stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Derp Derp Derp: | Quote | 28
ppolish
March 5, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Cosmological Fine Tuning is an established and accepted Scientific Fact. Fine Tuning deniers are out there though. Expected really. Predictable.
Just wait until Biological Fune Tuning becomes more apparent. Oh boy, deniers will be aplenty. |
OOOOooooo, it's "Scientific" Fucking "Fact".
Except it's not.
| Quote | Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning[edit]
Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[16] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[17]
Regarding recently discovered dark energy and its implication on the cosmological constant, Leonard Susskind says "The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it [10-122]... The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that's the mystery." A slightly larger quantity of dark energy, or a slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that galaxies would not form.[18] Despite this, Susskind does not necessarily see the universe as being fine-tuned, suggesting that some parts of the "megaverse" in which we live might just, by chance, be suitable to for the emergence of life, while other parts might not be.[19]
Steven Weinberg rejects the argument about the fine-tuning of the carbon cycle, arguing that "the fine-tuning of the constants of nature here does not seem so fine". He acknowledges that he currently has no explanation (apart from a multiverse) for the smallness of the cosmological constant, but cautions that "It is still too early to tell whether there is some fundamental principle that can explain why the cosmological constant must be this small."[20][21]
Physicist Victor Stenger objects to the fine-tuning, and especially to theist use of fine-tuning arguments. His numerous criticisms include what he calls "the wholly unwarranted assumption that only carbon-based life is possible."[22] In turn, the astrophysicist Luke Barnes has criticised much of Stenger's work.[23]
The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned Universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[24]
The fine-tuned Universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.[25] Regarding this, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."[26]
In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the Universe through the process of evolution, rather than the Universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking, below). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the Universe.[27] |
wikipedia
|
