tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5641414793254980732.post5322366305652273239..comments2014-04-15T14:10:09.179-07:00Comments on Faith. Physics. Rants.: Science Denialism: Pot. Kettle. Black.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5641414793254980732.post-72295936291751022132014-03-19T04:03:56.612-07:002014-03-19T04:03:56.612-07:00Well, I disagree with your analysis in four ways. ...Well, I disagree with your analysis in four ways. First, *if* there's consensus among physicists and cosmologists about fine-tuning (something I'm happy to accept for the purposes of argument, but which you just assert without providing much evidence), then the consensus seems to be that it is a scientific problem that needs solving. This is very different from the consensus about anthropogenic global warming, which is *not* that it's a scientific problem that needs solving; it's that it's happening with very high confidence. The big "problem" in AGW is convincing the public and lawmakers that action need to be taken. So I think you've got a false analogy to start with.<br /><br />Second, I think it is incorrect to claim that "heavy elements ... are necessary for any kind of life" and "any life, using a non-controversial assertion, needs large molecules to store information". Of course, we may end up in an argument about the meaning of "life", but assuming you buy the definition of life as a kind of self-replication, then there's no reason to believe that life needs molecules, as we know them, at all. In various simple computer models, self-replicators are known to be possible (even in Conway's game of life), and these could well exist in universes very different from ours.<br /><br />Third, I think your conceptual problem lies here: "He doesn't seem to grasp that if the constants are tweaked a bit there will be no elements to produce amino acids or any other molecules necessary for any kind of life." You seem to have in mind a model where *all possible universes* are basically *just like ours*, *except* the fundamental constants have been changed somewhat. But how do you know these are the *only* possibilities? Where in your space of possibilities are models like Conway's? Some physicists seem to have a paucity of imagination, and then they confuse this paucity with a description of all possible universes.<br /><br />Fourth, I think your rejection of probability as irrelevant is wrong; I think it's absolutely crucial. Maybe life-permitting universes are relatively common, in which case it's not so surprising we are in one. Since *nobody* currently knows how universes are made, nor any good idea of the space of possible universes, we can't say anything currently about those probabilities. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com