Re: Alien Life
From: Anthony Cerrato (tcerrato_at_optonline.net)
Date: 10/08/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Darwinism=Capitalism"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- In reply to: Country Loon: "Alien Life"
- Next in thread: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Alien Life"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:41:18 +0000 (UTC)
"Michael Ragland" <ragland37@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:ck580p$2qje$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
[snippage]
> Hi Tom:
>
> I think your question is interesting but it relies on what
is known as
> the "anthropic principle". In short, the anthropic
principle is a
> concept that states fundamentally that the Universe is the
way it is
> because if it were different we would not exist to pose
the question or
> that we see the universe the way it is because if it were
different we
> would not be here to observe it. The anthropic principle
has a tendency
> to believe if there are other life forms in the universe
they must be
> similar to us e.g. carbon based, etc. Darwinian evolution
is the
> evolutionary framework on earth but that doesn't
necessarily mean it is
> the evolutionary framework of other possible alien life
forms in the
> universe.
I think it's wrong to say the Anthropic Principle implies
the specifics you state--all it implies is that if the
universe were "different," it would differ in its
fundamental natural physical laws, and prime amongst these
are the values of the physical constants which define our
universe (e.g.; the value of e, the electric charge; the
fine structure constant; h, Planck's constant; G, the
gravitational constant; c, the speed of light; and the
unique masses of the elementary subatomic particles.) Since
it has been calculated that presumed fundamental laws in
theories such as Einstein's Thy. of General Relativity,
Quantum Electrodynamics, etc. indicate that the universe is
sensitively dependent on the exact values of the universal
physical constants, it leads to conclusions like, the
universe would either expand far too quickly, or so slowly
that it collapses quickly, or the forces between particles
would be too weak to hold matter together, and so on. Thus,
the universe would not have enough time or be able to
develop life itself, let alone, life as we know it.
Regards, ...tonyC
>
> Michael Ragland
>
> "It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value.
> Bacteria do quite well without it."
> Stephen Hawking
>
>
- Next message: John Edser: "Darwinism=Capitalism"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- In reply to: Country Loon: "Alien Life"
- Next in thread: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Alien Life"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|