The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, that the beauty of numbers, there is a right and wrong answer. It's not up to belief.

You have dismissed I believe the probability that Luke Barnes has provided, there are others but I imagine you would dismiss those as well. I could be wrong but that is how I am viewing your arguments.

 

[[serious]]

This paper is discussing Cosmic microwave background and how the fundamental constants are being used in a scientific way determined by their values to a very precise level using planck data. I thought there was some problem understanding how these constants values were determined and how they could be tweaked. I was wishing to show that these are very important elements in how we do science, and what different questions are studied in relationship to them.

Constants being used does not imply their degree of specificity, their capacity for change, or supernatural origins.

Pi is likewise used all the time in scientific papers.

 

[[serious]]

For the first challenge: how would you determine whether the universe allows life to exist or that the universe exists for life to exist?

Weak anthropic principle. Any universe in which an intelligent being can ask the question must be one that supports such an intelligent being.

The second challenge: There are different requirements for different life forms even on earth. Some forms are unicellular that have a low metabolism and only exist for a brief period of time and they have their own requirements. Then there unicellular, low metabolism life that exists for a longer period of time. There are too the unicellular life forms that have a high metabolism which still only last a brief time and then some that last a longer period of time. There are requirements for advanced life that only survives a brief time and advanced life that exists and survives a long period of time.

Obviously those less advanced forms still take a great deal of required elements to be just so, but for advanced life like us, those requirements are more specific.

Let's review those requirements one at a time then

For instance we talked about those constants that are required for chemistry to exist, for stars to exist and such as that which all life requires here on earth; but for advanced life there are more than just the specific ones for all life. Advanced life is timed just right to exist in relation to the sun.

How so?

If the sun wasn't where it was in its cycle intelligent life could not have evolved.

Which cycle? the sun has many cycles, none of which are more prohibative to intelligent life than unintelligent to the best of my knowledge.

If the ratio in the atmosphere of oxygen to nitrogen was not what it is advanced life functions would proceed to quickly if larger and too slowly if smaller.

Why must intelligent life be aerobic? Why could other neutral gasses replace nitrogen? Speaking of, why are scuba divers able to use other gas mixes?

The oxygen in the atmosphere if greater plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily and if less advanced life would have too little to breath.

Why could intelligent life not be less flammable (underwater?) or simply not be aerobic?(

There are numerous elements and factors like these that are required for advanced life that if different only simple life forms would be here.

Dolphins have well developed brains and would be under no threat of spontaneous combustion with higher oxygen levels.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, when I am talking about fine tuning I am talking about the phenomena of fine tuning. Fine tuning is the phenomena of the fundamental constants being set so precisely that the universe exists and intelligent life is permitted. My explanation is a fine tuner. You really need to understand the difference between evidence and conclusions.

And you need to understand that your conclusions are your own.
You also need to understand that conclusions that can't be verified or supported, are infinite in number.

The science has observations and no proper explanations.
You are giving "explanations", based only on your a priori religious beliefs. You can't support or demonstrate these "explanations" with actual evidence.


Which is what everybody has been telling you all along.

It isn't only that the universe would be different there are many factors that would eliminate any universe at all and life would not be able to exist.

Which doesn't change a word I said.

A fine tuner.

That is just false. Again, see above: that's what YOU believe.

Did you remember what this was in regard to? You were making the statement that I was unaware of evidence I presume that they have to eliminate a fine tuner?

Shifting the burden of proof again.

If you wish to claim a "tuner", the burden is on your claim.

It's not other people's job to disprove YOUR claims, which you didn't even bother to support yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you are wrong. We have evidence of God. We have evidence of a fine tuner which is the fine tuned fundamental constants. That is the whole point to this thread.

Yes, the point of this thread is indeed that strawman.
That's the stuff YOU keep adding to it, as I have told you so many times.

That's what YOU imply when you say "fine tuning", but it's not what the scientists you quote imply. As I have told you so many times.


The measurement of the values of the constants is ONLY evidence of those constants having those values. Knowing what the values are doesn't tell you anything at all about how those values come about.

It's the same fallacious nonsense as looking at the universe and calling it a "creation" and then, through some kind of dishonest sleight of words, then conclude "so it needs a creator" and then say the existence of the universe/creation is evidence of that creator.

No, that's not how it works. The universe existing is ONLY evidence of the universe existing and NOT evidence of any particular way of origins.

And the exact same applies to the constants. They have a value. And that's all you know about it: they have a value. Yet, you are drawing conclusions on HOW those values were assigned and then pretend that the constants have any particular value is "evidence" of how they were assigned.

It's ridiculous.

Ok there is physical evidence that has the appearance of design. What does appearance of design mean?

It means that humans have subjective biases that they express in words.

It means that the way the universe is set up so precisely as to what it needs to be to exist itself and for life to exist in it and there are so many of them that it seems to be designed in the way we recognize design in intelligent forms.

In hindsight through human bias and subjectivity.
Not by evidence.

There was a time when it "appeared" to be the case that the sun orbits the earth.
There was a time when it "appeared" to be the case that time was constant and not relative to the observer.

Appearances are just that: appearances.

A cloud may appear to look like a duck, but that doesn't make it a duck....

Now this is not wishful thinking this is fact. Now one can put it off and claim the appearance of design is an illusion or it is actual design, but it takes more wishing to believe I feel for the atheist to claim illusion than the for the theist to acknowledge design.

First, there is nothing in atheism that requires an atheist to make such a claim.

Second, what about the "wishing" when it comes to simply being honest and saying we don't know?

I can see your point, but coming from a person who has no evidence in his life for God that would explain it.

You "can see my point", and then in the very same breath (not even the next breath), you engage in the exact same behaviour again.

Einstein felt that the fine tuning was evidence of intelligence. Period.

Hawking doesn't. Period. Now what?

Now if he felt the Biblical God was ridiculous or childish has no bearing on the evidence.

Right, right.... the things Einstein says are only relevant when you feel you can use them to support your nonsense. But when he says things that contradicts it, then suddenly it isn't relevant anymore.

Got it.

The evidence is the fine tuning which even he concluded came from an intelligent spirit or mind.

Already addressed this. Values being what they are, are only evidence of the values being what they. It's not evidence, in any way, on how the values come about (or if they can even BE any different then what they are...)

Again, you are confusing evidence and conclusions.

No. I merely understand that conclusions need to be supported by evidence.
Your conclusions aren't.

That simply is not true.

Clearly it is true, since you handwave away any and all scientist quotes that don't agree with your nonsense. Hawking and Krauss are two recent examples.

I quote atheists, Christians, Deists, agnostics, secular unbelievers who supports fine tuning as a real phenomena. They support that the evidence is real.

They agree that constants have a certain value. You then add your own conclusion ("therefor: god") while pretending these people would agree, or that the constants having certain values somehow support that assertion. Newsflash: they don't.

Constants having values is only evidence of constants having values. Purely the fact of these constants having values, in no way, shape or form suggest or even hint on how those values are assigned, how they originate or if they can even be any different in the first place.

That you don't like my conclusions on what that evidence supports is your problem.

No. The problem is that your conclusions are NOT supported by evidence.
Simply claiming it is not nearly enough.

Please understand the difference between evidence (which is supported by the quotes I have provided) and conclusions.

Please understand the difference between reasonable conclusions and bare assertions.

You are using someone who is discounted by his peers. That is the difference, not that he is countering "my" argument but he is countering known science and is being critiqued for it.

Krauss and Hawking are discounted by their peers?
What are you smoking?

What you don't understand is that the fine tuning is the scientific verifiable evidence.

Yes, the values are what they are and it can be verified that they are what they are.

Their mere existence, however, says nothing about how they come about.

Conclusions are what one concludes from that evidence. Much of that is determined by worldview.

This particular conclusion is entirely determined by your worldview, which is faith based religious beliefs.

So you deny any evidence for a fine tuner then out of hand.

I can't deny that which doesn't exist.

You are not using reason but your biases to decide.

No, I can honestly say that I have never seen or have been presented by any valid evidence for a "tuner" of any sorts.

You are the one that brought him in, did you forget why?

Yes, and I explained why.
I'll repeat it: to illustrate how nitpicky you are in your arguments from authority.

Have you read his material? He voices that belief in his science.

By "his material", do you mean his books for the general public, or his actual science papers?

It's not a secret that he is a so-called "militant atheist", which obviously is apparant in his books for the general public.

I challenge you to find me a single one of his science papers where he rants against religion, though.

A fine tuner.

What evidence would that be?

 

[AirPo]

The evidence is fine tuning.

That's not evidence.

 

[AirPo]

You have dismissed I believe the probability that Luke Barnes has provided, there are others but I imagine you would dismiss those as well. I could be wrong but that is how I am viewing your arguments.

I never saw them. Could you post them again, this time not buried in a time wasting format?

 

[Athée]

For the first challenge: how would you determine whether the universe allows life to exist or that the universe exists for life to exist?

Good I like this defense, you are saying that I don't know either. Which is true of course I don't but since we don't know which way it was we can't just assume one or the other. There is however some evidence that life was made for the universe and not the other way around. Chiefly if the uinverse were indeed made by a god for life you would expect to see more life, more hospitable areas. Theread is really only one way for a universe to produce life by natural means (ancient, huge etc) and that is exactly what we observe.

There are numerous elements and factors like these that are required for advanced life that if different only simple life forms would be here.

Do you have a paper on this I could read?
Also I notice you didn't respond to my universe is fine tuned for pasta argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Constants being used does not imply their degree of specificity, their capacity for change, or supernatural origins.

Pi is likewise used all the time in scientific papers.

What do you mean by degree of specificity?

The capacity for change in what way? They don't change and that is of course why they are called fundamental constants, so we do know that they don't change and we are discussing the best explanation for their origins.

 

[Veera Chase]

As we only inhabit [as far as we know] one planet out of the trillions and trillions of planets in the universe I will address that fact. [I have also used this in another OP about fine tuning]

If fine tuning is true a few questions need to be answered first.....
1. Who or what did it?
2. Why was it done?
3. What animal was it done for?

Answers.
1. We will never know because there is no way to find out so all we can do is speculate.
2. We will never know because there is no way to find out so all we can do is speculate.
3. It was certainly not done for our benefit because these are the facts..........
78% of the surface area of Earth is seawater.
Of the remaining 22%, about one third is either mountain ranges, deserts, or ice caps.
That leaves about 15% of the planetary surface — 15% that isn't lethal without life support equipment such as boats, tents, and clothing.
Which means that whoever or whatever fine tuned this earth did not do a very good job of it as far as I can see,
unless of course you happen to be a fish, in which case it was all done for you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Weak anthropic principle. Any universe in which an intelligent being can ask the question must be one that supports such an intelligent being.

Yes, and if you are satisfied with that then there is no reason to wonder why or how.

Let's review those requirements one at a time thenHow so?

Which cycle? the sun has many cycles, none of which are more prohibative to intelligent life than unintelligent to the best of my knowledge.

"the epoch in which we live coincides with the lifetime of main-sequence stars, such as the sun. During any other epoch, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants." We live at a time that is about half way through the life of our sun. The timing for the evolution of intelligent beings is critical for intelligent being to exist.

Why must intelligent life be aerobic? Why could other neutral gasses replace nitrogen? Speaking of, why are scuba divers able to use other gas mixes?Why could intelligent life not be less flammable (underwater?) or simply not be aerobic?(Dolphins have well developed brains and would be under no threat of spontaneous combustion with higher oxygen levels.

So I take this to mean that you feel other forms of intelligent life should be able to exist? I went back and read your post again, the point is not what might have been possible but the requirements for intelligent life as we know it, in this universe. So I think you are saying that if the levels we see were different then say Dolphins would take over top niche in the universe or something like them. However, advanced life of all kinds in this universe have requirements that must be met for evolution to that advancement to happen including those different from us on earth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you mean by degree of specificity?

The capacity for change in what way? They don't change and that is of course why they are called fundamental constants, so we do know that they don't change and we are discussing the best explanation for their origins.

Here's the problem:
1. indeed, they don't change... but you DO assume that they CAN be different
2. the constants being what they are says exactly nothing about their origins
3. your "explanation" for their origins is entirely determined by your a priori religious beliefs, which is not rooted in evidence, but in "faith".

 

[AirPo]

Here's the problem:
1. indeed, they don't change... but you DO assume that they CAN be different

Acknowledging that would be admitting defeat.

2. the constants being what they are says exactly nothing about their origins

See my response to #1.

3. your "explanation" for their origins is entirely determined by your a priori religious beliefs, which is not rooted in evidence, but in "faith".

See my response to #1.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, and if you are satisfied with that then there is no reason to wonder why or how.

It's not about being "satisfied".
It's about being obvious.

Obviously you are going to exist in a place in which you actually can exist.
The fact that you exist in a place where you physically CAN exist, does not require any explanation.

The other way round is what would require an explanation.

"the epoch in which we live coincides with the lifetime of main-sequence stars, such as the sun. During any other epoch, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants." We live at a time that is about half way through the life of our sun. The timing for the evolution of intelligent beings is critical for intelligent being to exist.

Again, why would you expect otherwise????

Would you expect intelligent life (or any other life) to develop in an area or timeframe where such life could not exist?

I've asked you this before and you never provided me with a reasonable answer....
Why is it, that you are so surprised to find yourself in a universe and on a planet in and on which you can actually survive???????

Why does it require a special explanation, that things exist in an environment in which they actually can exist???

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you need to understand that your conclusions are your own.
You also need to understand that conclusions that can't be verified or supported, are infinite in number.

The science has observations and no proper explanations.
You are giving "explanations", based only on your a priori religious beliefs. You can't support or demonstrate these "explanations" with actual evidence.


Which is what everybody has been telling you all along.

Conclusions are based on what evidence we have. So you are saying explanations must have evidence: The fine tuning of the universe which has the appearance of design is the evidence and the best explanation for the appearance of design is actual design. See how that works. The conclusion is based on the evidence.

Which doesn't change a word I said.

Nor mine.

That is just false. Again, see above: that's what YOU believe.

What evidence do you have that it is false?

Shifting the burden of proof again.

No, you claimed that they did have evidence that would show God didn't do it.

If you wish to claim a "tuner", the burden is on your claim.

The fine tuning is the evidence, the burden is met. Now it comes down to conclusions and what best explains that evidence.

It's not other people's job to disprove YOUR claims, which you didn't even bother to support yourself.

Yes, it is up to you to disprove my claims. The evidence supports my claims, if you feel the evidence is better explained by something else or you feel you can counter my claims with your own then it is up to you to do it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not evidence.

Oh, what is it then?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never saw them. Could you post them again, this time not buried in a time wasting format?

Here is one:

Roger Penrose on entropy: How did he calculate that?



One of the fine-tuning arguments frequently used is the low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang. This was calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1:1010123. How does he do this? He explains it in his book, The Emperor’s New Mind. Here is the section of the book that discusses it. Penrose uses the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a particle in a black hole to determine the entropy of a particle at the singularity of the Big Bang as if the entire universe were a giant black hole. He calculates this to be 1043. There are estimated to be 1080 particles in the observable universe.

1080 x 1043 = 10123 .
Entropy is on a logarithmic scale, so that is how he arrives at 1010123.

V = total phase-space volume available
W = original phase-space volume

V/W = 1010123



Therefore, the accuracy of the low entropy value was 1:1010123. Penrose says,

“This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.”
If there are more particles in the universe than 1080 (like an infinite number), all the more extraordinary!!

 

[AirPo]

Oh, what is it then?

A fallicious conclusion.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, and if you are satisfied with that then there is no reason to wonder why or how.

Well, it would be a much clearer indication of a supernatural guardian if we existed in a universe in which we couldn't naturally exist.

"the epoch in which we live coincides with the lifetime of main-sequence stars, such as the sun. During any other epoch, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants." We live at a time that is about half way through the life of our sun. The timing for the evolution of intelligent beings is critical for intelligent being to exist.

Not sure what your point is. yes, any life in the universe would exist during the period in which that form of life can exist. This quote just restates the weak anthropic principle, which was my point above. Are you backtracking and agreeing with me?

So I take this to mean that you feel other forms of intelligent life should be able to exist?

We certainly cant rule out that other forms of life may be able to exist under different laws of nature.

I went back and read your post again, the point is not what might have been possible but the requirements for intelligent life as we know it, in this universe. So I think you are saying that if the levels we see were different then say Dolphins would take over top niche in the universe or something like them.

No, I'm saying you concern over excess oxygen causing things to ignite isn't really much of a threat to marine life. As such, since there exists no clear bar to intelligent life existing in marine environments, there's no reason this would be a greater threat to the development of some form of intelligent life than unintelligent life

However, advanced life of all kinds in this universe have requirements that must be met for evolution to that advancement to happen including those different from us on earth.

Again, you seem to be backtracking to retroactively agree with me. If intelligent life could emerge dependant on different circumstances, then our circumstances are by definition not the only ones in which intelligent life could emerge.

 

[AirPo]

Here is one:

Roger Penrose on entropy: How did he calculate that?



One of the fine-tuning arguments frequently used is the low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang. This was calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1:1010123. How does he do this? He explains it in his book, The Emperor’s New Mind. Here is the section of the book that discusses it. Penrose uses the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a particle in a black hole to determine the entropy of a particle at the singularity of the Big Bang as if the entire universe were a giant black hole. He calculates this to be 1043. There are estimated to be 1080 particles in the observable universe.

1080 x 1043 = 10123 .
Entropy is on a logarithmic scale, so that is how he arrives at 1010123.

V = total phase-space volume available
W = original phase-space volume

V/W = 1010123



Therefore, the accuracy of the low entropy value was 1:1010123. Penrose says,

“This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.”
If there are more particles in the universe than 1080 (like an infinite number), all the more extraordinary!!

1080
x1043
1126440