It doesn't really infer anything because it leaves "specificity" as a
kind of I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it free parameter.
Brent
On 10/4/2020 12:16 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
I think the key thing - from the fact this article was published (in a
"reputable" science journal) - is it provides an example (not a good
example to follow, but others likely will) of how statistical (in
particular, Bayesian) arguments can be used to deduce "design" (in
effect, reject Darwinism),- in the way this article formulates it in
its probability model.
@philipthrift
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 7:30:15 AM UTC-5 [email protected]
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift
<[email protected]> wrote:
/Journal of Theoretical Biology/
/Volume 501, 21 September 2020/
*/Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of
molecular machines and systems/*
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071
/ A science journal publishes an article supporting
Intelligent Design./
I don't see how. If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very
big if) then an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be
found, but the God Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for
two reasons.
1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created
the universe.
2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into
existence other than to say He has always existed, but if
you're going to do that you might as well just say the
universe always existed and save a step.
It seems to me that when a mystery is found, and Science has
plenty, a good honest "I don't know" would be a better
response to it than offering a theory that is obviously silly.
John K Clark
The issue is whether fine tuning means a fine tuner. A fine tuner
is a necessary condition, but probably not sufficient. In the
multiverse setting there may be a vast array of cosmologies and
one could argue that just as Earth is one of many planets with the
right conditions for life, this cosmology is in a Goldilocks
situation. It is also possible I think that many of these other
cosmologies are off-shell conditions in a cosmological path
integral. Cosmologies with larger vacuum energy densities may not
be physically real, but quantum amplitudes off-shell from a
physical cosmology. This may reduce the number of actual physical
cosmologies, and that could mean just one. In this second
situation there is some condition in the structure of quantum
cosmology that selects exclusively for this cosmology.
LC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5878ee04-5e19-44f9-9cdb-b5cedfc38cb3n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5878ee04-5e19-44f9-9cdb-b5cedfc38cb3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d484a05c-b99b-7c99-5530-65354f96392f%40verizon.net.
