https://salvomag.com/article/salvo62/finely-tuned-life

"Rana’s working hypothesis is, “f the Creator intentionally designed the universe to be biofriendly, then he wouldn’t have limited the influence of the universe’s physical constants to the processes of star and planetary formation,” but rather would have “designed the physical constants to influence chemical and biological systems as well.”1 Rana points out that Henderson demonstrated over 100 years ago that anthropic principles abounded in chemistry. This was manifested in Henderson’s insightful characterization of the acid-base buffering systems in blood, the cytoplasm of the cell, and other bodily fluids. Henderson had argued that such a perfect system could never have arisen from the unguided processes of natural selection.

"In examining several key biochemical systems (nucleic acid and protein synthesis, cell membrane formation, and energy harvesting pathways), Rana sought to answer three questions: (1) Does a molecular rationale and logic undergird the structure and function of these systems? (2) Are such physicochemical constraints as molecular geometry and hydrophobicity (the property of being repelled by water), dictated by the laws of nature, responsible for the configuration and activity of these systems? (3) When the structural properties and functional features of natural biochemical systems are compared with other conceivable biochemical analogs, do the natural systems display the just-right properties that make them unusually fit for life? If the answer to all three questions is yes, Rana argues, then these biochemical systems manifest anthropic coincidences.

"Rana’s investigation reveals that not only are all three of these criteria met but that they demonstrate optimization—which is not what we would expect from complex systems arising from purely materialistic processes.

***

"Under the naturalistic paradigm, biochemical systems are said to be the consequence of blind processes occurring over geological time. Consequently, research has primarily focused on characterizing or describing their properties. Rana suggests that an anthropic framework opens up new avenues for research because, as questions formerly raised to answer “what” and “how” are advanced to answer “why,” scientists will seek principles informed by such a framework. These principles would be powerful tools for developing new technologies.

"Scientists will likely resist a biochemical anthropic principle (as many did the cosmological one) because methodological naturalism has held sway for so long. Nevertheless, Rana asserts that there are excellent reasons to affirm the biochemical anthropic principle that biological systems demonstrate exquisite fine-tuning with the just-right properties to sustain life—characteristics that by necessity evince a Mind."

Comment: I have constantly presented complex biochemical processes that are irreducibly complex and require a designing mind. It is an easy step to accept its existence.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. It provided all the elements and conditions for an iron-rich(and metal rich)solar systerm in which an Earth could appear and foster life somehow. Only certain universes in a multiverse can do this. There seems to be general agreeemnt on this point. The anthropic principal is a handmaiden to it.-A very recent paper states that the cosmologic constant (which measures the energy density of the vacuum) should be slightly negative rather than slightly positive for the 'best opportunity'to create life, and thereore this universe is not really fine-tuned for life.-http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/


> It may not be a strong argument, but it seems to me that saying "The universe is fine-tuned for life" is kinda like looking in a mirror and saying "I'm special."-It IS a very strong argument, and it does mean that this is a very special universe, in a way the Goldilocks argument.


> > Matt: Whether by God or by accident, whatever created the universe set in motion a chain reaction that would end up in ourselves. 
> >
> > The problem here is that you would have to have a quantum computer as big as the universe [...] This actually...gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine.
> 
> 
> Matt: I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. 
> 
> 
> These two statements are in conflict. The universe is fine-tuned for life. It provided all the elements and conditions for an iron-rich(and metal rich)solar systerm in which an Earth could appear and foster life somehow. Only certain universes in a multiverse can do this. There seems to be general agreeemnt on this point. The anthropic principal is a handmaiden to it.-It may not be a strong argument, but it seems to me that saying "The universe is fine-tuned for life" is kinda like looking in a mirror and saying "I'm special."


> Matt: Whether by God or by accident, whatever created the universe set in motion a chain reaction that would end up in ourselves. 
>
> The problem here is that you would have to have a quantum computer as big as the universe [...] This actually...gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine.-
Matt: I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. -
These two statements are in conflict. The universe is fine-tuned for life. It provided all the elements and conditions for an iron-rich(and metal rich)solar systerm in which an Earth could appear and foster life somehow. Only certain universes in a multiverse can do this. There seems to be general agreeemnt on this point. The anthropic principal is a handmaiden to it.


> *** I shall, of course, invite you all to the celebration in Stockholm, where I would like David to say grace, Mark to pronounce the blessing, Matt to read the lesson from Nietzsche's Die Geburt der Tragödie, Frank to process the food, Spotti-crow TO TEST IT FOR WORMS, and George and BBella to perform the following dialogue between Lear and Cordelia, which sparked the whole thing off:
> CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
> LEAR: Nothing?
> CORDELIA: Nothing.
> LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing...-
I shall be there!!!-bb


> This actually... gives a bit more weight to the idea of a universal consciousness, though what would be going through the universe's "mind" would always be in a state of flux. Since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine...
> 
> I really, really wish I could go through the math with you guys... though I don't mind ridicule I think you'd appreciate it better! I know you think this is fantasy but I really feel I've stumbled onto something profound...-Since we know about'spooky action at a distance', and the theory is two sister particles, apart at a distance of the diameter of the universe, communicate instantaneously, it is not fantasy! I've been acquainted with the idea of the universe as a computer. I just can't follow your math decisions at the beginning. I don't know why you start as you do. Don't try to explain. We're doing fine this way.


> What makes it a bit more frustrating in your case, is that you are willing to make the claim without much to say about the nature of this deity... an explanation that includes a God must also include how it does what it does. I don't think I've ever asked you that...-Frankly, I have no idea. Frank's convoluted theology was instructive in how one might go about developing explanations. I don't think you can. I think a designer can be implied if the odds turn out to indicate that 'chance' has no chance, as I like to say. If the odds (probability bound by your rules) for life by chance exceed 10^80th, then there has to be a designer. We are now at a supernatural level and science and our reason can't go there. This is where didactic religion has its faults. They say God is unknowable and then invent all sorts of things about Him. This is where Adler is sharp. God is a personage like no other person, period. Adler stops!-{Sorry I broke off last evening: had to make a fire, swim 1,000 yards (to stay young) and have dinner, fascinating as our discussions are.:-}

It seems you are trying to prove a designer or creator by studying the whole universe, presuming that the appearance of life is predetermined and therefore we must look at the designer's plan from the beginning. I'm willing to take the early part of the plan as a given, and start just on Earth. 
> 
> Assume that we study life and find that the controls in DNA/RNA/epigenetics/ methylation/etc. are thousands, or millions of times more complex than we now know. Starting with very simple chemicals and reaching that level of complexity implies an enormous number of contingent steps, the odds for which appearing spontaneously would also become so enormous as to reach a probability limit. To me this would be an inferred proof of a designer. You seem to want an absolute proof. I am content with an inferred one.-Lets assume your above example. If that probability number still "fits within" this universe, then it's a determined property. There is no chance; no spontaneousness about it at all. It was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang. However improbable life may seem, it was a predestined artifact based purely on permutations and combinations of matter. How life got HERE isn't answered by this. But it gives us a benchmark for us to be able to say "How common is life?"-What makes it a bit more frustrating in your case, is that you are willing to make the claim without much to say about the nature of this deity... an explanation that includes a God must also include how it does what it does. I don't think I've ever asked you that...


> > Your probability of life appearing in our universe must have a number or "probability limit" (to use one of your previous examples) of that kind of magnitude before chance can even enter the conversation. Before then, life is a deterministic property of the universe with or without a creator God.
> 
> Matt: I know you are trying hard, but you have totally lost me. I'm talking about biochemistry and you are bringing in particles which make up molecules. I've read about spins, half-spins, 2/3 rd spins. I know about quarks. I don't see why we have to jump, as I view it, backwards to the basic particles underlying elements and molecular structure. Particles as bits of information, if the universe is treated as a giant computer, is understandable, but seems to me to be extraneous to our discussion. Shannon information theory might apply to understanding the coding of info in DNA, but DNA, itself, is not life. All I know about Shannon theory is that it exists. With my basic algebra years and years ago finally reaching analytic algabra is all I've got and most is forgotten. I suggest you use lay terms for your math, and explain your point differently, or let's stop at this point. I do appreciate your effort.-Alright, I'll try again, with as little math as possible...-What it means is that the universe has a finite set of matter, with predetermined combinations. In order to make an appeal to a creator based on a probability limit, you need to demonstrate that the probability limit or threshold is a number smaller than the probability of randomly grabbing a single particle of the universe. -So say we figure how to make life, and figure its chances of happening are 1/100 or 1%. -Say that the total number of particles in the universe is 100. -Since the probability we're talking about has a 1:1 relationship with a particle in this universe, it has an equal chance of appearing in our universe as any other particle. This means, that even if we can calculate that it has a 1% chance of occuring, because its probability is in line with the rest of the particles in the universe, its existence is actually predetermined. -If we double the odds to 2%, then it is even more likely to happen; its predetermination is doubly guaranteed. -If we halve the odds to 0.5%, then we start getting into rough territory. The only way to improve the odds is to double the total number of particles in the universe; the equivalent of doubling the universe, since the only thing important to us is matter and not dead space. This is also impossible. -In this manner of accounting, the kind of probability threshhold you're looking for is one that would need to be measured against the size of the universe, not among the component parts and materials in our general vicinity. It won't matter that you're artificially limiting your search to earth; if this view has any truth behind it, it means that life and earth are part of a predetermined part of the universe, albeit a predetermination that still needs to be explained!-It means that the amount of information we know is woefully insufficient for us to come to any reasonable determination at all about a creator; everything we know now is but a mere fraction of what exists in our universe. They can estimate the number of particles, but that's as good as an estimate as a "jigger" or "pinch." The estimation is still inferred from a model and not independently verified; the range is 10^72 to 10^87, and that is absolutely shameful in terms of precision.


> Your probability of life appearing in our universe must have a number or "probability limit" (to use one of your previous examples) of that kind of magnitude before chance can even enter the conversation. Before then, life is a deterministic property of the universe with or without a creator God.-Matt: I know you are trying hard, but you have totally lost me. I'm talking about biochemistry and you are bringing in particles which make up molecules. I've read about spins, half-spins, 2/3 rd spins. I know about quarks. I don't see why we have to jump, as I view it, backwards to the basic particles underlying elements and molecular structure. Particles as bits of information, if the universe is treated as a giant computer, is understandable, but seems to me to be extraneous to our discussion. Shannon information theory might apply to understanding the coding of info in DNA, but DNA, itself, is not life. All I know about Shannon theory is that it exists. With my basic algebra years and years ago finally reaching analytic algabra is all I've got and most is forgotten. I suggest you use lay terms for your math, and explain your point differently, or let's stop at this point. I do appreciate your effort.


> > If it's a universe of n particles, the probability would have to be something like 1/4n, for example's sake. (one divided by four times the number of particles in the universe.) If the probability of life occuring is some number less than n: 1/(n-m) than life is a determined property, and the search for God in biochemistry is over, in my eyes.
> 
> Matt: I'm sorry I just don't follow your reasoning. My only training in statistics in cook-booking formulas for papers and undrstanding T and p values. If all research has concentrated on biochemical molecules (with the standard particles inside) why use numbers of particles. Life came from available molecules and some basic elements. And the universe provided the Earth as a suitable playground for life. We don't need to odds for that initial development. If the whole process was programmed from the beginnning then there is a God hiding out somewhere.-I will try to clean this up a bit. Since the universe can be modeled as bits, I can use Newton's binomial theorem and related analyses to generate my answers.-1. My only real issue is having the ability to claim that "life couldn't come about by chance." Not because I believe in chance, but because I don't believe the system we're studying is understood well enough for anyone to be able to make that claim. -2. My main thrust then, is to show what information would be needed in order to be able to say that "life couldn't come about by chance." This information is "in the bits" of the universe. -Since this is a binomial distribution we can model the probability as a fraction: 1/(2^n) where 'n' is the total number of particles in the universe. -A binomial distribution is that old (x + y )^n you should remember from algebra.-(x + y )^2 algebraically expands to x^2 + 2xy + y^2-x represents particles of one spin, y particles of another. In a universe where the total number of particles is 2, you will have four possible combinations, x^2 represents both particles having the spin 'x,' the middle term represents 2 combinations where the particles will be x and y, and the last term represents both particles having the spin 'y.' Obviously, there is even more computationally that can be discussed here, but I don't know if you've ever been exposed to the terms nCr or nPr. For now, we'll leave it here. -What I'm saying, is that if in this particular (and tiny) universe, the odds of life occurring must be a number smaller than 1/4 before you can begin to claim that "chance" is even a valid argument. This is because that at some point in time, every possible combination of spin is going to be "computed." This is akin to saying "somewhere on earth it's 5:15." -Now, where "life is special" plays in, is if the probability requires more than one universe before it can appear. -Meaning: if our universe is 1/(2^4), and the odds of life occuring are 1/(2(2^4)), the 2 in front of (2^4) means that you'd have to create two universes before your result would be deterministic. 1/(3(2^4)) would be three universes, etc.-Your probability of life appearing in our universe must have a number or "probability limit" (to use one of your previous examples) of that kind of magnitude before chance can even enter the conversation. Before then, life is a deterministic property of the universe with or without a creator God.


> If it's a universe of n particles, the probability would have to be something like 1/4n, for example's sake. (one divided by four times the number of particles in the universe.) If the probability of life occuring is some number less than n: 1/(n-m) than life is a determined property, and the search for God in biochemistry is over, in my eyes.-Matt: I'm sorry I just don't follow your reasoning. My only training in statistics in cook-booking formulas for papers and undrstanding T and p values. If all research has concentrated on biochemical molecules (with the standard particles inside) why use numbers of particles. Life came from available molecules and some basic elements. And the universe provided the Earth as a suitable playground for life. We don't need to odds for that initial development. If the whole process was programmed from the beginnning then there is a God hiding out somewhere.

We don't actually know this. We'd have to know the size of the universe first; then--and only then--can we say there's a finite chance. I say this because mathematically this is a permutation/combination problem. How many possible combinations are required? 
> 
> > 
> > Quantum mechanically, all particles have two states or "spins." This means that any event that has a statistical probability of happening that is LESS than the total number particles in the universe is guaranteed to happen.
> > 
> > According to this view, life is a deterministic property based upon the total number of particles in the universe. Basically, it means that the "computer" that is the universe is guaranteed to produce life based purely on the concept of spin or "bits" in my more familiar language. 
> 
> Taking these statements on all at once: there are 10^80 estimated particles: fermions and bosons. That number is a fine estimate, but as far as we know life is confined to the Earth and its 92 original elements. It is from this batch of matter that life came. We don't needs the odds of the whole universe's contents. By providing the Earth, those contingent events are over and need not be included. Origin of life is a confined to Earth problem. Origin elsewhere need not concern us. And further we can study life's design as we are doing now. We can tear a building apart and put it back together just like new. So far it doesn't work that way for so-called abiogenesis. Maybe we can't. Maybe it is too complex for human intelligence to figure out.-And as I've stated several times--life didn't just magically appear. It was a chemical process both before and after--I still say your general thrust on a maker is "misguided." (forgive the word... I couldn't think of a gentler one!) In this quantum light the answer isn't really in biochemistry/organic chemistry, it's in the genesis of the whole universe. -If we crack the code of life, and the probability of it occurring is a number that is not smaller than the total number of particles in the universe; then it is simply one possible combination of particles. There IS no "chance" argument at all; life's existence was determined. The only way you have a legitimate argument that a maker perhaps had a direct hand in life, is if that combination's chance is larger than the total number of particles. Specifically, if the probability of a specific distribution, 1/n is a number smaller than the appearance of any specific combination in the entire permutation, then you've got a case. -If it's a universe of n particles, the probability would have to be something like 1/4n, for example's sake. (one divided by four times the number of particles in the universe.) If the probability of life occuring is some number less than n: 1/(n-m) than life is a determined property, and the search for God in biochemistry is over, in my eyes.

Matt: In science, an explanation is accepted because of its utility. If it explains something better, it is accepted, and that is that. 
> You...appear to stop at that point. I get the impression that even if a model is as explanatory as possible that your skepticism prevents you from accepting it on any level ... even though the nature of science is itself a chain of provisional explanations. 
> At this point it's a discussion of my judgment of your thinking, and lacking the ability to be in your head ... I'm in lala land. 
> 
> Here comes a dangerous generalization: it is dangerous to generalize from the particular. The subjects of God's existence, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness are all bound up with a unique set of circumstances. My scepticism-cum-open-mindedness in this context should not be taken as a sign of general scepticism, and in most other contexts I do indeed accept "a relative truth over something we wish to be ultimate." George thinks I should never sit on a jury. I'd back myself to do a good job! 
> 
>....But the moment scientists make pronouncements about processes being directed by chance or by God, they cease to speak as scientists, and I cease to trust in their authority. 
> -*applause* -> The fact that science is "a chain of provisional explanations", and that there are vast gaps in our knowledge of life and the universe, is a clear enough indication that the chain will undergo many more changes before there is a consensus (if there ever is). I can accept a useful explanation, but "that" is definitely not "that" in this unique context. I would therefore disagree with you even over what you call scientific paralysis. You say "science cannot function in terms of the level of strictness that you appear to operate in". I would say that science HAS to function at this level of strictness ... it HAS to be sceptical, because it's only by eliminating doubt that it can come up with working models. In the context of our discussion, and keeping in mind the excellent article by Marcelo Gleiser, what is so admirable about science is that even if the Theory of Everything may never materialize, humans continue their quest for it. You say: "There is a point where skepticism paralyzes, and it's the point where I would say idealism trumps utility." I'd say that science is actually kept moving by idealism's constant encroachment on utility. Scepticism is an indispensable tool in the quest for truth (= the ideal), and the continuation of the quest is the ultimate triumph over scepticism! Now what would Nietzsche say to that?-Tough stuff here and I have no argument with any of it--how could I? Science *should* be a tug of war. I certainly wouldn't disagree that science needs to be skeptical; that is its nature and would be a husk otherwise. Your last statement earns its own unique sort of praise: It raises my "ocean's wave" metaphor of human existence to a more noble and "owned" thing. -I don't know how much you've read Nietzsche, but I would think you would appreciate this line, in reference to Moses: "Whoever said man should love man for God's sake is one who's flown the highest yet--yet most beautifully astray!" -In Nietzsche's writing you see a constant battle between utility and "high-thinking," that aspect ascribed to mystics really who fed from and build on some kind of abstract idea. I don't know the man but I think he'd agree with you.