Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

[Ryan_m_b]

close, but not quite.

YOU should be arguing that there are multiple universes, because if there is only one universe than than by the finely-tuned argument that is evidence of a deity (one in infinity).

If there are multiple universes, then the constants that arrived at existence as we know it, those constants were arrived at by chance, constant trial and error.

those multiple universes would not be competing with each other...but it would be something like universe one would have the gravitational constant be 6.7 × 10^-11 and another would be 6.8x10^-11...and ours is the one with 6.67300 × 10^-11 and we popped up in this one.

but all theories of those other universes is all conjecture, while we do have ample evidence of this universe.

Can you thoroughly explain why a deity is needed. The fine-tuning argument for god simply claims that there must have been a deity. Saying "by the fine-tuned argument that is evidence" doesn't give any support to your proposition

 

[vjk2]

one in infinity.

for instance...speech is a series of sounds. how do you differentiate between when someone is talking to you and just random noise? If you hear your name being called, there is a very very small chance that it could have been the result of everyday background noise, and there is a much much higher chance that it is someone addressing you.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

one in infinity.

for instance...speech is a series of sounds. how do you differentiate between when someone is talking to you and just random noise? If you hear your name being called, there is a very very small chance that it could have been the result of everyday background noise, and there is a much much higher chance that it is someone addressing you.

This doesn't lend credence to anything.
-You have no evidence that the probability of our universe being the way it is is 1/infinity
-You have no evidence that a deity is required to resolve 1/infinity probabilities

Regarding your 'analogy'

I differentiate between sounds that are not caused by speech and sounds which are caused by speech because I have experience of speech and therefore I recognize it. This has nothing to do with fine tuning

If a random collection of sounds made me hear something that was identical to someone calling my name I would think that someone had called my name. This also has nothing to do with fine tuning

 

[Dotini]

YOU should be arguing that there are multiple universes, because if there is only one universe than than by the finely-tuned argument that is evidence of a deity (one in infinity).

I don't accept this, either. I don't even accept the word "deity".

I will admit that there seems to be a self-organizing intelligence or order underlying our universe and its laws of physics. A natural process resulting in stars and galaxies - nothing really to do with deity.

And I prefer to argue against multiverses, too.

Very respectfully,
Steve

 

[vjk2]

I don't accept this, either. I don't even accept the word "deity".

I will admit that there seems to be a self-organizing intelligence or order underlying our universe and its laws of physics. A natural process resulting in stars and galaxies - nothing really to do with deity.

And I prefer to argue against multiverses, too.

Very respectfully,
Steve

probably shouldn't have used the word "deity" but the general gist is similar.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

probably shouldn't have used the word "deity" but the general gist is similar.

Whatever word you choose you are still implying an intelligence. Not only that but an intelligence that somehow exists outside (whatever that means) the universe and is capable of constructing universes any way it likes.

That is a good description of a deity. To repeat myself with a slight edit

This doesn't lend credence to anything.
-You have no evidence that the probability of our universe being the way it is is 1/infinity
-You have no evidence that an intelligence is required to resolve 1/infinity probabilities

 

[vjk2]

I explained it earlier. Pretend that the universe is a computer simulation. You can input anywhere from -1000000000000000000 to 1000000000000000 in 9 to 10 fields, among them being gravitational force, electron constant, as mentioned, etc. you input a series of numbers on your first try to the fifth decimal place.

Life arises. If you had put it as much as a fifth of a decimal otherwise, it would not have happened.

that's the argument.

gimme some evidence of multiple universes through which by trial and error we come to the one we have here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I explained it earlier. Pretend that the universe is a computer simulation. You can input anywhere from -1000000000000000000 to 1000000000000000 in 9 to 10 fields, among them being gravitational force, electron constant, as mentioned, etc. you input a series of numbers on your first try to the fifth decimal place.

Life arises. If you had put it as much as a fifth of a decimal otherwise, it would not have happened.

that's the argument.

gimme some evidence of multiple universes through which by trial and error we come to the one we have here.

How exactly is that evidence for an intelligence? As we established some time ago in this thread we all accept that if conditions were different the universe would be different. You however say that an intelligence set up the conditions we have deliberately. It doesn't matter how little a change needs to occur or how many probabilities there are you have not provided evidence for

-Evidence that the probability of our universe being the way it is is 1/infinity
-Evidence that an intelligence is required to resolve 1/infinity probabilities

So please, before you reply address these two points.

As for many worlds I never bought that up. I have no explanation for the reasons that the conditions are the way they are. This is because it is an unknown to science at this time and I am far more comfortable saying "I do not know of an explanation that has enough evidence to be regarded true beyond reasonable doubt. You on the other hand are claiming there must be a God. I'll say it again, please address the two points above that I am posting yet again.

 

[vjk2]

It is true that all we know is carbon-based life which is based on electron behavior. I assume that a different electron constant woudl result in different behavior between molecules. Instead of 8 valence electrons being stable it might be 17 or whatever, and instead of carbon it would be some other proton-electron configuration that life coalesced around.

but as to how the big bang worked out, as I've said before, if constants were slightly different you might only have a big cloud of hydrogen and nothing else...or you might not have enough hydrogen to form water in which RNA strands first form. And we have ample proof of how life could have evolved on Earth given the basic building blocks of the periodic table. and if constants were different there might be a different periodic table, true, or it might have utterly and completely unraveled.

It's all speculative, but I feel like the mountains of observations we have here in this universe with these conditions tilt it in favor of "finely tuned".

in evolution we have evidence of what works -- and also what doesn't work. With the universe, we have evidence of what works -- but NO evidence of what does not work.

 

[SpectraCat]

I am astonished that no one has mentioned the weak and strong anthropic principles throughout all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The strong anthropic principle says that the universe is as we observe because it *had* to be that way ... this is sort of a non-theistic version of the fine-tuning argument. There seems to always be the implication that the universe was created for the purpose of allowing sentient life to evolve, but the question of an intelligent and willful creator is often side-stepped. The SAP is *consistent* with the universe having been deliberately created for "us", but that is not required. One of the interesting variants is tied into the Conciousness Causes Collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics, and basically says that the existence of intelligent life *now* has interfered with the quantum state of the universe (in the Feynman sum-over-histories sense) all the way back to the Big Bang. That "interference" coalesced the universe into it's current form, where sentient life exists. Personally I think it is all just metaphysics .. but it is fun to think about.

The weak anthropic principle is more favored by scientists in general (I believe Hawking is an adherent) ... it says that we observe the universe as it is, because if it were significantly different, then we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thus our position as observers is necessarily privileged. The WAP is also consistent with deliberate creation, but also admits other possibilities, like the "trillions of possible universes, but we only happen to be in just this one" raised by JaredJames. I personally favor this interpretation, because it seems to take less for granted, and allow for more possibilities ... however it is all still just metaphysics until someone can figure out an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that let's us distinguish the difference.

Anyway, there is an absolutely great sci-fi novel related to all of this by Neal Stephenson .. it is called Anathem. It would be cool if things turned out the way they are in the book ...

[EDIT: whoops .. kinda got lost writing that .. anyway .. my point was that vjk2 seems to be arguing the SAP, while ryan and JaredJames are arguing the WAP. I thought maybe introducing those terms might help the conversation break out of the loop that it currently seems to be stuck in.]

 

[JaredJames]

in evolution we have evidence of what works -- and also what doesn't work. With the universe, we have evidence of what works -- but NO evidence of what does not work.

Ignoring the rest of this non-sense.

Given the variety of life on Earth, it is a perfect place to look for things such as evolution. However, unless it is through a telescope we can't investigate universe based issues such as fine tuning so well. So to make out we have no evidence and ignoring the issue of our very limited observations is plain wrong. To then further this and make a comparison to evolution based evidence is ridiculous.

Important for you to learn, a lack of evidence does not support anything and neither does it disprove anything.

Just because we don't have any evidence for X, it does not support your idea of Y (god in this case) and it certainly doesn't disprove X. You're using a lack of evidence for one principle as your sole source of evidence for another (your god hypothesis). This is not how things work.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I am astonished that no one has mentioned the weak and strong anthropic principles throughout all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The strong anthropic principle says that the universe is as we observe because it *had* to be that way ... this is sort of a non-theistic version of the fine-tuning argument. There seems to always be the implication that the universe was created for the purpose of allowing sentient life to evolve, but the question of an intelligent and willful creator is often side-stepped. The SAP is *consistent* with the universe having been deliberately created for "us", but that is not required. One of the interesting variants is tied into the Conciousness Causes Collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics, and basically says that the existence of intelligent life *now* has interfered with the quantum state of the universe (in the Feynman sum-over-histories sense) all the way back to the Big Bang. That "interference" coalesced the universe into it's current form, where sentient life exists. Personally I think it is all just metaphysics .. but it is fun to think about.

The weak anthropic principle is more favored by scientists in general (I believe Hawking is an adherent) ... it says that we observe the universe as it is, because if it were significantly different, then we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thus our position as observers is necessarily privileged. The WAP is also consistent with deliberate creation, but also admits other possibilities, like the "trillions of possible universes, but we only happen to be in just this one" raised by JaredJames. I personally favor this interpretation, because it seems to take less for granted, and allow for more possibilities ... however it is all still just metaphysics until someone can figure out an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that let's us distinguish the difference.

Anyway, there is an absolutely great sci-fi novel related to all of this by Neal Stephenson .. it is called Anathem. It would be cool if things turned out the way they are in the book ...

[EDIT: whoops .. kinda got lost writing that .. anyway .. my point was that vjk2 seems to be arguing the SAP, while ryan and JaredJames are arguing the WAP. I thought maybe introducing those terms might help the conversation break out of the loop that it currently seems to be stuck in.]

I did think of linking some of this in but I was trying to be as simple as possible to break the repetitive nature of this thread. Obviously I didn't succeed!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It is true that all we know is carbon-based life which is based on electron behavior. I assume that a different electron constant woudl result in different behavior between molecules. Instead of 8 valence electrons being stable it might be 17 or whatever, and instead of carbon it would be some other proton-electron configuration that life coalesced around.

but as to how the big bang worked out, as I've said before, if constants were slightly different you might only have a big cloud of hydrogen and nothing else...or you might not have enough hydrogen to form water in which RNA strands first form. And we have ample proof of how life could have evolved on Earth given the basic building blocks of the periodic table. and if constants were different there might be a different periodic table, true, or it might have utterly and completely unraveled.

It's all speculative, but I feel like the mountains of observations we have here in this universe with these conditions tilt it in favor of "finely tuned".

in evolution we have evidence of what works -- and also what doesn't work. With the universe, we have evidence of what works -- but NO evidence of what does not work.

I don't know if you're doing it deliberately or by accident but you keep saying the same thing in different words.

me - Wheres the evidence that the universe was tuned for the purpose of giving rise to what we see?

you - If X was slightly different we wouldn't be here

me - Yes but where's the evidence that the universe was tuned for the purpose of giving rise to what we see?

you - If Y was slightly different we wouldn't be here

So please address this point; there is no evidence that the universe was deliberately tuned. How does looking at the universe and realizing how different it would have been if conditions were different give us any knowledge of why the conditions are so?

 

[Darken-Sol]

one in infinity.

the odds don't matter, especially if you are arguing for a god. i had this same idea except i used any odds (n:1). n for all the times nothing occurred and 1 for our current path. i justified there being 1 chance with our current existence. i assumed until the first change there would be no time. with no time i assumed all outcomes happened simultaneously. the BB then happens and the standard model can fill in the rest. i was told it doesn't make sense because we can't assume there was nothing, your wrong because you assume a god. it is a sound enough explination for me, just not for science, as it is untestable.

 

[thorium1010]

but as to how the big bang worked out, as I've said before, if constants were slightly different you might only have a big cloud of hydrogen and nothing else...or you might not have enough hydrogen to form water in which RNA strands first form. And we have ample proof of how life could have evolved on Earth given the basic building blocks of the periodic table. and if constants were different there might be a different periodic table, true, or it might have utterly and completely unraveled.

I'll address this, like ryan and jared have previously asked where is the evidence for fine tuning. No science book would state all the constants , mass, radiation are fine tuned, only the popular books like the one you refer keeps putting this idea. They (constants) are just the way they are . It is neither made that way or put that way (you have not shown evidence for fine tuning).
If the constants etc etc in the universe were a little different, how do you know what would form or what would it be like or what would the universe be like ? where is the evidence

 

[vjk2]

if x or y was different we wouldn't be here :)

I'm pointing to probability. There are infinite other combinations of possible different physical constants. Some might work. You might see, instead of carbon-based life, aluminum-based life. Others would not. It's not absolute, but slightly different variables would result in a very thin cloud of matter too far apart for molecules to meet let alone form life, or missing basic building things like water, etc.

If there is only one shot at this, and this phrase is important, then the fact that the universe is "tuned" within this small range is extraordinary. 1 or maybe 2-3 in a very large number.

So the proof really is just a logical argument from probability.

So most people trying to argue against fine-tuning don't dwell on the 1 in infinity chance, instead they move on to the argument of a series of alternate universes with slightly different constants and we popped up on the one with this specific bunch, thus making 1 in infinity, um, infinity in infinity.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

if x or y was different we wouldn't be here :)

I'm pointing to probability. There are infinite other combinations of possible different physical constants. Some might work. You might see, instead of carbon-based life, aluminum-based life. Others would not. It's not absolute, but slightly different variables would result in a very thin cloud of matter too far apart for molecules to meet let alone form life, or missing basic building things like water, etc.

If there is only one shot at this, and this phrase is important, then the fact that the universe is "tuned" within this small range is extraordinary. 1 or maybe 2-3 in a very large number.

So the proof really is just a logical argument from probability.

So most people trying to argue against fine-tuning don't dwell on the 1 in infinity chance, instead they move on to the argument of a series of alternate universes with slightly different constants and we popped up on the one with this specific bunch, thus making 1 in infinity, um, infinity in infinity.

Not at all.

Firstly where is the evidence that there was a 1 in infinity chance? Citations from peer-reviewed literature please
Secondly where is the evidence that a God is needed to resolve that 1 in infinity chance? Citations from peer-reviewed literature please
Thirdly where is the evidence that the constants of this universe were deliberately set up? Citations from peer-reviewed literature please.

Your argument is nothing to do with logic let alone "logical argument from probability". Improbabilities, no matter how large (or indeed infinite) are not evidence of the supernatural.

Again you haven't provided any evidence for your claims

 

[FlexGunship]

If there is only one shot at this, and this phrase is important, then the fact that the universe is "tuned" within this small range is extraordinary. 1 or maybe 2-3 in a very large number.

This is an incredibly specious argument. If nothing else it's a bit like arguing how lucky we are that gasoline is combustible since we have so many cars that wouldn't work if it weren't combustible.

If the universe had slightly different qualities, then evolved life would have different qualities. If the universe had significantly different qualities (i.e. such that mass didn't exist), then the discussion is moot. But, and THIS is important, there's nothing to suggest that these values could be anything other than what they are.

• We are very lucky that the perimeter of a square is four times the length of a side, because if it weren't the perimeter would be larger than the square!
• We are so incredibly fortunate that the area of a square is EXACTLY the square of one side because if it weren't, there wouldn't be enough room for the square to fit inside of itself.
• What a great thing it is that the volume of a cube is the cube of one of it's edges. If it weren't, then there would be too small of a space to fit the cube in!

This is what it sounds like when you post statements like the ones above. No one "tuned" a cube to be the correct size. It's an axiomatic property. Until there is evidence of a multi-verse, there is no reason to believe the universe comes in many "flavors." And if there is ever evidence of a multi-verse, then you may apply the anthropic principle to our existence.

 

[thorium1010]

if x or y was different we wouldn't be here :)
If there is only one shot at this, and this phrase is important, then the fact that the universe is "tuned" within this small range is extraordinary. 1 or maybe 2-3 in a very large number.

how do you know there is only one shot for the universe ? Big bang was an only an event in space and time, from which the universe exists as we see it now. (its actually a model which explains all current observations) Where is the evidence that it was forced or put into subsequent events by something outside the universe ?

 

[vjk2]

how do you know there is only one shot for the universe ? Big bang was an only an event in space and time, from which the universe exists as we see it now. (its actually a model which explains all current observations) Where is the evidence that it was forced or put into subsequent events by something outside the universe ?

I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.

Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.

 

[Darken-Sol]

your connection with your god is your own. i know mine is. you can look for reasons to share this connection but there are none. if you doubt your gods existence or need to prove it try another one. god is simply an advanced template with which to compare our selves. science is a god, well, the entire collection of sciences. a means to apply permanence where there is none. a creator as opposed to creation running rampant, which it appears to do. structure amidst chaos. cause and effect and purpose.

 

[thorium1010]

I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.
Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.

Belief has nothing to do with the way physics of universe work. Sometimes faith or belief can cloud science. Having a belief (in god ) and then going out to look for certain things in universe that validates your belief, says more about your belief rather than workings of universe.

whatever scientists observe and predict within that observation has to have evidence or be experimentally verified. Belief (in god) so far has not produced any evidence. when you say there is a compelling reason, as said before Non of the sciences can validate this argument.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.

Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.

You've taken A, linked it to B through nothing more than blind assumption and your own willing to do so and then declared it compelling.

There is nothing logical about it and certainly nothing to support it.

The whole premise is non-sense. Of course, you could provide some evidence as has been requested for the last 3 pages...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.

Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.

Any evidence or logical arguments to back up that claim? If not it's just another faith-based claim

 

[Dotini]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that many prominent scientists such as Hawking adopt the uncomfortable and unobservable multiverse theory precisely because of the need for this universe to be random, i.e., free of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that many prominent scientists such as Hawking adopt the uncomfortable and unobservable multiverse theory precisely because of the need for this universe to be random, i.e., free of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve

What gave you that idea?

 

[Dotini]

What gave you that idea?

"Hawking, like every other physicist, is confronted with powerful evidence of design, as he explains in his book:

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way…. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.(12)"

http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/10745/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx#12

Thus, if you are a "modern scientist", you are forced by Hawking into choosing between a designer and a multiverse. Doesn't he imply you can't have it both ways - or even neither? This bothers me.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"Hawking, like every other physicist, is confronted with powerful evidence of design, as he explains in his book:

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way…. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.(12)"

http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/10745/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx#12

Thus, if you are a "modern scientist", you are forced by Hawking into choosing between a designer and a multiverse. Doesn't he imply you can't have it both ways - or even neither? This bothers me.

I'm very skeptical about this source. For a start the author is claiming that Hawking is trying to come up with excuses not to believe in god, in actual fact Hawking is explaining in a pop science book the various ideas currently rattling around in the physics community. Neither Hawkins, nor any prominent scientist would bow to fine tuning as a valid argument.

Hawking is not forcing any scientists to follow anything, scientists do not defer to some high authority! Science is expressed through evidence, nothing else. Even if Hawking is suggesting that our options are designer or multiverse that doesn't make him right; just like any scientist he is bound by evidence.

None of this is getting us closer to any evidence for fine tuning as myself, Jared, FlexGunship and Thorium1010 have all asked for.

 

[Dotini]

I apologize for that source. It was merely on a google search. Here's a better source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "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."[18]
Unlike Carter they restrict the principle to carbon-based life, rather than just "observers." A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant —, topics that fall under Carter's SAP.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[19]
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[20]

* "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
* "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
* "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.

[21]

I personally am not arguing for a designer or fine-tuning. I'm more concerned about multiverses, and I can see that the apparent trend in most levels of physics is to accept the multiverse in order that the universe not be non-random. Fine-tuning is evidently a strong argument for some highly regarded scientists. I sincerely want you to win this argument, but be aware that you're up against Stephen Hawking and a well-accepted fine tuning science literature.

 

[pftest]

Quote from Paul Davies:

Abstract:The oft-repeated claim that life is ‘written into’ the laws of nature is examined and criticised. Arguments are given in favour of life spreading between near-neighbour planets in rocky impact ejecta (transpermia), but against panspermia, leading to the conclusion that if life is indeed found to be widespread in the universe, some form of life principle or biological determinism must be at work in the process of biogenesis. Criteria for what would constitute a credible life principle are elucidated. I argue that the key property of life is its information content, and speculate that the emergence of the requisite information-processing machinery might require quantum information theory for a satisfactory explanation. Some clues about how decoherence might be evaded are discussed. The implications of some of these ideas for ‘fine-tuning’ are discussed.

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/HowBioFriendlyistheUniverse%2079.pdf

Published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, which is in the PF list of accepted journals.

This is the wikipedia article that mentioned the paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

 

[thorium1010]

First of all paul davies is a physicist not a biologist. He makes assertions that neither supported by evidence nor verified. Its like writing a popular article about making claims of one's pre conceived idea's. Again he is discussing philosophy and making claims which are not supported.

One could re-cast the concept of biogenesis in terms of a search problem: nature searches the chemical decision tree for a ‘target’ state – in this case the RNA world. But searching decision trees is one way that quantum mechanics can greatly improve efficiency

would welcome comments on this

 

[pftest]

First of all paul davies is a physicist not a biologist. He makes assertions that neither supported by evidence nor verified. Its like writing a popular article about making claims of one's pre conceived idea's. Again he is discussing philosophy

Apparently his paper is good enough for a peer reviewed scientific journal.

and making claims which are not supported.

Which claims?

 

[JaredJames]

Please all be aware there is a difference between being fine tuned - which could happen by chance or be part of a multiverse etc etc - than there is being fine tuned by a god.

The claim here is that fine tuning is done by a god(s) to allow our form of life. That is what is being debated (or should be).

 

[pftest]

Quote from Fred Hoyle:

Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982ARA&A..20...1H (page 17)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Published in "ANNUAL REVIEW OF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS", which is in the PF list of accepted journals.

 

[Dotini]

Here are some (but maybe not all) choices to mull over:

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:

1. The absurd universe

Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

2. The unique universe

There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

3. The multiverse

Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.

4. Creationism

A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.

5. The life principle

There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.

6. The self-explaining universe

A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).

7. The fake universe

We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle