The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Hey Once,
I totally get why you feel the need to defend yourself on this thread, here was what we were talking about prior to the life as we know it objection in case you wanted to continue on
Once
1. You agree that fine tuning is a real phenomena.
Athée
With the caveat of the "life as we know it objection "

Once
2. You agree that chance is not a factor unless one adds the multiverse/mega verse.
Athée
Yes, or some yet to be considered hypothesis that similarly makes the probability likely.

Once
You agree that there is no known law of nature that explains the fine tuning phenomena.
Athée
Agreed

Once
You hold a default position

Athée
Agreed

The fine tuning is determined by understanding the way the fundamental constants are consistent and knowing what would happen if they were not in the value they are. We don't have to know about "other universes" to determine the fine tuning in this one. If no other universes exist (and we have no evidence that they exist anyway) the fine tuning of the fundamental constants is well documented. So we don't need other universes to determine this one (the only one we do know exists)is fine tuned for intelligent life. That is what needs to be explained. Why is the universe (the only one we know exists)so precisely what it needs to be for intelligent life to exist. It doesn't matter if we hypothesize about other life forms because there is no evidence for any other life forms even in our own universe.

 

[AirPo]

The fine tuning is determined by understanding the way the fundamental constants are consistent and knowing what would happen if they were not in the value they are. We don't have to know about "other universes" to determine the fine tuning in this one. If no other universes exist (and we have no evidence that they exist anyway) the fine tuning of the fundamental constants is well documented. So we don't need other universes to determine this one (the only one we do know exists)is fine tuned for intelligent life. That is what needs to be explained. Why is the universe (the only one we know exists)so precisely what it needs to be for intelligent life to exist. It doesn't matter if we hypothesize about other life forms because there is no evidence for any other life forms even in our own universe.

You were doing fine up to the point I bolded. That's where the Wishfull Thinking fallacy comes in. That is what needs to be explained.

 

[Athée]

to determine this one (the only one we do know exists)is fine tuned for intelligent life. That is what needs to be explained.

I agree up to this part
The reason we were talking about other forms of life and other possible universes was because the idea of how probable or improbable our universe might be was introduced. I see that you didn't include that here though so we can ignore all that for now.
The first challenge I would offer is about the word "for". It is one thing to say that the valuse in the universe allow life to exist, and a very different thing to say that they exist for life to arise. Now we all speak in this kind of loose language all the time so maybe that is not what you meant but in any case I don't think the evidence supports the idea that the values have the specific purpose of bringing about life. Here is a reduction ad absurdum to make the point. The existence of pasta requires a more finely tuned universe than life does. Not only must the values and constants be right to bring about life generally, they must be further precise so that the life that exists will evolve the desire to eat pasta and the technological competence to make pasta, therfore the universe is fine tuned for the existence not of life but of pasta.

The second quibble I have is your use of "intelligent life " What evidence do we have that the values allow for intelligent life vs life in general?

 

[Athée]

You were doing fine up to the point I bolded. That's where the Wishfull Thinking fallacy comes in. That is what needs to be explained.

Are you asking her to explain why her argument is a wishful thinking fallacy?

 

[AirPo]

Are you asking her to explain why her argument is a wishful thinking fallacy?

I was doing the explaining.

 

[Athée]

I was doing the explaining.

Then I'm confused...I have not seen her say. I want there to be a fine tuner, therefore there is a fine tuner. Did I miss something? It seems to me that she is saying, the universe has values that allow for life, random chance is one explanation, an undiscovered principle of physics is another and an intelligent designer is a 3rd. She is most convinced by the third model. She may also want it to be true but that is not the argument she is making. Again unless I missed something she posted?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You were doing fine up to the point I bolded. That's where the Wishfull Thinking fallacy comes in. That is what needs to be explained.

I'd be glad to. I will have to come back either later or tomorrow.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree up to this part
The reason we were talking about other forms of life and other possible universes was because the idea of how probable or improbable our universe might be was introduced. I see that you didn't include that here though so we can ignore all that for now.
The first challenge I would offer is about the word "for". It is one thing to say that the valuse in the universe allow life to exist, and a very different thing to say that they exist for life to arise. Now we all speak in this kind of loose language all the time so maybe that is not what you meant but in any case I don't think the evidence supports the idea that the values have the specific purpose of bringing about life. Here is a reduction ad absurdum to make the point. The existence of pasta requires a more finely tuned universe than life does. Not only must the values and constants be right to bring about life generally, they must be further precise so that the life that exists will evolve the desire to eat pasta and the technological competence to make pasta, therfore the universe is fine tuned for the existence not of life but of pasta.

The second quibble I have is your use of "intelligent life " What evidence do we have that the values allow for intelligent life vs life in general?

Good questions all. I am busy right now, but hopefully later I can come back and respond. If not it will be tomorrow.

 

[AirPo]

I'd be glad to. I will have to come back either later or tomorrow.

Your going to explain how you argument is a wishful thinking fallacy?

 

[AirPo]

Then I'm confused...I have not seen her say. I want there to be a fine tuner, therefore there is a fine tuner. Did I miss something? It seems to me that she is saying, the universe has values that allow for life, random chance is one explanation, an undiscovered principle of physics is another and an intelligent designer is a 3rd. She is most convinced by the third model. She may also want it to be true but that is not the argument she is making. Again unless I missed something she posted?

There is actual evidence for the first two, nothing for the third. Hence the wishful thinking. That's what needed to be explained.

 

[[serious]]

2.2. Parameter choices 2.2.1. Base parameters The first section of Table 1 lists our base parameters that have flat priors when they are varied, along with their default values in the baseline model. When parameters are varied, unless otherwise stated, prior ranges are chosen to be much larger than the posterior, and hence do not affect the results of parameter estimation. In addition to these priors, we impose a “hard” prior on the Hubble constant of [20, 100] km s−1 Mpc−1 . 2.2.2. Derived parameters Matter-radiation equality zeq is defined as the redshift at which ργ + ρν = ρc + ρb (where ρν approximates massive neutrinos as massless). The redshift of last-scattering, z∗, is defined so that the optical depth to Thomson scattering from z = 0 (conformal time η = η0) to z = z∗ is unity, assuming no reionization. The optical depth is given by τ(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 , (5) where ˙τ = −aneσT (and ne is the density of free electrons and σT is the Thomson cross section). We define the angular scale of the sound horizon at last-scattering, θ∗ = rs(z∗)/DA(z∗), where rs is the sound horizon rs(z) = Z η(z) 0 dη 0 √ 3(1 + R) , (6) with R ≡ 3ρb/(4ργ). Baryon velocities decouple from the photon dipole when Compton drag balances the gravitational force, which happens at τd ∼ 1, where (Hu & Sugiyama 1996) τd(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 /R. (7) Here, again, τ is from recombination only, without reionization contributions. We define a drag redshift zdrag, so that τd(η(zdrag)) = 1. The sound horizon at the drag epoch is an important scale that is often used in studies of baryon acoustic oscillations; we denote this as rdrag = rs(zdrag). We compute zdrag and rdrag numerically from camb (see Sect. 5.2 for details of application to BAO data).

And how does that mean those values can be different than they are?

Also, "photon dipole" made me laugh. Photons don't have a dipole moment.

Also, $5 says you have no idea what you just posted.

 

[Athée]

There is actual evidence for the first two, nothing for the third. Hence the wishful thinking. That's what needed to be explained.

I see, so you didn't mean the wishful thinking fallacy in a formal way, you just meant wishful thinking generally.

 

[Veera Chase]

There are very good reasons why I don't believe in Islam.

Primarily because you don't believe in Allah.

It is not the same reason you don't believe in Islam.

I don't believe it because like Christianity it doesn't make any sense and it needs magic to make it work.

You don't believe in any religion outright.

That is true they are all poppycock.
How many religions are there and how many of them do you believe in?
It seems you spend most of your time rationalising the unbelievable in order to make it believable.

 

[lifesprophet]

This is a topic that another member, Athee, and I have determined would be a good one to explore in our opposing views.

Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author has said of fine tuning:
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

There is agreement between the majority of physicists, cosmologists and astrobiologists in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why? Why is our universe the way it is and could it have been different? What best explains the universe and its very narrow parameters that allow for intelligent life to exist?

These are the questions and more that we will be addressing in this thread.

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Get ready, get set, and go......

Yes yes yes, it is fine tuned with variation. This is to alow variety, otherwise we'd all be eating slime.

 

[AirPo]

I see, so you didn't mean the wishful thinking fallacy in a formal way, you just meant wishful thinking generally.

Of course I meant the formal way. That's why I linked the fallacy site.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok. Please go back and bring up what you are talking about and which article because like I said, I have right now eleven notifications and yesterday I had over thirty.

You can click back through the quotes to get to the link of the article that you posted.
It will take exactly 3 clicks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It may seem that way to you because you are thinking I can't know what I am talking about because I believe in God but that is not the case

No, that's not the reason at all.

I've spent literally years researching this topic.

Claiming this on a forum is not a proper substitute for actual credentials.

There are PhD's in the fields that have been educated in these areas that while not agreeing that there is a fine tuner believe that believing in a fine turner is a valid argument.

As I, and others, have said so many times allready...
1. it doesn't matter what people believe, opinions aren't evidence
2. that is not what physicists mean when they speak of apparant fine tuning.

Some in fact have gone from atheism to Christianity for this very reason.

What about physicists that went from christian to atheist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is up to the person who really wants to know DH. I know of one scientist that after discovering all this fine tuning recognized there was Intelligence behind it all. He didn't immediately come to the conclusion that it was the Biblical God but eventually that conclusion was reached through various avenues.

I know of a scientist that said "because there is such a thing as gravity, we don't require any gods to explain the existence of universes"

You might know him. He's in a wheelchair and has an IQ comparable to everyone in this thread combined.

Now what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know of a scientist that said "because there is such a thing as gravity, we don't require any gods to explain the existence of universes"

Yes, and Krauss and a few others but this doesn't have a shred of evidence and in fact, gravity is a law of physics which doesn't exist before the universe itself.

You might know him. He's in a wheelchair and has an IQ comparable to everyone in this thread combined.

Now what?

Einstein had most likely a higher IQ some believe it was closer to 190 and he absolutely believed the universe needed a fine tuner or mind behind it. Now what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, that's not the reason at all.

What then?

Claiming this on a forum is not a proper substitute for actual credentials.

For the general posting population on this forum it is far more than usual. If someone with a PhD or Masters in one of the relative fields would like to show how the information I have provided is not accurate I welcome correction.

As I, and others, have said so many times allready...
1. it doesn't matter what people believe, opinions aren't evidence
2. that is not what physicists mean when they speak of apparant fine tuning.

Absolutely wrong. The fine tuning is real. I think you are confused with what they say about apparent design.

What about physicists that went from christian to atheist?

It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.