Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion. Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again. However, perhaps we've been looking at it all wrong. Perhaps life, as we know it, conceived the universe in which it could thrive. Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low. However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion.
What has science got to do with belief?


However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life?
Then how did life shape those laws before it appeared?


This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.
By "theory" you mean "wild, unsupported speculation".
What observations and evidence are there to support this contention?

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion. Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again. However, perhaps we've been looking at it all wrong. Perhaps life, as we know it, conceived the universe in which it could thrive. Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low. However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.
None of what you said made any sense at all.

The odds of finding Earthlike conditions are not really low so much as that life adapted to Earth like conditions. Kinda a no-brainer, that one.

Either way, your speculation assumes that consciousness retroactively created the physical laws before the physical laws were known and yet still apparent... in spite of early human consciousness attributing observed physical laws to superstition.

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion. Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again. However, perhaps we've been looking at it all wrong. Perhaps life, as we know it, conceived the universe in which it could thrive. Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low. However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.

This is the most pseudo-scientific nonsense I have ever heard in a while? Life perceiving the universe? :roflmao:, and :bravo: on being a huge idiot.

As Dyw said, this is baseless speculation. How will it ever be observed? How will it ever be tested? How will it ever be refuted? A quick question: How did life arise with no time, matter, or space? By your logic, which is rather terrible, it would be fair to say that the universe arose from pre-existing life?

So, my question to you: How did life arise?

I'll try to answer as many questions as I can, here.
As for the "spontaneous generation" issues:
Theories typically don't try to answer all questions; they just offer explanations or scenarios for observed phenomena. This theory doesn't take a firm position on "where" the first organism came from, similar to how Big Bang cosmology doesn't take a firm position on "where" the Universe came from.
The chances of life may be better than zero, however, There is presently zero evidence of extra-biological life in the Universe. This is difficult to explain, as expressed by the Fermi paradox.
It's an extension of John Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle. He argued that the outcomes of experiments like delayed choice and quantum eraser could be explained if we give the observer an active, participatory role rather than a passive role. Otherwise, the anthropic principle by itself calls for either (1) incredibly good fortune, (2) multiple universes, or (3) multiple but very different regions of one universe. This theory is an alternative to those options.

I know what you are saying. But many (including myself) believe that this explanation has a better chance of being tested than, say, many worlds. The biocentric theory proposes that living organisms can appear to physically affect our own universe, which might be demonstrable if the right experiment is set up. We're a long way from demonstrating anything having to do with other universes.

Life is a series of biochemical reactions *as observed by a highly evolved life form*, we humans. The claim is that the observed state of the Universe evolves in parallel with organisms' ability to sense their surroundings. It might be valid to ask, why is the physical Universe necessary? Perhaps it isn't -- it may be a by-product of organisms reproducing and evolving, and human consciousness is like a very clear mirror that allows us to see it all. Just a thought.

Hmm. My simple and effective way of proving that biocentrism is creationism:
1. Biocentrism states that it is organic life which makes the universe. It states that the universe could not have existed before life.
2. Life arose between 3700 and 3500 million years ago, which is what all the evidence currently points to.
3. Abiogenesis would have to be ruled out as an explanation, since no matter, space or time existed for the gradual process of abiogenesis to take place, following the rule that life makes the universe, not the other way around.
4. Therefore, life would have had to pop out of nothing, based on (3). This defies the law of biogenesis, which states that it is impossible for spontaneous generation to take place.
5. Since the theory depends on spontaneous generation of life, and since life makes the universe, it follows that the universe would have to be spontaneously created 3700 million years ago from nothing, since life would have to do so first.
6. This exactly matches with what a form of creationism would posit.
7. Since biocentrism would essentially state the same things that creationism states, it is essentially a form of creationism. QED.

The odds of finding Earthlike conditions are not really low so much as that life adapted to Earth like conditions. Kinda a no-brainer, that one.It's not a no brainer. there are a good number of physicists who find the conditions odd. And the issue is not simply whether DNA based life could form, but any life at all would have been inconceivable if just a few fine differences were there in certain constants. You and I can go back and forth on this, but I assure that there are a good number of scientists who are bothered by this. A number of them consider the conditions such that it points to a multiverse.

No, this theory says nothing about life being intelligent or doing anything with intention, design, or purpose. If you roll a pair of dice and the roll comes up as two sixes, that result was not because of an intelligent decision. You are merely looking at the dice and seeing whatever it is you're seeing. The theory suggests that this is how the entire universe comes about.

No, this theory says nothing about life being intelligent or doing anything with intention, design, or purpose. If you roll a pair of dice and the roll comes up as two sixes, that result was not because of an intelligent decision. You are merely looking at the dice and seeing whatever it is you're seeing. The theory suggests that this is how the entire universe comes about.

No one said anything about Intelligent Design. That movement and everything related to it was killed four and a half years ago. You made nothing more than a straw-man argument. You still failed to answer the question:

How would this be tested?
How would it ever be observed?
How would it be falsifiable?

Your theory is simply special pleading + arguing from ignorance.

Just because physicists don't understand something, does not make it a pretext to throw in a completely untestable hypothesis whose claims are grounded in what can only be considered pure fiction.

Well, you know what they say about something being "just a theory". Besides, many theories of the creation of our universe are entirely untestable. The Big Bang, Creationism, etc. The fact of the matter is, people believe such theories, anyway. I'm not asking you to change your world view, I just ask you to consider. It is for this very reason I present this theory to you. This theory challenges the assumption that physical features of the world can exist in a defined form without having been biologically observed at any time. This perspective is difficult to argue for, but it cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that it doesn't "seem" to be true. One thousand years ago, the round-Earth hypothesis could have been equally dismissed on the same basis. We need new experiments to focus specifically on this question.

It's not a no brainer. there are a good number of physicists who find the conditions odd. And the issue is not simply whether DNA based life could form, but any life at all would have been inconceivable if just a few fine differences were there in certain constants. You and I can go back and forth on this, but I assure that there are a good number of scientists who are bothered by this.
Then by all means: Point them out with citations.

Well, you know what they say about something being "just a theory".
I know that only creationists say that.

Besides, many theories of the creation of our universe are entirely untestable. The Big Bang, Creationism, etc.
False.
COBE
WMAP

The fact of the matter is, people believe such theories, anyway.
Not necessarily. You are equating Belief with observation and acceptance of evidence. They are not equal.

This theory challenges the assumption that physical features of the world can exist in a defined form without having been biologically observed at any time.
No, it doesn't. You have put forth Zero evidence that challenges anything.

This perspective is difficult to argue for, but it cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that it doesn't "seem" to be true.
It isn't.
It's being dismissed on the grounds that it contradicts just about ALL observable evidence.

One thousand years ago, the round-Earth hypothesis could have been equally dismissed on the same basis. We need new experiments to focus specifically on this question.
No, it wasn't.

1,000 years ago, they knew the Earth was round. The ancient egyptians calculated the circumference of the Earth over 4,000 years ago.

NO evidence? I suggest you scroll up, past the quote you cited. :rolleyes:

Neverfly, he ignores that radiometric data returns the age of the earth at a minimum of 4500 to 4570 million years old. I cannot see how he could possibly describe how radiometric dating (11 or 12 methods) are all off by 19.04 percent. Any scientific theory that overturns another has to account for how/why the other seemingly worked so well.

NO evidence? I suggest you scroll up, past the quote you cited. :rolleyes:

I have and I see no evidence up there.

All I see is speculation.

Neverfly, he ignores that radiometric data returns the age of the earth at a minimum of 4500 to 4570 million years old. I cannot see how he could possibly describe how radiometric dating (11 or 12 methods) are all off by 19.04 percent. Any scientific theory that overturns another has to account for how/why the other seemingly worked so well.

Well, he wouldn't be speculating uneducated about his belief properly if he paid attention to evidence, now would he?

Theories are based in speculation. They only become fact when they are tested. Which is what we should be doing! You clearly missed the point of my post. :confused:

My evidence is not evidence that is specifically FOR the theory, it comes about from finding unusual inconsistencies in existing science.
For example:
Special relativity necessitates that motion and timing be described in terms of reference frames rather than in absolute terms. Perhaps you find this presumptuous and illogical, but it has been tested and found to be true. I'm curious why we shouldn't test the proposition (which is not mine) that this necessity be extended to all properties, not just motion and timing.

Hmm. I agree. It's just a mass special pleading. :roflmao:

I think the first guy who proposed the strong version of the anthropic principle was Brandon Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Carter

One of the first semi-mainstream texts to deal with this was
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler by two physicists. They take the strong anthropic principle position, which the OP does also - not that they take it the same way. You can Wiki to get an overview.

One link to a paper discussing how physicists have reacted to the suitablity of life and various constants is

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/Where%20do%20the%20laws%20of%20physics%20come%20fr om.doc

One of the major proponents of the multiverse (there are various versions) is Tegmark. And how he works this in with the Anthropic principle can be found on his website here....
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html


Those references should be enough to start.

Note: it is not remotely the case that even those who believe in the strong anthropic principle believe there must be a God. However many physicists do believe that the appropriateness of the conditions for the coming of life does need to be explained and would not find your short dismissal satisfactory. The proposals around the multiverse are often seen as explaining, in a non-theist way, why conditions are as they are.

The issues surrounding this are not settled.

Based on speculation? Do you even know what you're talking about? A theory is the highest status any hypothesis in science could ever obtain. A scientific theory has overwhelming evidence to support it. Perhaps no one bothered to tell you what a "scientific theory" is

"The first organisms were not conscious" -- ah but they were, in their own primitive way. A bacterium senses and responds to its environment in a complex, non-algorithmic way, and this can be considered a very primitive form of consciousness. Regardless, the reference frames I speak of are necessary *for us* to use when *we* want to describe something rigorously, such as the origin of life or the Universe -- science being the rigorous mathematical/linguistic description of the physical world.

Theories are based in speculation. They only become fact when they are tested. Which is what we should be doing! You clearly missed the point of my post. :confused:

Tested how?


I think the first guy who proposed the strong version of the anthropic principle was Brandon Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Carter

One of the first semi-mainstream texts to deal with this was
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler by two physicists. They take the strong anthropic principle position, which the OP does also - not that they take it the same way. You can Wiki to get an overview.

One link to a paper discussing how physicists have reacted to the suitablity of life and various constants is

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/Where%20do%20the%20laws%20of%20physics%20come%20fr om.doc

One of the major proponents of the multiverse (there are various versions) is Tegmark. And how he works this in with the Anthropic principle can be found on his website here....
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html


Those references should be enough to start.

Note: it is not remotely the case that even those who believe in the strong anthropic principle believe there must be a God. However many physicists do believe that the appropriateness of the conditions for the coming of life does need to be explained and would not find your short dismissal satisfactory. The proposals around the multiverse are often seen as explaining, in a non-theist way, why conditions are as they are.

The issues surrounding this are not settled.


Argument from Authority carries weight. Albeit- little weight.

If there are scientists that are practicing theists, one cannot say that Scientists believe that God is real. (Anthropic Principle aside).

However, what you are citing is different from what haereticum135 is proposing.
Secondly, your assumption is that Earth holds a special place. It really doesn't.
Perhaps the conditions here are more favorable to life than on other planets. Well, then it's a good thing we up and decided to exist here, huh?
It seems reasonable to say that Earth is favorable. After-all, we're here.
What you did NOT show is that the Earth has many specific traits that make life ONLY possible here, that life could NOT develop in similar conditions and adapt to its environment, nor does that demonstrate any validity to haereticum135's claims anyway.

Deep oceanic Worms living at vents probably find their environment perfectly designed for them.

Consciousness = Awareness of surroundings + Ability to collect information on surroundings + Ability to adapt and learn + Decision-making . Bacteria, along with all unicellular organisms, are unaware of their surroundings. They're not even aware. They simply perform the life functions necessary for survival. They cannot make decisions, they only perform their life processes. Bacteria cannot learn or individually adapt, it is simply genetic variation that causes any bacteria or any other unicellular life to adapt to any environment, along with natural selection and evolution. Bacteria cannot collect information on anything, because they are completely unaware of anything surrounding them.

I disagree, bacteria are capable of mutating to adapt. Is that not learning from one's environment?

Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.

Any sort of individual suddenly and randomly changing to another would insta-disprove common descent.

They do not willfully mutate.

Secondly, imagine a machine with gears and cogs.
Is it intelligently turning? Or just doing what its properties make it do?

@Neverfly: Intelligently turning? Only if someone is turning some sort of mechanism which makes the gears turn.

@Neverfly: Intelligently turning? Only if someone is turning some sort of mechanism which makes the gears turn.

mmm maybe not my best example.
Internal combustion engine?

My point was simply that just because a given object follows the properties that govern it, doesn't make it aware.

Water refracts sunlight making a perty rainbow. It didn't mean to, though.

It will follow those properties whether anyone is around to see it or not. It will have no awareness of consciousness about it. It "does" it. But it doesn't "DO" it.

Fair enough. Your still only rhetorical holds as much ground as mine.

Woops, minor error, there. I meant: "Your rhetorical still only holds as much ground as mine."

mmm maybe not my best example.
Internal combustion engine?

My point was simply that just because a given object follows the properties that govern it, doesn't make it aware.

Water refracts sunlight making a perty rainbow. It didn't mean to, though.

It will follow those properties whether anyone is around to see it or not. It will have no awareness of consciousness about it. It "does" it. But it doesn't "DO" it.

You're looking at it backwards. I mean to say life conceived the parameters for its existence.

Woops, minor error, there. I meant: "Your rhetorical still only holds as much ground as mine."

Excellent Point!

So provide some evidence and tip the balance;)

True. Much like bacteria. They are not aware, they simply perform the life processes that make hem alive. But they are not "aware" in any sense that they are doing so.

You're looking at it backwards. I mean to say life conceived the parameters for its existence.

Then explain why it is that the parameters often end up not working as we expected them to?

The Universe is fine-tuned for matter. I think most physicists would agree on this. If someone says that it isn't, it's probably because they have difficulty with the theological implications of such a statement. Others invoke the Multiverse. This theory provides an alternative to multiple universes or an intelligent designer.

"Life conceived the parameters for its existence"
So it gave birth to matter, time, and space? This is pseudo-scientific rhetoric. This guy still does not answer my three questions:

1. How would it be tested?
2. How would it be observed?
3. How would it be falsified?

Fine-tuned? You don't know what you're talking about.

And, please. Cite any credible physicist that agrees with you. Just one

In fact, ordinary matter makes up less than 1 part in 20 of the universe.

Like I said, this is merely a theory. More evidence will arise with time.

The point is, the theory contradicts known science. It's based on mere solipsism. It's just another clever rehash of Intelligent Design.

And the evidence we have so far overwhelmingly points to only one conclusion: Life arose as a by-product of the conditions of a pre-existing universe.

I only posted this in the religion section because philosophy was more applicable to the nature of this thread than anything else.

And the evidence we have so far overwhelmingly points to only one conclusion: Life arose as a by-product of the conditions of a pre-existing universe.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. This theory is explaining exactly that. Circular logic, much?

And, by "theory", you mean "baseless speculation that should not even be called a hypothesis"

There was nothing circular about that statement. I merely stated what the evidence points to.

And, by "theory", you mean "baseless speculation that should not even be called a hypothesis"
Baseless? The base is in that there are inconsistencies in the physical world that need explaining. Hence, the hypothesis.

If a monkey sits in a tree and scratches his nuts, does it happen if a National Geographic Cameraman is not there to photograph the event?

Experiment:
Determine if monkeys nuts were scratched prior to observation.

Materials:
One Monkey that appears to be testicularly disgruntled.

Control:
Five unscratched monkeys wearing boxing gloves.

Results:
Monkey nuts had several nail shaped lines marked on the surface. Skin was broken. Nails had small quantities of nut skin underneath them.

Control group had perfectly intact balls.

Conclusions: Monkeys scratch nuts even when not observed.

For now, I will refer you to the following. It may answer some key questions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZWVai-4DUU&feature=related

@Neverfly: Good use of the scientific method, albeit the experiment was a bit disturbing.

"Baseless? The base is in that there are inconsistencies in the physical world that need explaining. Hence, the hypothesis."

Again, just because physicists do not understand some portion of the physical world, does not make it a pretext to place an untestable hypothesis in its place.

Maybe if you had considered how science works, you wouldn't have even taken the time to defend this ridiculous special pleading. What sort of crackpot dreamed up of this?

The universe is not fine-tuned for life.

This was never mentioned. The topic is, some crackpot is defending an untestable hypothesis that states that the universe arose from pre-existing life. Basically, life tuned the universe.

The proponent of the theory still does not answer the three questions I have provided. Maybe he's avoiding them instead of conceding that he's wrong?

It's like creationists when backed into a corner. They either make things up or simply run away from the discussion.

And I see that the forum has died.. Maybe some sort of mod will arrive and delete the thread.

Here is a site with some articles on the Anthropic Principle: some supporting, some not.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html

Life was a mere by-product of the universe. The notion that it has to be "designed" or somehow "intended" is a mere argument from ignorance.

"I cannot understand how it came to be, therefore it has to be intended"

Based on speculation? Do you even know what you're talking about? A theory is the highest status any hypothesis in science could ever obtain. A scientific theory has overwhelming evidence to support it. Perhaps no one bothered to tell you what a "scientific theory" isWho was this directed at?

Argument from Authority carries weight. Albeit- little weight.It carries weight when I am saying it is not a no brainer. If I can produce physicists - including ones who publish regularly in their field - for whom the issue seems to warrent an explanation, then this is evidence of my assertion. I do no think either you or I are actually well enough trained to decide whether those pro or con are correct. That is a separate issue. I am not making the case that the Strong Anthropic principle is correct.


If there are scientists that are practicing theists, one cannot say that Scientists believe that God is real. (Anthropic Principle aside).Never asserted anything remotely like this.


However, what you are citing is different from what haereticum135 is proposing.
Secondly, your assumption is that Earth holds a special place. It really doesn't.
Earth, as a planet in the universe, is not a part of the Anthropic principle per se. That there can be an earth or any planet that supports life is the issue. But, again, please note. I was asserting that the issue is not resolved and people with good brains feel that the apparant fine-tuning warrents explanation.


Perhaps the conditions here are more favorable to life than on other planets. Well, then it's a good thing we up and decided to exist here, huh?
It seems reasonable to say that Earth is favorable. After-all, we're here.
What you did NOT show is that the Earth has many specific traits that make life ONLY possible here, that life could NOT develop in similar conditions and adapt to its environment, nor does that demonstrate any validity to haereticum135's claims anyway.

Deep oceanic Worms living at vents probably find their environment perfectly designed for them.I don't think you understand the Anthropic Principle because these examples are off target.

I included another link in a later post that has some more articles on the subject.

"Who was this directed at?"

This was directed at the proponent of the biocentric fairytale.

"Who was this directed at?"

This was directed at the proponent of the biocentric fairytale.Then you might want to consider using the quote function, otherwise people will think you are responding to the posts just above yours. You might also consider consolidating your posts.

Doreen: "Then you might want to consider using the quote function, otherwise people will think you are responding to the posts just above yours. You might also consider consolidating your posts."

A bit too lazy to do so.

It carries weight when I am saying it is not a no brainer. If I can produce physicists - including ones who publish regularly in their field - for whom the issue seems to warrent an explanation, then this is evidence of my assertion.
what issue warrants an explanation?



Never asserted anything remotely like this.
It was not a response to something you asserted. It was an example I provided to demonstrate the weakness of Argument from Authority.


I was asserting that the issue is not resolved and people with good brains feel that the apparant fine-tuning warrents explanation.
How is it not resolved?


Doreen-- My examples are based solely on yours.

YOU said that you could produce cites for scientists claiming that Multiverse helps explain Why the Earth is "Perfect" for Life.

You said:



The odds of finding Earthlike conditions are not really low so much as that life adapted to Earth like conditions. Kinda a no-brainer, that one.
It's not a no brainer. there are a good number of physicists who find the conditions odd. And the issue is not simply whether DNA based life could form, but any life at all would have been inconceivable if just a few fine differences were there in certain constants. You and I can go back and forth on this, but I assure that there are a good number of scientists who are bothered by this. A number of them consider the conditions such that it points to a multiverse.

This was about the Earth and Life on it.

Whether or not Life has adapted well to the conditions or your claim that the conditions are fine tuned to life.

Your links only support a multi-verse explanation toward the Hubble Volume. Or the Universe itself, observed and unobservable.

what issue warrants an explanation?that the universe even allows the possibility of life, given how even minute shifts in constants make not simply DNA based life impossible, but any kind of life we consider possible.


It was not a response to something you asserted. It was an example I provided to demonstrate the weakness of Argument from Authority.OK, it came after what I wrote, so I thought it related to me.


How is it not resolved?There is not consensus around the various anthropic principles in the physics community.


Doreen-- My examples are based solely on yours.

YOU said that you could produce cites for scientists claiming that Multiverse helps explain Why the Earth is "Perfect" for Life.OK. I can see how you took what I meant. But the anthropic principles deals with the possibility that life friendly conditions of any kind could form anywhere in a given universe or in this universe. The scientists who feel that a multiverse is indicated are not focusing only on earth, but on the universe as a whole and why the constants have ended up falling in a very tight range where any life at all is possible.


Whether or not Life has adapted well to the conditions or your claim that the conditions are fine tuned to life.I am not claiming that they are fine-tuned. I am claiming that scientists 1) think they fall within a remarkably small range that could support any life at all and 2) that a subset of these scientists think it is odd enough to demand some sort of explanation. Some of these latter think a multiverse explanation helps to explain why the conditions are just so.


Your links only support a multi-verse explanation toward the Hubble Volume. Or the Universe itself, observed and unobservable.My links in the two posts I had links show that the issue of the strong anthropic principle is and has been under discussion in the physics community and that some link a solution to the multiverse explanation.

My assertion is that it is not a no brainer because people with hefty brains are working to deal with the issue and were not satisfied with an explanation such as yours. There are physicists who make a similar argument to your short dismissal much earlier in this thread. You are these physicists may be correct. However given that enough very intelligent brains out there take the other side or at least put in a great deal of effort explaining there differences with the various anthropic principles, the issue is not a no brainer.

here is another link that gives a nice neutral overview....

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_anthropic_principle.asp

that the universe even allows the possibility of life, given how even minute shifts in constants make not simply DNA based life impossible, but any kind of life we consider possible.
Where do you get this idea at all?
Amino Acids have been found in interstellar dust for decades.

Expermiments have shown that life can form from base chemical structures even in a matter of decades, and chemically, the structure of life makes it almost seem inevitable.

OK. I can see how you took what I meant. But the anthropic principles deals with the possibility that life friendly conditions of any kind could form anywhere in a given universe or in this universe. The scientists who feel that a multiverse is indicated are not focusing only on earth, but on the universe as a whole and why the constants have ended up falling in a very tight range where any life at all is possible.
Just because they do not focus on Earth does not support the idea that Earth has a very tight band in which life can develop. I can rattle of dozens of possible life forms in very extreme environments- Ala Carl Sagan style.
Your argument doesn't support your claim.

I am not claiming that they are fine-tuned. I am claiming that scientists 1) think they fall within a remarkably small range that could support any life at all
Again- Who thinks that?
I, for one, have only heard that claim made by creationists. All the scientists involved, however, say that life adapted here and that's why creationists think that band of possibility is so narrow.
No scientist that is aware of extremophiles right here on Earth, including bacteria living in extreme environments deep below the surface of the Earth, would bother with the notion that the band is that narrow.

and 2) that a subset of these scientists think it is odd enough to demand some sort of explanation. Some of these latter think a multiverse explanation helps to explain why the conditions are just so.
From your links, I saw no scientists claiming ANY of what you just said.
The most I saw was one article raising the possibility of multi-verse influence.


My assertion is that it is not a no brainer because people with hefty brains are working to deal with the issue and were not satisfied with an explanation such as yours. There are physicists who make a similar argument to your short dismissal much earlier in this thread. You are these physicists may be correct. However given that enough very intelligent brains out there take the other side or at least put in a great deal of effort explaining there differences with the various anthropic principles, the issue is not a no brainer.



Very intelligent brains also take the idea of a divine creator seriously. That doesn't mean that their claim has sudden merit simply because they are intelligent.

I'd like to see who, exactly, thinks that the conditions on Earth are SO odd for life, that they require further explanation. Because that is certainly not the mainstream view. It is not the chemists view. It is not the physicists view. Nor the biologists, astronomers or archeologists.

Earth chauvinism much?

Ex: Earth's orbit can change 37% before it would be dangerous to life anyway. O_O

Hmm. To think that this started from a thread initially attempting to defend biocentricity.

It seems odd that the topic diverged to arguing whether or not the universe was "fine-tuned"

And, I must get going. Later, whoever remains.

It seems odd that the topic diverged to arguing whether or not the universe was "fine-tuned"

Hijackers, AWAY!


Here, we come, to save the day....

Neverfly: "Hijackers, AWAY!


Here, we come, to save the day.... "


Lolwut.

In our modern world, nothing has kept religion on the defensive more than the theodicy question and the failure or ability of religion to offer any direct evidence for a God to support its claims. That may all be about to change with a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ spreading on the web. But it's not coming from any known religious source or tradition and they won't like it. Quoting from a review:

"Here then is the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable and 'extraordinary' evidence* based truth embodied in action. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must now measure for itself, the reality of a new claim to revealed truth, a moral tenet not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief!"

Revolutionary stuff for those who will test this material for themselves. As I'm not yet allowed to offer active links, here it is in long hand. After the www stuff and the period is energon and a period and org and a period and uk

But it's not coming from any known religious source or tradition
Apart from the extensive references to the bible... :rolleyes:
(Oh, and a smattering of Milton and the M People :eek:).


After the www stuff and the period is energon and a period and org and a period and uk
There's a reason you're not allowed to post links yet. It cuts down on the drivel that gets spammed here. Oh wait, you've skirted that objective.

And whoever wrote that "review" seems to know little about what constitutes verifiability or what proof actually is. You cannot obtain proof by faith. By definition.


This is the only living and testable proof of the living God ever to exist, the perfect, incontrovertible and immutable proof of the Law of Life, the Prophets and Jesus the Christ.
Riight...
Sheer nonsense.

It says right at the bottom of the home page that this crap is "for dreamers and fools only." At least they're honest!

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion.


Two short observations:

1. Science was invented in modern times, say from the 17th century on. So by "throughout the history of mankind" we mean "NOT throughout the history of mankind", unless we propose to redefine science to mean something other than it means today.

2. This narrative is a stock piece of late 19th century anti-Christian rhetoric. Wouldn't it be better to think for oneself, rather than trotting out these tired old slogans.

Perhaps we could rewrite this in a somewhat more accurate form:

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have been a convenient conformity to some subset of whatever values were current in the society at the time; or Christianity.

The first half of that is certainly true; but the second?

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion.Religion, at least in the Jungian model, is an instinct that has been with us since at least our MRMCA (most recent matrilineal common ancestor), Mitochondrial Eve ca. 120KYA. Science as we know it is a product of the Renaissance, 1/2 KYA. Modern science with its rigor, peer review, canon of very-unlikely-to-be-disproved theories, etc, only goes back about 350 years.
Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again.E.g., the persecution of Galileo and the current Religious Redneck Retard Revival in the United States with its Creation "Science" Museum in Kentucky, America's outhouse.
Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low.Most of these people are Americans and Americans are abysmally poor at understanding probability and statistics. We have no reason to doubt that the space-time continuum is infinite in all spatial and temporal directions; therefore any event with a non-zero probability can occur, and could even occur more than once. The fact that we happen to be standing here in a place where one of those events occurred is merely a corollary of the fact that we could hardly be standing anywhere else now, could we?
However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.That is different only in its minutiae from the creationist argument: some lifeform existed, and it created the universe. The problem with that argument is the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning, which is arguably the cornerstone of religion's so-called "philosophy." The definition of the word "universe" is "everything that exists." If that earliest lifeform existed, then by definition it was part of the universe. So we're left with the unanswered question, "Where the f*** did IT come from?"


This narrative is a stock piece of late 19th century anti-Christian rhetoric. Wouldn't it be better to think for oneself, rather than trotting out these tired old slogans.Thinking for oneself does not require one to discard the thinking of those who came before; merely to regard it critically.
Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have been a convenient conformity to some subset of whatever values were current in the society at the time; or Christianity. The first half of that is certainly true; but the second?I'm not sure what you present as the difference between those two halves. Except during the time of its founding, when it took advantage of the collapse of Roman civilization to offer irrational hope to hopeless people, Christianity has been "the values that were current in society at the time" in (at various times) all, most or much of Western civilization.

Even today in the increasingly secularized portions of the West, many tenets of Christian philosophy are widely accepted without argument. Perhaps most notoriously but generally overlooked, the notion that what one contributes to civilization need not correlate with one takes out of it--the founding principle of communism--is a Christian principle based on the belief that supernatural forces interfere with the workings of the natural world and of human society. Marx's slogan, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," is a reworking of a passage from the Book of Acts. Can you imagine a self-respecting member of a Hindu, Jewish or Confucian society becoming famous for saying something so totally ridiculous that one of the largest nations in history collapsed by trying to make it work?

Two short observations:

1. Science was invented in modern times, say from the 17th century on. So by "throughout the history of mankind" we mean "NOT throughout the history of mankind", unless we propose to redefine science to mean something other than it means today.

2. This narrative is a stock piece of late 19th century anti-Christian rhetoric. Wouldn't it be better to think for oneself, rather than trotting out these tired old slogans.

Perhaps we could rewrite this in a somewhat more accurate form:

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have been a convenient conformity to some subset of whatever values were current in the society at the time; or Christianity.

The first half of that is certainly true; but the second?

Maybe what they meant was empirical observation, which has existed throughout time. Historians speak of Chinese, Persian and Hindu science, none of which had a relationship with whatever happened in Europe in the XVIIth century.

That is so eurocentric. Also, Archimedes and Roger Bacon were empirical researchers, one lived in classical times, and another was a medieval friar. "Modern science" refers to something more sociological than epistemological: the time when scientists stopped bowing down to the Roman Catholic Church. But you must recognize that the whole world was not under the RCC.

Wow! How chicken and egg! No one can really say what the case is, yet so many get p'd off over it. :shrug: