Posted: Dec 25, 2011 10:24 pm
Craig has two problems to overcome before he even begins to talk about probabilities:
1) He says that there is the appearance that the universe is designed for intelligent life, but there is no reason to think that it was.
Ponds seem to be designed for fish, frogs, aquatic insects...but there is no reason to think that they are. It is the other way around. These organisms were "designed" by their environment. No different from any other organism on earth. Was the arctic designed for polar bears? Was the ocean designed for Dolphins?
It's the weak anthropic principle in action. Here we are. Where else would you expect us to be?
2) Before Craig starts going off about variable constants (something that has been pointed out to be a contradiction in terms) he needs to show that any of the six constants that he cites could have values that are different than they are. Saying that if any of these constants were different the universe would be different is a far cry from showing that they could be different.
As far as I know no one has ever shown that any of the constants could be different than what they are, or any other law such as the 1st law of thermodynamics; in this universe or any other universe.
All we have are "what if" questions about what a universe with different constants and laws would be like. No evidence that they could be different, and no reason to think that they could.
I have no fondness for multiple universe hypotheses except that they seem to keep dropping out of the math in different areas of physics as possibilities. That's it, they seem to be possible. The same thing happened with black holes. Guess what!
Black holes exist and they all follow the same rules.
1) He says that there is the appearance that the universe is designed for intelligent life, but there is no reason to think that it was.
Ponds seem to be designed for fish, frogs, aquatic insects...but there is no reason to think that they are. It is the other way around. These organisms were "designed" by their environment. No different from any other organism on earth. Was the arctic designed for polar bears? Was the ocean designed for Dolphins?
It's the weak anthropic principle in action. Here we are. Where else would you expect us to be?
2) Before Craig starts going off about variable constants (something that has been pointed out to be a contradiction in terms) he needs to show that any of the six constants that he cites could have values that are different than they are. Saying that if any of these constants were different the universe would be different is a far cry from showing that they could be different.
As far as I know no one has ever shown that any of the constants could be different than what they are, or any other law such as the 1st law of thermodynamics; in this universe or any other universe.
All we have are "what if" questions about what a universe with different constants and laws would be like. No evidence that they could be different, and no reason to think that they could.
I have no fondness for multiple universe hypotheses except that they seem to keep dropping out of the math in different areas of physics as possibilities. That's it, they seem to be possible. The same thing happened with black holes. Guess what!
Black holes exist and they all follow the same rules.