Alex,

To some degree you make a good point. There are many fermions and bosons, so slightly tweaking the physical constants might have horrendous effects for life that is based on protons, neutrons, and electrons, but they might open up new possibilities for kaons, mesons, tau, etc. The trouble I have with this is that we cannot possibly think that each slight tweak results in a life producing universe, correct?

This all but forces us to accept a strong anthropic understanding of the universe in order to properly explain the universe as we see it. Is that what you would like to say, that a strong anthropic principle is all but required? If so, then why would you object if some of us think there exists an all-encompassing holistic principle that links the existence of life and the reason the laws of physics are 'just so'?

Warm regards, Harv

• Alex: Math universe depends on NON-equivalence - dolphin - January 21, 2002 - 07:34 UTC
  • Alan, no god(s) nor their acts were observed. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 17:38 UTC
    • "Explains" is a merry-go-round - dolphin - January 22, 2002 - 09:27 UTC
      • Hey Alan - aurino - January 22, 2002 - 14:56 UTC
        • Thank you, Aurino. But Google didn't find it! - dolphin - January 27, 2002 - 03:55 UTC
• No antropic principle needed. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:08 UTC
  • So, is this how you construe science? - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 18:18 UTC
    • Harvey, those "papers" are not even worth their paper. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:34 UTC
  • Bulk - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
    • s/b bunk (nt) - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
    • I am just more open minded. - alexander - January 23, 2002 - 00:00 UTC
  • Let's define open-mindedness - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:27 UTC
    • Alex, let's define open-mindedness - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:30 UTC
      • Oops, see the top where I reposted this. (nt) - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:32 UTC