http://stagingpoint.com/2008/01/08/the-greatest-trick-the-devil-ever-pulled/ a microscopic cog in the catastrophic plan Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:22:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://stagingpoint.com/2008/01/08/the-greatest-trick-the-devil-ever-pulled/comment-page-1/#comment-6764 Andy Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:25:37 +0000 http://stagingpoint.com/2008/01/08/the-greatest-trick-the-devil-ever-pulled/#comment-6764 Brit, I agree on your first point there, and almost said so in my post. Many versions of the vampire myth make the creation of vampires an intentional act, not a natural byproduct of being bitten by one. So it's quite possible to imagine a careful vampire feeding on a pool of victims indefinitely without ever killing a victim or creating another vampire. I can't really comment on your critique of fine-tuning apologists, but it sounds interesting! Brit, I agree on your first point there, and almost said so in my post. Many versions of the vampire myth make the creation of vampires an intentional act, not a natural byproduct of being bitten by one. So it’s quite possible to imagine a careful vampire feeding on a pool of victims indefinitely without ever killing a victim or creating another vampire.
I can’t really comment on your critique of fine-tuning apologists, but it sounds interesting!

]]> http://stagingpoint.com/2008/01/08/the-greatest-trick-the-devil-ever-pulled/comment-page-1/#comment-6763 Brit Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:36:23 +0000 http://stagingpoint.com/2008/01/08/the-greatest-trick-the-devil-ever-pulled/#comment-6763 His argument against Vampires doesn't hold up very well when you start to stray from his initial assumptions (i.e. that every vampire in existence creates another vampire every month). Anyway, it reminded me of another paper I read a while back about ecology and carrying capacity - applied to the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" universe. Essentially, he assumes a human population growth rate and a vampire feeding rate and calculates the sustainable ratio of vampires to humans. <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~ccroft/Tips/Vampire%20Ecology%20in%20the%20Jossverse.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://members.iinet.net.au/~ccroft/Tips/Vampire%20Ecology%20in%20the%20Jossverse.pdf</a> Regarding the bigger question, I'm not quite sure how this applies to the fine-tuning argument. My own opinion is that the fine-tuning argument is exaggerated by apologists and there is an echo-chamber effect where people continually repeat grandiose claims of perfect tuning. I read an article a while back by Victor Stenger (an astronomer), where he described an computer experiment where he varied four fundamental forces: the proton and electron masses and the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong forces. He varied them by 10 orders of magnitude up and down from their actual values, and was able to produce long-lived stars (1 billion years+) in over 50% of those cases. Now, long-lived stars are one precondition for life, but it's not the only one. But my point is that I'm sure most people arguing the "fine-tuning" argument would be completely surprised by that result. It makes me a little bit skeptical that the details of the fine-tuning argument ("two dozen demandingly exact physical constants" set to a "minuscule degree") is really an accurate statement. His argument against Vampires doesn’t hold up very well when you start to stray from his initial assumptions (i.e. that every vampire in existence creates another vampire every month).
Anyway, it reminded me of another paper I read a while back about ecology and carrying capacity – applied to the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” universe. Essentially, he assumes a human population growth rate and a vampire feeding rate and calculates the sustainable ratio of vampires to humans.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ccroft/Tips/Vampire%20Ecology%20in%20the%20Jossverse.pdf
Regarding the bigger question, I’m not quite sure how this applies to the fine-tuning argument. My own opinion is that the fine-tuning argument is exaggerated by apologists and there is an echo-chamber effect where people continually repeat grandiose claims of perfect tuning. I read an article a while back by Victor Stenger (an astronomer), where he described an computer experiment where he varied four fundamental forces: the proton and electron masses and the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong forces. He varied them by 10 orders of magnitude up and down from their actual values, and was able to produce long-lived stars (1 billion years+) in over 50% of those cases. Now, long-lived stars are one precondition for life, but it’s not the only one. But my point is that I’m sure most people arguing the “fine-tuning” argument would be completely surprised by that result. It makes me a little bit skeptical that the details of the fine-tuning argument (“two dozen demandingly exact physical constants” set to a “minuscule degree”) is really an accurate statement.

]]>