# Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Shikamaru said:


> I wasn't making a value judgment, I simply said that something was different than nothing. I didn't say it was special. Furthermore, I didn't actually use "life" as my argument.


You stated "this apparently even gives rise to beings that are self-aware, and a lot of other interesting things."



> If you recall, I was talking about a universe with organized matter. Now I don't know if you are a supernaturalist or not, but in an absence of organized matter, you don't have much in the universe.


I can push this even to organized matter. Life was not a lynchpin argument here. It's why you place one state of affairs over every other state of affairs. 



> But in absence of fine-tuning, there isn't really a sustainable universe either, so you really don't have these different options without it.


Why does it have to be sustainable? Why can't it be in constant flux?



> I don't think its anthropocentric. Rather that existence, of organized matter and a sustainable universe is an unlikely state of affairs.


Every state of affairs is as an unlikely as every other state of affairs



> Similarly a tree in an open field is an unlikely state of affairs for that field. The likely state of affairs is converse, nothingness, stillness, darkness, whatever. Like the open ground in the field, but the arrow is in the tree.


The arrow had to land somewhere. Every point in the ground is "special", on one point you might get a slightly different combination of gasses or subatomic particles. Very unique, very unlikely to have that very different state of affairs.



> But why am I suggesting that the other results are so similar to each other save for the anomoly in discussion? Because a universe that blows itself apart due to a rate of expansion too high is still blown apart if the rate is increased


But it's blown up in different ways depending what were the starting principles. Each state of affairs is a unique special snowflake.


----------



## seraphiel (Dec 26, 2009)

Marino said:


> There may be such instances, but I cannot think of any. However, "God did it" is a dead-end to inquiry. What could possibly explain such a being? The very idea itself is unexplainable and outside natural law and therefore incompatible with science.


Incompatible with our science_ right now_.
And how we look at natural law right now.
And unexplainable until/unless we find the explanation.

God could quite literally _be_ the universe for all we know. It of course isn't scientific for me to say that, it's just wild conjecture. There might never be an answer but that doesn't mean there won't ever be an answer.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

seraphiel said:


> Incompatible with our science_ right now_.
> And how we look at natural law right now.
> And unexplainable until/unless we find the explanation.
> 
> God could quite literally _be_ the universe for all we know. It of course isn't scientific for me to say that, it's just wild conjecture. There might never be an answer but that doesn't mean there won't ever be an answer.


Always keep your mind open I say.

Debate and discourse are human's way of sifting through concepts and evidence.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I found this really good article. Check it:

*"The Bio Code" -Is Life Written Into the Laws of Physics?*

A recent mathematical analysis says that life as we know it is written into the laws of reality. DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids - the first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life, and now it seems that those ten are thermodynamically destined to occur wherever they can.

For those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, it's the Big Brother of all energy equations and science itself. You can apply quantum mechanics at certain scales, and Newtonian mechanics work at the right speeds, but if Thermodynamics says something then everyone listens. An energy analysis by Professors Pudritz and Higgs of McMaster University shows that the first ten amino acids are likely to form at relatively low temperatures and pressures, and the calculated odds of formation match the concentrations of these life-chemicals found in meteorite samples.

They also match those in simulations of early Earth, and most critically, those simulations were performed by other people. The implications are staggering: good news for anyone worried about how we're alone, and bad news for anyone who demands some kind of "Designer" to put life together - it seems that physics can assemble the organic jigsaw all by itself, thank you very much, and has probably done so throughout space since the beginning of everything.

The study indicates that you don't need a miracle to arrive at the chemical cocktail for early life, just a decently large asteroid with the right components. That's all. The entire universe could be stuffed with life, from the earliest prebiotic protein-a-likes to fully DNAed descendants. The path from one to the other is long, but we've had thirteen and a half billion years so far and it's happened at least once.

The other ten amino acids aren't as easy to form, but they'll still turn up - and the process of "stepwise evolution" means that once the simpler systems work, they can grab the rarer "epic drops" of more sophisticated chemicals as they occur - kind of a World of Lifecraft except you literally get a life when you play. And once even the most sophisticated structure is part of a replicating organism, there's plenty to go round.

Humans and Aliens might share DNA roots Humans and Aliens Might Share DNA Roots | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I found this really good article. Check it:

*"The Bio Code" -Is Life Written Into the Laws of Physics?*

A recent mathematical analysis says that life as we know it is written into the laws of reality. DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids - the first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life, and now it seems that those ten are thermodynamically destined to occur wherever they can.

For those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, it's the Big Brother of all energy equations and science itself. You can apply quantum mechanics at certain scales, and Newtonian mechanics work at the right speeds, but if Thermodynamics says something then everyone listens. An energy analysis by Professors Pudritz and Higgs of McMaster University shows that the first ten amino acids are likely to form at relatively low temperatures and pressures, and the calculated odds of formation match the concentrations of these life-chemicals found in meteorite samples.

They also match those in simulations of early Earth, and most critically, those simulations were performed by other people. The implications are staggering: good news for anyone worried about how we're alone, and bad news for anyone who demands some kind of "Designer" to put life together - it seems that physics can assemble the organic jigsaw all by itself, thank you very much, and has probably done so throughout space since the beginning of everything.

The study indicates that you don't need a miracle to arrive at the chemical cocktail for early life, just a decently large asteroid with the right components. That's all. The entire universe could be stuffed with life, from the earliest prebiotic protein-a-likes to fully DNAed descendants. The path from one to the other is long, but we've had thirteen and a half billion years so far and it's happened at least once.

The other ten amino acids aren't as easy to form, but they'll still turn up - and the process of "stepwise evolution" means that once the simpler systems work, they can grab the rarer "epic drops" of more sophisticated chemicals as they occur - kind of a World of Lifecraft except you literally get a life when you play. And once even the most sophisticated structure is part of a replicating organism, there's plenty to go round.

Humans and Aliens might share DNA roots Humans and Aliens Might Share DNA Roots | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## Marino (Jun 26, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> I found this really good article. Check it:
> ]


A comment on the article:



> Yikes, this article needs some serious fixing… it appears it was written without much understanding of the underlying science. The title is completely misleading, and DNA is conflated with proteins/polypeptides throughout!
> It may well be that extraterrestrial life forms also make use of the aforementioned simple amino acids which likely pervade the universe. But IF by some coincidence these organisms also utilized DNA to code for proteins, it would be completely unreasonable to assume their genetic code is the same as earthly life’s! The genetic code of nucleic acid codons corresponding to protein-forming amino acids is, as far as we know, completely arbitrary.


I agree. There seems to be a LOT of speculation with very little back-up of the claims. I think it is wrong to assume that all life in the universe is exactly like life on Earth, aka: Carbon-based. The universe is much more creative than that.


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

but your assuming that before knowing what a mind is... so far from our knowledge it takes a vessel to run a mind, and the condition of the vessel will also direct how the mind thinks. So its more safe to assume that all life is like, or similar to carbon life, rather than say Its not, becaue the universe is more creative than that... thats not a very good argumentalism


----------



## seraphiel (Dec 26, 2009)

A 'vessel' is a perception.

The mind is a part of us, not 'inside' us. Inside, outside, and 'vessel' are relative cognitive constructs.

There are interesting possibilities when you look at things like the particle theory of matter, and wave-particle duality.


----------



## Marino (Jun 26, 2009)

Are you commenting on my use of "creative"?

I meant in a metaphorical sense. Not literally a creative mind who designs nature. :crazy:


----------



## Shikamaru (Dec 22, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> You stated "this apparently even gives rise to beings that are self-aware, and a lot of other interesting things."


Yes, I said that once, but that was only to emphasize the difference between an existent universe with organized matter, and our alternative.



> I can push this even to organized matter. Life was not a lynchpin argument here. It's why you place one state of affairs over every other state of affairs.


Yes it is your lynchpin argument if you were attempting to use it as a means of making the accusation that my argument was based upon egocentrism. 



> Why does it have to be sustainable? Why can't it be in constant flux?


That is sustainable as in extinct vs extant. 



> Every state of affairs is as an unlikely as every other state of affairs


Not sure I agree with this, but lets beg the question for a minute, because I think you are missing an important point. The variations of the constants in a collapsing or exploding universe for example, are essentially the same, only varying in degree. It is unique in other words only in the sense that it is varying degrees of the same result. The narrow window, however, where a sustained universe exists is not the same as the other possibilities only unique in degree, but a different result unto itself, unique in its entirety. 




> The arrow had to land somewhere. Every point in the ground is "special", on one point you might get a slightly different combination of gasses or subatomic particles. Very unique, very unlikely to have that very different state of affairs.


As far as different combinations of gasses, that doesn't exist in the absence of matter and subatomic particles would not organize into matter due to the nature of physical laws.

As to the analogy, every point on the ground is special, but only in the sense that it is a unique variation of what ground is. In that sense it is very common, while the tree, on the other hand, is entirely unique in the field, as it is not ground. It is something else. 

If you want to say we were just really lucky that the arrow hit our special tree, that it is just a strange and eerie coincidence, thats fine as one's _personal_ view, even if it is inconsistent with what one would generally infer in any other situation, (after all, personal inconsistency shouldn't be a concern of the debate I think which should be more concerned with the indication of the evidence) but such offhand dissmissal does not take away the power of fine-tuning arguments to_ evidence_ an intentional agency, nor does it show that one would be unreasonable to conclude such a thing through induction. 



> But it's blown up in different ways depending what were the starting principles. Each state of affairs is a unique special snowflake.


See above. 

:crazy:


----------



## Shikamaru (Dec 22, 2009)

Marino said:


> Are you commenting on my use of "creative"?
> 
> I meant in a metaphorical sense. Not literally a creative mind who designs nature. :crazy:


 I know some have suggested silicon as a possibility, but I don't think it is able to do any tricks like make long chains or things analogous to carbon skeletons.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

> Yes it is your lynchpin argument if you were attempting to use it as a means of making the accusation that my argument was based upon egocentrism.


It's not a lynchpin argument against all variants of the fine-tuning argument. (I think we agree)



> That is sustainable as in extinct vs extant.


So what exactly is your argument? Is it between the extinct vs extant or between unorganised matter vs organised matter? Is mere existence of matter an argument for fine-tuning?



> The variations of the constants in a collapsing or exploding universe for example, are essentially the same, only varying in degree. It is unique in other words only in the sense that it is varying degrees of the same result. The narrow window, however, where a sustained universe exists is not the same as the other possibilities only unique in degree, but a different result unto itself, unique in its entirety.


Why are they only different in degrees? They are only unique in degrees because you've classified them as the same type. 



> As far as different combinations of gasses, that doesn't exist in the absence of matter and subatomic particles would not organize into matter due to the nature of physical laws.


Ok, different combinations of unorganized subatomic particles. We can keep playing this game if you want. Back and back until we find a combination of anything that you would deem different from another combination of anything.



> As to the analogy, every point on the ground is special, but only in the sense that it is a unique variation of what ground is. In that sense it is very common, while the tree, on the other hand, is entirely unique in the field, as it is not ground. It is something else.


But it's ground only if you deem everything there to be of the same type. The ground is only a grouping which seems right with us because we group things into types and sets. But every point is fundamentally different to every other point. The fact that you see them as merely different degrees of the same thing only outlines the inherent nature of human thought. That is to group things and generalise.



> If you want to say we were just really lucky that the arrow hit our special tree, that it is just a strange and eerie coincidence, thats fine as one's _personal_ view, even if it is inconsistent with what one would generally infer in any other situation, (after all, personal inconsistency shouldn't be a concern of the debate I think which should be more concerned with the indication of the evidence) but such offhand dissmissal does not take away the power of fine-tuning arguments to_ evidence_ an intentional agency, nor does it show that one would be unreasonable to conclude such a thing through induction.


Even if we conclude that it's very unlikely that we have arrived at these sets of conditions, (which I've been arguing against). What I haven't been arguing against and what I think is also a stumbling block is the inference to inherent purpose of existence. The jump from "extremely unlikely" occurrence to a purposeful "fine-tuning" of the beginning variables is quite a jump.

*But in the end, I'll have to say that the anthropic principle is one of the strongest arguments for some sort of "purpose-giver". It's probably the most challenging for me personally and an argument that I had accepted fully for a long while. I am now, doubtful of it's usefulness, yet still find appeal with it.*


----------



## chestbuster (Dec 2, 2009)

cdk007's videos are always a pleasure to watch. I think it's a very arrogant statement to say "The Universe was designed for us". Clearly, people who make this argument know very little about the true nature of it.


----------

