What would a designed universe look like?

[GeeMack]

Let's look at the responses I received when I posted that shall we?

[...]

And I'm being a Selfish Ingrate?

Yes. Your flippant dismissal of the replies to your query demonstrates that. Oh, and you forgot... willfully ignorant selfish ingrate.

Now how about that question I asked? What do you think a designed universe would look like, ACS? Do you think it would look like the one we currently occupy? And given the obvious flaws that others have described, don't you agree that the supposed designer did a crappy job?

 

[Olowkow]

- Serious - although this poster probably meant Habitable instead of Inhabitable.

So - only 1 for sure serious answer. The rest are questionable and concluded as being silly.

And I'm being a Selfish Ingrate?

Adjective: inhabitable

1. Fit for habitation
   - habitable

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Adjective: inhabitable

1. Fit for habitation
   - habitable

Thanks.

 

[Denver]

Let's look at the responses I received when I posted that shall we?

I think it would depend on the designer.

If it were designed by committee, physics books would probably read more like the IRS code.

- Didn't answer what it would look like. Silly.

It may have had humor, but it wasn't silly. It would in fact depend on the designer, and the designer's purpose for it. If it was made as an experiment or a prototype, then it wouldn't be expected to have long-term viability, but instead prove some concept before it was shut down. If it was meant as a toy, it would be expected to be stable and be able to take some abuse. If a home was being designed for loved ones, it would be expected to protect them from the elements. And so on. So, maybe if you were a little more specific about the purposes of the designer, your answers would be a little less, as you see them, silly?

 

[joobz]

What would a designed universe look like?

It'd have Shag Carpeting.

 

[I Ratant]

At the micro-level, I'll wonder about the need for Alzheimer's.
That's a monstrous tragedy to all involved.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

It may have had humor, but it wasn't silly. It would in fact depend on the designer, and the designer's purpose for it. If it was made as an experiment or a prototype, then it wouldn't be expected to have long-term viability, but instead prove some concept before it was shut down. If it was meant as a toy, it would be expected to be stable and be able to take some abuse. If a home was being designed for loved ones, it would be expected to protect them from the elements. And so on. So, maybe if you were a little more specific about the purposes of the designer, your answers would be a little less, as you see them, silly?

OK. Here.

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic
Let's look at the responses I received when I posted that shall we?

I think it would depend on the designer. - Didn't answer what it would look like.

If it were designed by committee, physics books would probably read more like the IRS code. - Silly.

 

[Denver]

OK. Here.

Yes, like I said, you did not give enough information for an answer that will satisfy you. Please list the purpose for which the universe in question is being designed, and then we could propose designs based on that, or compare and critique to the current model. Without that, it is like saying "What would a designed bug look like?". It would greatly depend on the purpose for which the bug was being designed.

 

[andyandy]

Interestingly enough, based on everything we know, a universe designed a life would have to look very similar to the one that we are living in. Given that this is the religion section, and people generally just want to bash religion in it, I'm not sure if a genuine discussion on the science behind universal fine tuning is possible here.

But nevertheless,

The Universe as a fluke and multiverse theories are necessary options to explain universal fine tuning - the standard model of particle physics has 28 free parameters, cosmology may be said to introduce more, string theory the grand unifier introduces even greater constraints. If the proton to electron ratio were much smaller there would be no stars, if it were much larger, there would be no ordered structures like crystals or DNA, if protons were 0.2% heavier they would decay into neutrons and thus there would be no stable atoms, the list goes on. We can pretend that actually this isn't so, but it is. One can dismiss the conclusions by deciding that actually these parameters can be simplified - but this is not based on current scientific knowledge or reasoning but instead is just post hoc justification of an already held belief.

With the Goldilocks enigma we are faced with the following choices;

1) our universe as it exists is an astronomical fluke
2) our universe is explained through multiverse models
3) goddidit
4) our universe is explained through CS (computer simulation)
5) our universe can be explained without recourse for (1)-(4) but human knowledge is insufficient to do so now.

of the choices (1) and (3) are unpalatable and (5) requires in effect an appeal to human ignorance.
of the two left (2) requires the the problem is simply shifted up a level, that the complexity of the model is vastly increased and that we accept that this may be unfalsifiable.
(4) does not require greater complexity at the level of reality, provides a possibility for a simplistic CO explanation with that reality, but again requires that we accept that this may be unfalsifiable.

Therefore with a universe looking like it was indeed designed for life, we can take our choices from one to five......Given the choices (4) would appear an appealing option - regardless of counter-intuitive resistance. That's not to say one should accept it, but simply accept that it doesn't fare so badly against the alternatives, as it provides us with a designer but not a god


with regards to cosmic fine tuning, selection effects and anthropic reasoning,
http://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/spacetime.pdf
is well worth a read...

With regards to Bostrom's computer simulation argument
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
is also worth looking at

Okay, I've said my bit, everyone can go back to beating up Christians

 

[Safe-Keeper]

This universe looks like it wasn't designed because evidence points to natural processes creating planets, stars, galaxies, asteroids, lifeforms and everything else in it.

If our came about magically all at the same time, as in the Jewish genesis myth which the Christians somehow managed to take literally, it would be obvious that it did. There wouldn't be evidence of evolution all over the Earth. The celestial bodies wouldn't all be expanding from a single point (they are, as far as I know), we wouldn't be able to trace our ancestry through various species if all species were designed at once... and so on.

In short: If I observed a designed universe, I'd be able to find evidence it was designed. I cannot.

ETA: Sure, you can say that God created the universe making every effort to make it appear it came about naturally. But which is the most likely, that it came about naturally, or that God hid the evidence? Occam's razor says the former.

 

[Hokulele]

Precisely. We'd need to understand the motivations and requirements of the designer.

It would be extremely difficult to decide from scratch what a designed or undesigned universe should be like, since we only have one example to go on.

What we can say is that if the universe is designed, this is the kind of universe that a designer would like.

The problem is, by definition a design communicates an intention. Since the universe does not seem to communicate any single intention (possibly other than "humans should be fragile, short-lived, ignorant, and edible"), it is impossible to confidently state it is designed.

Of course, that does not mean that it was not designed. One can always assume an incompetent designer.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Interestingly enough, based on everything we know, a universe designed a life would have to look very similar to the one that we are living in.

Based on what? Anthropic principles aside, there is no reason to assume that life need to have the look that we see since there are many other potential body plans that did not work out evolutionarily.

A designed universe could look dramatically different from what we see. Based on the way that we think we might expect perfect geometrical forms, no disease, etc. We don't see that.

 

[Hokulele]

Interestingly enough, based on everything we know, a universe designed a life would have to look very similar to the one that we are living in.

[nitpick]

A universe designed for life as we know it. Life as we do not know it is a completely different kettle of horses of many colors.

[/nitpick]


ETA: ARRGGGHHH! Beaten to the punch by one named for an example of an unkind designer. Hmph.

 

[andyandy]

Based on what? Anthropic principles aside, there is no reason to assume that life need to have the look that we see since there are many other potential body plans that did not work out evolutionarily.

A designed universe could look dramatically different from what we see. Based on the way that we think we might expect perfect geometrical forms, no disease, etc. We don't see that.

But that misses the fundamental problem with the Goldilocks enigma, insofar as based on everything we know, a universe in which the aforementioned parameters were not fine tuned, would be unable to support intelligent life of any description. Indeed there would be no stars, or indeed atoms if such parameters were not fulfilled. That the universe has a set of finely tuned parameters which are required to explain cosmic origin is not a left-field idea - it's mainstream physics. That's why the current thinking tends towards multi-verse theories to explain the astronomical likelihoods required. You seem to be arguing against universal fine tuning by the setting up of "design" through an imposed anthropic ideal centred around your own notions of God. This is not necessary. A designer does not require God, and neither would require perfection (much loved though Omni God is )

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The whole moral of the Fall of Man in the Genesis is about Man not cooperating with God - and thus apparently causing a negative ripple effect outwards into ALL creation. You don't have to believe it to know what it's saying.

The problem is that you are phrasing this as a justification or a rationalization for all the suffering that goes on in the world. You did not say that the Genesis story was simply a statement of the way things are. You might believe that God has a reason for doing everything, and has a special place in Heaven reserved for people that are horribly mangled on a daily basis, but what kind of tragedy (natural or otherwise) could not be rationalized this way? How is it even moral to think this way?

Anyone who designed this would be fired.

Well, some of us already have fired the incompetent bastard.

 

[JoeEllison]

Interestingly enough, based on everything we know, a universe designed a life would have to look very similar to the one that we are living in. Given that this is the religion section, and people generally just want to bash religion in it, I'm not sure if a genuine discussion on the science behind universal fine tuning is possible here.

Actually, you're completely dead wrong(probably)... from a philosophical as well as scientific standpoint, and there's little need to deal with your specific arguments (well-crafted as they may be!)

A universe designed based on this universe would probably require similar parameters in order to produce life similar to ours. The sort of designer that religious people would have been an idiot to design a universe this way...

An all-powerful creator, the type religious people believe in, could have created a universe full of people who look exactly like us, except filled completely with lime Jello and those weird orange "peanut" candy things.

 

[Tricky]

Interestingly enough, based on everything we know, a universe designed a life would have to look very similar to the one that we are living in.

I strongly disagree. A universe designed for life would have a whole lot more places where life could exist. Maybe put several earth-sized planets in our same orbit rotating at the same speed. Or maybe something more like Ringworld or a Dyson Sphere. Certainly there are plenty of raw materials and plenty of energy just in our solar system alone to support many orders of magnitude more organisms.

And such a structure would have a clear function, which is what I mentioned earlier when I said if it were designed, it would have a function which is obvious.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, like I said, you did not give enough information for an answer that will satisfy you. Please list the purpose for which the universe in question is being designed, and then we could propose designs based on that, or compare and critique to the current model. Without that, it is like saying "What would a designed bug look like?". It would greatly depend on the purpose for which the bug was being designed.

Oh, silly you, Denver. You ask that as if ACS might actually participate in a productive conversation. Interestingly (but oh so predictably), he criticizes and dismisses legitimate replies to his questions, yet refuses to respond to pertinent questions asked by other posters. We've seen him exhibit this behavior in many threads over many months. But then living one's life devoid of skepticism and guided by ancient superstition doesn't seem to require courage or honesty. ACS can't seem to muster much of either.

 

[Hokulele]

And such a structure would have a clear function, which is what I mentioned earlier when I said if it were designed, it would have a function which is obvious.

Does a design require an actual function? In my previous post, I argued that a design requires an intention, which may be slightly different from a function (unless you are Larsen trying to "sell" something).

 

[Kaylee]

A kind merciful god seems incapatible with the idea of sentient prey that feels pain. So, depending upon the designer, the universe would be filled with vegetarians.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a vegetarian.)