The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

What question is that?

Weird, I thought you claimed you already answered it. Now you're saying you don't even know what the question is? I guess the story will continue to change - no need to be consistent as long as there's some way to avoid actually addressing the point.

And to remind you, the point is that no one has any idea if the values could have been different. And if they could, we don't have any idea what values are possible for them and how likely each of those possible values are.

I've only posted this same point like a dozen times or so, and I haven't seen an actual attempt to answer it. At some point I've got to figure that's because you simply can't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's great if you're trying to support the first premise - that if things were different they'd be different. But we're talking about the second premise : that the values we see are unlikely. To know that you'd have to know how the fundamental constants arose. Without that, you're just guessing at the odds.

Oncedeceived seems to have a big problem comprehending this very basic and obvious concept.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe there is some confusion between us about what the word chance means. In my re-statement of your argument I said that if something does not happen by chance, then it happened on purpose. Do you agree with that?
If so would you also agree that for something to have a purpose, a consious being must give it one?

So you believe there is a different definition of chance?
Do you agree that if something doesn't happen by chance, then it happened on purpose? I think that if something happens by chance it happens by accident, do you agree? Is that not what you think when someone says something happened by chance?

You have not demonstrated that the scientific consensus is that "the universe and it's values are not the product of chance". You have asserted it and given a handful of opinions from a couple scientists (and even those don't entirely agree with you). Or maybe I missed a link or something when you actually did establish this. If so could you repost it for me. Thanks

Ok, we know that there are some very intricate balancing acts within the structure of the universe and that at least 30 fundamental parameters are necessary for the universe to be the way it is. Now we can attribute this to a chance event, that all of these necessary components of the universe just by luck came together to form a universe and just happened to allow life to exist. Now physicists think this thinking is implausible. They don't believe that a universe such as ours would just by luck or chance form with the precise values that we find. Now there is a consensus among the scientists in the field that fine tuning is real and could not be by chance or luck. I've given quotes by a wide variety of scientists who you can see are confirming this. If you find fault in this consensus, since I have provided through these quotes confirmation of my position where is the support against it? I don't know what you mean by the scientists not agreeing with me, perhaps you can elaborate on that.

So basically this is not an analogy at all. You are simply saying that snipers missing is unlikely and the universe is even more unlikely therfore we have to conclude that it is on purpose. Is that right?
I could say when I drop a ball it falls to the ground every time (baring interference) , this is not surprising and there is no need to invoke design. The only universe we observe has life and so it is even less complex than my gravity example (because of possible intwrference) therefore we should conclude that it too is not designed. Not super helpful right?

Again to object to your quasi analogy. The purpose of a firing squad is to kill a human. This is why it is surprising when it doesn't happen. We can't claim that the purpose of the universe is to create life so the scenario falls apart.

Analogy:

• a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
  
  
• : the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way

Now how is my analogy a quasi analogy?

I think part of the problem is that you want to say that life is unique in a special way. I seem to recall talking about the black and white ball example. That if we have a trillion black balls and only one white one , the chances are so low as to be rediculous of chosen the white one at random. But that analogy is also flawed. Any universe with any set of values would be unique in its own way. Maybe one would have whole planets made of gold, or one would have no electrons, or one would have serpentine galaxies.etc. So it is not 1 trillion black balls and one super special white one. It is a trillion balls with slightly different shades of grey on them, each unique and special in its own way. Each "fine tuned" , to the conditions that would be observed in that universe.

Observed by whom and what? Fine tuned for what? That is the question. While they might all have unique elements out of trillions and trillions and trillions of perhaps unique universes there would still be only one with life such as ours.

That the universe, think of our life permitting universe and how many galaxies and stars and how many "should" support life as ours but ...no evidence of any life. Even in our life permitting universe with many earth like planets and sun like stars here we sit on this planet a perfect distance from our star basking in our perfect little blue dot with planets all around us devoid of life as far as we've observed. Well we don't know if there is some other kind of life form that might exist on some planet far away right? Well, we are in a young part of the universe, what of the older areas? Why hasn't a longer evolved life form made contact? This is called the Fermi Paradox. Basically: Where is everyone?

Right I agree. There is no reason to think that the values we observe are necessary, likewise there is no evidence to believe that they are entirely random. So the default remains....we don't know and therfore we can't do any probability calculus.

If they are random and our universe just popped into existence with order rather than chaos, life permitting rather than not and fine tuned as it is, what do you believe is the reason? We know that while we know of no law of physics that would explain why the necessary and required parameters of the universe are just as they have to be for life to exist in this universe; we know that they are what they need to be for it to have happened. What are your thoughts on the fine tuning question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Weird, I thought you claimed you already answered it. Now you're saying you don't even know what the question is? I guess the story will continue to change - no need to be consistent as long as there's some way to avoid actually addressing the point.

And to remind you, the point is that no one has any idea if the values could have been different. And if they could, we don't have any idea what values are possible for them and how likely each of those possible values are.

I've only posted this same point like a dozen times or so, and I haven't seen an actual attempt to answer it. At some point I've got to figure that's because you simply can't.

Well KC thanks for the reminder (even if it was rather ad hominem in its tone) I did answer it if you will go back and see. We can create hypothetical universes with different values. I am again going to supply you with a link that explains this, I hope you will take the time to read it. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws

 

[Oncedeceived]

False. What you need to know to get to the probability is how those values are assigned, how they originate and if they can uberhaupt take on different values in an actually real universe, instead of just an arbitrary different value in a formula on paper!!

Yelling isn't going to be convincing nor does it change the facts. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws
Are you telling me that you don't believe that a computer program would not be able to tweak constants in a hypothetical way and come out with an answer?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yelling isn't going to be convincing nor does it change the facts.

I'm not yelling. I'm putting emphasis on the important bits, as you tend to overlook them in posts you are replying to.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws

From the article:

After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
These constants represent the edge of our knowledge

“one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.”

An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed.

That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.

See? They don't mean that there is a "tuner" tweaking knobs to get to these values. What they mean is rather that they don't understand it, that they can't explain it. Which is why the "mathematically speaking" is mentioned. Because it is not in knowledge or by prediction or by actual understanding.

Rather, it's because our current models don't explain why these values are what they are, nore do our current models inform us on if it is even possible for these values to be any different.

This is exact point is literally confirmed further down in the article:

Perhaps someday, if the Standard Model is supplanted by a superior theory, physicists will not have to wonder about these constants because they will have been replaced by mathematical formulas derived from a deep law of nature. If — or when — physicists can confidently say why the constants of nature could not have been different, then it would no longer make any sense to speak of the consequences of changing their values, and so fine-tuning would be much less mysterious

Are you telling me that you don't believe that a computer program would not be able to tweak constants in a hypothetical way and come out with an answer?

No, that's not what I said at all.
You should really try and understand what you read.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How a universe originates, how the 'laws of physics' are set and if they even can be different, how the "physical constants" are assigned a value and if they even can be different,...

Pretty much everything that you simply assume in your premises, is unknown in reality.

We do know how the parameters are assigned their values, they are measured. We don't need to know how the universe originated as all laws of physics, matter, energy, space and time did not exist, so we don't need to know prior to them about them. WE know the measurements and we can change those measurements and produce mathematical correct hypothetical universes with those changes.

You say "so?", but it completely undermines your argument.

I don't think so. How do you think so?

Yes, indeed. The point exactly.

The problem?

View attachment 175536[/Quotes]Dramatics don't change facts.

NO.

They just have a value. "tuned" is a loaded term.

For whom, why whom?

Scientists don't make this argument.
You are just taking a few opinions and remarks of scientists and then drawing your own conclusion, pretending those scientists would agree with you.

Sorry that isn't true even if you want it to be.

Opinions are opinions.

Opinions are conclusions. Conclusions are opinions. Conclusions are opinions based on scientific evidence.

You referenced it in a certain context.

How would you know what I think?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not yelling. I'm putting emphasis on the important bits, as you tend to overlook them in posts you are replying to.

Noted.

From the article:

After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
These constants represent the edge of our knowledge

“one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.”

An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed.

That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.

See? They don't mean that there is a "tuner" tweaking knobs to get to these values. What they mean is rather that they don't understand it, that they can't explain it. Which is why the "mathematically speaking" is mentioned. Because it is not in knowledge or by prediction or by actual understanding.

1. I wasn't providing that to support ID. I was providing it for the PA2 premise in Athee's structure of my argument.

Rather, it's because our current models don't explain why these values are what they are, nore do our current models inform us on if it is even possible for these values to be any different.

Almost all scientists agree they could be different, there is no reason to believe that they couldn't.

This is exact point is literally confirmed further down in the article:

Perhaps someday, if the Standard Model is supplanted by a superior theory, physicists will not have to wonder about these constants because they will have been replaced by mathematical formulas derived from a deep law of nature. If — or when — physicists can confidently say why the constants of nature could not have been different, then it would no longer make any sense to speak of the consequences of changing their values, and so fine-tuning would be much less mysterious

IF you will notice they say if they find they Couldn't BE Different meaning they right now can not show or have a reason why they couldn't have been. Right now there is nothing that informs us they have to be what they are.

No, that's not what I said at all.
You should really try and understand what you read.

As if you do any better.

So tell me why you don't agree with the computer models.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again: you can tweak them on paper only. You can't go into the lab and actually change those values to see what happens.

Again, you doubt computer models?

You can only do this on paper. You can only change the value of the parameter and work out the equation to see what happens.

Computer models?

That, however, says nothing about if those values can actually have different values in actual reality. Nore does it say anything about the mechanism by which those values are assigned during the origination of a universe.

Of course they can't have different values in actual reality or our actual reality is lost. You do realize that much of our scientific knowledge arises from knowing exactly what those values are? See this is why I know that you don't understand fine tuning, when you don't even understand what they are and that they have a actual real measurement/value.

All of which are things that must be known, to be able to make a probability calculation of the parameters having the values that they have.

We know what the values are and have for a long time. They are the fundamental knowns from which we work.

Having said that, no matter how improbable it turns out to be... No amount of "improbable" will be a justifified reason to then conlcude "therefor god...." without actually demonstrating said god as well as the process by which this god assigned those values.

So unless God presents Himself and gives a complete report to you, you will continue to think what you will. OK. Sticking heads in the sand works for some.

If the probability is your only data, then the only thing that would justify a hypothesis of "tuning", would be if the probability of these values being what they are is zero. Meaning: that this universe is impossible. Then you'ld have to search for an explanation of how a universe can exist that is impossible to exist by natural means.

Because only a probability of zero, means that something is impossible.



It seems that you have a lot of work ahead of you.

Hey, when you won't even consider expert scientists on the question of fine tuning I have no aspirations of you getting past your own confirmation biases.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's great if you're trying to support the first premise - that if things were different they'd be different. But we're talking about the second premise : that the values we see are unlikely. To know that you'd have to know how the fundamental constants arose. Without that, you're just guessing at the odds.

No, I wouldn't and the scientists don't think so either.

 

[Robert Palase]

So you believe there is a different definition of chance?
Do you agree that if something doesn't happen by chance, then it happened on purpose? I think that if something happens by chance it happens by accident, do you agree? Is that not what you think when someone says something happened by chance?

Did your God come about by chance or did he/she/it happen on purpose or was he/she/it an accident? myself I think he/she/it happened on purpose, men needed something to protect them from nature so they called on a mythical being they called a God, others told people they had the ear of the Gods so they used Gods to their advantage by fooling others, [it still happens today]
As they say 'there's one born every minute'.

 

[Athée]

So you believe there is a different definition of chance?
Do you agree that if something doesn't happen by chance, then it happened on purpose? I think that if something happens by chance it happens by accident, do you agree? Is that not what you think when someon

I notice you answered my question with a question ...
To answer yours I think there are two ways of thinking about chance in relation to our topic.
1) chance is the same as totally random, there is no connection between any of the values. Each one could have been any value at all with no restrictions.
2) chance means there was no guiding purpose to the values we observe. Because they are interconnected the value of one necessarily limit's the possible values of others related to it, making the network of values not random but also not guided.
I'm not sure which of those you mean which is why I asked.

To restate my question, do you agree with the following: if something does not happen by chance then it necessarily happened on purpose. Only concious beings can confer a purpose on something so to say something did not happen by chance is to day that it was the intended result of some conscious being.
Agreed?

Now we can attribute this to a chance event, that all of these necessary components of the universe just by luck came together to form a universe and just happened to allow life to exist. Now physicists think this thinking is implausible. They don't believe that a universe such as ours would just by luck or chance form with the precise values that we find.

Citation needed

Now there is a consensus among the scientists in the field that fine tuning is real and could not be by chance or luck.

This single sentence is the crux of the problem so far. I agree with the first part. Scientists do agree that "fine tuning" exists. Of course the term is loaded and when they say they agree that fine tuning exists they are not saying that the use we observe have been fine tuned for life. Rather, they are saying that if the values were different by the smallest degree, then life as we know it would not exist (and in some cases the universe either). These are very different statements. Yes the vies are in very narrow ranges that allow for life as we know it, yes this could be the product of chance or it could be the expression of some more fundamental laws of physics that we don't currently know. Whatever the case you have not demonstrated that the scientific concensus agrees with the second half of your statement.

Now how is my analogy a quasi analogy?

My apologies it was not a quasi analogy it was a flawed one.I have pointed out the problem with it a couple times now. The known purpose of a firing squad is to kill a human. That is why we are surprised if it does not happen. There is no known purpose to the universe (without begging the question ).
Thoughts

Observed by whom and what? Fine tuned for what? That is the question. While they might all have unique elements out of trillions and trillions and trillions of perhaps unique universes there would still be only one with life such as ours.

Observed by whatever life exists in that universe ,or maybe not observed at all (this is all hypothetical). Fine tuned for whatever happens to exist in that universe.
I agree that our life, as we know it would not exist in these other universes. ..so what? The fact that we value our lives does not make them special in a supra universal sense. In the scenario I gave you, our universe which gives rise to us is no more special than the gold planet universe or the, serpentine galaxy universe or the nothing but empty space and a couple of barren rocks universe.

Well, we are in a young part of the universe, what of the older areas? Why hasn't a longer evolved life form made contact? This is called the Fermi Paradox. Basically: Where is everyone?

How does this relate to premise PA2?

we know of no law of physics that would explain why the necessary and required parameters of the universe are just as they have to be for life to exist in this universe; we know that they are what they need to be for it to have happened. What are your thoughts on the fine tuning question?

my position is that we don't know. If I had to guess I would guess there is a deeper law of physics at play but I would never claim to be able to demonstrate that. Lots of scientists seem to like the multiverse hypothesis but again that has not been demonstrated. In short we just don't know.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well KC thanks for the reminder (even if it was rather ad hominem in its tone)

Not at all. I was discussing the contents of your posts. If you feel that paints you in an unflattering light perhaps you should rethink your strategy.

I did answer it if you will go back and see. We can create hypothetical universes with different values.

That's nice. What do made-up hypotheticals have to do with how our universe actually came about?

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, you doubt computer models?

If I had a computer model showing that it was raining, would you say it was raining even if you looked outside and saw a perfectly clear day?

 

[KCfromNC]

No, I wouldn't and the scientists don't think so either.

This would be a lot more convincing if you weren't spending so much time avoiding quoting the science you claim is plentiful.

 

[KCfromNC]

Oncedeceived seems to have a big problem comprehending this very basic and obvious concept.

I'm still wondering what the fundamental issue is. Obviously repeating myself doesn't work, even if I try to vary the details of how I explain the error.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still wondering what the fundamental issue is. Obviously repeating myself doesn't work, even if I try to vary the details of how I explain the error.

The issue is; the poster in question, has a very powerful psychological need, to support their personal faith belief.

 

[Athée]

The issue is; the poster in question, has a very powerful psychological need, to support their personal faith belief.

Hey folks. Can we try to keep the discussion about the topic instead of speculating about the motivations of other posters?
Hopefully Once will shortly be presenting us with the citations needed in support of her claim abut the scientific consensus or perhaps an explanation of why she doesn't feel it is necessary for her argument that she support that claim (Once often surprises me by going in a different direction than expected though so these might not be the one two options)
Peace

 

[bhsmte]

Hey folks. Can we try to keep the discussion about the topic instead of speculating about the motivations of other posters?
Hopefully Once will shortly be presenting us with the citations needed in support of her claim abut the scientific consensus or perhaps an explanation of why she doesn't feel it is necessary for her argument that she support that claim (Once often surprises me by going in a different direction than expected though so these might not be the one two options)
Peace

There are some that have seen re-runs of this movie countless times.

 

[pat34lee]

Or, we see no evidence of a God.

Only the blind fail to see everything, which is proof of God.