A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Loudmouth]

Because if you were in the casino and you won in a raw so many times you would wonder if the game is staged.

With our universe, you only have one win in a row. More importantly, you don't know how many trials have been run.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, the atheists are like robots, they have the same stupid arguments against the Fine Tuning, gamblers fallacy, delusional Universes that floating inside soap bubbles and quantum woo. Therefor i can copy and paste the same answers for the same questions. If something has been proven is that atheists have the same arguments like fundamental Christians.

Once again, you try to insult atheists by making them look like you.

 

[Viren]

With our universe, you only have one win in a row. More importantly, you don't know how many trials have been run.

Yeah, instead of looking at the universe as simply the way things turned out, the fine tuning argument hinges on the assumption that it is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yeah, instead of looking at the universe as simply the way things turned out, the fine tuning argument hinges on the assumption that it is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

And the argument that the universe was made for humans by some deity is closely related. Many people believe their god made the universe just so for humans to inhabit planet earth because if it were any different -whether it be the earth's orbit moved slightly, or whatever else they may claim- we couldn't live here because the conditions would be inhospitable. Therefore, god.

There is a saying that just won't come to me now involving a hole and water, and how the hole isn't perfectly shaped to contain the water, but rather the water fills the hole no matter its shape. At any rate, the point is, we evolved into the conditions that are here (for lack of a better phrase), rather than conditions made just right for us to thrive.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a saying that just won't come to me now involving a hole and water, and how the hole isn't perfectly shaped to contain the water, but rather the water fills the hole no matter its shape. At any rate, the point is, we evolved into the conditions that are here (for lack of a better phrase), rather than conditions made just right for us to thrive.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” --Douglas Adams, "The Salmon of Doubt"

 

[selfinflikted]

Thanks, Loudmouth. That's the very one!

 

[ThinkForYourself]

That's the argument from necessity, the laws of the Universe are what they are from necessity in what?

No it's not. I clearly stated that nobody, including you, knows the probability that the constants are what they are.

What don't you understand about that?

Again, debating with a Multiverse is like debating with a Unicorn.

Once again, you make no sense whatsoever. We don't know if multiverses exist or not.

Really? Then why Susskind and other scientists try to solve it? If there was no Fine Tuning why they propose a Theory of Everything?

Read what you wrote. Nobody knows the odds of the constants being what they are. That is why scientists are looking into the matter. They don't know yet.

Perhaps you are the leading scientist in the world regarding universal constants, already know the answer, but just haven't published yet?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If Brain = Consciousness then why Reductionism is false?

Hawking has a Mind and does science while he can't even move a muscle.

-_- the disease he has doesn't impact the brain to any significant extent, last I read on it. In any case, the brain isn't a literal muscle.

 

[JimFit]

Nope. You can't.
And this is the major flaw of your... "thinking" (if it can be called that).
You see certain key words (like multiverse, probabilities, etc...) and then just copy paste some answer that in some way adresses vaguely the key-word you've just heard.
If you did, what most people here try to do, which is actually encaging with arguments and read (and espeically TRY TO UNDERSTAND) what they are trying to say... then you would notice how far from actually adressing the arguments your copy-pasted catch-phrases are.

Not to forget: Your catch-phrases have been adressed and many flaws with them have been pointed out by many people before, without you ever giving a proper defence for it.

That's why I'm starting to assume that any discourse with you is pointless, because you don't think along or try to understand, you just repeat mantras.
That's not any sort of appropriate behavior, and it's not usefull for anybody (not even for you... because you simply can't convince anybody if you just leave a trace of failure behind you, that you refuse to clean up).

I, for example, think at this point that your position is indefensible. Because I've posted many objections, and you never replied to them. You've copy pasted some mantras, sure, but since they don't adress my points, I can only assume that you simply CAN'T adress my points, and therefore I have to conclude that your position doesn't hold up.

If you want to actually convince anybody of the validity of your position or defend your position (and if you don't... why are you even here?), then you HAVE to actually talk to people. Adress their points and respond to their positions. NOT just throw around buzz-words and memorized responses.

Maybe you'll learn for the future... although I have my doubts about that, because I hardly doubt that you are even going to read this comment or try to understand it.

I addressed all your points (which were illogical paradoxes by the way). The Only argument that you have against the Fine Tuning is that you don't accept it and you HOPE that it is due to chance or necessity, i answered for BOTH.

 

[JimFit]

There is quite a difference between saying "Consciousness = Brain" and that consciousness is a property of a brain. That isn't the same claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If it is a property of the brain then the brain creates it!

 

[JimFit]

With our universe, you only have one win in a row. More importantly, you don't know how many trials have been run.

So there is a machine that makes Universes, okay, why does this machine stopped to produce new Universes and where does these Universes floating? Even if there was a machine like that it would still take an extremely cut edge Fine Tuning to produce Universes and strictly Universes and not etc floating brains, a machine like that needs a fine tuned constant to create Universes. This argument doesn't make sense. We have 200 billion galaxies and not infinite so even if there was a machine like this it wouldn't make infinite Universes to justify the extreme fine tuning of our Universe for intelligent life.

 

[JimFit]

-_- the disease he has doesn't impact the brain to any significant extent, last I read on it. In any case, the brain isn't a literal muscle.

Okay lets see a more hardcore paradigm

Quit Calling Them "Vegetables!" Study Shows Patients in PVS State Show Awareness | LifeNews.com

 

[Loudmouth]

So there is a machine that makes Universes, okay, why does this machine stopped to produce new Universes and where does these Universes floating? Even if there was a machine like that it would still take an extremely cut edge Fine Tuning to produce Universes and strictly Universes and not etc floating brains, a machine like that needs a fine tuned constant to create Universes.

That is what you claim, and yet you don't present anything to back it up.

We have 200 billion galaxies and not infinite so even if there was a machine like this it wouldn't make infinite Universes to justify the extreme fine tuning of our Universe for intelligent life.

The extremeness of the fine tuning is way overblown.

 

[Loudmouth]

I addressed all your points (which were illogical paradoxes by the way). The Only argument that you have against the Fine Tuning is that you don't accept it and you HOPE that it is due to chance or necessity, i answered for BOTH.

Since you can't support your argument with evidence, why should we accept it?

 

[JimFit]

No it's not. I clearly stated that nobody, including you, knows the probability that the constants are what they are.

What don't you understand about that?

So the constants are not really constants?

Once again, you make no sense whatsoever. We don't know if multiverses exist or not.

They don't exist.
Even if they exist they don't solve the Fine Tuning problem.
Multiverses are just a bigger Universe.

Read what you wrote. Nobody knows the odds of the constants being what they are. That is why scientists are looking into the matter. They don't know yet.

What odds? Are the odds depending on the other Universes? I have debunked Multiverses as solution for the Fine Tuning multiple times.

Perhaps you are the leading scientist in the world regarding universal constants, already know the answer, but just haven't published yet?

I am not but these are

Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life – what we might call a biophilic universe – has to be ‘adjusted’ in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about — long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc — are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, ‘life’ or ‘intelligence’ requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can’t exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics … are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. … [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the constants are not really constants?

Isn't that what the fine tuning argument argues for? Doesn't it state that the constants we see in this universe could have been different?

They don't exist.

Please provide evidence that other universes do not exist.

 

[Michael]

Please provide evidence that other universes do not exist.

Um, you have the standard of evidence standing on it's head.

 

[Loudmouth]

Um, you have the standard of evidence standing on it's head.

Someone made the claim that there are no other universes. That puts the burden of proof on them.

 

[Michael]

Someone made the claim that there are no other universes. That puts the burden of proof on them.

Would the term 'universe' imply that there is only one?

 

[Loudmouth]

Would the term 'universe' imply that there is only one?

Use whatever word you want.