The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

I´m amazed how each puddle is fine tuned to hold the exact amount of water it holds.

Not so amazing. Any ol' dirt will do with just a little bit of water.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wonder, did you read all the way through Davies' article about fine tuning that you took this from, rather than just the first paragraph? You know, the one entitled: "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it"

Where he concludes that (bolding mine):

"Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.

Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."

When the source you are using to support your argument doesn't agree with your conclusions, and indeed actively argues the counter factual, your original hypothesis might be in a spot of trouble.

I was using someone specifically that was not a theist to show fine tuning is not disputed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believe me I am calm, what made you think I wasn't?

Your post indicated otherwise.

I don't know how it was considered a finely tuned constant when at the time Kepler's predecessors thought the heavens were even made of a different material called the "quinta essentia". In fact, it was due to Kepler's belief that God made the universe orderly and accessible to man that allowed him to view the universe differently than those who had come before. The earliest concept of "finely tuned" elements was by a chemist by the name of Henderson who wrote a book titled " The Fitness of the Environment".

The ridiculous "fine tuning argument" did not exist then. As you pointed out they had even more ignorant beliefs. And you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of this argument.

How did you conclude I was being rude? I have many flaws but I am not sure what you might be referring to.

Then it is a deeper problem than you realize. You had a snarky attitude and were misusing smileys to demonstrate it.

I haven't given you enough information to determine what I know.

You have given me more than enough.

I was just being friendly. Maybe its the tone in your head rather than my intent?

No, that was not friendly. Try again.

But I am willing to let bygones be bygones. Please explain in your own words what the fine tuning argument is.

 

[Gene2memE]

I was using someone specifically that was not a theist to show fine tuning is not disputed.

Davies' religious beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion**.

What you quoted by him in the introduction about the appearance of fine tuning is directly refuted by his closing paragraphs, in the very same article. Davies belief is that the explanation for the 'suspicious' fine tuning of the universe will be provided by (to quote another of his opinion pieces) "an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency."

If you're using Davies' opinion to support the view that "God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation", you choose poorly. Davies explicitly contradicts your hypothesis, in the article you are quoting and others. Again quoting Davies from 2007:

"It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme."​

**PS: Davies is in all likelihood a theist of one stripe or another. When questioned on his beliefs in 2006, Davies gave this answer:

I am not comfortable answering the question "Why do you believe in God?" because you haven't defined "God". In any case, as a scientist, I prefer not to deal in "belief" but rather in the usefulness of concepts. I am sure I don't believe in any sort of god with which most readers of your article would identify.

I do, however, assume (along with all scientists) that there is a rational and intelligible scheme of things that we uncover through scientific investigation. I am uncomfortable even being linked with "a god" because of the vast baggage that this term implies (a being with a mind, able to act on matter within time, making decisions, etc).
​

Using this response, you could classify Davies as either a deist, panentheist or a pantheist. Certainly not an atheist.

 

[quatona]

Not so amazing. Any ol' dirt will do with just a little bit of water.

...but "fine-tuned"..

 

[Jimmy D]

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

My view as an atheist is that naturalistic explanations are better, opinions eh? If you can present any evidence to support your argument, other than opinion, maybe it would have more weight.

 

[quatona]

There is agreement between the majority of physicists, cosmologists and astrobiologists in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why?

I´m not sure that that´s a meaningful question. What sort of answer are you looking for? I guess at some point we don´t get past "because that´s the way it is.".

Why is our universe the way it is

What do you mean - "why"? Are you asking for an explanation of the processes how it became the way it is?

and could it have been different?

The idea that it´s "fine-tuned" forces the implication that it could have been different.
Each of the countless different options would have been equally "fine-tuned" - as they would be as unlikely.

What best explains the universe and its very narrow parameters that allow for intelligent life to exist?

Unless you preassume a result to be intended, there´s nothing remarkable about a result with narrow parameters. So let´s not put the cart before the horse.

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Actually, I don´t see how it even starts to try to explain anything. Come to think of it, I don´t even see the need for an "explanation" of the kind you are demanding - unless you are determined to mingle your conclusion into your premises.

Get ready, get set, and go......[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

...but "fine-tuned"..

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My view as an atheist is that naturalistic explanations are better, opinions eh? If you can present any evidence to support your argument, other than opinion, maybe it would have more weight.

Ok. So what is the naturalistic explanation that you feel is better and what evidence do you have to support your argument other than opinion. Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I´m not sure that that´s a meaningful question. What sort of answer are you looking for? I guess at some point we don´t get past "because that´s the way it is.".

If we stopped at "because that is the way it is" we would never understand anything in the universe.

What do you mean - "why"? Are you asking for an explanation of the processes how it became the way it is?

Is there a separation of the two in science? We have to ask why to get to how.

The idea that it´s "fine-tuned" forces the implication that it could have been different.
Each of the countless different options would have been equally "fine-tuned" - as they would be as unlikely.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by countless different options? Are you referring to our universe, other possible universes or what?

Unless you preassume a result to be intended, there´s nothing remarkable about a result with narrow parameters. So let´s not put the cart before the horse.

Explain why there is nothing remarkable about a result with narrow parameters?

Actually, I don´t see how it even starts to try to explain anything. Come to think of it, I don´t even see the need for an "explanation" of the kind you are demanding - unless you are determined to mingle your conclusion into your premises.

Get ready, get set, and go......

So I take it you're not really into science then?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Claiming it is "largely" an argument from ignorance is another sure sign that your assessment of the argument might be in need of more information.

No, it's quite accurate.

"The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why?"

Scientists do not have a complete answer to this question, therefore gods.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ok. So what is the naturalistic explanation that you feel is better and what evidence do you have to support your argument other than opinion. Thanks.

Er, I'm an atheist, you have to ask why I think naturalistic explanations are better than supernatural ones? Other than expressing my opinion I'm not claiming anything or trying to convince you of anything. As the thread starter I thought you might have some new evidence to back up your claims, if it's just your opinion based on your faith, great, I won't take issue with you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your post indicated otherwise.

No, it couldn't have because that motivation what not there.

The ridiculous "fine tuning argument" did not exist then. As you pointed out they had even more ignorant beliefs. And you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of this argument.

I have to ask, do you feel that PhD astrobiologists, cosmologists and astronomers are ignorant and hold ignorant "beliefs"? They don't think its "ridiculous" and their understanding of the argument is quite extensive.

Then it is a deeper problem than you realize. You had a snarky attitude and were misusing smileys to demonstrate it.

If I use emoticons when being snarky, it is only if someone is being snarky to me. You are misreading motivations in my posts.

You have given me more than enough.

"I've" given you nothing. I haven't even started to discuss the subject as you seem more focused on showing (your perceived) lack in my knowledge rather than addressing the topic itself.

No, that was not friendly. Try again.

I hate to disappoint you but yes, it was.

But I am willing to let bygones be bygones. Please explain in your own words what the fine tuning argument is.

There are about 30 parameters that have a very very narrow range that if they were different by a small margin would make the universe as we know it extremely different or not exist at all. These ranges if changed by a small degree would not allow life to exist as we know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it's quite accurate.

"The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why?"

Scientists do not have a complete answer to this question, therefore gods.

In science, in fact in acquiring knowledge, one must assess the phenomena and determine what best describes it. That is what we do. What better explains the phenomena is a valid question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Er, I'm an atheist, you have to ask why I think naturalistic explanations are better than supernatural ones? Other than expressing my opinion I'm not claiming anything or trying to convince you of anything. As the thread starter I thought you might have some new evidence to back up your claims, if it's just your opinion based on your faith, great, I won't take issue with you.

Fair enough. So you have looked at the evidence and have in some way determined that there is a naturalistic explanation that satisfies you?

 

[quatona]

No.

Sure is: With just a little change in the parameters/conditions involved it would hold a different amount of water.
That´s the criterium for "fine-tuning" you are basing your argument on.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure is: With just a little change in the parameters/conditions involved it would hold a different amount of water.
That´s the criterium for "fine-tuning" you are basing your argument on.

No, depending on what you tweak there would be no dirt nor water.

 

[Jimmy D]

Fair enough. So you have looked at the evidence and have in some way determined that there is a naturalistic explanation that satisfies you?

I haven't looked into to it in any great depth but it seems more logical to me that life is fine tuned for the universe rather than the other way round. I'm happy to admit that I don't know why the universal constants are the way they are, I'm sure if I believed in a God I'd be quite happy to attribute them to him.

I have to ask, do you feel that PhD astrobiologists, cosmologists and astronomers are ignorant and hold ignorant "beliefs"? They don't think its "ridiculous" and their understanding of the argument is quite extensive.

I was under the impression that the scientific community argued against fine tuning. (I remember having a similar conversation about Leonard Susskind on here for example.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it couldn't have because that motivation what not there.

I see that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

I have to ask, do you feel that PhD astrobiologists, cosmologists and astronomers are ignorant and hold ignorant "beliefs"? They don't think its "ridiculous" and their understanding of the argument is quite extensive.

This question shows that you do not know what an argument from ignorance is. And I have not fully checked out your source, but he may not agree with you at any rate. You could easily be wrong on two levels here. You are clearly wrong on one.

If I use emoticons when being snarky, it is only if someone is being snarky to me. You are misreading motivations in my posts.

You still need to get into a shorter river.

"I've" given you nothing. I haven't even started to discuss the subject as you seem more focused on showing (your perceived) lack in my knowledge rather than addressing the topic itself.

Wrong again, and still in denial.

I hate to disappoint you but yes, it was.

Repeating one's error does not make it go away. You are not unintelligent yourself, but it appears that you have a huge psychological block that is not letting you think clearly and is keeping you in denial.

There are about 30 parameters that have a very very narrow range that if they were different by a small margin would make the universe as we know it extremely different or not exist at all. These ranges if changed by a small degree would not allow life to exist as we know it.

Yes, and so what? I thought that we went over this at least a little bit.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, depending on what you tweak there would be no dirt nor water.

You misunderstood the argument. The shape of the puddle is not fine tuned for dirt or water, it is fine tuned for the water that is in it. It is the same as saying that "life is fine tuned for the universe".