Fine tuning News

If the planet is intelligently designed…

Spread the love

… and there is considerable evidence of that (Rare Earth Principle*), what difference would that make to global warming, if caused by humans?

If not caused by humans? Readers?

Re Vince Torley’s Straight talk about global warming: an open letter to the Catholic clergy:

As I said here, it is good that someone is trying to come up with the real costs of whatever people say we must DOOOO!! NOWWW!!

Usually a recipe for disaster except for a few profiteers. Solyndra, anyone?

Oh, and tinpot dictators just love that sort of thing because they can regulate vast new classes of activities without dumping any old ones – and it doesn’t matter if they fail. There are no costs to the bureaucracy for failure.

That said, I don’t know if AGW is real. But I live in a part of the world where nature is ever the enemy, not man. You would never know AGW was true from the last few winters where I live (Ottawa), but things may be different in Beijing or Cairo.

How would I know? I mistrust all claims from activists because they have so much to gain from fronting the acrockalypse. Anyone remember the Population Bomb?

That said:,

1. Most sovereign countries will just walk away from politically inconvenient commitments.

2. The people who suffer most will be those with the most to lose.

After all, any urban layabout or twit can be “concerned” about the environment. It’s different to watch your job up north go down the drain because of that twit’s “concern.”

That should have implications for the Church but in this climate of opinion, I bet it won’t.

I liked Bjorn Lomborg’s talk at the world science journalists’ conference in 2004, as he raised the question of real costs and benefits.

And Chicken Little was out of the office for once.

* The ID version is called the Privileged Planet principle.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Rare Earth:

Privileged Planet:

12 Replies to “If the planet is intelligently designed…

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    If Earth is special, Stewardship is important. Very very very important. Overreaction is ok.

    If we’re specks on a speck revolving around a speck in a speck embedded in specklessness, why care? “Care” is a joke. We suck.

  2. 2
    leodp says:

    “The whole scene, which lasts barely a minute, plays out in a pristine room called the “Creation Lab.” One of the scientists notes that the hatchling is not a result of breeding, but that “she was designed.” We’re only moments into the movie, and already the words “creation” and “design” are on the table. Think the folks in the white lab coats are meant to be perceived as wannabe “gods”? Of course they are.”

    From a review of “Jurassic World” here…

    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....paign=2013

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    I’m baffled. I’m reading the implications of a certain nuclear accident in a completely different way.

  4. 4
    News says:

    ppolish at 1: You write, If Earth is special, Stewardship is important. Very very very important. Overreaction is ok.”

    In my experience, overreaction is NEVER ok. It is a cause of many gratuitous evils in the world. Two of them are fanaticism (the debate is OVER!) and tyranny (by ANY means necessary), which work together to create great injustices.

    Then, all the damage done, the old acrockalypse goes out of fashion, and a new one comes along, creating new victims.

    Your second point has been on my mind too lately: “If we’re specks on a speck revolving around a speck in a speck embedded in specklessness, why care? “Care” is a joke. We suck.” I will respond to it.

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    I agree with you News:) By “overreaction” I meant “stop driving my car”.

  6. 6
    anthropic says:

    Overreaction: Stop driving my car.

    Proper reaction: Others stop driving their cars.

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    Exactly, Anthropic – that’s what I’m talking about:)

    The nice thing(design?) about Climate Change is the pace at which it happens. Slow & steady, give us enough time to adapt. But not so slow as to be unnoticeable. That would be sneaky. Just right, not too fast not too slow.

    We have no excuse to be unprepared. But to be honest, how does one prepare for a slow and steady change in climate?

    “oceans will flood coastal areas”. Slowly though, right? Time to get out of the way.

    “50% of species will go extinct”. Oh well, can’t fight evolution. But a little more warmth here and a little more cold there might evolve up some cool new designs. Silver lining.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    An often overlooked fact about the Privileged Planet principle that Gonzalez and Richards originally put forward, on top of the fact that a life supporting planet will be exceeding rare to find in the universe, is the fact that any planet in the universe that is capable of supporting advanced life will also be privileged for making scientific discoveries about the universe:

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    – Jay Richards

    The Privileged Planet – The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability
    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
    – Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    The principle that any advanced life in the universe will have a privileged position for scientific discovery in the universe is gone over in greater detail in the video that News has embedded in the OP.
    IMHO, the ‘discoverability correlation’ argument of Gonzalez and Richards is a very powerful addition to the ‘Rare Earth’ argument, an argument employed by scientists such as Hugh Ross, since the Rare Earth argument relies solely on probability and fails to note the correlation to discoverability.
    Although, to be sure, the probability argument of Dr. Hugh Ross is a very powerful argument in and of itself:

    Does the Probability for ETI = 1?
    Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054.
    http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. equals 10^324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. equals 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. equals 10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video
    https://vimeo.com/118304005

    It is also interesting to note that Robin Collins made a successful prediction off of Gonzalez’s and Richard’s Privileged Planet, i.e. discoverability, hypothesis for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation(CMB):

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near – optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated).,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    This following video is of related ‘discoverability correlation’ interest for the CMB:

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History (To see the Cosmic Background Radiation) – Hugh Ross – video
    http://vimeo.com/31940671

    Also of related interest to the Cosmic Background radiation being ‘set up’ for discovery, is this tidbit. The solar system itself seems to line up with the largest cosmic features of the CMB:

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf
    Here is the actual graph of the alignment from the Huterer 2007 paper (worth a thousand words):
    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/1.....is_o10.jpg

    Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles were, as the Planck video indicated, actually verified by Planck.
    Here is a 2013 paper which confirms Huterer’s 2007 paper:

    Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck – 2013
    We revisit the alignments of the largest structures observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) using the seven and nine-year WMAP and first-year Planck data releases. The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.,,, both the WMAP and Planck data confirm the alignments of the largest observable CMB modes in the Universe.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4562

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest to the preceding finding is this following finding:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    As well, there is also something called the anthropic inequality that is interesting to learn about:

    Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video (23:00 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422327029&x-yt-cl=84838260&v=IGbq0fN_9Y0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1393

    Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head – Daniel Bakken – January 26, 2015
    Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn’t arisen in Earth’s habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks “So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?” Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93011.html

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    All in all, as far as empirical evidence is concerned, the Intelligent Design proponent is doing extremely well in supporting his claim that the Earth is Intelligently Designed in the universe to support advanced life like human life.

    supplemental notes:

    Privileged Species – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves.,,
    For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality. As far as the exponential graph itself is concerned, 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;

    Verse and Music:

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

    MercyMe – Flawless (Official Music Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjLlLPZderk

  10. 10
    News says:

    ppolish at 5: For environmental and several other reasons, I do not drive a car. I have made a point of working at home and living near shops and services, so in general I do not need one. For long distances, I travel by train.

    NOT saying everyone must or should do that. It depends on what you need.

    Only that just not keeping a car reduces one’s “carbon footprint” dramatically.

    It also makes one impatient with “environmentalists” who own several homes and waste thousands of litres of jet fuel (because how could the world get by without hearing from them?)

    Try us.

  11. 11
    ppolish says:

    “News” at 10. You rock!;)

    If you’re ever in NoCal via Amtrak, look me up at my bike shop and I’ll give you a super UD discount on a shiny Bianchi?

    BA77 at 8&9. Thank you for those “homework” assignments. You rock too:)

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Entangled “Mixed” States, (entangled states which interact with the environment), are shown to also violate local realism:

    Physicists demonstrate new violations of local realism – Jun 10, 2015
    Excerpt: in a new paper, physicists have demonstrated a new family of entangled states that violates the principle of “local realism”—an intuitive concept that is a standard feature of classical theories, but disturbingly at odds with quantum theory.,,,
    When two objects are entangled, a measurement on one object instantly affects the state of the other, even more quickly than light could travel between them. This instantaneous action goes against our intuition that an object should be affected only by its immediate surroundings, a concept known as locality.
    For years, physicists struggled to definitively answer the question of whether or not entangled states truly violate local realism—that is, do they violate either locality or realism, where realism is simply the assumption that objects exist even when they’re not being observed?
    Although it was long suspected that at least some entangled states violate local realism due to how they seem to instantly influence each other, it wasn’t until 1991 that physicist Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva quantitatively demonstrated that all pure entangled states must violate local realism. This result is now known as Gisin’s theorem.
    In quantum mechanics, a “pure” entangled state is one that is clearly defined. However, the vast majority of entangled states are “mixed” to some degree, meaning they consist of a combination of multiple types of pure states. Although Gisin’s theorem holds only for pure states, over the years physicists have extended the theorem by showing that some other types of states can also violate local realism.
    In a new paper,, Jing-Ling Chen,,, demonstrated that all mixed states that obey a certain steering property must violate local realism.,,
    “Our enhanced Gisin’s theorem is the first time that the theorem has been generalized from pure states to mixed ones, and includes the original Gisin’s theorem as a special case,” Chen, a physicist at Nankai University in China and the National University of Singapore, told Phys.org.,,,
    Since a quantum system inevitably interacts with its environment, the quantum states practically always are to some degree ‘mixed.,,,
    As Chen explained, entanglement, steering, and violations of local realism can be thought of as three different forms of quantum correlations that form a hierarchical structure, with violations of local realism being the strongest form. Steering, the intermediate form, takes the correlations of entanglement a step further so that one system can control—or “steer”—the state of its entangled partner.
    Here, the physicists demonstrated that, if two observers are able to steer each other’s qubits into pure states by making a measurement on their own qubit that spontaneously collapses the state of the other’s qubit, then even if the qubits were originally in mixed states, they must violate local realism.,,,
    “In this hierarchical structure of entanglement, steering, and violations of local realism, the former contain the latter as a subset,” Chen explained.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-p.....alism.html

Leave a Reply