Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

What is the probability of that happening? Let's see if you actually understand the math.

Luckily, physicists are very good at this sort of thing and the nice thing about mathematics, peer review makes certain the math is correct.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What calculations, exactly?

It is on the link.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It sounds like you are heavily invested in this false dichotomy of "either multiverse, or god" - and by 'god', you off course mean the specific god you happen to believe in, and not any of the thousands of other gods that humans have believed in and still believe in.

I've brought this to your attention before, but it seems to go in one ear and out the other every time......

As has been said, ad nauseum, we do NOT know how the universe originated.
We do NOT know if the constants even CAN have a different value.
We do NOT know how the constants are determined / assigned during universe origination.
If they even can be different, we do NOT know HOW different they can be.

For all we know, it could be that there indeed is a multi-verse and that every universe that comes from it, is exactly like our own. For all we know, a space-time continuum can only be like the one we live in.

You really need to stop with all this speculation and assumption.

1. We don't know how the universe originated, but that lack of knowledge doesn't change the fine tuning of it.
2. Most physicists disagree with that. They claim we have no reason to believe that they could not be different.
3. Many of the constants had to be what they are for the universe to exist at all.
3. Even if we do not know how different they can be, doesn't change how they are.

The interesting thing about this post is that you are speculating whereas I am sticking to the evidence we have.
FACTS:
The universe had a beginning. To exist the universe had to have almost precisely what the fundamental constants of which we discovered.
The universe was the beginning of space, matter, energy and time.
The universe is ALL we KNOW. So our universe and its fine tuning is all we do know for certain.
The universe is a universe that permits intelligent life. We know it permits intelligent life. We know what the constants need to be for intelligent life to exist and that is precisely what we have discovered them to be.
So I am not speculating on anything, I am using what we KNOW, for my arguments.

 

[46AND2]

When we are discussing our universe we are not considering the probability of THIS universe. We are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. The universe is not special because it just happens to be ours and we exist but we are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. Going back to the ping-pong ball being a person...any ball will be a person (any ol' sperm and any ol' egg) = a person no matter. Pick a different sperm or egg get a different person. But if we take any universe we certainly do not get a different intelligent life form. You get no life at all.

You are entirely missing the point. None of this paragraph is relevant. Let me illustrate by copy/pasting, and changing a couple variables, which will be emphasized in bold:

"But if we take any person we certainly do not get a different oncedeceived. You get no oncedeceived at all."

The point is that any ol' ball will not be oncedecieved. The target of the fine tuning in my argument is NOT a person. It is oncedeceived.

 

[46AND2]

You are entirely missing the point. None of this paragraph is relevant. Let me illustrate by copy/pasting, and changing a couple variables, which will be emphasized in bold:

"But if we take any person we certainly do not get a different oncedeceived. You get no oncedeceived at all."

The point is that any ol' ball will not be oncedecieved. The target of the fine tuning in my argument is NOT a person. It is oncedeceived.

In other words, in my analogy, YOU are analogous to a universe capable of sustaining life. All other people (or lack of people, for that matter) are analogous to any other possibility of a universe which does not sustain life (or no universe at all). You are the one in a ridiculous number. Other people (and other pingpong balls not resulting in people) are a ridiculous number minus that one.

 

[KCfromNC]

I've given you support which shows how they determine it.

Keep claiming this and eventually someone might believe you. Won't be me, since I know better, but keep hope alive.

 

[KCfromNC]

Luckily, physicists are very good at this sort of thing and the nice thing about mathematics, peer review makes certain the math is correct.

In other words, no, you have no idea how unlikely even this simple example is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are entirely missing the point. None of this paragraph is relevant. Let me illustrate by copy/pasting, and changing a couple variables, which will be emphasized in bold:

"But if we take any person we certainly do not get a different oncedeceived. You get no oncedeceived at all."

The point is that any ol' ball will not be oncedecieved. The target of the fine tuning in my argument is NOT a person. It is oncedeceived.

You are the one missing the point. You are correct if we take any person we certainly do not get a different me. We don't get me at all. However, me is not specified and unlikely. If Oncedeceived didn't exist it would just be someone else. That is not the case of the universe. If this universe didn't exist with its life allowing properties, life wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another universe with a different life form but no life form at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Keep claiming this and eventually someone might believe you. Won't be me, since I know better, but keep hope alive.

I have to hope that others are not as bias and blind to the information being given.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In other words, no, you have no idea how unlikely even this simple example is.

KC I haven't a PhD in physics nor in Cosmology, nor Mathematics but I am well aware of the way science works in all of those areas. If the majority of scientists in the field are claiming that the universe is unlikely and HAVE DONE the MATH, I trust the peer review process that would correct their calculations if they were incorrect.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have to hope that others are not as bias and blind to the information being given.

Yeah, obviously the reason you can't find any actual references which back up what you claim is because people are biased against you. The evil atheist conspiracy can make legitimate scientific papers unpublish themselves with a snap of our fingers...

 

[KCfromNC]

KC I haven't a PhD in physics nor in Cosmology, nor Mathematics but I am well aware of the way science works in all of those areas.

Considering you can't answer simple a simple math question, I'm not convinced you're qualified to judge the work of experts in those fields.

If the majority of scientists in the field are claiming that the universe is unlikely and HAVE DONE the MATH, I trust the peer review process that would correct their calculations if they were incorrect.

Nice hypothetical. What does it have to do with the reality of the situation here - that you can't demonstrate that this is a majority opinion. Heck, you can't even find a single paper which calculates the odds that the universe would end up friendly to life. So why bring up this fantasy?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, obviously the reason you can't find any actual references which back up what you claim is because people are biased against you.

I've given references and either you are not understanding the information or you are arguing for argument sake and nothing more.

 

[KCfromNC]

I've given references and either you are not understanding the information or you are arguing for argument sake and nothing more.

I understood it well enough to ask questions about it you couldn't answer. Still can't, I guess, considering you're now trying to blame me rather than even try to respond with any sort of content.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Considering you can't answer simple a simple math question, I'm not convinced you're qualified to judge the work of experts in those fields.

Fortunately for me and many others that don't hold degrees in Mathematical studies, the peer review process works wonderfully.

Nice hypothetical. What does it have to do with the reality of the situation here - that you can't demonstrate that this is a majority opinion. Heck, you can't even find a single paper which calculates the odds that the universe would end up friendly to life. So why bring up this fantasy?

KC you can't find a good argument against anything I've presented so you just continue to claim I am not providing it. There is no such paper and it is due to your lack of understanding that the fine tuning argument is based on over two dozen fundamental constants that each have been deemed necessary for intelligent life to exist. Paul Davies has said that there IS A CONSENSUS with scientists in the field that the parameters for intelligent life to exist are fine tuned.

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because abiogenesis occurs frequently".[17] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of explanations have been proposed, such as theanthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

[Oncedeceived]

I understood it well enough to ask questions about it you couldn't answer. Still can't, I guess, considering you're now trying to blame me rather than even try to respond with any sort of content.

I don't have to, I can trust the peer review process.

 

[46AND2]

You are the one missing the point. You are correct if we take any person we certainly do not get a different me. We don't get me at all. However, me is not specified and unlikely. If Oncedeceived didn't exist it would just be someone else. That is not the case of the universe. If this universe didn't exist with its life allowing properties, life wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another universe with a different life form but no life form at all.

You absolutely are specified AND unlikely. The target in my analogy is, once again, NOT "a person", yet you continually state something like what I bolded in your post. The target is specifically you. THAT is absolutely specified and unlikely.

Again, I merely change variables:

"If YOU didn't exist with your endless string of ancestral hookups, you wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another oncedeceived but no oncedeceived at all.

You keep trying to show that another person would be another success for my analogy. It isn't. Another person is just as much a failure as a universe with no life form at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You absolutely are specified AND unlikely. The target in my analogy is, once again, NOT "a person", yet you continually state something like what I bolded in your post. The target is specifically you. THAT is absolutely specified and unlikely.

Again, I merely change variables:

"If YOU didn't exist with your endless string of ancestral hookups, you wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another oncedeceived but no oncedeceived at all.

You keep trying to show that another person would be another success for my analogy. It isn't. Another person is just as much a failure as a universe with no life form at all.

Why?

 

[KCfromNC]

Fortunately for me and many others that don't hold degrees in Mathematical studies, the peer review process works wonderfully.

That's great. Too bad you can't find any peer-reveiewed papers which tell us the consensus view on exactly how unlikely it is to find ourselves a universe where life can exist.

KC you can't find a good argument against anything I've presented so you just continue to claim I am not providing it. There is no such paper

Great we agree that there's no such papers out there. Just one question - why did you claim you already posted linked to it if you knew that it didn't exist?

Paul Davies has said that there IS A CONSENSUS with scientists in the field that the parameters for intelligent life to exist are fine tuned.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with what I asked. Everyone knows that if things were different they'd be different. What I've been asking is for a number on how unlikely it is that things are as they are.

 

[46AND2]

Why?

Why what? You'll have to be more specific.