The fallacy of fine tuning the anthropic universe

A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The fallacy of fine tuning the anthropic universe

There are many ways this is wrong. The usual claim of believers is to introduce very large numbers as probabilities. Let me show you how easy it is to have very large numbers.

You exist because a particular sperm met a particular egg. By the most recent studies at least 10 million, 10^7 sperm trying to be the first to the egg -- ignoring the 100 million or so others which are also produced.

That means the odds against you existing in the simplest case is ten million to one.

But wait! There's more! A Ronco toaster-broiler oven!

You father and mother are also the product of those same odds. So the odds against them just being your parents is 10^14 to 1. But they also had parents at 10^14 each or 10^56 just to produce your parents who produced you at 10^7 to 1 for 10^63 just to get you from your grandparents. If we go back to eight great-grandparents we get 10^14*8 + 10^7 just to get to you. That gets us to 10^129 to 1 against you just looking at grandparents.

As life is an unbroken chain by definition and just for moder humans at a minimum of 100,000 years old and 5 generations per century that is 2000 generations and I leave the math to the intersted student. It is a very big number far larger than any anthropic universe nonsense claim.

And the odds against you are this trivially small only if we ignore all sexual reproduction back to the beginning of sexual reproduction as well as everything that made ejaculation exactly when it was so that a different sperm did not get to the egg first.

And then start multiplying ALL the other reproductions had to go as they did as a female Julius Caesar or Napoleon makes a huge change in history.

Are the anthropic principle odds impressive? No. In comparison to you existing they are almost a certainty.

All of this means playing games to produce big numbers should only result in being impressed by the person's ability to produce big numbers not rational arguments.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Teralek wrote:

 

I'm about to leave anyway. Only to come back in 2013. I'll miss our discussions. 

Gonna miss having you. 

We might not always see eye to eye, but when is that a necessary prerequisite for enjoyable conversations ? 

Hell, if I want someone to agree with me all of the time, I just need to look in the mirror and talk to myself. 

Hope you come back sooner than 2013. 

BTW. If you see anything that changes your mind about the Fermi Paradox, get it on film and let me know. I want to SEE a UFO. ( Just don't want to get abducted and experimented on) 

So true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
 Ok let me try another


 

Ok let me try another approach because obviously no one is understanding that we are talking about different things here.

You are talking about playing dice. You throw the dice and you get a 3. And you are saying that I am arguing that when I observe the number 3 I say: "3 has a low probability so there had to be an unknown force causing the number 3"

I am not saying such a thing. Moreover you have to look at the odds BEFORE throwing the dice. Then you'll see that all numbers are a win if you want to use sperm as an example.

What I'm questioning here is the existence of the very dice or their printed numbers. What I'm saying is that easily the Universe could come out as "spheres" and not "printed dice".

change slightly a variable and the universe would be incapable of generating complexity through natural laws. Complexity is the only way to create life, although I can't prove this, this is something I'm certain. Call it intuition because life as I know it and as far as my imagination goes, needs chemical complexity.

 

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies