The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies ,

"An opinion piece published in the New York Times,[8] generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus."[8] The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed.[9] While atheists Richard Dawkins[10] and Victor J. Stenger[11] have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others including the John Templeton Foundation, have praised his work.

[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0
[9] https://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html
[10] Richard Dawkins (2006). "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer". The God Delusion.
[11] Victor J Stenger Dead Link! ​

I'm not sure he ever involved his religious position in any peer reviewed paper though... but that isn't what I said anyhoo.

Yes, I agree.

I'm not sure where you got your quote from so I went looking, and found it at http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ - which turns out to be a Creationist/Intelligent Design pseudo-scientific website.

I guess if you think Galileo's house arrest in 1633 for supporting Heliocentrism in contradiction to the Church's position is relatively new, sure.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies ,

"An opinion piece published in the New York Times,[8] generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus."[8] The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed.[9] While atheists Richard Dawkins[10] and Victor J. Stenger[11] have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others including the John Templeton Foundation, have praised his work.

[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0
[9] https://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html
[10] Richard Dawkins (2006). "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer". The God Delusion.
[11] Victor J Stenger Dead Link! ​

I'm not sure he ever involved his religious position in any peer reviewed paper though... but that isn't what I said anyhoo.

I find these people hypocrites when many of them bring in their anti-religious beliefs into their writings. It just shows that scientists do come hard against anyone that disagrees with their anti-religious beleifs.

And you were questioning his scientific expertise based on what you perceived as his views, those which were not part of his scientific work otherwise you wouldn't have disclaimed the link.

I'm not sure where you got your quote from so I went looking, and found it at http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ - which turns out to be a Creationist/Intelligent Design pseudo-scientific website.

They may have quoted Paul Davies but I gave you the original. The fact that you had the link and then went "searching for where I got the quote from" shows that you are not concerned about what I am actually presenting for my claims.

I guess if you think Galileo's house arrest in 1633 for supporting Heliocentrism in contradiction to the Church's position is relatively new, sure.

Modern science was originated in the Christian worldview. I am supplying a link...I wonder if you will look at it?

http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php

 

[KCfromNC]

If this is all you're trying to say, why bring up all the stuff about our universe being unlikely and gods being involved? Or is this another attempt at a a bait and switch?

Hmm, crickets. I guess I have my answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

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 thespeck 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.

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

Posting the quote from an opinion piece doesn't turn it into the consensus opinion of people who do this for a living. That's true even if you keep posting it over and over and over.

 

[KCfromNC]

I find these people hypocrites when many of them bring in their anti-religious beliefs into their writings.

Examples?

Modern science was originated in the Christian worldview.

If this is evidence of something, so are polls showing the relative lack of religious belief among scientists today.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Posting the quote from an opinion piece doesn't turn it into the consensus opinion of people who do this for a living. That's true even if you keep posting it over and over and over.

This is so funny. It is from one of the leading scientist's in the field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Examples?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423851/lawrence-krauss-physicist-fanatic

If this is evidence of something, so are polls showing the relative lack of religious belief among scientists today.

Doesn't change that they couldn't do modern science if it were not for the metaphysical foundation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I mentioned earlier, this is a layman's quick five on the Big Bang. It isn't scientifically accurate because of constraints on the audience, and brevity restrictions I'd imagine, and is not meant to be anything more than a primer for the average person to understand the basics, therefore, there's some use of not entirely accurate descriptors. Here's an explanation of "Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss:

"In the modern universe it’s a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a timescale so short you can’t see them. So there’s nothing there but actually lots of stuff is happening. You just can’t see it, and that kind of nothing, one of the remarkable things we’ve learned is that kind of nothing is unstable. Empty space is unstable." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...from-nothing_n_1681113.html?section=australia​

...so Nothing isn't necessarily the nothing you seem to think it is.

You do realize that even other physicists are critical of Lawrence Krauss's theory don't you?

The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

And:

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...e-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=4

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I find these people hypocrites when many of them bring in their anti-religious beliefs into their writings. It just shows that scientists do come hard against anyone that disagrees with their anti-religious beleifs.

The Scientific Method by design applies as few assumptions as absolutely required and is unable to test the Supernatural - outside the Universe is Supernatural. Many of his critics are critical of his drawing in of an untestable, unfalsifiable element into a scientific arena, an arena that has borne incredible results by never considering, let alone presuming that very untestable element he posits! Of course they're right to be critical!

And you were questioning his scientific expertise based on what you perceived as his views, those which were not part of his scientific work otherwise you wouldn't have disclaimed the link.

As a Scientist, he has an obligation to apply it with as least amount of bias as possible. Faith has no part. As far as I can find, he hasn't done very much peer reviewed research into the beginning of the Universe, he has of course done plenty of cosmology research regarding such areas as the Unruh and the Bunch-Davies effects although I'm sure he knows quite a lot in this field - however you sell it, he is still a fringe outer regarding "fine-tuning" and this "fine-tuner" you keep thrusting on us all.

They may have quoted Paul Davies but I gave you the original. The fact that you had the link and then went "searching for where I got the quote from" shows that you are not concerned about what I am actually presenting for my claims.

I must have missed the link, sorry! It isn't personal, but I never trust a quotation on this forum without reading it in context to ensure it is, or I, or you understood it correctly. I sought my own version of that quote not knowing you had included a link, I do my own due diligence, especially since quite a lot of Creationists systematically cherry pick quotes out of context to paint a completely different picture to reality.

Modern science was originated in the Christian worldview. I am supplying a link...I wonder if you will look at it?

http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php

I believe it was too. I didn't say it wasn't the case. Surely, you're not going to tell me that Science and Theology have always worked hand-in-hand? Christianity may very well have supported the sciences when it wasn't revealing inconvenient truths, but when Christianity held unequivocal power, it thought nothing of silencing any talk that was seen to blaspheme scripture. It isn't just Christianity that's impeded progress of course, most religions have done so in history - even Today, religious belief has hindered such things as stem cell research, something that goes great lengths to improve the quality of life for millions upon millions of victims and sufferers of spinal injury, brain damage, diabetes, MS, cancer, infertility, etc. All these breakthroughs were happening in other countries before the US Government finally pushed back against the religious fervor over the topic...

You do realize that even other physicists are critical of Lawrence Krauss's theory don't you?

Of Course! There are so many viable versions of the Big Bang, it's not even funny. There are other hypotheses out there that aren't even "Big Bang"-ie! there are still versions of the eternal Universe hypothesis that involves cyclic crunches, etc. that still fit much of the data we have. This isn't a surprise, the Big Bang is just the most popular, and there are variations on that you could spend an entire university degree never seeing. Remember, Scientists become Famous by disproving other Scientists, it's why the Scientific Method has been so successful and has given us the technology we have. If it were that Science & Scientists were dogmatic, we'd never progress.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Scientific Method by design applies as few assumptions as absolutely required and is unable to test the Supernatural - outside the Universe is Supernatural. Many of his critics are critical of his drawing in of an untestable, unfalsifiable element into a scientific arena, an arena that has borne incredible results by never considering, let alone presuming that very untestable element he posits! Of course they're right to be critical!

It seems you have misinterpreted what he is saying as well as those who wrote against his statements. All he is saying :"that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus." Which is true.

And it is hypocritical when all the proposals that these scientists are promoting are outside of the universe as well. There is no way to test or falsify whether other universes exist for instance.

As a Scientist, he has an obligation to apply it with as least amount of bias as possible. Faith has no part. As far as I can find, he hasn't done very much peer reviewed research into the beginning of the Universe, he has of course done plenty of cosmology research regarding such areas as the Unruh and the Bunch-Davies effects although I'm sure he knows quite a lot in this field - however you sell it, he is still a fringe outer regarding "fine-tuning" and this "fine-tuner" you keep thrusting on us all.

Again, this is not correct. I listed the scientists that accept the fine tuning of the universe as a real phenomena and only a few disagree.
Scientists in the related fields are:

There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. Stenger, on the other hand, claims that the universe is not fine-tuned.

Here is a list of his peer reviewed papers. It may be dated.
http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/9/*?field_published_year_value[value][year]=

I must have missed the link, sorry! It isn't personal, but I never trust a quotation on this forum without reading it in context to ensure it is, or I, or you understood it correctly. I sought my own version of that quote not knowing you had included a link, I do my own due diligence, especially since quite a lot of Creationists systematically cherry pick quotes out of context to paint a completely different picture to reality.

I feel the same about very vocal atheist scientists websites as well. I've provided links that are from purely scientific sites, or those who are non-religious most of the time. I will always provide the original if it is available online.

I believe it was too. I didn't say it wasn't the case. Surely, you're not going to tell me that Science and Theology have always worked hand-in-hand? Christianity may very well have supported the sciences when it wasn't revealing inconvenient truths, but when Christianity held unequivocal power, it thought nothing of silencing any talk that was seen to blaspheme scripture. It isn't just Christianity that's impeded progress of course, most religions have done so in history - even Today, religious belief has hindered such things as stem cell research, something that goes great lengths to improve the quality of life for millions upon millions of victims and sufferers of spinal injury, brain damage, diabetes, MS, cancer, infertility, etc. All these breakthroughs were happening in other countries before the US Government finally pushed back against the religious fervor over the topic...

The point is that modern science would not be what we have today if not for the Christian foundation from which it arose.

Of Course! There are so many viable versions of the Big Bang, it's not even funny. There are other hypotheses out there that aren't even "Big Bang"-ie! there are still versions of the eternal Universe hypothesis that involves cyclic crunches, etc. that still fit much of the data we have. This isn't a surprise, the Big Bang is just the most popular, and there are variations on that you could spend an entire university degree never seeing. Remember, Scientists become Famous by disproving other Scientists, it's why the Scientific Method has been so successful and has given us the technology we have. If it were that Science & Scientists were dogmatic, we'd never progress.

It isn't that the Big Bang is more popular, it has more evidence for it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It seems you have misinterpreted what he is saying as well as those who wrote against his statements. All he is saying :"that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus." Which is true.

How is it taken on Faith when these physical laws don't change on their own, can't be changed and have no evidence they could be changed in the beginning?

And it is hypocritical when all the proposals that these scientists are promoting are outside of the universe as well. There is no way to test or falsify whether other universes exist for instance.

None of these have been earmarked as fact! They're always positioned as ideas and thoughts, NOT Fact!

Again, this is not correct. I listed the scientists that accept the fine tuning of the universe as a real phenomena and only a few disagree.
Scientists in the related fields are:

There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. Stenger, on the other hand, claims that the universe is not fine-tuned.

Well, You're Wrong! Do you not understand that when a Scientists says that something "Appears to be so", they are NOT saying "it IS so"? You would also have heard Dawkins say regarding Biology that "Life appears to be designed..." but you know damned well that he doesn't believe Life is actually designed! Pretty much all of these people you've listed only ever talk about the appearance of fine tuning, they don't actually believe it is fine tuned.

Here is a list of his peer reviewed papers. It may be dated.
http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/9/*?field_published_year_value[value][year]=

Cool, that's quite a collection...

I feel the same about very vocal atheist scientists websites as well. I've provided links that are from purely scientific sites, or those who are non-religious most of the time. I will always provide the original if it is available online.

The point is that modern science would not be what we have today if not for the Christian foundation from which it arose.

Again, sure.

It isn't that the Big Bang is more popular, it has more evidence for it.

I agree it has more evidence, that's why it IS more popular - that said, it isn't taken on faith and is open to further evidence, so this might change if we find better evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How is it taken on Faith when these physical laws don't change on their own, can't be changed and have no evidence they could be changed in the beginning?

The reason he says they must be taken on faith is when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics, but we have to continue to act or have faith that they are meaningful anyway and we take them on faith because we don't know their origin scientifically and although they haven't changed, there is nothing that prohibits them scientifically from changing.

None of these have been earmarked as fact! They're always positioned as ideas and thoughts, NOT Fact!

What are you referring to here? Fine tuning is a fact, what remains is the explanation.

Well, You're Wrong! Do you not understand that when a Scientists says that something "Appears to be so", they are NOT saying "it IS so"? You would also have heard Dawkins say regarding Biology that "Life appears to be designed..." but you know damned well that he doesn't believe Life is actually designed! Pretty much all of these people you've listed only ever talk about the appearance of fine tuning, they don't actually believe it is fine tuned.

I think you are confusing appears to be designed with fine tuning. I am not aware of any scientists that feel fine tuning is an appearance of fine tuning.

Cool, that's quite a collection...

I agree, like I said he is a very prominent scientist.

Again, sure.

Good.

I agree it has more evidence, that's why it IS more popular - that said, it isn't taken on faith and is open to further evidence, so this might change if we find better evidence.

Of course, I agree.

 

[[serious]]

when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics,

false. While multiple theories exist for the inflationary period, by 1 second post big bang we are solidly in well understood physics. Physics works quite well with leptons.

There is no known epoch in which physics do not apply.

 

[KCfromNC]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423851/lawrence-krauss-physicist-fanatic

What is hypocritical about a non-believer writing an opinion piece for a magazine? I don't follow. Given all the bluster I thought you'd have some examples of scientists slipping anti-religion propaganda into their science.

Doesn't change that they couldn't do modern science if it were not for the metaphysical foundation.

Didn't think you'd be a big fan of metaphysical naturalism, but welcome aboard.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is so funny. It is from one of the leading scientist's in the field.

I'm glad you're happy you've found a source you can quote-mine to back up your faith.

 

[KCfromNC]

You do realize that even other physicists are critical of Lawrence Krauss's theory don't you?

Considering this is an open area of research, you'll find people critical of pretty much every approach at this point. Kinda goes against your confident claims that your hero has it figured out.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is hypocritical about a non-believer writing an opinion piece for a magazine? I don't follow. Given all the bluster I thought you'd have some examples of scientists slipping anti-religion propaganda into their science.

It is hypocritical to do so and then complain when someone who disagrees (to some degree) with their view does the same.

Didn't think you'd be a big fan of metaphysical naturalism, but welcome aboard.

What does than mean to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm glad you're happy you've found a source you can quote-mine to back up your faith.

I linked the whole article...false accusation as usual.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Considering this is an open area of research, you'll find people critical of pretty much every approach at this point. Kinda goes against your confident claims that your hero has it figured out.

He is going against principles that are known.

 

[Oncedeceived]

false. While multiple theories exist for the inflationary period, by 1 second post big bang we are solidly in well understood physics. Physics works quite well with leptons.

There is no known epoch in which physics do not apply.

So you are disagreeing with Paul Davies?

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.
Paul Davies link I provided.
It might be objected that we haven’t finished the job by baldly taking the laws of physics as given. Where did those laws come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? This is a valid objection. I have argued that we must eschew the traditional causal chain and focus instead on an explanatory chain, but inevitably we now confront the logical equivalent of the First Cause -- the beginning of the chain of explanation.