Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

And I responded to it. A video is not a peer-reviewed paper describing a consensus number and how it was obtained.

NO? Darn, I really thought it was...not. I presented this when you asked for how such a thing was determined and then you moved the goal post and wanted a peer-reviewed paper describing a consensus and now you are adding number to that which I don't even know what a consensus "number" is.

Is this your claim for a consensus number? If so, that's kinda strange since the other reference you posted here gives a vastly different number. It is almost as if this is an open question.

Uh, they are two different things.

But since you're committed to one or the other being the scientific consensus, can you find 5 other peer-reviewed sources agreeing on either number?

Moving the goalpost is a strong tactic for you isn't it. I said once again...there is a consensus on fine tuning being real.

I believe this was the paper from which you failed to find any relevant probability calculations .

I believe it is because you continue to move the goalposts.

So? What peer-reviewed research concludes the parameters came about through sheer chance?

None that I am aware of which was the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could be. No one is doubting that universal constants are constant here in this universe. Nor is anyone doubting that if things were different they would be different.

Great, so you agree that fine tuning is real. WE are making head way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which specific simulations were discussed in the paper that you never read as things which the authors would like to do but was unable due to limits of technology available to them? Please be specific.

This is nonsensical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So?

So, The simulations show that life at all would be prohibited.

 

[[serious]]

A video is not a peer-reviewed paper describing a consensus number and how it was obtained.

Not to mention the failure at basic math.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, the paper I didn't read is a great starter for someone unfamiliar with fine tuning. I didn't say you shouldn't "pay attention to it". I said the conclusions are based on what was known then and it is dated by new technology we have today. That happens in science.

Conclusions you haven't read.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not to mention the failure at basic math.

Are you claiming the math is incorrect?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Conclusions you haven't read.

Like I have repeatedly said, I've read other papers from the authors. But what they are claiming is that fine tuning is real and you are denying that.

 

[[serious]]

Are you claiming the math is incorrect?

Yes, as I've explained, precision is not the same as order of magnitude.

 

[[serious]]

Like I have repeatedly said, I've read other papers from the authors. But what they are claiming is that fine tuning is real and you are denying that.

The paper in question you admitted you hadn't read (Good on you for being honest) but you continue to make all these statements about the paper you haven't read. You can't very well say the conclusions of the paper are wrong when you haven't even read the conclusions of the paper.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The paper in question you admitted you hadn't read (Good on you for being honest) but you continue to make all these statements about the paper you haven't read. You can't very well say the conclusions of the paper are wrong when you haven't even read the conclusions of the paper.

I know what their conclusions are from other papers. I could be wrong of course but it would be extremely unlikely that the authors would have some other conclusion in this paper and not hold the same conclusions in others of the same time period and beyond.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, as I've explained, precision is not the same as order of magnitude.

Explain why the scientists in the field then use the term precision when discussing how fine tuned the universe is.

 

[KCfromNC]

NO? Darn, I really thought it was...not. I presented this when you asked for how such a thing was determined

There was no discussion of how the number was derived in that talk.

Uh, they are two different things.

Why did you post two contradictory answers to the same question?

I said once again...there is a consensus on fine tuning being real.

When have I implied otherwise? I've repeatedly said that I agree - if things were different they'd be different. That has zero to do with the question I'm asking, of course.

I believe it is because you continue to move the goalposts.

Any convincing reason I should think your belief is related to reality? Do I have to dig through the thread again to show that you posted it as an answer to the same question I've been asking all along? Given how you tend to ignore those posts I'm not really excited to waste my time doing it again.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is nonsensical.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask and I can help educate you on what you're having problems understanding. But it seems like a simple request - without reading it you said you knew the paper was limited by certain technological limitations. Can you give specific examples of those limitations discussed in this paper you've never read?

 

[KCfromNC]

Not to mention the failure at basic math.

Given the poster admitted not knowing what basic terms of the art meant I'm not particularly hopeful that a discussion of probability would go anywhere.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, The simulations show that life at all would be prohibited.

So?

 

[KCfromNC]

Great, so you agree that fine tuning is real. WE are making head way.

Yep. Now all you need to do is dig up some actual science describing the probability of a universe capable of supporting life. Preferably some where the answer doesn't contradict the answer from your other "scientific" sources.

 

[KCfromNC]

Explain why the scientists in the field then use the term precision when discussing how fine tuned the universe is.

Because they understand what the words mean. That is, they're talking about the range of values which would lead to certain outcome rather than making any claims about how likely it is that they'd end up in those ranges.

But this line of thought is amusing :

I know they're talking about probability because these big numbers must mean that it is unlikely.
The experts use words like precision.
Since I know that they're talking about probability precision must be talking about probability.
Therefore anyone who uses the word differently is wrong.

And round and round we go.

 

[KCfromNC]

I know what their conclusions are from other papers.

Such as the suggestion that "the various anthropic relations quoted above in principle determine the order of magnitude of most of the fundamental constants of physics". And that many-worlds is a potentially a "philosophically satisfying interpretation". Funny how your feelings on what must be in there are so very different from what one actually reads in the paper. I don't know how the authors could have gotten it so wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There was no discussion of how the number was derived in that talk.

It talked about how it was determined.

Why did you post two contradictory answers to the same question?

I didn't.

When have I implied otherwise? I've repeatedly said that I agree - if things were different they'd be different. That has zero to do with the question I'm asking, of course.

The unlikeliness of the universe have the precise values that allow for life by chance has been presented by quotes and by Smolin and Penrose.

Any convincing reason I should think your belief is related to reality? Do I have to dig through the thread again to show that you posted it as an answer to the same question I've been asking all along? Given how you tend to ignore those posts I'm not really excited to waste my time doing it again.

Eh.