The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Let's take the billiard ball thing. I have a bag containing 100 balls. If I pick one ball out of the bag, what is the probability that it will be red?

To determine the probability, I need to know (a) that there is a bag, that is a limit to the number of instances of the ball; I need to know how many balls are in the bag; and I need to know how many of those balls are red; and I need to know the selection methodology.

If the answers are certainly (a) there is a bag; (b) there are 100 balls therein; (c) there is only one red ball within; and (c) the selection is purely random .... then I can say the probability is 1 in 100.

As to the universe: is there a limit to the number of universes? If so, what is it? How many universes within that "bag" are there which match ours? How do we decide which universe to select for our hypothetical experiment? What then is the likelihood that it will match ours?

This question was answered by Paul Davies who claimed it would take trillions and trillions of universes to get just one like ours.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Was that cut and paste supposed to have an cite in it? All of the masses of unrelated info are starting to run together.

You wanted the relevant info from my link and so I provided it.

 

[KCfromNC]

You wanted the relevant info from my link

If you think I've been asking for cut and pastes and links from various random web pages no wonder it looks like you're doing your best to change the subject. For example, here's what I was asking for in the post you responded to :

Provide a value for any of the terms here based on what we know about how constants are fixed when universes are created. That would be a lot more convincing to linking to random unrelated pages.

Posting a cut and paste with no numbers in it isn't even an attempt at an answer. I even explicitly said that I wasn't looking for you to point at some random web page. Why not just answer the question, if you can?

 

[Athée]

Do you think that the heart has a reason for its function?

No. I think it is an evolved bit of biology that is well suited to its function.

D=Data B=Background information and T=Theory of interest

I read the info you provided so i know what they stand for, what i am wondering is what you are including in those elements. What are the data and background information and how do they help you calculate this unlikely probability that you arrive at. Make sure you stay within the evidence of the universe as you have told me I must do

I'm sorry but I am not going to alot 2 hours to viewing this video. Is it not true that Sean Carroll claims that the appearance of design is fake?

Tell you what. I will read the 60 page paper you posted and we can race!
Seriously though the first 15 minutes are intro and you can skip past all the parts where WLC talks (although it is interesting to watch how he has to go off script when debating an actual scientist and hoe badly this goes for him). You have ever said you are very interested in this topic and so I would recommend watching this debate. It is one that many atheists will point to so it would be worth your time to watch it I often put in ear buds and listen while I cook dinner or fold laundry...or more recently I listen as I get used to cleaning a much larger place. How do kids manage to leave dirty handprints on every single wall!?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you think I've been asking for cut and pastes and links from various random web pages no wonder it looks like you're doing your best to change the subject. For example, here's what I was asking for in the post you responded to :

Provide a value for any of the terms here based on what we know about how constants are fixed when universes are created. That would be a lot more convincing to linking to random unrelated pages.

Posting a cut and paste with no numbers in it isn't even an attempt at an answer.

KC I gave you 64 pages of numbers in it. I am not changing the subject at all. I am providing relevant information in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. You have asked several different questions now. The constants have a value determined by measurements.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all_2002.pdf

 

[AirPo]

This question was answered by Paul Davies who claimed it would take trillions and trillions of universes to get just one like ours.

Well if that is exactly what he said, he's just plain wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. I think it is an evolved bit of biology that is well suited to its function.


I read the info you provided so i know what they stand for, what i am wondering is what you are including in those elements. What are the data and background information and how do they help you calculate this unlikely probability that you arrive at. Make sure you stay within the evidence of the universe as you have told me I must do


Tell you what. I will read the 60 page paper you posted and we can race!
Seriously though the first 15 minutes are intro and you can skip past all the parts where WLC talks (although it is interesting to watch how he has to go off script when debating an actual scientist and hoe badly this goes for him). You have ever said you are very interested in this topic and so I would recommend watching this debate. It is one that many atheists will point to so it would be worth your time to watch it I often put in ear buds and listen while I cook dinner or fold laundry...or more recently I listen as I get used to cleaning a much larger place. How do kids manage to leave dirty handprints on every single wall!?

Ok, but I am running out of time here. I have T-ball coming up here in a bit. I am pretty much aware of the stances of those participating so I don't know if it will be work it or not. I doubt anything new is presented.

Kids are notorious for little handprints but embrace them, they will be gone to soon.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well if that is exactly what he said, he's just plain wrong.

Really? What do you have that shows he is wrong? I know that many other scientists don't claim he is, and believe me with this topic they would.

 

[AirPo]

Really? What do you have that shows he is wrong? I know that many other scientists don't claim he is, and believe me with this topic they would.

I have an easy little expierment you can do by yourself at home if you'd like.

Also note, I said "if". I highly doubt that is exactly what he said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have an easy little expierment you can do by yourself at home if you'd like.

Also note, I said "if". I highly doubt that is exactly what he said.

Ok? What is this little experiment?

 

[AirPo]

Ok? What is this little experiment?

Get a deck of well shuffled cards. Lay them out, face up, one by one. When you're done, you'll have a sequence of cards, the probability of which is 1/8.07E+67. That's basically 8 followed 67 0s. I'm not sure there's even a word for a number that big. Excel can only calculate it to 15 digits precision. But it only took one try. So to claim something "needs" trillioin and trillions of trials just because of it's extreamly low probability is just plain wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Get a deck of well shuffled cards. Lay them out, face up, one by one. When you're done, you'l have a sequence of cards, the probability of which is 1/8.07E+67. That's basically 8 followed 67 0s. I'm not sure there's even a word for a number that big. Excel can only calculate it to 15 digts precision. But it only took one try. So to claim something "needs" trillioin and trillions of trials just because of it's extreamly low probability is just plain wrong.

How is this relevant? There is no special way they have to be, what does that have to do with the universe?

 

[AirPo]

How is this relevant? There is no special way they have to be, what does that have to do with the universe?

It shows that what he said, if that is indeed an exact quote, is just plain wrong. Trillions and Trillions are not "required."

 

[Oncedeceived]

It shows that what he said, if that is indeed an exact quote, is just plain wrong. Trillions and Trillions are not "required."

You haven't shown why?

 

[Athée]

How is this relevant? There is no special way they have to be, what does that have to do with the universe?

Great analogy AirPo.
Hey Once,
Your response here makes exactly the point I am trying to make abut a rock being the same as life from a probability perspective. Once the long sequence of cards is on the table you can look at it and find patterns that are significant to you. Maybe all the clubs are together, maybe things are paired, maybe no cards are paired. The point is that from a probability perspective, the sequence that you call random and the sequence where all the clubs are together are equally probable.
When you ascribe special value to the formation of human life in this universe l, what you are doing is noticing the clubs and saying the universe was designed for this, when in fact it is a post hoc rationalization.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Great analogy AirPo.
Hey Once,
Your response here makes exactly the point I am trying to make abut a rock being the same as life from a probability perspective. Once the long sequence of cards is on the table you can look at it and find patterns that are significant to you. Maybe all the clubs are together, maybe things are paired, maybe no cards are paired. The point is that from a probability perspective, the sequence that you call random and the sequence where all the clubs are together are equally probable.
When you ascribe special value to the formation of human life in this universe l, what you are doing is noticing the clubs and saying the universe was designed for this, when in fact it is a post hoc rationalization.

Right, I know this is what you are all saying but it is not accurately portraying fine tuning. Lets take your scenario here, the cards are shuffled and you start to lay them out and the first one is an ace of spades, the next one is the two of spades, the next is the third of spades, then comes all the next cards in sequence and all spades... four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, Jack, Queen and then the king. You continue and the next card is the ace of clubs, all the next cards are the following clubs accordingly, and then diamonds, and finally all the hearts in sequence as well ending with the jokers. You would certainly understand that this would not happen by chance, at least it would be amazingly improbable that the cards just fell in that order.

Now add to this in regard to the universe that not only were all these cards coming in sequence in their appropriate place but they were not even known all at once. They were discovered as physicists did their work in their fields. This is just the tip of the ice berg.

 

[Athée]

Right, I know this is what you are all saying but it is not accurately portraying fine tuning. Lets take your scenario here, the cards are shuffled and you start to lay them out and the first one is an ace of spades, the next one is the two of spades, the next is the third of spades, then comes all the next cards in sequence and all spades... four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, Jack, Queen and then the king. You continue and the next card is the ace of clubs, all the next cards are the following clubs accordingly, and then diamonds, and finally all the hearts in sequence as well ending with the jokers. You would certainly understand that this would not happen by chance, at least it would be amazingly improbable that the cards just fell in that order.

I understand why you want to say that this sequence is astoundingly improbable (it is) but from a probability standpoint the scenario you described with all the cards in pre shuffle order is exactly the same as the one you would call random. It is only because you retroactively place a value on the sequence you see as ordered that it seems more special to you.

Now add to this in regard to the universe that not only were all these cards coming in sequence in their appropriate place but they were not even known all at once. They were discovered as physicists did their work in their fields. This is just the tip of the ice berg.

Not sure how this is relevant except that it makes it more likely that this is an observer effect.

 

[AirPo]

You haven't shown why?

Yes I have. I demonstrated a very unlikely event in one try. No trillons and trillions of trials necessary. If that is an exact Paul Davies quote, it is mathematically incorrect.

 

[KCfromNC]

KC I gave you 64 pages of numbers in it.

67 pages, actually. It was a wonderful attempt at a dodge. Too bad it contradicts several claims you made in this particular thread. Did you even read it?

Anyway for some reason you can't tell us which number from which paper you think is the answer to my question. Why not?

I am not changing the subject at all. I am providing relevant information in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. You have asked several different questions now. The constants have a value determined by measurements.

When did I ever ask about the value of any constants? Your posts would seem a lot more credible if you actually responded to the questions people ask.

Here's a reminder of what I'm looking for. It was in the post you quoted but for some reason you missed it :

Provide a value for any of the terms from Bayes' Theorem based on what we know about how constants are fixed when universes are created.

 

[KCfromNC]

Right, I know this is what you are all saying but it is not accurately portraying fine tuning. Lets take your scenario here, the cards are shuffled and you start to lay them out and the first one is an ace of spades, the next one is the two of spades, the next is the third of spades, then comes all the next cards in sequence and all spades... four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, Jack, Queen and then the king. You continue and the next card is the ace of clubs, all the next cards are the following clubs accordingly, and then diamonds, and finally all the hearts in sequence as well ending with the jokers. You would certainly understand that this would not happen by chance, at least it would be amazingly improbable that the cards just fell in that order.

Now add to this in regard to the universe that not only were all these cards coming in sequence in their appropriate place but they were not even known all at once. They were discovered as physicists did their work in their fields. This is just the tip of the ice berg.

Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.