If the laws of physics or other universal constants were slightly different we likely wouldn't have stars or planets or life. So in a sense the universe is fine tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires.
>>7578967 >Your analogy doesn't relate to what he said though. But it was a good try. Not him, but he's right. "fine tuned = any remote possibility of any self-replicating stuff" is a remarkably loose definition, and while the phrase is meant to be suggestive, this definition is disappointing, since it could probably apply to nearly any potential universe Sure, if things were any different it wouldn't be the same, but it's likely *some* form of life was bound to exist at some stage of the universe's existence, no matter how much you twiddle the parameters.
A better definition might be: "fine" = meeting a narrow band of parameters "tuned" = adjusted by someone ...in which case, no, the universe isn't fine-tuned for life.
>>7578977 >If laws of physics or other universal constants were slightly different we likely wouldn't have stars or planets Stars and planets aren't the only possible environment for life. And "slightly different" is a meaningless term until we have other universes to compare this one to. What if humans had only seen one giraffe, ever. How would we know if it's neck was unusually long for a giraffe? For all you know, nearly all universes have stars and planets.
Besides... >>7578980 >if it wasn't we wouldn't be here
Asking "what are the odds life would form here?" is a bullshit question because we ARE here. You're asking "what are the odds I'd be born in a world that supports life"?. The answer is "100%", no matter wht a long shot life itself was to begin with.
Nope, that's completely wrong. If life is just self-replicating patterns of _something_ that can change over time to adapt to its environment, then it could exist in nearly any universe. That's not "insanely speculative", it's just common sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
>>7579018 >And the chance of life getting to where it is today is just as small. The next time you get a flat tire, consider this: no matter which tire went flat, the odds were 3:1 against it being that particular tire.
>>7579024 It's hard to discuss this without a definition of life.
You are defining life as a self replicating pattern of something. Is it fair to simply reduce this as a repeating pattern? I fail to see how conways game of life is relevant to this, as that does not show life, at least by my understanding.
>>7579041 I'm not implying that, which is why I qualified my statements using life as we know it.
It's largely a waste of time to discuss the existence of life in a star less universe as it is so speculative.
From the evidence we have observed in this universe, there is nothing to suggest that life can form solely from hydrogen and helium. This doesn't mean its absolutely impossible as I don't know, I just think its very unlikely.
>>7579052 >life as we know it. Then you're really just saying "if it were any different, it wouldn't be the same". philosophical masturbation
>>7579052 >waste of time to discuss the existence of life in a star less universe You can't show that starless universes are more likely than star-filled ones. And by "waste of time" I assume you mean "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LA-LALA-LA"
>>7579052 >nothing to suggest that life can form solely from hydrogen and helium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
>>7579068 >Then you're really just saying "if it were any different, it wouldn't be the same". philosophical masturbation I'm setting out the scope of my point. I have absolutely no idea what life other than ours might be like. Neither do you.
>You can't show that starless universes are more likely than star-filled ones. I'm not attempting to show this. I'm just saying that complex molecules, a prerequisite for life as we know it, cannot form in a starless universe.
What life is, is a system that deals with entropy than your average rubble of atoms. The life you see is the type of system that would best fit the environment it was first in. If it wasn't "fine-tuned" as you said, thatn there would be another type of "life", that would fit in that environment, because that is how physics work you fucking retard.
>>7579127 Entropy isn't real, dumbdumb. It's merely a statement about the constructs of closed systems and the consequences of isolating variables. In no way is it indicative of how the universe operates, it's merely a rule of what to expect while observing it in tight parameters.
>>7579133 I'm not sure what you mean by "material complexity"
A progression suggests an increase over time, however at some point the universe will reach its final state of extremely low complexity that will continue on into infinity. Thus the time at the beginning where there was some complexity is insignificant in comparison.
>>7579115 >I have absolutely no idea what life other than ours might be like. Neither do you. So you agree that *some* form of life in general is nearly inevitable, regardless of the universe's parameters?
>>7579115 >life as we know it, Still "touching yourself at night" I see.
>>7579115 >>hypothesis >>evidence You weren't asking for evidence: >>7579052 >nothing to suggest that life can form solely...
>>7579087 >you could have just greentexted the passages without putting in new post links Sigh try this: >highlight some text by swiping the mouse cursor with the left button pressed >click the post number ...now why would I bother to delete the "extra" post numbers? lrn24chin
>>7579121 >There is also no evidence that dark matter impacts life. You miss my point entirely. I'm suggesting "life as we don't know it" imght be made from dark matter. Yes, it's unlikely, since we presume it's weakly interacting, but my point is we don't know enough about the universe to say baryonic matter is the only possibility for life.
>>7579144 >I'm not sure what you mean by "material complexity" Well we went from a sea of photons to stars in some way or another. If you've got things like iron, planets, or even life arising, that seems pretty indicative of a trend towards complexity to me.
>however at some point the universe will reach its final state of extremely low complexity that will continue on into infinity. But how would you gauge something like that? At what point can you say that the Universe has reached a threshold for complexity and is now beginning a trend towards decay?
>fine tuned Wat. Our existence is a product of the amalgamation of particles in space. The particular type and amount that happened to make up earth defined the biological processes life would need to live and reproduce here. The environment allowed for very complex and large forms of life and eventually ability for higher thinking.
The universe is "fine tuned" by our perceivable laws of physics to be able to fuse simple elements into heavier ones in stars. The product of the grouping of these elements is just natural evolution of this dimension.
>>7579173 >You are aware that space is expanding at an accelerating rate? Expanding into what, though? We know that our Observable Universe is expanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean the entire Universe is following the same trend. On top of that, we're also going on the assumption that the theories of physics are static across the Universe and that the outer limits of what we can observe are abiding by precisely the same physics that we do.
One of two things is going on; Either the Universe is on a trend towards decay and we've somehow determined that the entirety of existence is ephemeral, or we're wrong about how physics operates on a Universal scale.
Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe the latter than the former, but you're going to make some staggering metaphysical claims in either direction.
>>7579195 We literally don't know ANY of that. Those are all principles that we follow because they're the safest assumptions, but there is absolutely no way for us to validate a claim like "The forces of nature operate the same in all sections of the Universe".
That is a metaphysical claim. Same goes for the assertion that the universe is isotropic.
>>7579210 You really don't know anything about the cosmological principle.
I'm not saying you're wrong.I'm not saying you're right. I'm just saying that there is a lot being assumed when you claim the universe is uniform and that the laws of physics are consistent in all its corners. This isn't "pop science",this is a core philosophical understanding of astronomy.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.