Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 14, 2010, 22:32 (5146 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: I think here it's just another example of my uncanny ability to take a bunch of threads and weave them with no thought. -An ability not to be fostered, but as always your honesty is greatly appreciated.
 
MATT: 1. If it is true that the universe is truly "finely tuned" for life, then this is a legitimate base to begin discussing a creator. -Of course we don't know if it's true. But as with the origin of life, the more complex it all is, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss the idea of design. I'm not sure why you differentiate between "to discuss" and to "begin discussing"!-MATT: 2. An argument against our universe being finely tuned can be found in those experimental physicists that have demonstrated that the chemistry necessary for life could exist in a universe drastically different from ours--in one where one of the fundamental forces doesn't exist. This strongly suggests that the... range of possibilities is greater than what at least David claims.-A universe drastically different from ours sounds no more and no less fictional than an intelligence drastically different from ours.
 
MATT: My general goal here is to firmly demonstrate that this part of the discussion lies at the very edge of physics, and despite David's harumphs, the further explanation of "Many Worlds" has yet to be nullified, even if it ranks as #2 in the list of favored interpretations.-Despite lots of people's harumphs, the further explanation of a universal intelligence has yet to be nullified, and probably still ranks as No. 1 in the list of favoured interpretations. Not a very convincing argument, is it? Your comment below sums it all up.
 
MATT: As to your comment about truth: As would be predicted, I'm ultimately of the opinion that in this question there is no truth to be found; the event is so far away that we shall never be able to truly answer for what happened--all we will have is mere speculation, however educated we may think it.-My thoughts precisely, but extended to more fields than just the origin of life. 
 
MATT: As to your comment about nothing existing before the Big Bang, few, if any, of the writings I've come across state this. What I've read is that the big bang was the beginning of our observable universe, a drastically different claim. For all intents and purposes it was the beginning, but there is no way to truly state that it was the beginning.-I had countered your claim that only the Big Bang (as opposed to life) smacked of intensive planning and foresight by pointing out that we didn't know what went bang. Your response then was: "we know a great deal more about the Big Bang than you seem to know about." I quoted the "nothing before" theory (I'm in no position to accept or refute it) just to point out another argument against your planning claim, though it would now appear that you agree with me after all that we don't really know a damn thing. For further information on the commonly held view that there was nothing before the Big Bang, see a very nicely written article by Paul Davies under www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html