Chris
>But, out of all imaginable sets of laws of physics, there must be millions
>of (at least technically) distinguishable sets of laws that would support
>life. Further, if the basic metaphysics of Existence happens to be of a
>certain kind, then it might not even be possible for there to be set of
>laws
>of physics that DON'T support life simply as a side-effect of what it is
>for
>a universe to exist at all. I'd guess that this is the case, though I have
>no real argument for it except the fact that I exist and therefore know
>that
>at least one universe has laws that DO support life.
>---------------------------------------------------
Zygmunt
>Chris, I think you have to admit that this paragraph is SHEER
>speculation,
You mean, like design theory? :-) Well, it's PARTLY speculation. Or maybe
even partly SHEER speculation. But not entirely. See below.
Zygmunt
>and you basically admit you have no real argument
>for it apart from ONE datum...the universe we live in.
And knowledge of comuter simulations of other evolutionary environments, and
abstracting from the facts of life those GENERAL characteristics that life
MUST have in order to BE life. Life is no miracle. It is, in essence, fairly
simple (compared, say, to a modern computer). It's a phenotypical method for
certain kinds of information to survive (in a general sense of survival).
It's metabolic in that it uses energy in ways that generally help it survive
and perpetuate its infemes (information stored in genes). Typically,
biologists do not consider viruses to be lifeforms because they don't do
much in the way of taking in and using energy; instead, they "talk" host
cells into doing the work for them. They may be little more than molecular
information storage and a protective shell. I think the only essential is
that life actively uses energy and information to help it perpetuate the
information stored in whatever it uses for genes.
Once you understand this, you can understand that any environment that
enables some sort of simple structure (e.g., molecules) to reproduce and
vary and become more sophisticated in terms of information storage and use
(relative to the local environment) can at least support life-LIKE
activities.
Zygmunt
>It seems to
>me that a fairly large body of evidence, which falls under the loose
>heading of "The Anthropic Principle", indicates that your speculation
>is unlikely to be true. Barrow and Tipler's "The Anthropic Cosmological
>Principle" contains a laundry list of "finely-tuned" aspects of the laws
>of nature which cannot be varied without drastically changing the ability
>of the universe to support life.
I don't think so. It contains a laundry list of aspects of the laws of
nature which cannot be varied one at a time without drastically changing the
ability of the Universe to support the kind of life we are used to.
However, other kinds of life are conceivable, and, more importantly, if
multiple variables are changed so that they have a new balance, that new
balance can support life (again, not necessarily life based on water,
carbon, DNA, etc., of course). Tippler makes the same mistakes Hoyle did
before him; basing an argument on unproved assumptions (i.e., speculations).
My speculations above are counter-speculations. If we are going to
speculate, why are only DESIGN-oriented speculations acceptable?
Why are Tippler's speculative assumptions better than those of anyone else?
(Well, they're probably better than the speculations of SOME other people;
he at least had a contemporary knowledge of physics.)
Zygmunt
>Perhaps you are already familiar with
>these examples, such as the inverse-square laws of gravitation and
>electromagnetism. Both the exponent of the distance and the coupling
>constants in these physical laws can't be varied significantly from their
>observed values without jeopardizing the stability of planetary orbits AND
>electron states in atoms.
Chris
Yeah, but suppose we replace electromagnetism with something else
altogether, and gravity, too, and flatten the universe into a disk only a
light-year thick (so that light (if any) is forced by a reverse
pseudo-Swartschild boundary to spread according to the inverse of the
distance, once it starts bouncing back and forth between the boundaries as
it spreads. And replace electrons and protons with something else. What
THEN? (Damn if I know; the point is we can't ASSUME that all universes have
the same basic forces and particles at all (though, out of everything I
might be able to think of, if I thought I were going to visit one of these
other universes, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on what I know about and what
I KNOW is possible; our own cozy set of forces and laws and constants)).
Whether we are speculating that there was a designer (and who or what it
might be or have been), or speculating that there are other "universes,"
it's still speculation. If we want to CLAIM any of them are true, we have a
burden of proof. BUT, the burden is bigger in the case of transcendant,
SuperDuperNatural Omni-everything Hyper-infinite GODS than it is for
speculations that the designing was done by aliens or that there are many
other "universes" (which, at least might be scientifically testable in the
ordinary way, eventually, whereas God, if he chooses, can hide forever,
perhaps NEVER bothering to show Himself).
And, who said a life-supporting universe has to have planets: As Forward
suggests, life may be possible on the surface of a neutron star, with no
atoms at all. We assume that life requires certain things because we think
in terms of life on Earth, life that DOES require those things. But there is
no reason at all to believe that these PARTICULAR components are the only
ones that will support life. In fact, there are many computer simulations
that suggest that life can exist in MANY different contexts (including withi
n computers themselves).
>These two phenomena observed in our universe
>may well be minimal requirements for the existence of life.
Chris
The minimal requirements for the existence of life are much more general, as
is indicated by the fact that even life on Earth lives in a vast array of
significantly different environments, ranging from anaerobic to
oxygen-using, from undersee heat vent temperatures in the hundreds of
degrees to temperatures well below zero, from pressures well below that of
sea level, to pressures of many hundreds of pounds per square inch, from
brilliant sunshine to caves where light never enters. etc., etc., etc. This
at least SUGGESTS that life is not as unimaginitive as Hoyle, Tippler, et
al, are on this issue. If the basics are present (the ability of the local
form of "matter" to stably form a gradated range of "molecules" from simple
to complex, "molecules" that can be varied and reproduced, and some sort of
"energy"), then life not only CAN occur, but almost MUST occur, given enough
time and natural variation of the local environmental materials to ensure
that the right basic "atoms" get together. Of course, the early stage is
only the self-reproduction of these "molecules"; it is not life, but it can
evolve INTO life, as soon as one of the "molecules" becomes able to make use
of local energy or information to improve its chances of perpetuating the
information that gave rise to that particular "molecular" structure.
(I put certain words in quotes because I'm trying to encourge the reader to
look on these various factors as "functors," rather than SPECIFIC needs of
life. Life needs something that performs the same FUNCTIONS as do molecules,
but they need not be what WE would call molecules. The "matter" does not
even need to be matter; in a computer simulation, it may be no more than a
certain kind of chunk of information that abstractly behaves like matter.
Etc. etc.
Zygmunt
>Now, having said this, I'm not going to claim that the conclusion of
>a designed universe is necessary. Of course, one may avoid that concusion
>in a number of ways, most popularly by the "many-universes" assumption (I
think
>Willaim of Occam would have something to say about that!).
Chris
Yes, I suppose he would. One is naturalistic and does not require the
introduction of a radically new kind of entity. The other is
SUPERnaturalistic (usually), and DOES require the introduction of a
radically new kind of entity. In comparison to theistic versions of design
theory, postulating a larger universe of which ours is a part is very mild
indeed; it's just more of the same, with minor variations. Supernaturalism
(i.e., a METAPHYSICALLY transcendent God) is NOT just more of the same. It
requires VASTLY stronger evidence than some variation on the many-universes
theory.
In any case, Occam's Razor puts supernaturalism after naturalistic theories
because of the radical new non-natural entity that must be introduced.
Further, it would take less drastic evidence to support the view that there
is only one universe that changes form every few trillion years, perhaps
randomly (i.e., not acausally, but without planning or purpose) through the
"Big Bang" cycle. This would allow it to "try" trillions of trillions of
trillions of possible variations, given enough time. Some of them would have
to be "fine-tuned" and thus support life. Even if only one in every 10 to
the trillionth power cycles were to be suited to life, life WOULD still
arise, and then, in many such cases, there would be a being like Tippler who
comes along and marvels at how "fine-tuned" the universe is and who
concludes that it musta been DESIGNED that way.
Am I still speculating? You bet your Asimov I am! In this area, that's all
we mostly HAVE, is speculations. Some people speculate that there's a
designer. Some speculate that life doesn't need a designer. I'm trying to
show that there is no magical validity to Tippler/Hoyle, or theistic,
speculations as opposed to many OTHER speculations.
Zygmunt
>There are other
>ways too. One can blunt the force of the argument for design from
>"fine-tuning" by arguing that the constraints I mentioned still leave room
>for combinations of physical laws, coupling constants, etc. that might
support
>life. One can also argue that there may well be forms of life that we
cannot
>yet imagine that might flourish in a universe that we think is harsh and
>inhospitable to life. But these are speculations with no evidence in their
>favor. I would welcome the comments of the list's resident expert on the
>Anthropic Principle, Brian Harper, on these options.
>
>But I write this mainly to dispute your claim that "there must be millions"
>of possible physical laws that would support life. It seems to me that
>what evidence there is on this topic, even though it is not complete,
>points in the opposite direction. So why are you so confident in your
>assertion?
Chris
I was speaking only from a LOGICAL point of view, not a PHYSICAL point of
view. It may well be that the basic substance of Existence only permits ONE
set of laws of physics. I don't know; I'm speculating again. However, even
if the LAWS of physics are strictly uniform, the conditions in different
"universes" (either at the same time as ours or in different Big Bang
cycles) may be quite different (again, for all we know). A universe with
much MORE matter, for example, would be greatly different from a universe
with much LESS matter. And, if the force of the Big Bang is different, THAT
would produce different results. If we increase the force of the Big Bang
and the mass simultaneously, and by just the right amounts, we'd still get a
balance that would (at least for a while) allow life to occur. The laws of
physics would be identical, but the overall behavior of the universe in the
long run might be very different. But locally, and in the short run, there
would be many "pockets" where conditions would be very similar to what Earth
had a few billion years ago: The same materials, the same molecular
possibilities, the same temperature ranges, etc. The general conditions of
Earth-type life in the universe might not last as long, or they migh last
longer (I don't know and don't plan to do the calculations any time soon),
but they would exist for a while at least. This, I AM fairly confident of.
Zygmunt:
>Let me say, by the way, that I found much in your post that was
>helpful and on-target. You posed a clear set of challenges for the
>ID theorists to address if they want to develop an empirical science
>rather than a philosophical point of view.
Chris
Thanks.