Joined: Sep. 2007
|Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2009,11:45)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,11:33)|
|So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?|
And while you're at it Floyd, please explain how Gonzalez, et al, aren't question begging to when they present the argument "the conditions to support life, particularly humans, are rare and a narrow range, therefore the universe must have been fine-tuned since any deviation of that range would not have allowed us to exist." As I've noted now four times, Gonzalez does not know what parameters are "normal" for any given universe - the parameters we see could very well be 99.99999999% necessitated by having matter and energy. The writers don't know Floyd, and neither do you. To declare this a "privileged planet" is question at best and likely disingenuous.There is nothing remotely valid about Gonzalez's argument from a scientific perspective.
Again I have to disagree. In our own solar system there are ~8.5 planets and ~175 moons. And it looks like only earth supports complex life. And I don't think any of us would be surprised if it is the only orb in our solar system with any life. So the question is not really whether earth is privileged, our own solar system sets the upper level of its privileged character at ~ one in a hundred. The question is only one of degree.
And I also disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid. I see nothing scientifically invalid, for example, in his idea of a galactic habitability zone.That is independent of whether it turns out to be correct. As a scientific concept it it is valid in the sense that it merits consideration. Whether it stands the test of time--who knows.
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris