The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/this-definition-from-wikipedia-seems-sufficiently-34316109.aspx

Subject:  Re: You don't suck Date:  10/12/2019  6:10 PM
Author:  JamesBrown Number:  27007 of 27159

This definition from Wikipedia seems sufficiently defined to me

Yes, I've read that, and it seems incomplete to me as well.

The fine-tuned universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life as we know it in the Universe can occur perhaps only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow or very wide range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly or greatly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.

I'm no scientist, but it seems to me like looking at a card hand in a poker game, seeing a Royal Flush, and concluding that the dealer is feeding me a 'finely tuned' hand.

It also strikes me as curious that the argument states that the universe was carefully designed (by whom?) to be conducive to life, and yet life in the universe is vanishingly rare.

The argument seems unfalsifiable. If we found life on Mars and the Moon and everywhere we looked in the Universe, then Creationists would say that's proof that the Universe is designed for life. If we found life only on Earth, Creationists say that's proof that the Universe is designed for life. If life was not found anywhere, including on Earth, then no one would be arguing that the Universe is designed for life--but that's only because there's no life to make the argument.

I heard one physicist say that he can't understand what people mean when they argue that certain parameters in the universe are finely-tuned given that the upper boundary of some of those parameters is infinite.

Which ones are those? Obviously when a scientist is talking about a fine-tuned parameter, he's not talking about one with infinite limits


Sorry, I don't recall that he even said, and I only saw it in passing in a video somewhere. Forget I mentioned it.
Copyright 1996-2021 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us