While not as vociferously as Papa Dot, I too believe there to be a God - yes, even the God of the Bible, I struggle to understand why the so called "Anthropic Principle" (that it seems the universe was somehow designed to support and nourish human life), seems to be so down-played. With astronomically high odds of such factors as the "electromagnetic force of atoms" or the "nuclear force of atoms," etc, etc. having to be at unfathomably precise levels for life to exist (my understanding is there are some 50 such factors) why is it so anathema to suggest our world was created for human life to evolve? I am honestly curious.
I'm pleased to see questions like this, even if they are hard to answer!
On some level there's a difference between the universe being designed for us, and us being designed for the universe. You can look at the Earth, and marvel at how we are so well suited to live here, but that does not mean the Earth was necessarily created for life. It only means that over billions of years we have evolved and adapted ourselves to the planet (and likely shaped it as well, to make it more suitable for us).
Of course, it also had to be possible for life to appear in the first place. As you say, that relies on fundamental things such as the possibility for atoms to exist, for stars to form and for chemistry to be possible. And its true that some of those variables seem unreasonably fine tuned. Would life (or even stars and planets) be possible in another universe with other variables? I'm not sure we really have an answer to that question.
For the anthropic principle, I think part of the objection comes down to what it can actually tell us. The universe had to be suitable for life, otherwise we could not be here and could not ask such questions. From a physics viewpoint this is not terribly useful, because there are no experiments we can do based on it, and we cannot (and least not yet) understand why the universe and the laws of physics are what they are.
That said, the laws of physics do show a deep elegance and beauty. I think it is hard to study them without coming away with the sense that there has to be something more, whether you call that God or something else. Personally I believe God is something beyond human comprehension, and it is not something that physics can ever answer or should even try to. It is more a question for religion or philosophy (and that is a viewpoint I've heard from many physicists).
In any case, there a lot of deep topics to discuss here. I'd love to write some more about these ideas in the future. I'm not sure we'll end up with any hard answers though!
I find it disturbing that you can make this following statement with a straight face: "The only remaining option, they conclude, is for intelligent life to be incredibly rare. " Why can't you seem to consider that God put this all together with an overriding purpose. Even if you can't/won't believe in God at least you should have a level of honesty to include Him as a "possible option." Get honest, OK.
Well, in this case I'm reporting what the paper says. But you are correct, many people would consider God as one reason why we don't see intelligent life beyond Earth.
🌎The notion of Earth being a cosmic primate pavilion would help make so much more sense of this crazy world.🐵
While not as vociferously as Papa Dot, I too believe there to be a God - yes, even the God of the Bible, I struggle to understand why the so called "Anthropic Principle" (that it seems the universe was somehow designed to support and nourish human life), seems to be so down-played. With astronomically high odds of such factors as the "electromagnetic force of atoms" or the "nuclear force of atoms," etc, etc. having to be at unfathomably precise levels for life to exist (my understanding is there are some 50 such factors) why is it so anathema to suggest our world was created for human life to evolve? I am honestly curious.
I'm pleased to see questions like this, even if they are hard to answer!
On some level there's a difference between the universe being designed for us, and us being designed for the universe. You can look at the Earth, and marvel at how we are so well suited to live here, but that does not mean the Earth was necessarily created for life. It only means that over billions of years we have evolved and adapted ourselves to the planet (and likely shaped it as well, to make it more suitable for us).
Of course, it also had to be possible for life to appear in the first place. As you say, that relies on fundamental things such as the possibility for atoms to exist, for stars to form and for chemistry to be possible. And its true that some of those variables seem unreasonably fine tuned. Would life (or even stars and planets) be possible in another universe with other variables? I'm not sure we really have an answer to that question.
For the anthropic principle, I think part of the objection comes down to what it can actually tell us. The universe had to be suitable for life, otherwise we could not be here and could not ask such questions. From a physics viewpoint this is not terribly useful, because there are no experiments we can do based on it, and we cannot (and least not yet) understand why the universe and the laws of physics are what they are.
That said, the laws of physics do show a deep elegance and beauty. I think it is hard to study them without coming away with the sense that there has to be something more, whether you call that God or something else. Personally I believe God is something beyond human comprehension, and it is not something that physics can ever answer or should even try to. It is more a question for religion or philosophy (and that is a viewpoint I've heard from many physicists).
In any case, there a lot of deep topics to discuss here. I'd love to write some more about these ideas in the future. I'm not sure we'll end up with any hard answers though!
I find it disturbing that you can make this following statement with a straight face: "The only remaining option, they conclude, is for intelligent life to be incredibly rare. " Why can't you seem to consider that God put this all together with an overriding purpose. Even if you can't/won't believe in God at least you should have a level of honesty to include Him as a "possible option." Get honest, OK.
Well, in this case I'm reporting what the paper says. But you are correct, many people would consider God as one reason why we don't see intelligent life beyond Earth.