The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

[w1z4rd]

Aneuploidy is most like a bigger contribution.

Agents capable of causing aneuploidy are called aneuploidogens. Many mutagenic carcinogens are aneuploidogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy

I see you also get some Non-mutagenic carcinogens.

Non-mutagenic carcinogens
Many mutagens are also carcinogens, but some carcinogens are not mutagens. Examples of carcinogens that are not mutagens include alcohol and estrogen. These are thought to promote cancers through their stimulating effect on the rate of cell mitosis. Faster rates of mitosis increasingly leave fewer opportunities for repair enzymes to repair damaged DNA during DNA replication, increasing the likelihood of a genetic mistake. A mistake made during mitosis can lead to the daughter cells' receiving the wrong number of chromosomes, which leads to aneuploidy and may lead to cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis#Non-mutagenic_carcinogens

 

[Techne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy

I see you also get some Non-mutagenic carcinogens.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis#Non-mutagenic_carcinogens

Interestingly, one of the most widely used group of used anticancer agents, antimitotics, actually induce aneuploidy. This is one of the reasons why there are so many cases of cancer relapse. Reason being, while antimitotics have the ability to kill fast dividing cells such as cancer cells (and your hair, that is why your hair falls out), it also produces a small sub-population of new aneuploid cells that have developed resistance to antimitotics and have the potential to develop into invasive and metastatic cancer cells. So... Some anticancer agents are also carcinogens.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Thread derail level: Oncovirus

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The whole point of the fine-tuning argument is that carbon based life, especially the homo sapien variant, has some kind of cosmic significance. This hasn't been established.

You can take any arbitrary feature or phenomena of the universe and state that changing the fundamental constants would make it impossible for it to exist. Does this make it special? No.

 

[Techne]

The whole point of the fine-tuning argument is that carbon based life, especially the homo sapien variant, has some kind of cosmic significance. This hasn't been established.

Not really no. The argument does not explicitly mention homo sapiens.

You can take any arbitrary feature or phenomena of the universe and state that changing the fundamental constants would make it impossible for it to exist. Does this make it special? No.

That is not true.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Not really no. The argument does not explicitly mention homo sapiens.

Isn't this just more intellectual dishonesty? I don't mean from you, obviously. The only people who use the fine-tuning argument are the ones who are advocating intelligent design, which is just creationism's new dress. So if you don't argue that life's emergence is improbable or 'special', therefore purpose, then what are you actually saying? That if the constants were different, life might not emerge? Well, so what?

Seems to me saying the universe is fine-tuned for life is meaningless if you don't actually subscribe some kind of special privilege to life, and not just as being another feature of the universe.

That is not true.

If you alter the fundamental constants by a little bit then Jupiter probably wouldn't exist, or be where it is now.

 

[Techne]

Isn't this just more intellectual dishonesty? I don't mean from you, obviously. The only people who use the fine-tuning argument are the ones who are advocating intelligent design, which is just creationism's new dress.

This is not true. Martin Reese, and many other supporters of fine-tuning are not a supporters of ID.

So if you don't argue that life's emergence is improbable or 'special', therefore purpose, then what are you actually saying? That if the constants were different, life might not emerge? Well, so what?

It is an interesting observation that "the set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore" (through simulation).

Seems to me saying the universe is fine-tuned for life is meaningless if you don't actually subscribe some kind of special privilege to life, and not just as being another feature of the universe.

I think this observation is interesting (and not meaningless) irrespective of whether someone subscribes to "some kind of special privilege to life" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or not.

If you alter the fundamental constants by a little bit then Jupiter probably wouldn't exist, or be where it is now.

Read the article in the OP post, it explains the sensitivity of the fundamental constants and the consequences of changing them even by minute fractions. It is interesting.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

This is not true. Martin Reese, and many other supporters of fine-tuning are not a supporters of ID.

Well, then he's not using it as an argument, is he? It's just an observation.

It is an interesting observation that "the set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore" (through simulation).


I think this observation is interesting (and not meaningless) irrespective of whether someone subscribes to "some kind of special privilege to life" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or not.


Read the article in the OP post, it explains the sensitivity of the fundamental constants and the consequences of changing them even by minute fractions. It is interesting.

Okay, so just an interesting observation, nothing more? Why is organic life's emergence more interesting than Jupiter's existence and position?

 

[Moosedrool]

Certain ice moons in our solar system can also host life as the conditions under the ice sheets is calculated to be very close to some areas life is found on earth. But remember this is if you only consider life as we know it. A species doesn't necessarily have to be carbon based.

The Ideal conditions for a universe to work however is actually only up too 4 fundamental forces.

Strong nuclear force (Holds protons together and the quarks it's made of, Gluons)
Weak nuclear force (Is responsible for radioactive decay in matter and carried by W and Z bosons)
Gravity (Pulls matter together)
Electromagnetic force (Holds atoms together and allows molecules to form among a range of other properties, also carried by photons)

Adjusting the strength of these values could give a range of universes to exist in a system. Quantum mechanics and upper theory's such as string theory or E8 Suggests that there exists a multiverse where each of these possible states exists. Configuration of these forces that would allow a universe to exist is predicted to be infinite therefore saying that there are large gaps within the extra dimensional space but there will be other universes that could coexist. An infinite amount.

Our universe isn't so special if you look at it from this perspective. The matter that was generated and left behind by the big bang cooled and formed protons due to all 4 of these interactions and there properties in this system. Protons and electrons co aside making hydrogen atoms in the greater deal of the universe although it is recently predicted (hypothesis) that the event was so intense that Helium and a bit of carbon was generated. Gravity pulls the gasses together and fusion starts. These fusion reactors is known as stars today and is the mechanisms in creating heavier elements.

 

[Techne]

Well, then he's not using it as an argument, is he? It's just an observation.

Exactly. It is an interesting observation...

Okay, so just an interesting observation, nothing more? Why is organic life's emergence more interesting than Jupiter's existence and position?

You can focus on planet formation if you want. You need planets for life and only vast minority of possible universes (again, from simulation) even form planets that exist for long periods of time.

 

[Techne]

Certain ice moons in our solar system can also host life as the conditions under the ice sheets is calculated to be very close to some areas life is found on earth. But remember this is if you only consider life as we know it. A species doesn't necessarily have to be carbon based.

The Ideal conditions for a universe to work however is actually only up too 4 fundamental forces.

Strong nuclear force (Holds protons together and the quarks it's made of, Gluons)
Weak nuclear force (Is responsible for radioactive decay in matter and carried by W and Z bosons)
Gravity (Pulls matter together)
Electromagnetic force (Holds atoms together and allows molecules to form among a range of other properties, also carried by photons)

Adjusting the strength of these values could give a range of universes to exist in a system. Quantum mechanics and upper theory's such as string theory or E8 Suggests that there exists a multiverse where each of these possible states exists. Configuration of these forces that would allow a universe to exist is predicted to be infinite therefore saying that there are large gaps within the extra dimensional space but there will be other universes that could coexist. An infinite amount.
Our universe isn't so special if you look at it from this perspective. The matter that was generated and left behind by the big bang cooled and formed protons due to all 4 of these interactions and there properties in this system. Protons and electrons co aside making hydrogen atoms in the greater deal of the universe although it is recently predicted (hypothesis) that the event was so intense that Helium and a bit of carbon was generated. Gravity pulls the gasses together and fusion starts. These fusion reactors is known as stars today and is the mechanisms in creating heavier elements.

That would be an elegant solution. string theory lacks empirical verification unfortunately.