The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

What do you think is surprising about finding yourself in a universe in which you can actually exist?

This type of remark is not only intellectually lazy, it is ignoring very specific information in regard to science. What surprises me is that someone doesn't find it surprising considering the delicate balance of so many elements required for us to be here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do a google search on the word: "evolution" and click on images and EVERYTHING will be someones artwork.

When I google "gravity", the only images I get are from the movie with Sandra Bullock.
Therefor the science of gravity is false.


Having made that sarcastic remark...
You forgot to mention that every single of those artworks, including the tree you posted, are actually artist illustration of actual real data.

That tree in your post, for example, is backed by data from
- comparative genomics
- phylogenetics
- fossils
- comparative anatomy
- ...

But hey....... don't let the facts get in the way of your preaching and anti-science ranting.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is that evolutionary theory is a myth that is based on people doing drawing. There is a lack of evidence to back up their drawing.

Your hero Francis Collins would heavily disagree.

 

[KCfromNC]

This type of remark is not only intellectually lazy, it is ignoring very specific information in regard to science.

More or less lazy than retreating into creationism?

What surprises me is that someone doesn't find it surprising considering the delicate balance of so many elements required for us to be here.

No more surprising than the fact that wherever I go, there I am.

 

[KCfromNC]

The big problem that no one supporting ID here seems to address is that there is a difference between something happening due to a small range of values and the idea that those ranges of values are unlikely. Fine tuning talks about the first but science has little to say about the second. We simply don't know what the probability of each constant being in a range which support life is. Could be extremely unlikely, could be the only values they could end up having.

The second problem is even if creationists actually started doing science and came up with a comprehensive testable model which predicted that the life-forming combinations of constants is unlikely, it still doesn't say anything about their god being involved. There are other just as viable ideas out there which would answer the problem.

Granted "as viable scientifically as creationism" is a low bar, but still.

 

[AirPo]

No more surprising than the fact that wherever I go, there I am.

Reminds me of an old joke, "Who are The Grateful Dead and why do they follow me everywhere?"

 

[joshua 1 9]

You forgot to mention that every single of those artworks, including the tree you posted, are actually artist illustration of actual real data.

No that is NOT true. I used the illustration of horse evolution as an example. I studied drafting and design in college & I know the difference between drafting a design and art. I know what you can build in the real world and what you can NOT build. The many many drawings for horse evolution does not represent horse evolution at all. Here is an article that will explain this to you. For those that really want to know the truth. What we find is that the study of DNA has shown us that a lot of what we thought we knew about evolution was simply not true. https://smoodock45.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/the-evolution-of-the-horse/

 

[DogmaHunter]

This type of remark is not only intellectually lazy, it is ignoring very specific information in regard to science.

Can you please just answer the question....
What do you find surprising about it?

What surprises me is that someone doesn't find it surprising considering the delicate balance of so many elements required for us to be here.

Not more surprising then the many events that had to take place for you to be born.
A bloodline chain of 3.6-ish billion years worth of generation after generation.

Or any other chain of events that lead to the eventual existance of any object in the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No that is NOT true. I used the illustration of horse evolution as an example. I studied drafting and design in college & I know the difference between drafting a design and art. I know what you can build in the real world and what you can NOT build. The many many drawings for horse evolution does not represent horse evolution at all. Here is an article that will explain this to you. For those that really want to know the truth. What we find is that the study of DNA has shown us that a lot of what we thought we knew about evolution was simply not true.

The discovery of DNA, obviously, has given us new information and understanding of our evolutionary past, which in quite some cases triggered a review of certain models and inter-species relations etc.

Having said that, none of this actually matters. Artist renderings only serve as illustration or fancy pictures in magazines.

The science itself concerns itself with the actual testable data.

 

[bhsmte]

Some are better then others. Perhaps doctors should be required to tell people how well they did in school. Half of the doctors graduated in the lower half of their class. Still this is the whole point behind the Bible. The Bible is not based on man and man's authority. The Bible is based on God and God's authority. So the same God that created us and the entire universe is the God of the Bible.

Getting a medical license is about proving you meet certain standards and these standards are quite stringent.

Where one finishes in their class, doesnt tell the whole story.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is just not true.
The stuff about physical constants etc, the theories behind them - specifically their origins and possible "flexibility", aren't solid established science at all.

Please explain the possible flexibility.

We know next to nothing about the origins and the very nature of the universe.

We don't? It seems that physicists claim to know quite a lot.

In an interview with Discovery News, Turok pointed out that the biggest discoveries of the last few decades have confirmed the structure of the universe on cosmological and quantum scales.

"On the largest scales, we've mapped the whole sky -- the cosmic microwave background -- and measured the evolution of the universe, the way it's changing, the way it's expanding ... and these discoveries reveal that the universe is astonishingly simple," he said. "In other words you can describe the structure of the universe, its geometry, and the density of matter ... you can essentially describe all that with just one number."

The most fascinating outcome of this reasoning is that to describe the universe's geometry with one number, it is actually simpler than the numerical description of the simplest atom we know -- the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom's geometry is described by 3 numbers, which arise from the quantum characteristics of an electron in orbit around a proton.

"It basically tells us that the universe is smooth but it has a small level of fluctuation, which this number describes. And that's it. The universe is the simplest thing we know."

- See more at: http://www.space.com/30783-our-universe-it-s-the-simplest-thing-we-know.html#sthash.HsNibQdI.dpuf

Not to mention that the "fine tuning" god-argument is inevitably going to end up in a god-of-the-gaps.

This is begging the question and a total assertion.

We aren't talking about the facts themselves, but about hypotheses to explain those facts. You're going full speed ahead towards "god-dun-it", while making (unjustified) assumption after assumption along the way.

What assumptions have I made?

Yes, they do, because they have no way to test their models and must thus assume that their math and models account for all the facts.

So you deny that fine tuning is real?

You can't go into a lab and turn gravity off.

Are you claiming we can't know what would happen if we didn't have the gravitational levels we have? Surely not? We even have learned why a feather and a hammer fall at the same rate, do you deny that as well?

I don't see how.

Its call confirmation bias.

This doesn't make much sense to me.
I can only repeat what I said: you can't go into a lab and fiddle with the physical constants. You can take the current (barely testable) models and put other values into the parameters, and see what happens, sure.

The measurements are very precise and they can be tweaked by computer models. Do you think that this is known by going to a lab and discovering it:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/whale_evo.jpg

Ow dear...
That's not an assertion. That's a fact. If you have an infinite amount of universes, then universes such as this one are inevitable. That's kind of the thing with the infinite.

You do realize that it would take trillions and trillions of them right?

And I wasn't asserting that an infinite amount of universes actually do exist, btw.
I'm saying that it's just one of the many possibilities your imagination can produce.

So you don't buy into the multiverse then?

Not at this time at least.
But that was kind of my point...
Too bad it went straight over your head.

I guess my point went over yours? We can't ever KNOW if there are other universes.

If an infinite amount of universes exist, there need not be any special explanation necessary for our own universe, as in an infinite sea of universes, a universe like ours is bound to exist.

Which can NEVER be KNOWN either. Right now, with the evidence as it stands, a special explanation is necessary for our universe. The evidence supports a Fine Tuner.

Evolution models are testable.

Are they now? See my example above. How do you go in a lab and create a test that shows the evolution of the whale? What about the Universal Common Ancestor? What evidence do you have for it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The evidence you gave in those links is about life in our universe, specifically most of the information was either about life in earth or the lack of it anywhere else in our universe. In your adaptation of my analogy each marble is a universe. Therfore information about life in our universe is information about one marble. I added the bit about the dust most inside the marble as a way of representing the earth and it's life.
Maybe my attempt to explain via analogy was poor but the basic objection is valid. Your premise states that a universe that is life permitting is intrinsically unlikely. You have only given evidence that life, even in a life permitting universe, is rare. You have not given any evidence to support the notion that a life permitting universe is rare and that was the premise you were trying to establish.

The fact that the universe is as it is permits life not that life is rare in of itself. It is the universe that makes life possible, without the fine tuned parameters the universe itself would not exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Weird, the only scientific reference you posted spent a lot of words talking about how promising a multiverse theory was but none at all on creationism. Why post that reference if you think it is incorrect?

Many of the physicists that are looking to the multiverse understand that if they can't come up with a reasonable explanation for the fine tuning God is it. Paul Davies says that one of the motivations behind the multiverse hypothesis was to make a way to finally get rid of God. It stands to reason that introducing such a possibility even if it as outside the realm of science to do away with God would be more to the liking of those who don't believe such a Fine Tuner exists. That being said, the reason I post those is to scientifically support my argument, which it does.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The discovery of DNA, obviously, has given us new information and understanding of our evolutionary past, which in quite some cases triggered a review of certain models and inter-species relations etc.

Having said that, none of this actually matters. Artist renderings only serve as illustration or fancy pictures in magazines.

The science itself concerns itself with the actual testable data.

The point is that there is no actual testable data that shows in a lab what actual ancestors gave rise to the whale.

 

[Oncedeceived]

More or less lazy than retreating into creationism?

Actually it is due to this being a very valid and supported argument for God, added to the fact that the multiverse was created just for the purpose to eliminate the explanation of God; I think that it is spot on.

No more surprising than the fact that wherever I go, there I am.

This is just head in the sand reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is that there is no actual testable data that shows in a lab what actual ancestors gave rise to the whale.

That is just wrong. And choosing the whale as an example of how "bad" the evidence for evolution is, is quite funny as well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

If you think about it, it's quite amazing how ridiculously detailed our knowledge about the whale ancestry is, considering the timespan we are talking about.

Yey science!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where one finishes in their class, doesnt tell the whole story.

It tells you who is willing to work hard and who is a sluggard. My son graduated high school with a 3.969 grade point average. Not because he is smarter but because he is willing to work harder.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The discovery of DNA, obviously, has given us new information and understanding of our evolutionary past

The result was they had to completely rewrite the theory of evolution to match the new information. I am on my third doctor now. Two doctors have retired. When I tell my new doctor what my old doctor advised me often I am told they do not do that anymore. They use to recommend that but they do not recommend that anymore. Yet they always have lots of confidence they are giving you good advice but time does not always support that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you please just answer the question....
What do you find surprising about it?

If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 1010123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. (not sure how to write this on my chromebook)

A change in the cosmological constant in its value by a mere 1 part in 10120 parts would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly. In either case, the universe would, again, be life-prohibiting. (Same thing, don't know who to show the number correctly on chromebook.)

Now if you can seriously look at these numbers and not be surprised then I would have you consider confirmation bias as the reason.

Not more surprising then the many events that had to take place for you to be born.
A bloodline chain of 3.6-ish billion years worth of generation after generation.

Or any other chain of events that lead to the eventual existance of any object in the universe.

This analogy mis-characterizes the argument. Look at it like this: We have a bag full of balls that represent all the incredible number of outcomes of different egg-sperm combinations. Now we reach in to this vast pool of possibilities and boom there you are, a one of kind person. So why isn't this surprising? Because there is nothing to single out the ball (you) unique and as improbable as it is, while you were still in the bag. Whatever comes out of the bag (you) wins, in fact, you can't lose. One thing is certain in this bag full of balls, you will always get a ball.

This isn't true of the universe. In a full bag of trillions and trillions of universes, you will only get intelligent life with this one. All those other possible balls (universes) will almost certainly not get a different form of intelligent life. This universe is independently specific for intelligent life. The fine tuning of the universe not only involves a low probability event but also an independently specified target which differentiates it as just another low probability event.

 

[Athée]

The fact that the universe is as it is permits life not that life is rare in of itself. It is the universe that makes life possible, without the fine tuned parameters the universe itself would not exist.

I agree with you that the universe as it currently exists, permits life (obviously).

I agree with you that if at the big bang some parameters had different values that this particular universe would not have formed.

What I am waiting for is evidence that supports your premise, a rewrite of the premise or a removal of the premise.

Maybe we are talking past each other and I can make my point more clearly by taking a more assertive stance.
As far as I know we are only aware of 1 universe. The number of universes with life in them is also 1. Therfore when we divide the number of universes by the number of universes with life the answer is going to be 1/1= 1. 1 out of 1 universes have life. How is this "intrinsically unlikely", what evidence do you have to support that position?