Poor guy. I wonder what kind of university he went to. He must've been tortured there. It is true that a lot of bad students only know memorizing and repeating. These are not the students who get to work in research labs. Just because you failed doesn't mean everybody else also failed. Here is an example of what a university research lab does: http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/media_pr.html
I've never been to mit so I can't comment on that, but even if mit is as good as they or you say it is, how many mits do we have I've been to two universities, both in the world and states top 100 universities you gotta be kidding me, who the fuck fails a university, the guy must be a full blown drug addict, or too rich to care since your link points to an electronics lab, i'm interested to know, if you know anything about electronics, so as to be able to read those documents and make a judgment on it's value, or you just pulled it out of your ass, and point to electronics because you think everyone thinks electronics is a very challenging field
Okay... The implication of #1 requires the premise of a designer. This is true, because if there are no other universes, then there is no way to compute the probability that the universe might have turned out differently. This is true, because in order to compute a probabiity, you need an ensemble, i.e., sufficient number of independent trials of universal development with which to calculate a probability of a cosmological constant of 10^-120. As a further demonstration of why #1 is incorrect is to consider some other place in our existing universe as it compares to our own planet. We view our Earth as incredibly special because it has an atmosphere and life, etc. But, why is it any more special than say, the center of the Sun, or the surface of Triton? The answer is: because it's where we are located to type about it. Our fascination with the "specialness" of this place is entirely anthropic. Objectively, every point in the universe is unique -- we just choose to view our place as the most special. Concerning #2, quantum solutions predict that the vacuum energy of the universe should be wildly greater than it is. But, that could be because there is dark matter and/or energy or some other particle or physical property that we have yet to include in the calculus. By attributing this lack of information to God, you make the same assumption as has every human since the beginning of time: wherever nature is unknown, God is there to fill in the gap. This is just religion, not science. Concerning #3, string theory is not the only theory that explains the cosmological constant. Only last week, physicist Garrett Lisi published "An Extraordinarily Simple Theory of Everything." It quite literally ties the entire known universe together with some very elegant mathematics, and without the introduction of God. String theorists, naturally, are unimpressed -- however, a lot of classical physicists find Lisi's work inspired. The jury is still out, but the point is that to state unequivocally that the cosmological constant is proof of divine intervention is demonstrably false, as long as there is ANY other natural explanation available. I submit that God would limit itself were it to permit proof of its existence. The ability to measure or fix God's existence renders God instantly natural and part of the universe. Some say that God is one with the universe, so there's nothing unnatural about the creator's existence. Regardless, science cannot measure God, and without a measurement there is no availability for any conclusion re God, other than through faith. Thus, the argument is always the same: one either believes, does not believe, or leaves the question open because of a lack of sufficient information. The difference is that the believer no longer requires further information, so he/she terminates the search. The non-believer also requires no further information. Only the person who remains open continues to search for greater knowledge. And, in the end, that's all there really is to keep life interesting.
First of all, thx for the civil post. I seem to bring out the worst in people - not quite sure how I do it because I'm just saying my opinion. Anyway, your point here is true. We don't really have any probabilities to assign here. And as another poster pointed out, many of these constants are built on top of other constants. But, from my standpoint, that is a (non-deliberate) diversion. Pre-Hubbell, an atheist might have mocked a Christian saying: "Look Mr. Theist/Deist: we have random processes creating life on planet earth and a universe that has probably existed for all time. There is no sign of a God anywhere. If there were a God, wouldn't we see a sign of His activity somewhere." Then a few decades later, the COBE satellite experiment verifies that the universe has popped out of a singularity with - and I don't care how you word this - with everything set up to build planets with carbon. Now here's my question for you: what else do you want? Seriously. If there was a Creator and He was a Mathematical Super Genius and wanted to build a universe to impress people like you and me that love math and science. Is this not impressive? I mean what else do you want? In my case I am more impressed every day with what I find out about electomagnetism, gravity, relativity - all of these things are incredibly awe-inspiring to me. I really am more impressed with the genius behind all of this than I could ever could be if God sent me a hundred flying unicorns and a thousand dancing elves. I simply cannot imagine anything more in-your-face incredible than a universe so complex and marvelous and even bizarre coming out of a point with unimaginable force. It's maximum design in minimum space. And, yes, I realize all of this shows my bias. But then who doesn't?
Btw, if you really get to talk to some profs or ex-profs, I am interested in what they have to say even if it's dead opposite of me...
Yes, I knew that Sting Theory wasn't the only game in town. What I had read was that the chief competitor to String Theory was Quantum Loop Gravity or something similar. I'll definitely be doing some (layman's) research on Lisi's theory later! Thx for the information. But, from what I have read, String Theory is probably still the top candidate. But I agree noone knows and String Theory is currently unverifiable and some people don't realize that there are a large # of reasonable "subsolutions" within String Theory which make it even harder to nail down.
One problem with your argument is the implicit assumption that carbon based life is the only possible life form, and that the elements can only be made from protons, neutrons and electrons. Given a universe of different parameters that won't allow the formation of hydrogen or carbon, why can't elements be made of muons and life formed from muon based silicon? Haven't we learned our lessons since the days of geocentrism and heliocentrism? Why are we still sticking to carboncentrism?
Silicon can only be linked up to about a 100 X (optimistically). And you need that linking to store information. There is one other element that can be linked - Beryllium? Germanium? - but it is rare in the universe whatever it is so it is an even more unlikely solution than silicon. As far as non-proton/neutron based life - that starts getting into science fiction, doesn't it? I mean if we do that we can start talking about energy-based life forms.
You're talking about "in this universe." How do you know how silicons can be linked in another universe, where carbon based life is not even possible? And you're right, if atom based life forms are not possible in another universe, why can't there evolve energy based life forms? So this really defeats your argument that this universe is fine tuned for life. This universe just accidentally happened to develop one particular form of life. That's all it is.