Why physical constants?
- Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Why physical constants?
I'm speculating how this came about and I have no quick answers. Maybe someone would like to tackle this problem.
- A_Seagull
- Posts: 949
- Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus
Re: Why physical constants?
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: Why physical constants?
- Fafner88
- Posts: 377
- Joined: August 30th, 2013, 8:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
- Location: Israel
Re: Why physical constants?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Why physical constants?
Could you give me reference to these claims that they are superficial Geordie?Geordie Ross wrote:There is a spectacular hypothesis regarding the apparent "fine tuning" of the universal constants called cosmic natural selection, it's a plausible explanation, for many years it appeared that life itself was fine tuned to fit specific niches, but now we know that small advantageous changes over a long period of time give the superficial appearance of 'fine tuning'.
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: Why physical constants?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Why physical constants?
I assumed it was the fine tuning of gravity. Without it there would be no substance in the universe.Geordie Ross wrote:Regarding which? Biological natural selection, or cosmic natural selection?
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: Why physical constants?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Why physical constants?
Sorry but you claimed it was a false assumption.Is it wrong that I would ask for clarification?Geordie Ross wrote:Well no, i don't have references, why would I? It is my personal commentary of a hypothesis. I find it rather naïve of you to ask for references
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: Why physical constants?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Why physical constants?
That has nothing to do with the question posed. It has evolved through the ability to survive.If gravity was altered by the smallest of amounts heavier elements would not form.Carbon the basis for all life would not exist. It appears to be finely tuned. The only know argument, I know of, is the concept of chance. There is no alternative universe to make a comparison so chance simply becomes an academic argument.Without any alternative the laws of physics imply a determination to create life . Gravity is the best example but there are others.Geordie Ross wrote:There is a flower, with petals that have markings that look like a female insect, it uses these markings to attracts male insects that pollinate it. (can't remember its name) Would you say it has been specifically designed and fine tuned? Or would you say it has the superficial appearance of being fine tuned / designed?
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: Why physical constants?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Why physical constants?
I must repeat it has nothing to do with questioning the apparent fine tuning of the physical constants.You will have to be specific in your argument because I can see none. No one is arguing for or against we are simply asking why.Most of us have no idea but you are saying they are not fine tuned, they only appear to be. I am not being awkward or difficult, I am simply interested to hear the argument.Geordie Ross wrote:Well go research cosmic natural selection. It proposes a plausible solution to the "appearance" of fine tuning.
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: Why physical constants?
Well here's the hypothesis in a nutshell.
http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmolo ... universes)
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Why physical constants?
This theory does not deny fine tuning it simply theorises on the idea that it was pure chance that this universe was finely tuned. But as they have no proof of alternatives it is just a theory. Natural selection does not deny a determined formula to create life and evolve. There is nothing random or given over to chance with evolution. How you define fine tuning with natures ability I do not know.But if you give nature the same circumstances and opportunity it will perform to a set of rules. Is that fine tuning?Geordie Ross wrote:I'm not saying they're defiantly not fine tuned, I'm saying it's plausible that they aren't. Most people said life was fine tuned, but then natural selection was discovered.
Well here's the hypothesis in a nutshell.
http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmolo ... universes)
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023