I do mostly agree on all 6 points as far as i do fully understand them - and that's exactly what I expected to get in this thread - thanks.topal63 wrote:
This particular (anthropic) statement - is riddled with ERRORS, not yours of course, as you are not the originator of the idea.I{endo wrote:
An isolated region of the observed universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life that can make such an observation - only in such a fine-tuned universe can such living observers exist.
1.) To gage the validity of the statement; you would at a minimum need to be able to examine the other non-plasma-bodies; regions of space (the 1% of matter) that are not governed by the plasma-state (99% of the matter in the Universe exists in this state). Even though it is 1% that exists in this state - that is a massive amount of area to survey and that is entirely beyond the scope of science at this moment in subjective time.
You cannot claim that this (or any other) isolated region of space appears “surprisingly” hospitable to life, or hospitable to the emergence of life. It is a meaningless statement when considering you cannot statistically calculate what other isolated regions are hospitable or to what degree.
2.) Anthropically to say that the Universe is being explained by man (anthropos) is also a meaningless statement. Of course our science and explanations of the Universe are being delivered in human terms by humans (man: anthropos).
3.) The “fine-tuned” physical constants is an error of logic - it is a misconception. The physical-constants are not “fine-tuned” by anything other than human being(s) who created the scientific formulas. The 20+ physical constants are inserted into equations with a specific (human tuned) value as to make the equations work; because they (we) lack an underlying scientific theory to explain their existence. In a sense they are “fudge-factors,” a portion of the Universe yet explained (they represent incomplete scientific understanding), they make observation match mathematical prediction, but they are certainly not explanatory. There is no such thing as a “fine-tuned” Universe. That is mere ignorant word-play.
4.) Also you would expect that this Universe, at a minimum, at least be hospitable to the emergence of life somewhere, else we would not exist and would not be describing the Universe in human (anthropos:man’s) terms - that humans can understand. Such statements are utterly mundane, simple and for all intensive purposes meaningless.
5.) Considering string-theory (P-branes) parallel Universes; Universes beyond this so-called Space-Time Expansion, the possibility of this Universe (the energy herein) being a chain of other preceding events. One cannot say, or calculate, what the likely-hood is of life arising in this, or any other Universe, if in multiple other Universes there is no-life whatsoever. Or the opposite life is common to Universes. Who has surveyed the other Universes? Who even knows if they are (exist); or are not?
6.) All terms like: "surprisingly", "hospitable", "fine-tuned", "appears", etc, or others like this: are NOT objective explanatory terms; they are “weasel-words” - subjective terms. As subjective terms they are being abused in a way to suggest meaning/explanation - where there is none. And of course we all know who (what) the illogical conclusion to the subjective “fine-tuned” argument is: some sort of higher being as transcendent creator (God). Of course objectively, without subjective proof-less belief, no such thing is being indicated by science (or by as-now incomplete-science) or by the human-tuned constants that are inserted into human-mathematical formulas.
Of course I would express an anthropic principle in other <german> words or in different terms, due to my lack of especially scientific english I've chosen this one.
On a side note: Words can never fully express the truth, they are always an approach, a tool to describe phenomenons. E.g. someone is talking about a hot cup of sweet tea: the words "cup", "hot", and "sweet", are only recalling the listeners own experience of something he made or met in the past. The actual experience of that tea is only made at the moment it's being tasted.
<Fine-tuned> is a pretty dumb expression in this context i confess - as is <surprisingly>, etc. Makes me a bit laugh now.
I would reduce it to: <the actual state being we observe>, a region of space - let aside string theory - where complex multicellular life exists. Neglecting the fact that we're not able to examine other regions with, as you call them <non-plasma-bodies>, the basic anthropic principle itself still makes subjective sense to me- as a non-scientist- as it brings on some more objective view. Funny that is. And yes, it can also be in a perhaps weasel-wayish-expression logical enough to shatter even more illogical arguments or even some so called proof of: "Because everything seems shaped and tuned so perfectly well there must be an ultimate creating force behind."
That's how I deal with it. Rather philosophical than scientifically. Its validity is just keeping up with personal, subjective standards and knowledge, if you know what I mean. On the basis you point out the implicated errors of that particular statement it fails big time. Thanks again for the post.
Last edited by I{endo (2007-03-30 19:08:53)
