Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 5 of 14
I see what you mean... Not quite ready to give up on Einstien quite yet myself tho 
.
Its an interesting idea tho...
When it comes to physics most of my refrences (read nearly all) are in offline format...
Heres a few ok ones tho:
Wave particle duality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
http://www.hotquanta.com/wpd.html
More general:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html
http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/A_Brief_History
_in_Time.html
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even Einstein wasn't happy with quantum mechanics. Remember his quote: "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe."
One great place to explore is the Antropic (or Anthropic) Principle. This is one place where science and religion are glaring at each other. It was alluded to earlier but what it says is that at the moment of creation all of what are now constants in the universe were in flux. And the way they stabilized was so favorable for life that it couldn't have been coincidence. Example: If the gravitational constant was either higher or lower by just a FEW percent then either the universe would have been composed of massive stars that would have quickly burned out (higher) or the gravitational pressure in the hydrogen cloud would never have reached the levels for fusion to start (lower).
This holds for all constants - weak nuclear, strong nuclear, e/m, etc.
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, so we say NOW! Just wait another several billion years and we'll be cryn' the blues THEN! I'm just sayin' that we had better find our purpose for creation because we're on a timetable, gorramit!
If the gravitational constant was either higher or lower by just a FEW percent then either the universe would have been composed of massive stars that would have quickly burned out (higher)...
Doing my best to immitate Chrisisall.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
True, but coincidences do happen.
Besides, who says life couldn't start in a universe with different properties?
Quote:
The Copernican Principle holds that since our universe exists, and since we have no good reason to think that it is special, we have to assume that it is simply the most likely of all possible universes - in short, mediocre.
http://www.esoterism.ro/english/antropic-principle.php
Your argument focuses on the Principle from the wrong direction (IMHO). What if, rather than the universe forming to serve our life, our life formed to live in this universe...
This would result in a universe finely tuned to support us, simply because we evolved to live within the constraints of this system.
Quote:
Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well, so we say NOW! Just wait another several billion years and we'll be cryn' the blues THEN! I'm just sayin' that we had better find our purpose for creation because we're on a timetable, gorramit!
We may have more than a few billion years depending on who wins the 'is the universe open / closed / or just being renovated?' debate.
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CROSS POSTED
The "anthropic" prinicple seems to require that we are the only form of life possible therefore everything must have evolved to create us. I'm sure someone can clarify that logical inconsistancy better than I. For all we know, "life" is a ubiquitous phenomenon. After all, it only takes a self-replicating entity with a "soft" code. It doens't even take a multiplicity of chemical compounds- computers express the process with only two states.
So if the stars burned brighter, the higher energy flux might have simply accelerated the process. And if nuclear fusion "never" took place, the interiors of gas giants might prove to be fertile ground. Seeing ourselves as the pinnacle of creation doesn't make it so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Essentially, yes.
Can Humans live solely off of discharge from hydro-thermal vents miles under the surface of the ocean?
No way!
Can life?
Yes, in fact, it does!
Point is people say life could only survive under the circumstances and properties of our universe, but that simply doesn't fit the evidence all around us.
Life as we know it may not be able to survive in anything but our universe, but would you really expect otherwise? It doesn't need to survive in any other universe, does it...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have a problem evolution. That's small potatoes. I have an issue with the Big Bang theory. It seems to me that when you have to hang so many fudge factors on a theory (Dark matter. Dark energy. n-dimensions.) you've gone off in a wrong direction somewhere. Not that the correct theory MUST be simple and intuitive, but when a simple explanation suddenly develops so many curlicues we might look a little more deeply into our paradigms.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have resisted posting in here because this is a subject near and dear to my heart (and, no, I won't say which way).
But I just wanted to commend all for not going to the place these discussions usually do: one side shouting, "Ignorant religious fanatic!"; and the other, "Godless pagan!"
I'd encourage all to keep the discussion going in the spirit of openness that's characterized it thus far.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A movie that touches on this topic: anyone see Supernova? It had a cool ending, but in the extras it had an even more amazing ending that should have been used! It's not a 'GREAT' movie, but worth a look for the concepts (and the deleted ending) alone.
Sci-fi Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME