The fine tuning of the universe.

[DogmaHunter]

A survey? On what?

On your claim that most scientists believe a certain thing.

Fine tuning? Do you still doubt that there is a consensus of experts in the field that think Fine tuning is a real phenomena?

That was not the claim you were making.
Stop moving the goalposts.
You said that most scientists think it is a "valid argument" for a tuner.

Where's the data that supports this claim? A handfull of quote-mines, which might or might not reflect their actual opinions, will not do.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't say the universe is unlikely, scientists do.

You are trying so hard to eliminate the unlikely connotation but it is the scientists that have determined that.

So you say, but for some reason you can't tell us how unlikely they've determined it is nor can you find a paper where they explain how they came to that answer. That's awfully suspicious.

What's even more suspicious is that the references you've tried to give haven't even related to that question. Makes me wonder if you're trying to fool us or if you simply don't understand the issue here.

 

[KCfromNC]

I did.

Post #?

 

[DogmaHunter]

We can take any piece of data one at a time and incorporate them into the equation.

In the case of constants having the value that they have, I'll have to ask here:
- which data?
- which equation?

Then we hypothesize theories that make data less probable are dismissed while theories that make data more probable then are compared to others and good ones beat out the ones that are not as good. The theories need not be perfect and information that is unclear or not exact changes nothing, some very extreme claims require extreme evidence and certainty is serious. Theories can be compared to each other independently of all others and one that goes against itself is thrown out.

How do you apply this to something like the values of constants of this universe, of which we have a set of exactly 1?

If it's easier to explain, demonstrate this theorem with an analogy provided by Loudmouth on this subject.

We have a black back. We do not know what is in it.
We go in with our hand, without looking what's inside, and pull out an object which has the number "54526" engraved on it.

We don't know if there are other such objects in the bag.
We don't know that IF there are other such objects in it, if they have numbers engraved on them. If they do, we don't know if they all have the same number or different numbers. We also don't know how many objects there are still in the bag - if any at all.

So.... please demonstrate this "theorem" by fieding this data into an equation and coming up with a probability stating how likely it was that we pulled out that specific object, with that specific number engraved on it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Note: The God hypothesis if that is what you would like to call it, claimed long before any of the technology that we have that earth was selected by God for us to exist on

Humans predicting that the earth will have human life on it isn't exactly a huge accomplishment.

 

[KCfromNC]

Some haven't, they have been convinced by the evidence, they let the evidence lead them wherever it went. Some hold out hope like you that there are quantzillion, billion universes to explain one like ours. They hope for something that will prohibit the variables from being different. Even though if they couldn't be different the law that would not allow for them to be different would mean that law would have to be finely tuned to prohibit them from being different.

Yes, yes, all those experts in the field have no idea that the evidence really leads to a particular modern interpretation of the Christian god being the answer. Luckily enough you're here to set all of those PhD's straight. Dunning-Kruger what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By comparing it with chance, it turns out that prayer and chance get exactly the same results, 50-50, prayer works as often as it does not.

citation needed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Meet your own burden of proof.
Don't ask me to prove a negative.

If one is going to claim that the design that is apparent in the universe is just an illusion it is their burden of proof.

I'm not making claims. I'm responding to your claim.
I'm saying that we don't have enough information to make any claim.

That is simply false. If something is designed it will appear designed, the universe appears designed. That information is solid. If one wishes to claim that this appearance of design is not actual they have to come up with a reason that the universe's appearance of design is an illusion. There are only two options here for the appearance of design:
1. It is actual design.
2. It is an illusion of design.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not a serious phenomena.

That's serious denial.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, yes, all those experts in the field have no idea that the evidence really leads to a particular modern interpretation of the Christian god being the answer. Luckily enough you're here to set all of those PhD's straight. Dunning-Kruger what?

It's not about the claims made as to who is God.

 

[AirPo]

If one is going to claim that the design that is apparent in the universe is just an illusion it is their burden of proof.

If one is going to claim that apparent design in the universe is anything other than apparent design in the universe, it is their burden of proof.

That is simply false. If something is designed it will appear designed, the universe appears designed. That information is solid. If one wishes to claim that this appearance of design is not actual they have to come up with a reason that the universe's appearance of design is an illusion. There are only two options here for the appearance of design:
1. It is actual design.
2. It is an illusion of design.

Actually there is another option.

 

[AirPo]

That's serious denial.

This is serious projection.

 

[Hieronymus]

This is serious projection.

You even deny your denial..

 

[AirPo]

You even deny your denial..

You even project your pojection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

a non-believer just wouldn't consider it, it's simply a non-starter. Everything else we once didn't know but now know has turned out to be not supernatural and has a valid naturalistic explanation. a Scientist wouldn't make an assumption on the cause of such an unknown let alone the one assumption without any supporting evidence.

Right, right like thunder and Thor. Very unconvincing to believers. The more science discovers the more it fits with Theism than naturalism.

Citation please... all the sources I know of state that everything for this universe was there at the beginning.

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.

This is perhaps the most crucial and difficult aspect of the big bang theory. The notion that the physical universe came into existence with time and not in time has a long history, dating back to St Augustine in the 5th century. But it took Einstein’s theory of relativity to give the idea scientific respectability. The key feature of the theory of relativity is that space and time are part of the physical universe, and not merely an unexplained background arena in which the universe happens. Hence the origin of the physical universe must involve the origin of space and time too.

But where could we look for such an origin? Well, the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the center of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backward in time, the universe becomes more and more compressed and the curvature or warping of space time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at the singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin.

Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question “What happened before the big bang?” is meaningless. There was no such epoch as “before the big bang,” because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement “There was nothing before the big bang,”and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret “nothing” in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space simply did not exist prior to the big bang.

Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

again, you don't have a foundation for the fine tuning being an actual thing let alone a fine tuner for which there's never been any evidence of. The Multiverse hypothesis has theoretical evidence in its favour. No evidence for a fine tuner.

The foundation for fine tuning is the measurements of the fundamental constants and how they are precisely what they need to be for our universe to exist and the intelligent life in it. That is a fact. Now either this fine tuning that is a real phenomena documented by science and appears to be as if a fine tuner set them to be exactly what they need to be is actually a fine tuner or just an illusion are the choices. You believe that it is an illusion created by the multiverse. So as you see we have a foundation for fine tuning it is called science and we have two choices to explain it: Real Design or an Illusion of design. So don't tell me there is no evidence for a Designer, or it couldn't be an illusion of a designer. Do you see?

It Does! If the variables couldn't be different then there's nothing to fine tune! Therefore, No Fine Tuner!!

The universe would still be fine tuned, it couldn't be anything but fine tuned for sure but the fine tuning would still be there but in some people's mind it would mean that it wasn't due to a Designer. Yet, why not? It just means that the Designer specifically set the tuning where it is and it couldn't be any different. The problem here is that there is no reason that we know of that they couldn't be different and the same problem exists, ours are fine tuned even if they could have not been.

Fine tuning is a philosophical talking point IMO. People talking about a sunrise and sunset is hardly evidence for the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth - Am I Right?

Well you certainly are free to think that but of course the experts in the field disagree.

As I've already said, the Anthropic Principle, and the Multiverse hypothesis. Both are plausible and have theoretical science underpinning in their favour. there is absolutely no evidence, theoretical or otherwise for an omnipotent fine tuner.

See what you are doing....you are claiming that the AP and Multiverse are both plausible to explain the fine tuning which is the evidence to be explained and then you say "there is absolutely no evidence" for an omnipotent fine tuner. There is evidence and that is the fine tuning that you claim the AP and Multiverse explain. That is not a rational conclusion to claim there is no evidence when you cite the Ap and Multiverse to explain the evidence.

But a fine tuner would then have to be explained. Where was this fine tuner standing while doing the pre-universe tuning, was this fine tuner standing in some other universe while cranking this one into life? it raises so many more questions...!

Yes, it does. But the Fine Tuner is not physical. So He doesn't need the physical world to exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is correct, because your conclusion is wrong. Nothing presented supports your conclusion. It is illogical. That has been pointed out again and again, but that fact gets ignored.

How do you know that my conclusion is wrong? Why is it illogical. Nothing has been pointed out again and again...that is the problem you all are just asserting I'm wrong but nothing as far as support for that assertion is being given.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not evidence of anything other than our tendency to notice patterns.

No, these are measurement/values that are precise and determined scientifically. They are not patterns.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not a serious phenomena.

Scientists don't agree with you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your rants about fine tuning have nothing to do with scientific discovery.

Now please try to be reasonable. It has everything to do with scientific discovery.

 

[AirPo]

How do you know that my conclusion is wrong? Why is it illogical. Nothing has been pointed out again and again...that is the problem you all are just asserting I'm wrong but nothing as far as support for that assertion is being given.

Because I have a brain that works. I have pointed out numerous times how it is illogical. The post above I quoted just shows that I'm right when I claim that the fact this has been ignored is true.