From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de   
      
   "Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)"  writes:   
   >In general, one can discuss the question whether the universe is   
   >fine-tuned for life independently of whether one has an explanation for   
   >it.   
      
     To "fine-tune" is a verb. "It is fine-tuned." contains a   
     passive use of that verb which omits the actor. Who or what   
     could have /done/ "fine-tuning"?   
      
     Physics makes observations (preparations, measurements) and   
     then tries to describe all observations in a text that is as   
     encompassing (encompassing as much observations as possible,   
     in the ideal case: all observations) and as short as possible   
     (in the ideal case: a short "world formula" describing all   
     observations).   
      
     When we ask "Was there a fine-tuning" or "What did it?", is   
     this still physics in the sense of the preceding paragraph?   
     Maybe - if it helps us to shorten the description.   
      
   >     For example, Darwin correctly postulated the theory of evolution,   
      
     There are still some issues I have with the theory of evolution.   
     For now, it's the best explanation found so far.   
      
   >Not really.  Organisms are fine-tuned to their environment via   
   >evolution, but this is not an explanation of the sort of fine-tuning   
   >discussed in a cosmological context.   
      
     We must be careful to avoid anthropomorphization of the   
     nature. The nature does not try to achieve anything as far   
     as we know. So, organizms are not fine-tuned intentionally.   
     Instead the physical laws just make the evolution happen.   
     The evolution does not try to achieve anything. This is only   
     a projection of our minds into the nature. As Lao-Tse said:   
      
   |Heaven and earth are not humane,   
   |                            treating the myriad things as straw dogs.   
      
     .   
      
   >Yes.  Many who argue the case for fine-tuning make the point that   
   >fine-tuning for sentience is the point, not life, or humans, or   
   >whatever.   
      
     I wonder whether they even have an operational definition   
     for "sentient" ("sentience"). I am not aware of such a   
     definition. Without such a definition, it's gibberish to me.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)