Explaining universe based on purpose/source

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimjohnson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why our "fine-tuned" universe exists, exploring various theories and perspectives related to its purpose and source. Participants examine options such as intelligent design, the multiverse theory, and the possibility of a simulated universe, while also considering the implications of evolution and the nature of existence itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the universe exists by accident and permits life and intelligence without a clear purpose.
  • Others suggest a "theory of everything" that mathematically describes the universe's forces and constants, but question whether this truly provides an answer.
  • The multiverse theory is mentioned as a possible explanation, positing numerous cosmic domains with varying parameters and laws.
  • Intelligent design is presented as a viewpoint where a creator designs the universe for life, while some challenge this notion as lacking explanatory power.
  • Some participants argue that the fine-tuning of the universe could be a result of evolution, although this perspective is not universally accepted.
  • There is a contention regarding the concept of fine-tuning itself, with some asserting it implies a purpose, while others argue it could be a product of chance.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the fine-tuning argument, suggesting that if conditions were different, evolution could have led to different life forms or mechanisms.
  • Discussions also touch on the idea that the universe might not need to be fine-tuned for life, as it could exist independently of such requirements.
  • Some participants introduce additional concepts, such as the "life law" and the self-explaining universe, which posit that life is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of a purpose or source for the universe. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing debate about the validity of the fine-tuning argument and the implications of evolution.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the nature of existence and the definitions of fine-tuning, which remain unresolved. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives without definitive conclusions.

  • #31
jimjohnson said:
Is this response an opinion? Many scientist support the anthropic principle which has life as a purpose.
That's just completely false. The anthropic principle says nothing even close to that.

The anthropic principle, in the form it is generally used by scientists, is just a selection effect: it says that the only sort of universe observers will ever observe is one where they can exist. For example, intelligent observers will never observe themselves living on an uninhabitable planet, because if it were uninhabitable, they couldn't survive there.

This is the way the anthropic principle is used within science, and it is the only way that it is even a coherent statement.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
You are quoting the weak principle. The "final" principle states "intelligence must develop wihin the universe and then never die out." Also, the strong principle "the universe must have the properties for life..." This is purpose.
 
  • #33
jimjohnson said:
You are quoting the weak principle. The "final" principle states "intelligence must develop wihin the universe and then never die out." Also, the strong principle "the universe must have the properties for life..." This is purpose.
Yeah, you won't find any significant support for that within the scientific community. A good summary of what most scientists think of this sort of thing can be summed up by the last sentence in the Wikipedia page on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle
Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
10K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K