The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

Any particular outcome is equally probable to any other particular outcome.

Also note that while this is true for the particular example you're talking about, we have no idea if it is true for whatever process generates the values for constants in our universe. There's no reason to assume that this process will produce a uniform sampling of values. Could be that it does, but it could also be that the values are any other know distribution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probability_distributions - or maybe an entirely different one we've never seen before. And since we're allegedly talking about a combination of 30 of them, could be that each one is different. Given this complete lack of information figuring out which outcomes are likely or not is totally impossible.

 

[KCfromNC]

Stephen Hawking is a proponent of Fine tuning.


“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.” "A Brief History of Time".

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that if things were different then things would be different. Are you seriously posting Hawking as an example of someone who thinks this fine tuning is best explained by your version of god(s)? Are you saying his expertise on the fine tuning problem means we should agree with his conclusions about the nature of god(s)?

 

[[serious]]

But let me ask you a question. If you are on a planet with a higher gravity, or on a spaceship accelerating at relativistic speeds - which means your ruler is now shorter, is pi the same pi as it is on earth????? Yes, it is still 3.14..... but both rulers measure a different distance. So are those constants really constants - or just proportional values depending on energy content and frame of reference????

No, pi is pi, regardless of ruler. If you have an 11 inch ruler or a 13 inch ruler, the relationship between the diameter and circumference is unchanged.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here's a question, can pi be anything but 3.14...?

It seems that that's just what pi is and it can't be anything different. Could the rest of the natural constants likewise simply be the only value they can be?

Is pi a physical thing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But people who claim that constants could be different can fall back on "we don't know, therefore it is possible"? That doesn't sound particularly consistent.

What we know inside the universe and what "might" be outside is radically different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, lots of ignorance behind this whole argument. I wish someone would have brought up that fact earlier in the thread, you know, like at post 6 or so to pick a number at random. That would have saved a bunch of time.

So again, you are denying what scientists claim about fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, there do not "have to be", there do not "need to be" infinite universes for ours to be as it is. There does have to be at least one. If there are a hundred balls in a bag and only one is red, the probability is one in a hundred that any particular one of those balls is red. But there do not "have to be" a hundred balls for you to take a red ball out of a bag. If there are fifty balls, the probability is one in fifty. If there is one, the probability is one.

The scientists seem to think that it is highly unlikely for our universe to be as fine tuned as it is. They don't like God as an explanation so they think the multiverse is a good alternative.

The truth is that if there is only one universe, this one, then the probability that this universe will be like this universe is 1. There is no other possibility. Indeed we can test that probability: every time we check, we find that our universe is just like our universe.

Yep, which only leaves the question of why ours is so fine tuned for intelligent life.

If there are more universes, then we need to know how many before we can start to work out the probabilities of any of them having particular characteristics (we also need to know a lot more about how the laws of physics arise than we do now, but that's a different matter).

In a certain type of probability yes.

One universe? Probability 1. Multiple universes? Depends in part on how many.

You might want to talk to the PhD Physicists that don't agree.

The difficulty with your position is that you are taking the complexity of our universe, and its inter connectedness, the reliance of one feature on the characteristics of other features (that's what some people have called — metaphorically — fine tuning, but which you want to use to imply a fine tuner) and you are trying to use that to calculate a probability, when we simply don't have either the data or, frankly, the knowledge to calculate such a probability. There is no direct applicability of the "fine tuning" effect to a probability calculation.

I'm not trying to calculate anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Citation needed.

Why, you don't read them anyway.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey, come on now.... you know you're making waaaaaay to much sense here.

Right, and all those PhD Physicists, cosmologists and astrophysicists are just whistling dixie.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The probability of the cards falling in that particular order is exactly the same as the cards falling in any other particular order.

Which is exactly the point that he is making, which went straight over your head.

You deny what the scientists in their field claim and then claim this is over my head. I think I'll take the word of the scientists over KC thanks.

No. It IS the iceberg, the problem rather seems to be that the iceberg is so big and so in-your-face, that you're not even noticing it.

Any particular outcome is equally probable to any other particular outcome.
Your post hoc assigning of special value to the already obtained particular outcome isn't going to change that.

I'll go with the scientists on this. Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, are you saying that only a universe like this one could actually exist?
If that is the case, then why are you surprised that the universe is the way it is, considering that it exists???
If that is not the case, please explain what you then meant by the bolded part.



You haven't shown that there even is something "special" to be explained in the first place. You just asserted it.

I don't assert anything about fine tuning there are plenty of scientific papers that do more than assert fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that if things were different then things would be different. Are you seriously posting Hawking as an example of someone who thinks this fine tuning is best explained by your version of god(s)? Are you saying his expertise on the fine tuning problem means we should agree with his conclusions about the nature of god(s)?

In fact, he doesn't believe God is the explanation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well if you don't find it helpful feel free to disregard it Maybe you don't think God is alive and so it doesn't help as an example within your worldview of life not as we know it. In any case my answer to your earlier question about the macromolecules remains the same.

You think I might think God is not alive? Could you explain why you might even contemplate that possibility?

So are you thinking some form of life might be able able to live in just hydrogen gas and nothing else for instance?

 

[freezerman2000]

deleted

 

[freezerman2000]

Yet, here we sit on this tiny blue dot enjoying our special place, the only place where we could even observe stars dying, novas, supernovas, black holes, quasars and those pesky comets and asteroids whizzing around us.

Yes,and we are in a sooting gallery...one of those asteroids and comets that are so pesky has a date with us.It is only amatter of time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes,and we are in a sooting gallery...one of those asteroids and comets that are so pesky has a date with us.It is only a matter of time.

That is true but if I went into it, it would derail this thread. Do you think in all these billions of years it might be a little strange that we haven't bit the dust yet?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes,and we are in a sooting gallery...one of those asteroids and comets that are so pesky has a date with us.It is only amatter of time.

And dont you know, that is all partnof gods plan.

 

[Athée]

You think I might think God is not alive? Could you explain why you might even contemplate that possibility?

So are you thinking some form of life might be able able to live in just hydrogen gas and nothing else for instance?

I think that you do consider god to be alive, but that you also don't think he is made of macromolecules, nor that he reproduces. In this sense he is an example from within your worldview of: life but not as we know it.
Hydrogen gas, sure it is possible, maybe it's possible to have a life form that is made entirely of hydrogen gas, the point is we just don't know.

 

[Davian]

Stephen Hawking is a proponent of Fine tuning.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.” "A Brief History of Time".

(my bold)

The perception of fine tuning, and actual intended "fine tuning" are two different things.

So again, you are denying what scientists claim about fine tuning.

Again, you misrepresent what the scientists are saying about fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think that you do consider god to be alive, but that you also don't think he is made of macromolecules, nor that he reproduces. In this sense he is an example from within your worldview of: life but not as we know it.
Hydrogen gas, sure it is possible, maybe it's possible to have a life form that is made entirely of hydrogen gas, the point is we just don't know.

What order comes from hydrogen gas?