Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

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

Why is it as much of a failure.

 

[46AND2]

Why is it as much of a failure.

Because it doesn't meet the specified and unlikely target. A slightly different genealogy results in no oncedeceived. A slightly different parameter results in no life sustaining universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it doesn't meet the specified and unlikely target. A slightly different genealogy results in no oncedeceived. A slightly different parameter results in no life sustaining universe.

The problem is there is no way to distinguish between me and any of the possible results. To show this we can hypothesize that the sperm had an inherent genetic illness that I did not inherit, we then would have something we could differentiate and determine that something amazing had actually happened. I then become remarkable rather than just the unspecific ball picked from millions. Our universe is like that inherent genetic illness that it didn't inherit. The genetic illness being a universe that doesn't allow any life at all to exist.

 

[46AND2]

The problem is there is no way to distinguish between me and any of the possible results. To show this we can hypothesize that the sperm had an inherent genetic illness that I did not inherit, we then would have something we could differentiate and determine that something amazing had actually happened. I then become remarkable rather than just the unspecific ball picked from millions. Our universe is like that inherent genetic illness that it didn't inherit. The genetic illness being a universe that doesn't allow any life at all to exist.

What distinguishes you is how I defined my argument, making you analogous to a life sustaining universe, and any other result a failure.

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

Just making sure this doesn't get lost.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just making sure this doesn't get lost.

No, you asked how they determined how unlikely the universe is and I gave you links to show how they determined it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What distinguishes you is how I defined my argument, making you analogous to a life sustaining universe, and any other result a failure.

It doesn't make it a good analogy because you define it as such.

 

[[serious]]

It is on the link.

Every time I've checked one of your links, not only was the stated bit not in there, but things that directly contradict your position were. I believe it was the Carr paper that talked about the need to account for life which is not similar to us, including life that would not require galaxy formation and such. Then there was the multiverse paper that that said if expansion only locally stopped, infinite universes would be generated. Oh, and Hawking's unbounded initial state.

Rather than sending us out on a wild goose chase, how about you post the relevant calculations here.

 

[[serious]]

Why is it as much of a failure.

Why is a universe without life similar to ours a failure?

Same reason.

 

[bhsmte]

Every time I've checked one of your links, not only was the stated bit not in there, but things that directly contradict your position were. I believe it was the Carr paper that talked about the need to account for life which is not similar to us, including life that would not require galaxy formation and such. Then there was the multiverse paper that that said if expansion only locally stopped, infinite universes would be generated. Oh, and Hawking's unbounded initial state.

Rather than sending us out on a wild goose chase, how about you post the relevant calculations here.

I predict, you won't get them.

 

[[serious]]

I predict, you won't get them.

I'll counter with the following prediction. I'll get something, but it will be completely unrelated to what was requested, contradict other claims she's made, there will be some half hearted hand waving about the discrepancies, and then she will claim the author of the link totally agrees with her a few pages later.

I offer as evidence the "200 papers" fiasco. She was asked to produce just one that was representitive of the 200 papers, she posted something by Carr I believe that specifically refuted her earlier arguments about the degree of fine tuning (orders of magnitude off), the necessity of galaxy formation, and explicitly stated that we could not arbitrarily restrict it to our type of life. She then claimed, over the course of several pages, that:

1. That paper was totally supposed to be one that was closer to the other person's point of view and was more about general info that supporting the 200 papers claim (as originally requested)
2. Oops, her bad, she hadn't actually read the paper and didn't know what it said (BTW, kudos for owning up to this. Some other posters get caught doing this and think that it gets better when seasoned with denial) This is where she should have left it.
3. Then she goes back and lists Carr as totally supporting her viewpoint event though the paper she cited explicitly refuted several of her main points.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Every time I've checked one of your links, not only was the stated bit not in there, but things that directly contradict your position were. I believe it was the Carr paper that talked about the need to account for life which is not similar to us, including life that would not require galaxy formation and such. Then there was the multiverse paper that that said if expansion only locally stopped, infinite universes would be generated. Oh, and Hawking's unbounded initial state.

Rather than sending us out on a wild goose chase, how about you post the relevant calculations here.

Again, that is simply false. I was supporting a claim in each link. I didn't in any way claim that they were making the same conclusions from that information from the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why is a universe without life similar to ours a failure?

Same reason.

This doesn't make sense?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'll counter with the following prediction. I'll get something, but it will be completely unrelated to what was requested, contradict other claims she's made, there will be some half hearted hand waving about the discrepancies, and then she will claim the author of the link totally agrees with her a few pages later.

I offer as evidence the "200 papers" fiasco. She was asked to produce just one that was representitive of the 200 papers, she posted something by Carr I believe that specifically refuted her earlier arguments about the degree of fine tuning (orders of magnitude off), the necessity of galaxy formation, and explicitly stated that we could not arbitrarily restrict it to our type of life. She then claimed, over the course of several pages, that:

1. That paper was totally supposed to be one that was closer to the other person's point of view and was more about general info that supporting the 200 papers claim (as originally requested)
2. Oops, her bad, she hadn't actually read the paper and didn't know what it said (BTW, kudos for owning up to this. Some other posters get caught doing this and think that it gets better when seasoned with denial) This is where she should have left it.
3. Then she goes back and lists Carr as totally supporting her viewpoint event though the paper she cited explicitly refuted several of her main points.

The Carr paper was a paper that was cited in many of the later papers as the first serious paper on fine tuning. I thought it would be a good starting point for Athee as he hadn't had delved into the topic that much.
I didn't read the paper because I knew what other papers had cited from it and knew it gave a good run down on the scientific side of the issue. I had read other papers as well from the authors. I didn't say I offer 200 papers for evidence, I said there were suppose to be over 200 papers written on fine tuning and this number was given in the link from Luke Barnes.
There has been a lot of new information available since the time of the paper I linked and so much of the conclusions that were made were made without the new information discovered since then. Which is always true of any paper written that long ago.

 

[46AND2]

It doesn't make it a good analogy because you define it as such.

Of course it does. All I did was identify something which we both agree happened against astronomical odds; you, specifically, exist. Change one little variable, any variable, and you wouldn't exist. It is exactly the same thing as your fine tuned universe argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course it does. All I did was identify something which we both agree happened against astronomical odds; you, specifically, exist. Change one little variable, any variable, and you wouldn't exist. It is exactly the same thing as your fine tuned universe argument.

It is not the same thing actually, while each is equally improbable, It is not specified improbability. All sperm and eggs produce the same thing in this case, a human being. Any combination will arrive at that same outcome, a human being. We don't have the same case with the universe. Not all universes (if even more than one exists) will have the same outcome, to be life permitting.

 

[46AND2]

It is not the same thing actually, while each is equally improbable, It is not specified improbability. All sperm and eggs produce the same thing in this case, a human being. Any combination will arrive at that same outcome, a human being. We don't have the same case with the universe. Not all universes (if even more than one exists) will have the same outcome, to be life permitting.

You really need to quit changing my argument. By making "a human being" the target, you are erecting a strawman argument. I have already stated that YOU are the subject of my fine tuning argument, not just any human. It absolutely is specified improbability. Any combination of sperm and eggs will absolutely not arrive at the same outcome. Any little variation will result in NOT you. It is every bit as specified as your universe argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You really need to quit changing my argument. By making "a human being" the target, you are erecting a strawman argument. I have already stated that YOU are the subject of my fine tuning argument, not just any human. It absolutely is specified improbability. Any combination of sperm and eggs will absolutely not arrive at the same outcome. Any little variation will result in NOT you. It is every bit as specified as your universe argument.

It isn't. I am not specified. I am just a human being which is the outcome of all sperm and egg combinations in this case. It isn't a straw man at all. Sperm and eggs of human beings have the exact same outcome...a human being. Now if there was something remarkable that set me apart from other humans, for instance, if my chromosomes should make me a male and yet I am a female. That would be the specified improbability being addressed in the fine tuning.

 

[46AND2]

It isn't. I am not specified. I am just a human being which is the outcome of all sperm and egg combinations in this case. It isn't a straw man at all. Sperm and eggs of human beings have the exact same outcome...a human being. Now if there was something remarkable that set me apart from other humans, for instance, if my chromosomes should make me a male and yet I am a female. That would be the specified improbability being addressed in the fine tuning.

Your unique DNA is not something which sets you apart from other humans?

The fact that there are other humans in existence does not change the staggering improbability that hundreds of generations of people had to mate in exactly the way they did in order to produce you. Of course there are many different ways that a human, in general, can be produced. But that isn't part of my argument.

Once again, in my analogy, you are analogous to the life supported universe. NOT a universe, in general. Arguing that other humans shows that you are not specified, is like arguing that a universe with no life shows that a life supported universe is not specified. It makes no sense. I don't need to speculate that you are one of a kind in some weird way like a female with male chromosomes. You are one of a kind, simply because YOU are YOU, and nobody else is. I've already identified a one of a kind item which is the topic of my analogy.

 

[KCfromNC]

I predict, you won't get them.

Let's just say there's a pretty strong consensus that it is very unlikely, if you get my drift.