It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"It's gotta exist outside the solar system," he told host Josh Zepps. "I mean there's 200 billion stars in this galaxy alone. Then you start talking about the hundreds of billions of galaxies. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, which in turn have hundreds of billions of stars, which in turn have tens of hundreds of billions -- trillions -- of planets. Come on!"
In cosmology, the vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between measured values of the vacuum energy density and the theoretical zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. This discrepancy has been described as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[1]
originally posted by: TechniXcality
Ironicly perhaps we don't even fall under the universal measure of intelligent.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The only thing I agree with in your op is that life has to exist elsewhere in the universe (probably even in the galaxy). Everything else, not so much. It's all circumstantial reasoning, but the reason that the first statement is true is because probability pretty much makes it a certainty. The fine tuning argument is just a poor argument that assumes the universe has a purpose despite no scientific evidence for a purpose exists. It also assumes that life is the pinnacle of achievement in the universe. This clearly isn't true, because intelligent life is better than life, and I'd reason that artificial life (the likely next step) will be better than natural intelligent life. And even then, there may be even BETTER things out there that we haven't discovered yet.
The fine tuning argument is just an arrogant argument derived from similar reasoning like the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. It's just a dinosaur leftover from humans mistakingly believing that they are more important in the universe than they really are.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: TechniXcality
Ironicly perhaps we don't even fall under the universal measure of intelligent.
Either way, intelligence is obviously not the penultimate outcome of life devolping on a particular planet.
originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: neoholographic
I agree Well said brother.
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Saying intelligent life "obviously" isn't penultimate is a bit short sighted, imo. Since it has been so far for life on our little rock, so why not in the rest of the universe.
originally posted by: neoholographic
I agree and the fact that there's growing evidence for Panspermia supports this as well.
originally posted by: borntowatch
originally posted by: neoholographic
I agree and the fact that there's growing evidence for Panspermia supports this as well.
Care to point me in the direction of the evidenced, any, growing or not.
I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”
19 May 1995: two scientists at Cal Poly showed that bacteria can survive without any metabolism for at least 25 million years; probably they are immortal.
+ 24 November 1995: The New York Times described bacteria that can survive radiation much stronger than any that Earth has ever experienced.
+ 7 August 1996: NASA announced fossilized evidence of ancient life in meteorite ALH 84001 from Mars.
+ 27 October 1996: geneticists showed evidence that many genes are much older than the fossil record would indicate. Subsequent studies have strengthened this finding.
+ 29 July 1997: a NASA scientist announced evidence of fossilized microscopic life forms in a meteorite not from any known planet.
+ Spring, 1998: a microfossil that was found in a meteorite and photographed in 1966, was recognized by a Russian microbiologist as a magnetotactic bacterium.
+ Fall, 1998: NASA's public position on life-from-space shifted dramatically.
+ 4 January 1999: NASA officially recognized the possibility that life on Earth comes from space.
+ 19 March 1999: NASA scientists announced that two more meteorites hold even stronger fossilized evidence for past life on Mars.
+ 26 April 2000: the German team operating the mass spectrometer on NASA's Stardust mission announced the detection of very large organic molecules in space. Nonbiological sources for organic molecules so large are not known.
+ 19 October 2000, a team of biologists and a geologist announced the revival of bacteria that are 250 million years old, strengthening that case that bacterial spores can be immortal.
+ 13 December 2000: a NASA team demonstrated that the magnetosomes in Mars meteorite ALH 84001 are biological.
+ June 2002: Geneticists reported evidence that the evolutionary step from chimps to humans was assisted by viruses.
+ 2 August 2004: Very convincing photos of fossilized cyanobacteria in a meteorite were reported by a NASA scientist.
+ 25 January 2005: J. Craig Venter endorses panspermia.
+ 10 May 2007: E. O. Wilson endorses panspermia.
+ 18 April 2008: Richard Dawkins endorses panspermia.
+ 7 April 2009: Stephen Hawking endorses panspermia.
+ 2 May 2009: Freeman Dyson speaks favorably about panspermia.
+ 3 March 2011: NASA's Richard Hoover publishes excellent images of microfossils in carbonaceous meteorites.
+ January 2013: A meteorite that fell, 29 December, in Sri Lanka, is seen to contain fossilized diatoms.
originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: neoholographic
The fallacys of that fine tuning video are a few but the largest one is that they kept saying "If this value was just slightly different, none of us would exist". Well it is absurd to assume that no life at all would exist with slightly altered constants.
That fine tuning video assumes that humans are center and epi-point of all life potencies. I couldn't even finish it. If I wasn't on my phone I would dissect it further for you.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Saying intelligent life "obviously" isn't penultimate is a bit short sighted, imo. Since it has been so far for life on our little rock, so why not in the rest of the universe.
It has? Why did it take billions of years and only happen due to rather narrow enviornmental parameters?
Why did it not devlop previously and with much more frequency?
It is very obvious that it is not the goal otherwise we would not have needed all the various twists and turns that brought us to this point.
originally posted by: neoholographic
originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: neoholographic
The fallacys of that fine tuning video are a few but the largest one is that they kept saying "If this value was just slightly different, none of us would exist". Well it is absurd to assume that no life at all would exist with slightly altered constants.
That fine tuning video assumes that humans are center and epi-point of all life potencies. I couldn't even finish it. If I wasn't on my phone I would dissect it further for you.
Show me the Scientific Evidence that supports your assertion. I would like to read the published paper. Show me where life exists with slightly altered constants.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You say the fine-tuning argument is a poor argument but you don't offer anything to rebut it. Do you understand what it means for the cosmological constant to be at one part in 10/120? Do you understand how far off this is from from predictions?
Predictions were off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!!!
This is the furthest thing from a poor argument. It's the only argument unless you can show me the scientific evidence that shows what cancels out this energy and that these values are something that occurs naturally.
This is tied to entropy, gravity, the strong nuclear force and more. When people say it's a poor argument they're just repeating James Randi or Richard Dawkins who said he doesn't understand the issue.
The fine-tuning of the universe supports design. You have to go outside of physics to avoid this and even then you run into troubles.