't require non-materialistic, non-deterministic, non-reductionist universe.

So it's therefore completely rational to assume that there are invisible pink unicorns that can walk through walls? You have a strange definition of rational.

I mean, our brain is just basically complex computer, I don't see why many brains couldn't exist inside supertech computer. I don't believe it, I just think it's completely rational to.

Actually we don't know what the brain is. We assume it's a computer because we're used to working with computers and computers give off an illusion of 'thinking', but when you look at the details it becomes apparant that our brains don't really act much like a computer at all. More research is neccessary.

1) Again with the hydrogen, and again asking why those constants are like they are. Why do we have strong nuclei force? We could just not have it, and life would be impossible. So many laws of physic are essential for life. Question "why do those exist?" is kinda stupid, as "they just do", and there might not be any chance involved, they just might always be like that. But if some of them were any different, means we would not have life. What fine-tuned them to support life? Or did they just always exist as such? Again, why? They just do. Ok. Hypotetically, why couldn't we just not have some laws of physics?

We wouldn't have life as we know it. That doesn't neccessarily mean we wouldn't have life. Additionally:

A: There is no way to know if it is even possible to not form a universe with these forces.
B: Why is God any more probable than the basic laws of physics lining up?
C: There is no way to know if, in fact, in a billion other universes the basic physical laws didn't line up.


Unfortunately, pointing holes in areas of science that we don't know the answer to does not help your cause. The Aztecs didn't know that if they didn't sacrifice people to Huitzilopochtli then the world would end in 52 years. Their lack of knowledge does not in any way suddenly increase the odds of their theory about human sacrifice being correct, it simply means they lacked knowledge.

2) I don't see how Schrödinger's cat is related. Human mind is not required for universe to exist, but proper universe is required for human mind to exist, which again is required to observe the universe. It only applies with multi-verse, I believe not every 'verse has life, as, like said, universe forming so it could support life(as universes don't have the purpose of supporting life) seems unlikely.

Sure, this universe creates this mind. A different universe might well create a different mind. Life will go to extraordinary ends to adapt.

And you're both misunderstanding the Copenhagen interpretation. Remember that the original Schrodingers Cat was a thought experiement was proposed by Einstien to show how the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was rediculous and clearly did not make sense when applied to reality. It is used to show that our understanding of Quantum Mechanics remains incomplete.


Either way, the Copenhagen interpretation states that the wave-form doesn't collapse until 'an observation' takes place. It's never actually defined what an observation is, it certainly doesn't require humans looking at it, as wave-forms collapse all the time out of sight and mind of mandkind, an automated measuring system with no human involved would cause the collapse of the wave-form.

The human mind is certainly not required to observe the universe, when we work out the kinks in Quantum Mechanics we'll find out what is, but it's certainly not us.

I believe in causality. I have no clear way of explaining how it all started. I still don't find a creator any better explanation, as I believe there has to be cause for the creator too. Now, if your mind can tolerate the answer "He exists outside of time and space", go ahead, explain the big bang with a creator. I don't care. Explain the universe with story from Bible? I do care.

Ok, where exactly are you trying to take this argument?

True. Something that is impossible to happen doesn't happen even if tried unlimited times, but we can say with certainity that universe with something else than just hydrogen is possible.

We can't say that a universe starting with something other than hydrogen is possible, cause we don't know, but we can say for sure that a universe eventually containing something other than hydrogen is possible, because we're in one.



And yeah, i'm not sure where Pjoo is trying to take this, he just did a 180 or something.

[Ampersand]

I think what he's trying to claim is that if the Strong nuclear force was different than elements wouldn't form because there wouldn't be nuclear fusion.

Of course, this assumption is wrong. As I stated before, there is a relatively broad spectrum of strength the Strong Nuclear Force can have over which nuclear fusion takes place.

[Neruz]

And it's entirely possible that universes only form with the Strong Nuclear Force in that spectrum.

Additionally, we have no idea what would happen if the force landed outside that spectrum, assuming it's even possible.

[Pjoo]

Unfortunately your analogy doesn't hold up; we know that at one point your Grandfather was alive, as you are here, therefore it is reasonable to assume he remains alive unless there is evidence to the contrary (if he was known to be alive 100 years ago then he probably is not alive today for example).

We do not know if God ever existed, nor do we have any evidence to suggest that he did. Declaring therefore that it is a 50/50 chance is illogical. One of the simplest laws in our universe is that objects in a stable state will remain in that state unless influenced by something else. Objects in an unstable state will decay to a stable state. Unless there is reason to assume something has changed, the most probable answer is that it has not.

Yeah, he would be around there. Age where you might or might not be alive. I have no way of knowing. I've never declared it's 50/50 chance, I declared the truth value is unknowable, thus you give it subjective Bayesian probability chance of existing based on your SUBJECTIVE view of the world. Just like you might believe that ethical naturalism is correct representation of ethics.

Can't be life as we know it, sure. But Hydrogen has this really neat property where it tends to gather together in big clumps and catch fire, forming stars, which have this really neat property of fusing the hydrogen into more complex elements and then diffusing those elements all over the place when they go supernova.

Euhm
Hydrogen cathes fire when it oxidizes, requires oxygen, O, which again requires fusion to be produces from H.
Hydrogen cannot fuse if none of heavier elements are stable. Which they aren't cause strong interaction is just tiny tiny bit less than in this universe.

So it's therefore completely rational to assume that there are invisible pink unicorns that can walk through walls? You have a strange definition of rational.

Well, they do not seem interact with photons, being invisible and all, so yes, I would say they could walk though walls. Walls are electomagnetic thing, and photons are the transmitter so.

Unfortunately, pointing holes in areas of science that we don't know the answer to does not help your cause.

You explain a thing with something that makes most sense to you. Science objectively explains the beginning of the universe, so ok, I buy that. Science doesn't tell anything about something else, I tend to generate an explanation for that. ITS WHAT I BELIEVE, not what is. Science gives me explanation on how the free will works, I don't have to believe it's just an illusion anymore.

The human mind is certainly not required to observe the universe, when we work out the kinks in Quantum Mechanics we'll find out what is, but it's certainly not us.

Not human mind. But wouldn't, by definition, mind be something that observes? Thus mind is required for observation of the universe(not existence of it).

We can't say that a universe starting with something other than hydrogen is possible, cause we don't know, but we can say for sure that a universe eventually containing something other than hydrogen is possible, because we're in one.

That's what I said. And as far as I know, universe didn't start with elements, it started with matter. Electrons and Protons made Hydrogen, which fuses into Helium, which again fuses into heavier nuclei. That is, assuming we have strong interaction, which is required for nuclei to build up.
 

I think what he's trying to claim is that if the Strong nuclear force was different than elements wouldn't form because there wouldn't be nuclear fusion.

Of course, this assumption is wrong. As I stated before, there is a relatively broad spectrum of strength the Strong Nuclear Force can have over which nuclear fusion takes place.

Increase it by few percents and diprotons would be stable.
Oh, anyways, the point is, there is no logical imperative that states strong interaction even has to exist, and there is no way of answering why it just happens to exist, so... It's just how universe works. Why does universe work just like it does? It could just work the same, but there would be no gluons. Again, bad questions, assuming universe just is like it is...

Additionally, we have no idea what would happen if the force landed outside that spectrum, assuming it's even possible.

Aand yeah, we do know that Gluons keep nuclei together. Without them, nucleons wouldn't stick together. Which is kinda the definition of other-than-hydrogen elements, there is atleast 2 protons...

Ok, where exactly are you trying to take this argument?
And yeah, i'm not sure where Pjoo is trying to take this, he just did a 180 or something.

Again, like I've stated, your world view is based on probabilities you assign to things based on evidence and rational thought. Some rational world views, for example, those that do think multi-verse is unlikely, require creator(or consider it likely based on the views person has). Thus, it is rational to assign value for creator for the creator to likely exist. Stating your world view is only correct one is stupid, Epistemological nihilism is just as correct as your view of the world is. Well, as long as nihilist accepts the subjetive facts(like he perceives that he sees the ball dropping). Science doesn't state truths, it states something happens as cause of something else, and creates theories based on this. Nihilist can deny this gives any knowledge, but to disprove what science states, he must disprove the causality between the two. As that is what science states, basically.

[Ampersand]

Hydrogen cathes fire when it oxidizes, requires oxygen, O, which again requires fusion to be produces from H.
Hydrogen cannot fuse if none of heavier elements are stable. Which they aren't cause strong interaction is just tiny tiny bit less than in this universe.

I think you should take time to do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

And again, if the strong nuclear force were a wee bit different from what it is in this universe... Well, it wouldn't be very different. I don't know, maybe the half-life of plutonium might be slightly shorter or something, but that's hardly anything to worry about as far as Life goes, is it?

Not human mind. But wouldn't, by definition, mind be something that observes? Thus mind is required for observation of the universe(not existence of it).

A proton is observed if a photon colides with it. In terms of quantum-mechanics, observation is what occurs when two subatomic particles interact with each other in any way. It has nothing to do with mind. Again, do some research before you make yourself look silly.

[Pjoo]

Hydrogen cathes fire when it oxidizes, requires oxygen, O, which again requires fusion to be produces from H.
Hydrogen cannot fuse if none of heavier elements are stable. Which they aren't cause strong interaction is just tiny tiny bit less than in this universe.

I think you should take time to do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

And again, if the strong nuclear force were a wee bit different from what it is in this universe... Well, it wouldn't be very different. I don't know, maybe the half-life of plutonium might be slightly shorter or something, but that's hardly anything to worry about as far as Life goes, is it?

Not human mind. But wouldn't, by definition, mind be something that observes? Thus mind is required for observation of the universe(not existence of it).

A proton is observed if a photon colides with it. In terms of quantum-mechanics, observation is what occurs when two subatomic particles interact with each other in any way. It has nothing to do with mind. Again, do some research before you make yourself look silly.

Umm... yes? There is no binding force if there is no strong interaction, thus there is no nuclei bound together = there isn't anything heavier than hydrogen and no nuclear reactions.

In terms of not-quantum mechanics, you need atleast one mind to observe that the universe exists and to question how likely it is that any observer exists. As in, "this universe creates this mind. A different universe might well create a different mind. ". But the point im saying is, some universes create no minds if the laws are different, and if we assume there is just one universe, how likely it is that this universe actually created something that observes? Sorry, it was bad quote.

[Neruz]

You explain a thing with something that makes most sense to you. Science objectively explains the beginning of the universe, so ok, I buy that.

No, no it doesn't. We have deduced, using technology and applying the Scientific Method, one possible beginning. It appears to have a bit of evidence floating around and no major holes in the theory, so in absense of a better idea most people run with it. The beginning of the universe is most definitely not explained however.

And crying "But it's just what i believe!" doesn't change anything. Irrational beliefs remain irrational, and potentially dangerous when people act on them.

Not human mind. But wouldn't, by definition, mind be something that observes? Thus mind is required for observation of the universe(not existence of it).

In a word; No.
In more words; You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. If you want to discuss Quantum Mechanics i highly reccomend actually researching it, because it's a ludicrously complicated subject with vast misconceptions in the general populace, you cannot just 'pick it up' without dedicating time and effort to the subject.

That's what I said. And as far as I know, universe didn't start with elements, it started with matter. Electrons and Protons made Hydrogen, which fuses into Helium, which again fuses into heavier nuclei. That is, assuming we have strong interaction, which is required for nuclei to build up.

Under our current physical laws, sure. But our current physical laws are based around the basic phsyical forces. If you have different physical forces, you have different physical laws, and everything acts differently.

Increase it by few percents and diprotons would be stable.
Oh, anyways, the point is, there is no logical imperative that states strong interaction even has to exist, and there is no way of answering why it just happens to exist, so... It's just how universe works. Why does universe work just like it does? It could just work the same, but there would be no gluons. Again, bad questions, assuming universe just is like it is...

We know the universe is just like it is. Why? Well we don't know that one yet, assuming the question even has a meaningful answer.

Aand yeah, we do know that Gluons keep nuclei together. Without them, nucleons wouldn't stick together. Which is kinda the definition of other-than-hydrogen elements, there is atleast 2 protons...

Of course they do, but that's only under our current physical laws. We objectively have absolutely no way to tell what would happen if you change the fundamental physical forces; any suggestions as to what would happen is nothing more than passing fancy and wild hypothesis.

Some rational world views, for example, those that do think multi-verse is unlikely, require creator(or consider it likely based on the views person has)

No creator is ever required or even likely. A creator raises far more questions than it answers.

Thus, it is rational to assign value for creator for the creator to likely exist.

It is not rational to assign a value for something to exist when no evidence exists to support it.

Stating your world view is only correct one is stupid, Epistemological nihilism is just as correct as your view of the world is.

No it is not; only one world view is the correct one. We just don't know which one it is.

Additionally i am not stating that my world view is correct, merely that the religious world view cannot be rationally held to be correct.

Science doesn't state truths, it states something happens as cause of something else, and creates theories based on this. Nihilist can deny this gives any knowledge, but to disprove what science states, he must disprove the causality between the two. As that is what science states, basically.

You... don't actually know what the scientific method is do you? Allow Wikipedia to enlighten you and stop you sounding like an idiot. (I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that line just sounds idiotic to anyone who knows what the scientific methoid is in the same way that the statement 'i am riding a flying purple elephant' sounds idiotic to anyone with eyes; it is patently bullshit.)


You appear to be making the common mistake of most religious worldviews; that of assigning 'Science' as some sort of powerful god-force or united body, as if 'Science' does something. Which is not only silly, but also a strawman.


-ADDENDUM-

Umm... yes? There is no binding force if there is no strong interaction, thus there is no nuclei bound together = there isn't anything heavier than hydrogen and no nuclear reactions.

Again, physics as we know it says this, but if you're changing the fundamental physical forces there is no reason to assume that the rest of the physical laws will remain the same. In fact there is every reason to assume that they will not.

In terms of not-quantum mechanics, you need atleast one mind to observe that the universe exists and to question how likely it is that any observer exists. As in, "this universe creates this mind. A different universe might well create a different mind. ".

The universe requires no mind.

But the point im saying is, some universes create no minds if the laws are different, and if we assume there is just one universe, how likely it is that this universe actually created something that observes? Sorry, it was bad quote.

Alright, fine, big guns time.

What are the odds of the universe creating life? Absolutely certain.


'What?!' i hear you cry, 'But the chances are astronomically small!'

Sure. But logically there has to be an infinity out there somewhere, and once infinity gets involved all finite numbers become certain.


Allow me to elaborate.



Universe is infinite; life certain.

Universe is finite; what's outside the Universe? If that's finite, then what's outside that? So on, ad infinitum. Again, life certain.

Multiple infinite Universes, either finite or infinite; life certain.



See what i'm getting at here? The only way life can be unlikely is if you have a finite Universe and a finite number of Universes. But if you have a finite Universe then there must be something outside the Universe; if it has borders, what is beyond the borders? It could be an infinite number of finite Universes, it really doesn't matter. Somewhere, somehow, Infinity is going to get involved. At which point all your statistics poop themselves.