Religion

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)

60. I find his argument problematic from the beginning...

Fri Feb 27, 2015, 02:05 AM

Feb 2015

The issue at heart is this assumption that the universe is fine tuned at all, particularly considering that the vast majority of it is uninhabitable. In addition, we lack both context and information as to how wide a range can possibly exist to still allow life and intelligence to arrive in the universe under different constants. Not to mention that life may arise not out of long chain carbon reactions but other reactions, with elements of slightly different properties, or things of this nature in a universe that isn't conductive to our life.

Its chauvinistic, to be frank about it, and it makes too many assumptions about what parameters are required for life to arise in a universe, the nature of that life, whether its intelligent, and our own knowledge of the universe we live in.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? [View all] Fumesucker Feb 2015 OP

More like edhopper Feb 2015 #1

Current theories seem to be moving toward multiple universes, perhaps an infinite number Fumesucker Feb 2015 #3

I didn't even get a chance to watch edhopper Feb 2015 #7

This is an arguement that I've never managed to wrap my head around. stone space Feb 2015 #2

If that were so then we wouldn't be here (if we actually are) Fumesucker Feb 2015 #4

We're lucky. stone space Feb 2015 #5

Does the universe have a purpose? stone space Feb 2015 #6

Arthur Clarke had a hypothesis on that which he developed into a short story... Fumesucker Feb 2015 #8

"They're made out of meat" stone space Feb 2015 #9

Don't have time to wade through more idiotic "fine-tuning" babble skepticscott Feb 2015 #10

Leonard Susskind is not clueless. stone space Feb 2015 #11

If he makes even the merest argument skepticscott Feb 2015 #12

Well, who is Leonard Susskind to disagree with... stone space Feb 2015 #13

I didn't invent the self-contradiction skepticscott Feb 2015 #14

My reaction just from the headline is, bvf Feb 2015 #15

OK, I feel like I have to do this. stone space Feb 2015 #16

You are building a straw man. BillZBubb Feb 2015 #51

That's a strawman. stone space Feb 2015 #54

Nope, you've got the strawman. Quit with the semantics. BillZBubb Feb 2015 #57

Not the first time a great scientist edhopper Feb 2015 #17

You'd think an alleged mathematician would skepticscott Feb 2015 #18

You might well think that, edhopper Feb 2015 #21

You think people would see the irony in defending someone on intellectual grounds Lordquinton Feb 2015 #23

But but! He said something offensive! Well, it wasn't really offensive but it was quoted AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #58

The anthropic principle. rogerashton Feb 2015 #19

Yes it's easy edhopper Feb 2015 #20

He doesn't seem to have started with a conclusion but this is where he's saying Leontius Feb 2015 #22

Who says that edhopper Feb 2015 #32

It is true rogerashton Feb 2015 #25

If you are only using mathematics to solve for something edhopper Feb 2015 #31

Douglas Adams put it so well. trotsky Feb 2015 #27

Yawn. Promethean Feb 2015 #24

Eh, I'm a fairly "hard" atheist and I found it interesting Fumesucker Feb 2015 #26

Me too cpwm17 Feb 2015 #29

I find it odd rogerashton Feb 2015 #30

The more we learn about our Universe cpwm17 Feb 2015 #33

Both are in the same logical frame. rogerashton Feb 2015 #34

Specific claims concerning the multiverse are speculative and beyond our current science cpwm17 Feb 2015 #36

and that seems a further step into mysticism to me. rogerashton Feb 2015 #39

It's on the boarder between science and philosophy. cpwm17 Feb 2015 #41

Many have not watched the video. cpwm17 Feb 2015 #28

Here's one of several fundamental flaws with the argument skepticscott Feb 2015 #35

No, life would be impossible with small changes to any one of a number of the constants of nature cpwm17 Feb 2015 #37

What you're afraid to say is skepticscott Feb 2015 #38

A response with a personal insult cpwm17 Feb 2015 #40

Nice try, but horseshit skepticscott Feb 2015 #44

The constants of nature could be adjusted to create other chemistries that could potentially cpwm17 Feb 2015 #50

Which directly contradicts your previous BS claim skepticscott Feb 2015 #52

Do you have insult tourette syndrome? cpwm17 Feb 2015 #53

Considering that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999......% gcomeau Feb 2015 #42

The point being it could easily be 100% Fumesucker Feb 2015 #43

Yes. Which doesn't alter the fact... gcomeau Feb 2015 #45

We really have no idea how common life might be in the universe.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #46

True gcomeau Feb 2015 #47

It's in a lot of places on this planet that no one really expected.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #48

Which is like saying... gcomeau Feb 2015 #49

The point of the video isn't that the Universe is "fine-tuned" for life cpwm17 Feb 2015 #59

Nobody's perfect. (nt) stone space Feb 2015 #56

Just more support for my "theory"... stone space Feb 2015 #55

I find his argument problematic from the beginning... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #60

Here's Lawrence Krauss' take on the Anthropic Principal: cpwm17 Feb 2015 #61

It looks like edhopper Feb 2015 #62