Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 82

Thread: Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,153
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?

    This is one my my favorite YT channels. He examines the big topics, and speaks to physicists, various theologians, philosophers, etc, and never really pushes one vs another answer. That is, he leaves it to the viewer to decide. The "fine tuned" universe one of the most interesting and potentially important topic in all of cosmology I think, whether there's a higher consciousness behind or not. While I'm agnostic on a good day, the fine tuning that exists, hard to blame some for concluding it didn't happen by shear coincidence:

    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,539
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    It's easy to conclude that the fine-tuning only seems remarkable from our own perspective, until you start to consider fine tuning that is statistically beyond coincidence, that has nothing to do with the evolution or sustainment of complex lifeforms. That's purely aesthetic, if you will.

    For example, the position of the moon such that it allows for both solar and lunar eclipses. That's a feature not found on any other known planet. You can find other planets that are excellent for sustaining life, but that's unique to our own solar system and planet as far as we know.

    And that that aesthetic "signature" just so happens to exist on the only planet known to contain life is even less statistically probable.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    30,426
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post

    For example, the position of the moon such that it allows for both solar and lunar eclipses. That's a feature not found on any other known planet. You can find other planets that are excellent for sustaining life, but that's unique to our own solar system and planet as far as we know.

    And that that aesthetic "signature" just so happens to exist on the only planet known to contain life is even less statistically probable.
    We know almost NOTHING about exo solar planets, let alone what moons might orbit them. Furthermore the moons orbit isn't perfectly round and as a consequence the relative distance of the sun to the earth and the moon to the earth during each event is far from a constant. And it's nothing more than our approx. location relative to the sun.

    And also you are wrong about eclipses in THIS solar system.

    https://www.livescience.com/60037-do...-eclipses.html

    The gas giants — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — can all have total solar eclipses, as they have large moons and the sun appears small to them, Cuk said. But because these planets are made of gas, it would be impossible to stand on them and see such solar eclipses, he said.

    However, if you had a special spaceship that could hover near the swirling gas giants, you could very well glimpse a solar eclipse. Jupiter has up to 67 moons, including Ganymede, the largest moon in the solar system. Because Jupiter's moons orbit on the same plane as the sun, the planet can have solar eclipses, Cuk and Van Laerhoven said.

    In fact, if you could land on one of Jupiter's moons, you could see its other moons eclipse the sun, the astronomers said.

    But what about dwarf planets, such as Pluto? "Charon [Pluto's largest moon] is large enough and close enough to Pluto to produce total solar eclipses for Pluto," Van Laerhoven said. But because the same side of Pluto and Charon always face each other, "only one side of both Pluto and Charon will ever experience eclipses," Cuk wrote.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,539
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    We know almost NOTHING about exo solar planets, let alone what moons might orbit them. Furthermore the moons orbit isn't perfectly round and as a consequence the relative distance of the sun to the earth and the moon to the earth during each event is far from a constant. And it's nothing more than our approx. location relative to the sun.

    And also you are wrong about eclipses in THIS solar system.

    https://www.livescience.com/60037-do...-eclipses.html

    The gas giants — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — can all have total solar eclipses, as they have large moons and the sun appears small to them, Cuk said. But because these planets are made of gas, it would be impossible to stand on them and see such solar eclipses, he said.

    However, if you had a special spaceship that could hover near the swirling gas giants, you could very well glimpse a solar eclipse. Jupiter has up to 67 moons, including Ganymede, the largest moon in the solar system. Because Jupiter's moons orbit on the same plane as the sun, the planet can have solar eclipses, Cuk and Van Laerhoven said.

    In fact, if you could land on one of Jupiter's moons, you could see its other moons eclipse the sun, the astronomers said.

    But what about dwarf planets, such as Pluto? "Charon [Pluto's largest moon] is large enough and close enough to Pluto to produce total solar eclipses for Pluto," Van Laerhoven said. But because the same side of Pluto and Charon always face each other, "only one side of both Pluto and Charon will ever experience eclipses," Cuk wrote.
    I'm not saying there aren't solar eclipses on other planets. But as far as we know, the earth is unique in having both perfect solar and lunar eclipses. That is, the sun, earth, and moon are all three perfectly sized and distant to produce those perfect effects, where you get the halo around the sun during a solar eclipse and the "blood moon" during a lunar eclipse. Especially when you consider the other critical roles played by the sun and moon in sustaining life, and their distances from one another, it's actually astounding.

    It's like finding an easter egg in a story. It shows creative intent. Artistry, if you will.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,113
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Looking at the statistical probability numbers of the universe's constants, and how incredibly narrowly tuned their ranges are, is truly fascinating stuff. And so compelling that naturalists had to spit ball the multiverse hypothesis in an effort to avoid having to admit the inescapable implications of intelligent design. Wonderful study.
    “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” -Augustine

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    30,426
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    I'm not saying there aren't solar eclipses on other planets. But as far as we know, the earth is unique in having both perfect solar and lunar eclipses. That is, the sun, earth, and moon are all three perfectly sized and distant to produce those perfect effects, where you get the halo around the sun during a solar eclipse and the "blood moon" during a lunar eclipse. Especially when you consider the other critical roles played by the sun and moon in sustaining life, and their distances from one another, it's actually astounding.

    It's like finding an easter egg in a story. It shows creative intent. Artistry, if you will.
    But we DO NOT have perfect eclipses on Earth and other planets DO have eclipses, some even have more perfect eclipses than we experience on Earth.

    Also if you actually think about it, eclipses are almost a probability. For an object of a given size to be captured in a sustained orbit, it will have a relative size to the object it orbits. If it is too far away it won't be captured by the objects gravity and if it is too close it will fall into the object itself. So the only things that manage sustained orbits are of a given size and distance to the object itself and those variations tend to regulate the size of the object (depending on actual mass) and that required size and distance typically will result in eclipses, some more complete than others. Other planets experience more complete solar eclipses than Earth.
    Last edited by SteyrAUG; 08-11-22 at 20:30.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,539
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    But we DO NOT have perfect eclipses on Earth and other planets DO have eclipses, some even have more perfect eclipses than we experience on Earth.

    Also if you actually think about it, eclipses are almost a probability. For an object of a given size to be captured in a sustained orbit, it will have a relative size to the object it orbits. If it is too far away it won't be captured by the objects gravity and if it is too close it will fall into the object itself. So the only things that manage sustained orbits are of a given size and distance to the object itself and those variations tend to regulate the size of the object (depending on actual mass) and that required size and distance typically will result in eclipses, some more complete than others. Other planets experience more complete solar eclipses than Earth.
    I'm not talking about completeness. All that requires is the moon to be relatively larger than the star from the planet's perspective. I'm talking about the moon perfectly covering the sun because it's relatively the same size from the earth's perspective. That results in complete darkness, as well as the halo of sunlight in the sky that makes our eclipses so dramatically beautiful.

    But it works the other way, too, and that's where the probabilities become astronomically small. The size of the earth and its distance from the sun, and the moon's size relative to the earth and distance from the earth, results in the same thing, producing the blood moon phenomenon. Again, other planets experience lunar eclipse, but they're either incomplete, or they're more than complete.

    And again, you combine that with the fact that those relative sizes and distances also just so happen to propagate life...which is extremely rare to begin with. The main thing, though, is it's kind of unnecessary. Again, it's like an easter egg. All that's necessary for life is that the planet is far enough away from the star that it doesn't burn up, and close enough that it doesn't freeze. And that the moon is close enough to create tides, but far enough that it doesn't destroy coastal nurseries with massive waves. There are other planets that have earthlike conditions that could support life. Mars was one such planet for much of its lifetime. But here you have this planet that not only won the lottery, but has this little aesthetic easter egg to boot. Statistical impossibility. It literally couldn't be any other way, and the chances of that happening by coincidence are astronomically small. So small not even the multiverse can explain our existence here. While the multiverse has been proven to exist, it's also been proven that not all possibilities exist. There are high and low amplitude worlds, and the low amplitude worlds basically don't exist. For example, there's a hypothetical world where I have laser vision like Superman, but it's such a low amplitude world that it effectively doesn't exist. Or even something far more likely. Like the example given by the leading expert is a world where he's president. Not so far fetched, but still way outside the threshold to be a high amplitude world. And the chances of our world existing by chance are many many times smaller than even that world where he's president. In other words, no matter how many chances the universe gets to make us, it never would.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    30,426
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    I'm not talking about completeness. All that requires is the moon to be relatively larger than the star from the planet's perspective. I'm talking about the moon perfectly covering the sun because it's relatively the same size from the earth's perspective. That results in complete darkness, as well as the halo of sunlight in the sky that makes our eclipses so dramatically beautiful.
    So first, that only happens depending upon where on the Earth you are observing the eclipse and identical eclipses happen on other planets for all the reasons I cited.

    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    But it works the other way, too, and that's where the probabilities become astronomically small. The size of the earth and its distance from the sun, and the moon's size relative to the earth and distance from the earth, results in the same thing, producing the blood moon phenomenon. Again, other planets experience lunar eclipse, but they're either incomplete, or they're more than complete.
    Blood moons are a result of atmosphere. The probabilities of similar or identical eclipses on other planets in THIS solar system are not small, they are actually common for all the reasons I mentioned. It really is just a matter of perspective of observer combined with mass of an object required for gravitational orbit. Same as on Earth and that is why we commonly experience "partial" lunar eclipses all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    And again, you combine that with the fact that those relative sizes and distances also just so happen to propagate life...which is extremely rare to begin with. The main thing, though, is it's kind of unnecessary. Again, it's like an easter egg. All that's necessary for life is that the planet is far enough away from the star that it doesn't burn up, and close enough that it doesn't freeze. And that the moon is close enough to create tides, but far enough that it doesn't destroy coastal nurseries with massive waves. There are other planets that have earthlike conditions that could support life. Mars was one such planet for much of its lifetime. But here you have this planet that not only won the lottery, but has this little aesthetic easter egg to boot. Statistical impossibility. It literally couldn't be any other way, and the chances of that happening by coincidence are astronomically small. So small not even the multiverse can explain our existence here. While the multiverse has been proven to exist, it's also been proven that not all possibilities exist. There are high and low amplitude worlds, and the low amplitude worlds basically don't exist. For example, there's a hypothetical world where I have laser vision like Superman, but it's such a low amplitude world that it effectively doesn't exist. Or even something far more likely. Like the example given by the leading expert is a world where he's president. Not so far fetched, but still way outside the threshold to be a high amplitude world. And the chances of our world existing by chance are many many times smaller than even that world where he's president. In other words, no matter how many chances the universe gets to make us, it never would.
    So while I don't want to wade into the subject of astrobiology, you are correct that the moon is one of the necessary requirements for life on Earth, but not necessarily required for life elsewhere. For variables in the Drake Equation, you want to read Rare Earth.

    The multiverse hasn't been "proven" to exist, you are really throwing out the long shots here. Many theories postulate a multiverse and can produce math to support it, even if the math requires multiple spatial dimensions to work (and honestly if you add enough of this and enough of that you can always make the math work) and some of those theories would explain observable problems like the weak gravitational force we actually observe vs what we should be seeing based upon relativity. And finally "amplitude" is a measurement of vibration in physics and a measurement of distance in astronomy, "high amplitude world" is meaningless.

    Understanding the nature of eclipses, both lunar and solar, and why they aren't terribly unique is really basic, basic science. It's like declaring the sunrise to be so majestic, it's "proof of X", when in fact it's something that occurs on almost every body in the solar system despite how special it seems to "us."

    While we are at it, the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun (which is hardly perfect and produces variation in things like eclipses) and the Earth isn't even perfectly round but an irregularly shaped ellipsoid (which compounds the variations of it's orbit). But it does give us really neat seasonal changes as it rotates on a titled (non perfect) axis.

    Nearly everything you are expressing is just a humancentric perspective.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,153
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeib View Post
    Looking at the statistical probability numbers of the universe's constants, and how incredibly narrowly tuned their ranges are, is truly fascinating stuff. And so compelling that naturalists had to spit ball the multiverse hypothesis in an effort to avoid having to admit the inescapable implications of intelligent design. Wonderful study.
    It is a fascinating area of study to be sure. That's a great YT channel that explores that and many other heady topics in that most balanced way. There's a lot more to the multi verse then that of course, but it/they are theoretical to be sure.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,153
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post

    Understanding the nature of eclipses, both lunar and solar, and why they aren't terribly unique is really basic, basic science. It's like declaring the sunrise to be so majestic, it's "proof of X", when in fact it's something that occurs on almost every body in the solar system despite how special it seems to "us.".
    Getting hung up on eclipses of all things as some how unique/special to the earth is a strange flex I had not seem before. Eclipses would of course be very common in our solar system, very easy to demonstrate/explain as you did so well, much less others.

    The fine tuned aspects, and the different anthropic principles, are truly fascinating and brings together and overlaps physics/cosmology, theology, and even philosophy like nothing else I can think of.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •