Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: February 24, 2020 06:34PM
"More of your nature worshiping theological preaching, using pop-science for your scriptures (could you imagine if a another religious leader came and posted regularly about various scriptures and religious views like you do?), but I'll bite..."
COMMENT: Don't be ridiculous. The evolution of the universes (including ours) as deriving from natural selection of black holes is a well-developed theory by a highly respected physicist, namely Lee Smolin. It is not "pop-science." (See Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos, Chapter 7) Moreover, there are numerous books by highly respected physicists that take the anthropic principle (that life appears to be fine-tuned for life) seriously. So, this is not pop-science either.
_______________________________________
"The universe wasn't created "just right for the emergence of life"... There is no proof for that. Life exists in this universe the way it does because the conditions worked out that way. Life here is constrained by those conditions, not the other way around."
COMMENT: Absolutely wrong! It is well-established that the laws of the universe *are* as a matter of fact "fine-tuned" for life. Many books address this issue. For example, physicist Paul Davies stated:
"If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. Now, it happens that to meet these various requirements, certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe, so stringent in fact that a bio-friendly universe looks like a fix -- or a "put-up job," to use the pithy description of the late British cosmologist Fred Hoyle. It appeared to Hoyle as if a superintellect had been "monkeying" with the laws of physics. He was right in his impression. On the face of it, the universe *does* look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings."
This is just one example from one physicist. There are hundreds of similar statements, although perhaps not this strong. It is hardly even controversial that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life. What *is* controversial is explaining it. That is precisely why Smolin came up with his evolution through black holes theory, and why cosmologist insist on the idea of multiple universes, partly to explain cosmological selection to life.
________________________________________________
"Physicists have been struggling..." Who are these "physicists"? Are they the majority? Is there importance in the field being inflated for entertainment purposes? Are their statements being taken out of context? Were they stating metaphors to simplify statements for people who aren't physicists? I have a feeling that you can guess my answers to these questions.
COMMENT: They are all over. This is a controversial, but well-established and serious issue. It is NOT pop-science. You obviously have not read the literature on this issue, and have no idea what you are talking about.
_______________________________________
Here's a quote that I like that demonstrates the problem with starting from the idea that the universe was created for life, rather than life working because the rules of the universe allow it:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
-- Douglas Adams
COMMENT: This is a ridiculous and false analogy. It is perfectly legitimate to assess the laws of the universe, and consider what parameters of such laws were necessary for life; and how life would be precluded if such laws were changed. Once it is determined that such laws are rigidly "fixed" in favor of life, it is appropriate to ask why our universe has laws that are conducive to life in the context of an infinity of possibilities, the vast majority of which could not sustain life.
__________________________________________
You, schrodingerscat, are the puddle, arrogantly assuming that the universe was created for you. Starting from the assumption, rather than seeing where the data takes you. There is a danger in that. It easily leads us down incorrect paths and can keep one from finding the truth.
COMMENT: SC can often be criticized, but not this time. It is you that are ill-informed.
_______________________________________
But of course, TV shows like this don't care about that. It's popular science to get viewers, which can be very problematic. At best, it's science for entertainment, at worst it's misleading and misinformation. Usually, it's all of the above.
COMMENT: Although this may be a popularized presentation, this is an established scientific theory by a highly regarded cosmologist.